Extracts from journal entry for April 12th 2014:
 
The last few months have been a real learning experience.
 
January: BBC1's "Fake Britain" broadcasts a half hour programme in which they buy a bunch of mattresses and sofas, test them and of course they fail. Big names, too, like SCS, Argos, Homebase, Tesco and others.
 
The day after the show I get a phone call from Phil Reynolds at FIRA, actually gloating. FIRA had been on the programme, doing all the testing work. But of course besides being a test house, FIRA is also a trade organisation for furniture companies. Phil was delighted that lots of his member companies, spooked by the show, were rushing to FIRA for extra testing. Ker-ching.
 
FIRA is the main opponent to the new match test, by the way, even though they say they're not.
 
Trading Standards told me they've busted the country's biggest chemical treatment company several times for fabrics that fail the match test. They believe this is down to undertreatment and that it's systematic in the industry.
 
Roger White of Clarkson Textiles (treatment company) was also behind the "Fake Britain" show. Along with Jessica Alexander of the National Bed Federation and FIRA. They managed to encourage the programme to point to dodgy Chinese imports as the reason for so many failures. Which is interesting in light of our Minister, Jo Swinson, having written last year to Clarkson's MP, Andrew Stephenson, to point out that in fact these failures are mostly down to treatment companies, as Trading Standards will attest.
 
Whatever the motives behind "Fake Britain", it causes panic amongst retailers. Just as we're approaching the run-in to the consultation we'll be issuing on the new match test. Some may call that coincidence . . .
 
Anyway, in order to help mitigate the panic, Steve and I decide to go on the road, to undo FIRA's shenanigans as best we can. So far we've visited DFS, Furniture Village, SCS and the Home Retail Group (Argos, Habitat, Homebase). Every visit has gone well. Usually a bit uncomfortable to start with but by the time they've had the chance to get all their questions answered, they're much more positive about the new test.
 
Manufacturer/retailer X is spitting blood over FIRA. So much so, they've taken away a huge amount of testing work from them. They also told us in confidence that XX of treatment company XXX had just visited them. He'd played them a video he'd made in which he'd tested one of their sofas and it had failed the flammability tests (nicely linking to "Fake Britain" of course). He'd threatened to put it online unless they gave him all their treatment business. We watched the video and Steve was able to point out how this guy had not conducted the tests properly and told them exactly how to tell him to F-off. They were very grateful.
 
Then FIRA and the BFC went to visit the European Commission, worried about what Richard Hawkins had said in our workshop last December - that new disposal rules were coming in which would require sofas to be safely (and expensively) disposed of at end-life. They posted online a report of the meeting which included these comments:
 
"Nobody likes flame retardants!"
 
"The Commission have give up trying to raise EU standards [to match the UK's]."
 
"End-life of furniture is coming and will be a huge problem."
 
Later, they will also tell me that they'd tried to illicit sympathy from the Commission by pointing out that we have a mountain of sofas to dispose of in the UK. The Commission just said, "Tough - that's your problem."
 
Of course, I've been telling them for over a year that the Commission has turned against flame retardants and why that is one of the reasons we need to reduce them in UK sofas. But I guess they're used to getting their own way in the UK furniture world and probably didn't expect the Commission to be unimpressed with their bluster.
 
Some reflections:
 
Steve and I are now convinced that FIRA no longer, if it ever did, believes the new match test won't work. Their true motive is to delay it, so it will rejoin the rest of the amended regulations that are due to appear a year or so after the match test. This will nullify the threat to them of a successful match test that will be credited to BIS/Intertek, not them. And of course they can boast to the industry that they engineered the result.
 
Steve is a technical wizard and some of his understandings about how and why the new test will work are simply not appreciated by most. FIRA spends so much time hyping itself, attending Brussels meetings, etc, that it is actually rather dumb at times on the technical side.
 
It hasn't been lost on companies that FIRA sold out their own members on "Fake Britain". They gambled, essentially: wanted to be seen as at the centre of the industry, helping to expose foreign dodgy goods, but they foolishly believed "Fake Britain" when it assured them it wouldn't name names. But of course it did, and most of them were FIRA members.
 
Having said all that, I still can't really fathom why Phil Reynolds would phone me to tell me FIRA was profiting from its own members' panic, caused by FIRA. I mean, we get on well, have even been out for drinks together a few times after EU meetings. Possibly, he wanted to show me that FIRA are in control of the future of the new test, not BIS.
 
Back to today. FIRA held a workshop at their centre in Stevenage, to discuss the new match test. Originally, Steve and I weren't invited. But I guess Phil must have realised that would look rather silly and he sent us an invitation late yesterday. Mind you, he was still pulling tricks today, e.g. hadn't asked us if we had slides; told us we weren't the main speakers (!); insisted that David King - a vociferous if technically inarticulate opponent of the new test, representing the foam industry, who of course have a huge finger in the furniture pie - would speak after us.
 
It's mystifying that most people are still not joining up the dots. I guess it's just too much trouble. One or two are seeing the light, however. X at XXX phoned me recently from a BFC dinner at the House of Commons (no invitation for BIS). He was angry because FIRA were telling everyone how they were going to rubbish the new match test (despite telling BIS that they are behind it). "I really want to punch someone [from FIRA]," he said.
 
Here are a few more dots, mostly from today's workshop (to about 50 manufacturers, retailers and others), that may or may not join up:
 
Tristine Hargreaves of FIRA giving a talk on the fall-out from "Fake Britain" and what FIRA believes can be done about it (other than taking on extra testing work from its spooked members, that is).
 
Jessica Alexander giving a talk about the National Bed Federation's new membership audit scheme; telling us that Tristine is one of the auditors; and announcing the independent audit body that will oversee it: BM TRADA, of which FIRA and the NBF are part!
 
When John Lord and I met FIRA recently, they told us that they too wanted to introduce a similar scheme of other furniture products.
 
In short: FIRA and the NBF stitch up their own members by fingering them to "Fake Britain"; profit from the panic-induced requests for extra testing that results; then introduce an audit scheme that will extract even more money from them. One word that comes to mind is 'protection'; the other is an object you see either end of a tennis court.
 
My relationship with John Lord is not going great. He's still telling me that he can't (won't) upgrade my post, even though I'm doing work at the level of the next grade (easily) but he will give me a recommendation for going for promotion elsewhere. I try to get him to see that I naturally want to see the new test through, and get the rest of the amendments in after that. Also, he and I both know that no one else is going to have my enthusiasm and, crucially, will almost certainly not develop the expertise to work effectively with Steve. But what he's really saying is that the system is paramount and if we reward your hard work, Terry, with an upgrade that allows you to continue in the same job we'll be challenging the system, which in Whitehall is all about developing one's overall policy skills, not actually becoming something useful. John actually said he's a career civil servant and only took the BIS job because it will help him further it.
 
Steve's view of John is that he's a 'Polyfilla man', someone who spends all his time pasting over the cracks rather than dealing with the fundamental problems. How true. I asked him why FIRA hadn't tried to poach him. He laughed and said because they wouldn't be able to control him. Which is also no doubt true. Seems like we're both anti-system at heart.
 
And with my conspiracy hat on, I might just be wondering why John is willing to lose me so close to consulting on the new match test, when that would so greatly benefit the chemical industry.

December 18th, 2013
 
Steve and I are sitting in a BIS meeting room waiting for my new boss, John Pride, to turn up.
 
[John Pride is not his real name, by the way. I have changed the names of the civil servants who appear in this blog, unless they have told me I can use their actual names. For example, Richard Hawkins of the Environment Agency is mentioned below because he was happy to be named. You might be wondering why no one at BIS (now BEIS) is willing to be named. After all, according to their findings on my whistle-blowing case, BIS officials were not guilty of misleading Ministers or anything else come to that. You might conclude therefore that they would be only too willing to stand by their actions. Not so: I was very heavily informed that I could not name them without breaching the Data Protection Act and possibly also the Official Secrets Act. While the Civil Service is outwardly supportive of the benefits of whistle-blowing, it very much does not like its officials to be held personally responsible for any problems they create for the public.]
 
We're concerned. In half an hour, we're due to meet our stakeholders for the first time in person about the new match test. John decided he would chair the meeting and give the introductory talk. I said that was fine but he therefore needed to meet Steve and I for 90 minutes beforehand so he would be up to speed on the complex issues behind our proposals and on the various mixed interests that would be present in the room. He agreed but hasn't shown yet.
 
Pride is in his thirties and has just joined BIS on promotion from Defra. He has inherited a large team of around 20 civil servants, dealing mostly with consumer product safety legislation. Most of this is covered by EU law and as such does not require much active input. People attend meetings in Brussels and keep up to speed on any changes in the pipeline but the UK is just one of many member states in this respect.
 
Steve says, "Does he realise what he could be facing today?"
 
I shrug. "He's probably used to taking meetings with other civil servants and they don't tend to act up much."
 
Steve raises an eyebrow. "FIRA alone are likely to act up enough to have him spinning in his chair."
 
This proves to be a prophetic remark. For now, I just feel unsettled. The Furniture Regs are UK legislation. This means the UK, and not the rest of Europe, is responsible for them. This Department is responsible for them. Me and John are responsible for them. This means we cannot simply tell our stakeholders that Brussels is introducing a change to the laws that govern their businesses; tough luck, chaps, nothing we can do, just have to make the best of it. Our stakeholders know that we are responsible and will not hesitate to challenge us if they don't like our plans.
 
Prior to this meeting, Steve with my input, produced a very technical, detailed, paper outlining possible options for a new match test. We circulated it to a couple of dozen stakeholders with expertise in testing and related subjects. The majority of those circulated were positive about the proposal. However, there is the very real issue that while the furniture industry could save around £50m a year from the new match test, the chemical industry will lose the same amount.
 
"Heard any more about 'Fake Britain'?" says Steve.
 
"Only that Trading Standards still think it'll focus on labelling issues. I'm going to tell everyone all about it today."
 
A short while ago, Trading Standards was contacted by the Fake Britain production company who make the programme for the BBC. They were told Fake Britain wanted to look at problems with the Furniture Regs. Apparently, Roger White of Clarkson Textiles is one of the advisors on the programme. This bothers us.
 
Recently, Andrew Stephenson MP, wrote to our Minister, Jo Swinson, on behalf of Clarkson Textiles. Clarkson is the biggest chemical treatment company in the EU, possibly the world. For decades, they have been applying a flame retardant chemical mix to the backs of sofa fabrics towards complying with the Furniture Regs. According to Stephenson, Clarkson is losing business to dodgy Chinese imports. Stephenson is concerned therefore that BIS does not do anything to weaken the effectiveness of the Regs, for example by tinkering with the match test. He says this will only make worse the situation where non-compliant furniture is getting into UK homes via Chinese imports and in the process put honest British workers out of business.
 
However, Mr Stephenson is either not aware of the full story or is ignoring it. Namely that Trading Standards has been regularly finding that cover fabrics are failing the match test, not because they are dodgy Chinese imports but because they're being undertreated by UK companies like Clarkson. In short, the UK treatment companies find test houses that will give the fabrics a pass but every time Trading Standards tests the same fabrics in their test house, they fail. Undertreatment is, of course, big money. Proper treatment costs around £1.50 per metre and there can be 20 metres in a sofa. If say 30p can be undertreated off the cost, then you're looking maybe at savings of £7 per sofa, and there are around 30 million sofas in the UK. The fact that this very likely means many sofas are ignitable doesn't seem to bother anyone in the industry too much.
 
Jo Swinson replied to Stephenson to inform him that the real problem is the treatment process but so far we haven't heard back. No doubt, Roger White will continue to advise Fake Britain that Chinese imports are the villain of the piece.
 
Ten minutes before the meeting starts and John still has not shown. Steve and I decide to go to the conference room. There, we chat with various people then, a minute before the start, John finally turns up. He sweeps us in to the meeting room and, no doubt noting our concerned expressions, says, "Don't worry: I'll wing it."
 
Steve and I exchange a look then take our seats. Up to this point, I've felt that a difficult subject and a pretty radical change to a complex safety issue has been handled very well. Much of that is down to the excellent working relationship Steve and I have developed based around his expertise in chemicals and testing with my passionate desire to use policy to improve the regulations.
 
But here is our first meeting with the people who will be most affected by these changes. And John is going to wing it. At the time, I am putting this down mostly to newly-promoted arrogance.
 
John indeed introduces the event like a man reading notes off his shirt cuff. He seems completely oblivious to the gaffs he's coming out with and, more importantly, the concessions he's making. Phil Reynolds of FIRA manages in record time, for instance, to get John to agree that FIRA should undertake completely unnecessary further testing work on the new proposals. We are already on a tight schedule to get the new match test in by April 2015. If I know FIRA, this extra work will put us back a good few months. While agreeing in principle with the aims of the new test,  FIRA has been resistant to it in many ways, probably because as well as being a trade association they are also a rival test house. When we originally tendered for the work on the new test, Steve's company, Intertek, won out over the other test houses that applied. This additional work will help FIRA, of course, to appear central to all things important to the furniture industry.
 
Whatever, Phil Reynolds is soon grinning at me like a cat from Cheshire. I am normally fairly poker-faced but I can feel everything rapidly unravelling in light of John's uneducated need to please our guests. Even he notices my expression and actually says, "I can see Terry is uncomfortable with this, but . . . "
 
But indeed. Steve whispers to me at one point, "Is he being paid by FIRA?"
 
When John finally finishes, Steve and I give a talk on the new test. Before we get into it, however, I tell them that they may be concerned to learn that Fake Britain is making a programme that could be critical of the furniture industry.
 
Their response surprises us: "We know!" they all shout. And indeed they do. We'll find out later that FIRA is also an advisor on the programme. Later still, we'll discover that one of FIRA's new directors - Jessica Alexander, Chair of the National Bed Federation - also owns a PR company that works closely with TV. What a happy coincidence.
 
Richard Hawkins of the Environment Agency gives a very good talk on POPs and PBDEs that really gets our guests' attention. He tells them that there are EU rules on the way, probably under the Stockholm Agreement, that will mean products containing certain flame retardants will need to be disposed of safely at the end of their life. He mentions a specific FR, DecaBDE, which has been a major ingredient in UK sofas for many years now. Richard tells us that there are only two incinerators in the UK that can dispose of such a chemical safely.
 
Many lean forward in their chairs, no doubt making mental calculations. For the fact is that at present UK sofas just get dumped into landfill for the most part. The chemicals in them then leach out and get into the water supply, then the food chain, ending up in us. But while that's bad, so far fingers haven't been able to point too accurately to where exactly the chemicals come from. This is different. Sofas will be fingered good and proper. Mattresses too. Someone will have to pay for that expensive disposal process, and it's not likely to be consumers.
 
John leads the general discussion that follows and I still feel uncomfortable, although I'm not entirely sure why. Partly, it's John's tendency to stick flip chart sheets on the wall and use terms like 'brainstorming'. While this kind of approach works fine with passive civil servants, here we have a bunch of people who are all very knowledgeable in their field. People you should just be talking with, not trying to manage. Mostly, however, it's because I know all the people round the table; have worked with them for many years now. I don't really know John and don't believe he should be handling the situation as if he knows better than everyone present.
 
After the meeting, Steve and I go outside, by the BIS bike shed where the smokers now have to go, just as if they're back at school. Steve lights up and says, "Well, what do you think?"
 
"I think we mostly recovered it."
 
He laughs. "Not really the sort of people you want to wing it with."
 
"I had a meeting with him a couple of months ago, just after he joined BIS. It was to discuss my job and the Regs and the new match test. He seemed pretty positive but things he said were coming back to me in that meeting. Like, when I told him I was conflicted about whether to go for promotion because that would mean leaving this job, and I want to see this project through."
 
"And he said you were missing the point?"
 
"Yes, he said it's your career in the civil service that's important, not the actual job you're doing. He also said that in the civil service, the best way to get rid of someone in your team who isn't much good is you promote them."
 
"Or someone who might cause you too much work."
 
In the following six months or so, Steve and I will lead or attend over 40 workshops, events, meetings and discussions about the new match test, with a wide range of stakeholders. John will attend only one, which he's obliged to since it's with FIRA to talk about the work he gave to them at the meeting today.
 
At the time, I assumed this strange absence was because he trusted me to do the job without supervision, and save himself some work, as Steve had implied. Later, I'll suspect darker reasons.