Meeting Note, Round Table Discussion on Proposed Changes to the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988, 9 February 2015, BIS, 1 Victoria Street[TE1]
Minister’s Introduction:
We all share the desire that UK furniture is fire safe and are proud of the fact they save around 50 lives per year. We want to see how they can be improved. We had over 100 responses to the consultation; I was struck by how mixed they were. So I’m keen to hear from you today: is this the right way forward? I know it could be said, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” but I’m concerned that the current match test may need fixing. First, I’d like to hear from Toni Eldridge, of Trading Standards.
Toni Eldridge (Trading Standards):[TE2]
I’d like to talk about problems Trading Standards have been experiencing in enforcing the current match test and why we believe the proposed new match test will help our job easier.
Between 2010 and 2013, Northamptonshire Trading Standards found an overall failure rate in furniture of 60%; 80% of which was for the match test[TE3]. Derbyshire and Leicestershire TSs found similar failure rates. Conclusions: even large-sized manufacturers’ and importers’ due diligence systems rely too much on test certificates from their suppliers, too many of which are provided ‘in-house’. Also, Northamptonshire successfully prosecuted one flame retardant treatment company whose due diligence systems failed to disprove undertreatment[TE4].
Many importers and manufacturers do not appear to question the traceability of items that come with test reports, and in many cases there is nothing to identify particular batches or anything else that ties them to the finished product. Increasingly, the current match test fails to reflect the construction of modern furniture. When prosecuting, Trading standards has to prove to a court not only technical non-compliance but also that the product isn’t safe. Test reports do not comment on this second point but the new test will make it much easier for us to prove it. It will also help us to justify the higher UK requirements against the argument that they are a barrier to trade in the EU.[TE5]
To conclude, the proposed changes bring the test as close to the final composite as possible. It also includes common lining fabrics and therefore it reflects the actual burning behaviour of finished furniture. [Minister: so you don’t currently have a test for testing furniture?] That’s right. [TE6]
Top line stakeholder comments[TE7]
Paul Fuller (Chief Fire Officers’ Association):
No objection to change [TE8]but concerned some unwarranted assumptions are being made and that there isn’t a body of evidence to show that the proposed test is proven[TE9]. Believes there are two separate issues: 1) compliance (which is a problem regardless of what Regulations say) and 2) improving the Regulations. Not enough evidence to remove the need to cigarette test.[TE10]Propose more work is done on the new match test foam - British Standards [BSI] can fast-track this in 12 months. [TE11]Content with everything else. We are concerned about the current test but don’t believe it will be put right by changing the test.[TE12]
Dave Sibert (Fire Brigades Union/Fire Protection Association):
‘Safe’ is a debatable term[TE13]. The current match test tests to a level the fire sector is happy with[TE14]. Good that BIS’s proposal is a better indicative test [of actual furniture construction][TE15]; also good to include currently unregulated materials; inclusion of fibre wrap layer is excellent – all this raises safety[TE16]. Our question is, what’s suitable for testing? We have different experts saying different things[TE17]. Fire safety sector wants to know which is the right road to take.[TE18]
Phil Reynolds (FIRA):
Agree with Toni that better compliance is needed. Industry received a big shock last January [from the BBC’s ‘Fake Britain’ programme]. [TE19]Since then, huge changes: more testing taking place[TE20]. Some retailers have relied too much on certification [from suppliers]; now realise their role is to clear themselves. Our [FIRA’s industry members] are nervous about: 1) the specification for the new test foam;[TE21] 2) the requirement for fabrics to not form holes more than 2mm – how to measure[TE22]?, and 3) proposals too complex: difficult to communicate (and this could affect compliance)[TE23]. [Minister: do you think the current test needs changing?] Industry has been calling for a full revision of the FFRs for 15 years.[TE24] [Minister: but what changes do you think are needed for the current test?] Testing over CM foam is good, but needs consistency: the proposal hasn’t been proven.[TE25]
Andrew Munns (SATRA):
Agree that industry has been doing more testing. Steve Owen’s work shows there is a flaw with the current match test, but I’m not sure how significant it is. [Minister: how would you describe that flaw?] The current test, over flammable foam, is a blunt instrument. By including currently unregulated materials, you could argue there is no longer a need for the match test to provide protection. The fibre wrap inclusion is more realistic; more sophisticated but difficult to explain.
Jackie Bazeley (BFM):
Three issues: 1) the new process is uncertain; 2) it’s not been proven, 3) we want all the FFRs reviewed at once.[TE26]
Paul von der Heyde (BFC):
Compliance is more important. Also want a full review. New match test may or may not be better but not sensible to interfere with it.[TE27]
[Minister: need for evidence – how do you test a test?][TE28]
Linda Crane (BRC):
Tried and tested process is via BSI and CEN [EU standards-making groups].[TE29]This was by-passed; instead the proposals were based on just one or two people’s evaluation. Needs to be validated. [TE30][Minister: talk me through this.] People with differing experiences meet on a panel. They draft a standard; make sure it’s consistent. But it is slow. [Minister: how long?] Normally, 3 years but FPA’ s proposal is that this could be fast-tracked in 12 months.[TE31]
John Anderson (Baby Products Association):
FFRs originally intended for large furniture; nursery products got drawn in. Now, there is more complexity, especially for products that were not originally intended for the regs. New proposals not proven. Nursery products are increasingly made off shore, so if the UK goes for a more complex test, it will be more difficult for UK industry to compete. We want a full review of the regs. We’re talking about scope here.
[Minister: where are we with the full review?]
John Lord (BIS):
A number of people involved in the full review in 2010. Then this proposal came out because it was thought there were benefits [of bringing these changes forward]. Depends on where we’re at: we can hold more workshops, include scope. There are a group of issues to consider; have to do so sensibly.[TE32]
David King (Flexible Foam Research Ltd):
We’re keen to see a change to the test foam. [TE33]But: 1) reducing FRs reduces fire safety, [TE34]2) changes will lead to more melting fabrics which will produce more pool fires[TE35]. At present, cover fabrics act as a fail-safe for furniture made with illegal foam. [TE36]Accept there’s evidence for the need to include a fibre wrap test filling, but putting aside that evidence – the current test foam is a ‘worst case’ that tells you if furniture will ignite. [TE37]Lots of difficulty defining CM test foam: many different types with many different FR additives. How do you pick one? Could get a pass with one kind and a fail with another. This will cause chaos in courts. [TE38]Current proposed specification needs more detail, not just density requirements. [Minister: can you think of a better situation? Can anyone square the circle?] My preference is to stick with the current test foam. [TE39]
[The Minister noted at this point that everyone seemed to be agreed that the proposed test had the advantage of being more realistic. DK agreed, but said that what should then be done is that it should be applied over existing (illegal, worst case) foam.[TE40]]
Peter Wragg (FRETWORK):
25 years ago, we had no idea the [then] new test would deliver: it was a simply constructed, unresearched, test, [TE41]so confirmation from Greenstreet Berman that lives had actually been saved as a result was very welcome.[TE42] Better compliance is needed: best practice can be written down. My personal feeling is you shouldn’t increase regulation, e.g. by including unregulated materials. [TE43]UK furniture will be over-specified, harder to police, “forensics would be impossible”[TE44]. ‘Within 40mm’ too obtuse.[TE45]Also have to go through thousands of combinations[TE46]. Full item testing is on the way[TE47].
Karin Ebbesson (IKEA):
IKEA is in favour of the proposed amendments. Could perhaps do more on the new test foam. The new test is more reflective of finished products. Need to ensure new regime is flexible [to allow changes in future, based on experience of using the new test].[TE48]
Sam Robins (DFS):
Consumer safety is paramount for DFS whatever is decided. Need a full review.
Jason Block (John Lewis):
Agree. We have around 28,000 combinations [of cover fabrics and unregulated materials] – how do we test all those?[TE49]
Richard Ranklin (Association of Master Upholsterers and Soft Furnishers):
We’re dominated by micro businesses and are concerned the complexity of the new test will cause difficulties with their supply chains (not a problem with larger businesses). So they may play safe by using interliners (Schedule 3), but that puts up costs.[TE50] We too want a full review.
Paul Fuller (CFOA):
Right to have a review but if we needed to improve seat belt legislation, we wouldn’t tell people not to wear seat belts in the meantime. [TE51]
John Anderson:
These new changes mean we’re effectively drifting further away from the EU market.[TE52]
Minister:
This has been a very helpful discussion. Thank you all for sharing your views. We will be in touch on the next steps we plan to take.[TE53]
10 February 2015[TE54]
Round Table Meeting on Proposed Changes to the FFRs 1
[TE1]Steve Owen and I were told we could not speak at the meeting. The only person from BEIS given a speaking role was John Lord, who sat at the top table, at the right hand of Jo Swinson, the Minister.
[TE2]Someone had to give a talk on the existing and new proposed match tests. This should ideally have been Steve or me. And you might wonder why we told we could not, given we were the two experts. John and Barbara refused to give the talk, which was predictable given their lack of technical knowledge and, in John's case at least, desire not to be seen to support anything that might upset a stakeholder or two. Toni was asked, since she had a lot of experience of the Furniture Regs and had undertaken research work for BEIS that showed the problems with the current match test.
[TE3]Just to be clear: when Trading Standards test a sofa, they strip off the fabric and subject it to the match test. On this basis, 45% fabrics failed the match test. However, this lab test does not account for failures that would take place in the finished product through one of two routes: the match flame ignites materials near the surface (in say the arm of a sofa) and the common presence of an oxygen-rich fibre wrap layer between cover and filling. Taking these factors into account too, then the match test was/is failing in over 80% of finished products. In addition, in 2017, after new research following the failure of BIS to change the match test, Trading Standards told the BBC that they were finding failure rates of 84.3%. Again, this did not take into account the other factors mentioned above. Altogether, we are looking at an incredibly high failure rate in practice.
[TE4]This is the largest chemical treatment company in the UK, possibly the world. Trading Standards had, several times, found its fabrics failed the match test.
[TE5]A few months prior to this meeting, Trading Standards informed BEIS that they were not confident of bringing prosecutions any more under the match test because it had been proved that the test does not accurately reflect modern furniture construction. Here, Toni is saying that the new test puts this problem right. Her second statement here sets out the bigger picture problem of a faulty match test: that it does not justify the barrier to trade which the UK Regs constitute.
[TE6]This is key. Here is Jo Swinson, the Minister, asking a top Trading Standards official to confirm that the current match test is invalid, which she does.
[TE7]Please note how subsequent speakers totally ignore what Toni has just told them.
[TE8]Mr Fuller did more than most to make sure change did not happen.
[TE9]It's difficult to tell whether this comment is made from ignorance or design. But the truth is that all the evidence that the proposed test is proven exists in BEIS's 2014 consultation paper and 2015 technical annex, based on thorough test work undertaken by both FIRA and Intertek. Fuller also knows only too well that the current match test was not tested at all (see Peter Wragg's comment for confirmation).
[TE10]This shows again that Fuller has not understood the proposals. We did not propose removing the cigarette test. Fabrics would still need to be cigarette-resistant. The proposal was that any fabric which passes the match test is exempt from the cigarette test. This is because all leading test houses reported that any fabric which passed the matcht test would automatically pass the cigarette test.
[TE11]This shows that Fuller was working in collusion with Dave Sibert, Jon O'Neill and Sir Ken Knight. The latter 3 had put this proposal to BEIS a few months before. Once again, it completely ignores the facts which are that the new test proposed a test foam formula based on the one that already exists in the regulations (for loose covers)!
[TE12]This of course is nonsensical.
[TE13]This is an odd statement. Of course 'safe' is a debatable term but in one way that's obvious. However, I believe what Sibert is really saying here is that whether or not the current Regulations and the proposed changes are safe is open to debate. If so, that is wrong, since BIS had clearly proved the case.
[TE14]An extraordinary statement. First, because, as Toni had only a few minutes before pointed out, the current match test doesn't work; therefore, it's hard to understand why the fire sector would be happy with it. Second, just a few months prior to this, Sibert, along with Jon O'Neill and Sir Ken Knight told BIS that they agreed that the current match test was not safe and the new one would be (I've provided a key slide from their presentation to us about this elsewhere on the site).
[TE15]Again, if the fire sector is happy with the current test, why is he saying that the new one is better?
[TE16]The contradictions here are multiple. He's just said the current test is satisfactory; now he's saying that the new one's inclusion of unregulated materials and a fibre wrap raises safety. Surely the obvious conclusion from this is that the current test is unsafe.
[TE17]Actually we didn't. All test experts agreed that the current test fails and the new one would put it right. No experts have ever disagreed with this.
[TE18]Again, he represented the fire sector at that meeting at BEIS where they were very clear about the direction to take.
[TE19]Orchestrated by, amongst others, FIRA.
[TE20]Actually, no changes had taken place since Fake Britain. But he's right that FIRA got lots more testing out of it: from their own members!
[TE21]This is completely untrue. FIRA here is aligning itself with the FPA's recent proposition that British Standards come up with a new (unnecessary) test foam - the sole aim of which was to delay the new test from being implemented.
[TE22]This was the only objection FIRA could come up with regarding the new match test. However, Mr Reynolds knows only too well that a) hole measurement is a simple matter and b) the holes formed under this test will be massive anyway.
[TE23]This is total nonsense. Apart from the fact the Regulations overall are already complex, the new match test is actually much simpler to understand because it's based on the finished product.
[TE24]This is not what Swinson asked. She wants him to say whether or not the new match test needs changing. He's replied that industry has been calling for the regulations overall to be amended for a long time.
[TE25]Given that Swinson asks the question again, Reynolds has to answer. And he lies: the proposal was proven by FIRA itself, documented in the 2014 consultation proposal!
[TE26]First, Jackie Bazeley is not a test expert so if she's uncertain about the new test it's due to lack of technical understanding, not a problem with the test. Second, it has been proven. Third, yes but irrelevant.