In short, eleven years ago the Department for Business said that it wanted to introduce a new match/flame test to the furniture fire safety regulations that would reduce flame retardant chemicals in cover fabrics by up to 50%, with the intention to reduce them to nothing soon after. Astonishingly, it also provided the evidence for why the current match test is not effective in around 90% of cases. The new test would be effective.
The overall review of the rest of the regulations was also continuing also. Under "Next Steps" in the Department's official response to the 2014 consultation, it said:
- The aim of this would be to enable BIS to launch a new consultation early in the next Parliament, covering all the proposed changes to the Regulations which stem from the stakeholder discussions outlined above, complete with draft regulations, guidance and further technical explanations.
- This would in principle enable the full review to be completed by April 2016.
Officials had decided – against the advice of their lawyers – that they would delay implementation of the new match test; instead roll it in with the rest of the regulations under review. All the same, this meant that the new test would be implemented in April 2016, along with other necessary changes to the regulations.
Ten years on and not single change has yet occurred to these regulations. Despite:
- Three public consultations (2014, 2016 and 2023) that drew hundreds of responses from stakeholders, many very detailed. Actually, make that 4 consultations since the Department had also conducted an informal consultation in 2004; which resulted in stakeholders providing a list of 21 needed amendments, none of which has ever been implemented either.
- A cost of around £4m to public funds – including the wages of officials, cost of consultations, cost of legal advice, meetings, etc.
- The Environmental Audit Committee undertaking a very intensive inquiry into these regulations and concluding in 2019 that the regulations are indeed ineffective and strongly recommended that the OPSS change them to get in line with the rest of the world by scrapping the open flame/match and fillings tests and keeping just the cigarette test. This would lead to UK sofas that were free of flame retardants entirely and which were actually fire safer than they are at present. In particular, the EAC wanted the OPSS to immediately take children's mattresses out of scope, having been horrified to learn that these products contain large volumes of the kinds of flame retardants that were banned from sheep dip for being so toxic!
But it wasn't until January this year that the OPSS published its plans for change to the regulations, and it was rather coy about it, calling it a "Progress Update" rather than a government Response to their consultation, which is what was actually required. But given the above and that a) they have not yet followed up on the first consultation response in 2014 and b) decided to abandon the second consultation in 2016, I suspect they were a little embarrassed to actually call this a Response, especially since all that they are proposing to change (and note "proposing" carries a lot of weight here) is the following:
- [To] Remove certain baby and children’s products from scope of the FFRs, where evidence supports their removal from scope. This will reduce babies’ and children’s exposure to CFRs where the risk of exposure to potentially harmful chemicals is greater than the fire risk posed by those products. (A list of the products being removed from scope has been included at Annex A).
- Remove the requirement for manufacturers to affix a display label to new products, reflecting the limited value of the display label.
- Extend the time frame for instituting legal proceedings from 6 – 12 months, providing the right tools for effective enforcement.
The last two are very minor and were intended to happen well over 10 years ago anyway. The third is also pretty redundant – giving Trading Standards 12 months to bring a case against an offender rather than 6 months – when TS has not been able to make any prosecutions (other than a few technical ones) since the 2014 revelations that the regs do not work, anyway.
Which leaves the first proposed amendment. I put it in bold because this is in effect the result of over 21 years of work, since the Department of Business first announced they were going to review the regulations properly. Since then there have been dozens of workshops, hundreds of written submissions and papers, over twenty years' worth of British Standards meetings, 4 consultations, several ministerial meetings and hundreds of ministerial letters, a parliamentary committee inquiry – and this is the result.
Most of the baby products they list for removal are small items such as prams and buggies. The Baby Products Association has been lobbying for years to have these smaller items removed from scope, only to meet reluctance and lack of action from the government on the whole. Following the Environmental Audit Committee's recommendation in 2019, however, the OPSS knew it was on borrowed time. So it has clearly decided that it has to be seen to be doing something after yet another consultation, so it might as well give the BPA what it wants, given that you know poisoning children is not a great image.
However . . . the EAC made a strong point about removing children's mattresses from scope. And mattresses are not of course small items. So the OPSS faced a dilemma: how do they remove baby mattresses from scope and not have to face the awkward question of why not then remove all mattresses from scope?
So now we come to the specifics of their proposed change:
"[P]roducts to be removed from scope of the FFRs
a. Mattresses intended for use by babies and children, if the length is less than 170 cm and the width is less than 75 cm."
After reading the background material the OPSS has provided in support of this decision (some in response to my Freedom of Information Request), let me translate this statement for you:
- We believe that where furniture and furnishings are concerned, there exist two risks: 1) of fire, which is an actual risk applying across all the objects within scope of the regulations; however, we now also believe 2) there is another possible risk, from chemical poisoning from the flame retardants used to mitigate the first risk. In the case of baby mattresses of the size prescribed, the possible risk from chemical poisoning is now greater than the actual risk of fire.
They have provided absolutely no evidence in support of this statement. In my FOI request I asked them for evidence supporting the cut-off measurement of less than 170 cm x 75 cm. They pointed me to a report they commissioned by UCLAN which contains no such measurements nor recommends any cut-off points such as this. It simply discusses the different risks that apply to furniture.
No testing or other research whatsoever has been undertaken to arrive at these measurements. Indeed even if possible it would take many years to do so and require the testing of hundreds of different mattress composites and flame retardant combinations at a massive cost.
Which means this measurement has been simply plucked out of the air. It just happens to be the common size for a cot mattress, thereby supporting the notion of a "baby" mattress.
What the OPSS is claiming here is that if a mattress is just one centimetre more in length and width, the risk ratio completely reverses, i.e. the mattress is now more an actual fire risk than a possible chemical risk!
It's difficult to believe that the OPSS seriously thinks that anyone will be taken in by this nonsense. The Baby Products Association certainly isn't. They recognise that this a cynical exercise to get them onside and note that it is not in any case certain that the OPSS will actually implement this change as this qualifying statement indicates:
- "46) In the coming months, we will work with stakeholders to refine a number of key proposals to ensure that new legislation delivers the intended outcomes for both consumers and businesses. Government will provide an update later this year, setting out the final position on the remaining issues highlighted in this document and a roadmap for implementing changes."
Note the very careful phrasing which on the surface sounds like they mean business, and quickly, but in fact keeps open the option to continue procrastinating for as long as it suits them. And, as the BPA told me, the OPSS reserves the right to at any time decide that in fact (as they will claim, other stakeholders say) this is not after all a safe option. But it should at least keep the BPA quiet in the meantime.
That and, of course, as quoted above [my italics]: Remove certain baby and children’s products from scope of the FFRs, where evidence supports their removal from scope. In other words, and quite incredibly, they allow themselves to make use of the fact, as I've said, that they have no evidence in support of this change in the first place!
Summary and what's not happening right now
Recently, OPSS officials have been telling people, e.g. British Standards, that the furniture regulations are a "low priority" for new ministers at the Department for Business. Which is another statement that requires unpacking. What they are implying here is that the new minister at their Department is fully aware of all the issues around these regulations and has made his own decision that they are not a priority for his attention. In truth, however -
When a new government comes into power every minister at each Whitehall department is given a briefing pack. This is put together by the civil servants looking after each of the many areas within his/her remit. There is of course no way any minister, even one familiar with the subjects to hand, could make an informed decision based on the briefing given to him/her. So what the OPSS really mean is that their briefing paper to the new minister assured him that this was an issue well in hand, papers have been written, British Standards are looking into it, industry is going along with their New Approach, they have just responded to a major consultation with their plans for updating the regs, etc; therefore it's a low priority issue for him.
The fact that two major parliamentary groups are right now trying to meet with the new minister to dispute much of what the OPSS are doing, only to be blocked by civil servants is unfortunate perhaps for the OPSS. But hey, they've been here before, back in 2018 when tired of being given the brush-off, the Chair of the APPG Fire Safety and Rescue had to write to the minister to complain. The minister then told his civil servants to start meeting people right away. Which they did, just the three times mind, lied their pants off and got away with it.
In short then, OPSS civil servants are deliberately blocking safety changes to these regulations, lying about them constantly, e.g. insisting that these are the best furniture fire safety measures in the world and are saving lives from fire. To help the continuation of the lie, they have self-brainwashed themselves into believing it's true.