Full Facts Behind Government's Failure to Protect Us
Below is a paper I wrote for a journalist, which sets out all the background, evidence and facts needed for anyone to see that the public is being put at risk of death and illnesses such as cancer, by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
* * *
The Match Test for the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 (FFRs) - Proposed Changes from August 2014 to September 2016
Contents:
1) Headline Points
2) Current Flammability Requirements of the FFRs
3) Proposed New Match Test (as in BIS's consultation of August 2014)
4) Further Changes Planned After the August 2014 Consultation
5) Changes Proposed to the New Match Test by the BEIS policy Team to the Minister, Anna Soubry, in December 2015
6) Changes Proposed to the New Match Test in the September 2016 Consultation Document
7) Arguments for and Counter-Arguments Against the Various Elements of the Proposed New Match Tests
1) Headline Points
Current FFRs match test:
New match test originally proposed by BIS in August 2014:
New Match Test as proposed by BEIS in September 2016:
Remove 'filling 1'
Agreed over a year ago anyway. Can remove on basis that anything that passes 'filling 2' will pass 'filling 1'
Remove centralised list of materials which pass/fail the moderated match test
Again, agreed over a year ago. Very minor point.
Option of using an interliner as protection
2) Current Flammability Requirements of the FFRs
Basically, these are the three main flammability requirements in the FFRs -
These tests are for the most part a combination of the standard BS 5852 Parts 1 & 2 (versions as in place in 1979 and 1982, not the most current) and the Schedules to the FFRs.
(Since it does not affect this case, we will not be looking at Schedules 1 & 2 which are the tests for filling materials.)
Please note that none of these tests stipulate the use of flame retardant chemicals (FRs). In fact, certain cover fabrics will pass without FRs - e.g. leather. For almost all man-made cover fabrics, however, FRs are used by manufacturers as the cheapest/most convenient route to compliance. In cover fabrics, these include Brominated Flame Retardants (BFRs) which are found to cause massive damage to health/environment.
It is important to bear in mind the history of furniture fabrics. When the FFRs were implemented in 1988 most furniture fabrics were made of natural materials, like cotton. These form a char layer when ignited that tends to put out the flame. Less thermoplastics (like polyester) were in use at the time. However, increasingly the furniture industry wanted to produce furniture with cheaper materials to suit the changing needs of consumers. Materials such as polyester, however, burn very easily. The FR industry came up with the 'solution' which was mostly to heavily back-coat fabrics to resist ignition and protect fillings. Hence, the current match test is out of date and leads to the use of large volumes of FRs in products that were not originally intended.
Match Test
(Schedule 5 of FFRs)
The purpose of the match test is two-fold: to prevent ignition and to protect what lies beneath the cover.
Cigarette Test
(Schedule 4 of FFRs)
This test measures the effect of smouldering sources on cover fabrics. We do not need to look into the details for the purposes of this case.
Interliner Test
(Schedule 3 of FFRs)
This is an alternative to the Match Test for 'cellulosic' cover fabrics, i.e. those made of at least 75% cotton, flax, viscose, etc - 'natural' fabrics. An 'interliner' is placed between the cover fabric and the filling (important with regard to the recent changes proposed by BIS management) which is subjected to the same test (crib 5) as filling materials. Most interliners contain organo-phosphate chemicals which research is finding to be very toxic. The same chemicals were banned from weedkiller in the UK because they are so toxic. Also, while this is an option, in practice many manufacturers prefer to backcoat/treat the cover fabric, simply because that is cheaper than buying, treating and fitting an interliner.
How the current match test works
Cover fabric is placed tightly against the test foam filling. When it is ignited, a dome of flame-retardant gas forms around the flame, extinguishing it (or untreated fabric like leather simply does not form holes before the flame goes out).
The test foam is not the flame-resistant type found in finished products but the old highly-flammable kind that is now illegal in the UK (to use in Furniture Regs products) – for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as 'worst case'.
Because the test foam is so flammable (therefore a rather blunt instrument), and because fabric mixes can vary, a perception has developed that a 'margin' of error exists in the test, i.e. the same fabric can fail at one test house and pass at another. This 'margin' has allowed for the rather wide-scale practice of (criminal) undertreatment. This is when the chemical treatment processor applies less FRs to the mix than he should. Often his own test house will register a pass, but when the same fabrics are tested by Trading Standards, they fail. While this undertreatment practice would appear to comply with BEIS's objective to reduce FR use, it is of course at the expense of creating unsafe and dangerous cover fabrics.
Please note: the new match test is much more finely tuned and eliminates the 'margin' that can lead to undertreatment.
Why many cover fabrics are ignitable when they shouldn't be
1. Undertreatment and other failings.
Trading Standards have been registering failure rates of between 50-80% over recent years. They believe undertreatment is the main culprit.
The practice of applying anti-stain sprays such as 'Scotchgard' also contributes to the failure to prevent ignition, in that these sprays can be highly flammable. BIS's 'technical annex' tells us that the untested combination of chemicals in the sprays and in the cover fabrics of furniture "can have a catastrophic effect on the flammability of materials to which they are applied".
The furniture industry tried to get round this situation by claiming that the FFRs apply only to materials before they are finally constructed. BIS lawyers, however, told them that is not the case: that the FFRs apply to the finished product. Many companies are still Scotchgarding.
2. Test does not reflect final constructed products.
In practice most sofas are constructed with a thin fibre wrap layer between the cover fabric and the filling material. While this layer may have passed the relevant fillings test in the FFRs, it unfortunately introduces air to feed the flame when a finished product ignites, meaning it won't extinguish. While the cover fabric may have passed its test and is therefore legal, it's clearly dangerous in practice. As soon as Trading Standards were made aware of this issue (around BIS's 2014 consultation period) they informed BIS that they could not prosecute under the current test. BEIS's own published research shows that around 55% of UK furniture cover fabrics fail in practice by this principle.
This means that for nearly four years, the match test has been unenforceable. This has encouraged a rising increase in unsafe, black market furniture – as reported by Trading Standards to BEIS in 2015.
Taken together, these two factors suggest that around 80-90% of all cover fabrics are ignitable when they shouldn't be. Indeed, Trading Standards reported on the BBC's 'Rip-off Britain' in 2017 that they were discovering 84.3% failures in the match test in finished products.
3) Proposed New Match Test (as in BIS's consultation of August 2014)
Main initial changes:
This would result in the reduction of FRs (particularly BFRs) by up to 50%.
Unregulated materials:
Our feeling was that introducing flame-resistant foam would not lessen fire resistance. However, some stakeholders would no doubt argue that it would - because the foam would not now be 'worst case'. It is not possible to determine if sofas, say, are more or less safe under the current or new test - because there are too many variables.
What we did know, however, was that many materials used in modern furniture are highly flammable - cardboard, hessian, etc. These are not a problem when they are more than 40mm below the surface (because a match flame does not penetrate further than that). But in places like sofa arms, they are much nearer the surface and can/do ignite. The current test does not pick up these materials since it only tests cover fabrics over a thick slab of foam.
A video made by the Alliance for Consumer Fire Safety in Europe (front organisation for the FR industry) - you can view it here - comparing the fire safety of an EU and a UK sofa shows that the FR industry (and their ex-firefighter front man) knew about this issue at least as far back as 2008. Note how Bob Graham (around 1.50 mins in) is careful to apply the small flame close to the EU sofa arm where, no surprise, a fire quickly forms. Later, however, he applies flame (and the wrong test!) to the UK sofa in the centre of the cushion, well away from materials close to the cover in the sofa arms. EFRA has of course always claimed that fire safety is its number one concern. Strange, therefore, that they never reported to the government or their customers the fire safety problem of unregulated materials close to the cover.
The early proposal, therefore, was to deem that any unregulated materials within 40mm of the surface must pass a modified match test. This would be a cheap, once-only test. (Cover fabrics have to be tested to the full match test regularly, due to changing combinations, batch variables, etc.) Because materials like fibreboard are standard, only one test would ever need to be undertaken, on behalf of all manufacturers.
However, some manufacturers complained that some of their unregulated materials cannot be made to pass the modified test, e.g. hessian webbing (which John Lewis, for example, uses a lot of). At first, we suggested they use alternatives (which do exist) but in order to be helpful, we introduced an option for the modified test: that cover materials could be either 'non-protective' or 'protective'.
'Non-protective' means an unregulated material passes the test by melting away and no longer being ignited. 'Protective' means it passes the test by not forming holes. This means that any materials lying under the 'protective' material do not need to be tested. So, for example, John Lewis could keep their hessian webbing provided it was protected (when within 40mm of the cover) by material which does not form holes. In practice, this would involve manufacturers placing pieces of cheap flame-resistant cotton, say, over materials which would fail the test on parts of exposed covers. DFS, for example, very quickly worked out that all their materials that wouldn't pass the test could be thus protected for, to quote, 'pennies'.
Similarly, the final test proposal (in the consultation document) provided two match tests for main cover fabrics: one without a fibre wrap - 'protective'; the other with a fibre wrap - 'non-protective'. In practice, manufacturers told us (as we expected) that they would take the 'non-protective' route - i.e. where cover fabrics melt away - because treating unregulated materials would be far cheaper than going the 'protective' route (i.e. because in order to prevent cover fabrics forming holes, much more FRs would be required).
In summary, while there would be small extra costs to industry with the new unregulated materials test, this would be dwarfed by savings from reduced FRs. Products would also be safer overall and greener.
4) Further Changes Suggested/Planned After the August 2014 Consultation
During and after the consultation, one or two stakeholders complained that having two match tests for main cover fabrics was too complicated, and that the 'protective' route could be dropped. We didn't really agree with this but said we could do so in the final specification (although this would inconvenience a few small manufacturers who use this route exclusively).
One or two opponents of the new test claimed you can't measure 2mm holes (for the purposes of the 'protective' route - both for cover fabrics and unregulated materials). This is not true: holes are measured under many different standards, and there are probes of various sizes used to do this. Please bear in mind that, as said, most manufacturers will take the 'non-protective' route anyway, where fabrics will form huge holes.
Therefore, up until September 2016, the original proposed new match test was in effect still ready to go and effective. It had been in the public domain for 16 months and not one single objection/change had been suggested other than the two grumbles mentioned above.
5) Changes Proposed to the New Match Test by the Policy Team to the Minister, Anna Soubry, in December 2015
1. Remove the 'protective' route for unregulated materials, i.e. no hole measurement required.
2. Introduce instead the option that manufacturers can use full-product interliners to protect unregulated materials or:
3. Ask consultees to devise an alternative way of demonstrating protectiveness.
Important note: Anna Soubry originally agreed to implement the new match test as it was in August 2014, by April 2016. The team subsequently did two things to ensure this wouldn't happen: 1) took 6 weeks to provide Soubry with a formal proposal (that should have been put up within days), thereby missing the April 2016 window; 2) included other amendments to the FFRs which were certain to warrant a further consultation and therefore further delays. This was after BIS's lawyers had put it in writing that a further consultation would not be needed if following the Minister's wishes for April 2016 implementation of the new match test. The lawyers had also instructed the team that they must implement the match test by April 2016 to avoid possible legal action.
Problems:
1. While removing the protective route doesn't present many problems with main cover fabrics (see above), it has a massive effect on unregulated materials. It means that protective pieces of flame-resistant cotton, for example, cannot be placed over say hessian - because without hole measurement, there is simply no way to demonstrate that the cotton is 'protective'. This means that every unregulated material used in a sofa must pass the test in its own right. Which means that industry will have to find alternatives that may not do the job so well, are more expensive, etc.
2. The suggestion is that to counter the problems in 1), an interliner sheet is placed over the entire product, thereby protecting any unregulated materials within 40mm of the cover. (Please note: this would be an additional measure to all products other than those which already use an interliner.) However, it costs around £60 to buy and fit an interliner. At a rough estimation such a route could therefore present industry with up to around £270m additional costs per year. It also introduces huge further amounts of FRs to UK furniture (which are used to treat interliners). Crucially, such a route also blocks innovation, since manufacturers would be required to us FR interliners. It also adds a further barrier to the single market.
3. Apart from the absurdity of BIS removing a workable and simple method of protecting unregulated materials and asking stakeholders to come up with another solution - logic says that there is no other solution anyway, since the only way for material to demonstrate that it's protective is by it not forming holes. Indeed by September 2016, BEIS had failed to find an alternative.
6) Changes Proposed to the New Match Test in the September 2016 Consultation Document
1. Reintroduce the 'protective' route for unregulated materials of hole formation measurement.
2. Retain December 2015 option that manufacturers can use full-product interliners to protect unregulated materials.
3. Modified match test for unregulated materials - remove exemptions list.
In effect this means the proposed new match test as at September 2016 is identical to the one proposed over two years previously. The only significant change put to the Minister in December 2015 - to remove hole measurement - has been taken out. This was the only change that the BEIS policy team could come up with to justify their delays. In December 2015, they proposed replacing it with the option to use an interliner over the entire product (additional to interliners used with fabrics that are 75+% cellulosic materials). This was an idea I came up with 15 mins before a team meeting, having realised that the team leader was going to renege on her promise to the Minister to implement the new match test by April 2016 unless she could find a change. A few hours later I realised that it would not work and told her so. Soon after, I was put out of the job. (See 'Full Facts Extra' for more on this.)
While the option of using an interliner has been retained, it has gradually been reduced in viability, as indeed it should since it is highly unlikely that any manufacturer will take that route simply on costs grounds, i.e. 'pennies' vs at least £60 per sofa.
7) Arguments for and Counter-Arguments Against the Various Elements of the Proposed New Match Tests
BIS/BEIS managers' arguments with my counter arguments:
Industry told us that the proposed new match test will mean more FRs.
Not true. Only a few (opposed to the new test) claimed this at consultation stage and none proved it (shown by the consultation responses).
For some fibre mixes, more FRs may be needed. However, there will be an overall reduction across UK furniture of up to 50%, and it's highly likely that manufacturers will use new technologies available with the new test and/or new fibre mixes to cut FRs in these fabrics too.
The fact that the original new test will reduce FRs has been verified by all key leading test experts, Intertek's and FIRA's research testing, the Fire Protection Association, and British Standards Institute.
BIS management only made this claim around the December 2015 submission to the Minister - before, they were totally in agreement that FRs will be reduced overall.
Industry told us that it could drop the 'protective' route; hole formation measurement unnecessary.
[Included as a recommendation to the Minister in the December 2015 submission. Reinstated in the September 2016 consultation document. ]
Distinction needs to be made between a) protective route for main cover fabrics and b) for unregulated materials.
Regarding a), only one or two stakeholders suggested this. BIS agreed, on the grounds that the vast majority of manufacturers will go the 'non-protective' route anyway. Regarding b), only one person suggested this, who did not understand the principles at play.
Removing hole formation measurement for unregulated materials would be disastrous. This was eventually acknowledged by BEIS when they reinstated it in the September 2016 consultation document.
No stakeholders have suggested removing the protective route for unregulated materials.
BIS management introduced this idea only for the December 2015 submission to the Minister and purely to show they had done something to justify delays. Note: BIS presented the original proposed new match test, unchanged and without this suggestion, at a stakeholder meeting in August 2015. No further consultation or research has been done since.
Unregulated materials can be protected instead by the use of an interliner covering the whole product.
[Included as a recommendation to the Minister in December 2015.]
No one outside BIS has ever suggested this.
It would raise industry's costs by up to around £270m per year.
It would hugely increase the use of FRs in furniture.
It would block innovation.
It will never be used by manufacturers.
We can ask stakeholders in the consultation process to come up with other ways to protect unregulated materials.
[Included as an optional recommendation to the Minister in December 2015 and to a lesser degree in September 2016.]
Undermines the previous, intact, proposed new test and BEIS's reputation.
Will invite ridicule from stakeholders.
Clearly, the formation of holes is the only way to tell if a material is protective.
Remove option of 'Filling 1'
[Included in December 2015 and September 2016]
See 3 and 4, and this table, above.
This was suggested purely as a sop to those opposed to the new match test. Their only argument was that it made things 'too complicated'. This is clearly absurd against the already very complicated testing regime of the FFRs.
Remove externally managed (probably by BEIS) exemptions list.
In 2014, it was proposed that an exemptions list could be maintained on probably BIS's website, so that all unregulated materials could be listed in order that manufacturers would know what did not need to be tested. At a stakeholder meeting in August 2015 it was suggested that this isn't necessary; that manufacturers will simply use materials that pass. This was accepted by BIS, i.e. a very minor point and agreed over a year before the September consultation anyway.
* * *
The Match Test for the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 (FFRs) - Proposed Changes from August 2014 to September 2016
Contents:
1) Headline Points
2) Current Flammability Requirements of the FFRs
3) Proposed New Match Test (as in BIS's consultation of August 2014)
4) Further Changes Planned After the August 2014 Consultation
5) Changes Proposed to the New Match Test by the BEIS policy Team to the Minister, Anna Soubry, in December 2015
6) Changes Proposed to the New Match Test in the September 2016 Consultation Document
7) Arguments for and Counter-Arguments Against the Various Elements of the Proposed New Match Tests
1) Headline Points
Current FFRs match test:
- Does not represent the way finished products are constructed
- Fails in around 90% of cases - means UK furniture is flammable when consumers believe it is not
- Means it is an unjustifiable barrier to the EU single market
- Means Trading Standards can't enforce it - illegal imports already increasing
- Means tons of flame retardants that damage health/environment but often don't work
- Allows criminal activity via 'undertreatment'
- Additional problem of 'Scotchgarding' rendering fabrics flammable
New match test originally proposed by BIS in August 2014:
- Represents actual finished products
- Puts right current failures - therefore saves lives, prevents house fires
- Cuts flame retardant use by up to 50% - and allows new technology to cut altogether
- Saves industry up to £50m per year
- Makes products much safer overall against the current test (even if it worked) by including additional flammable materials close to the cover not currently included
- Removes barrier to the EU single market
- Trading Standards can enforce
- Eliminates 'undertreatment'
- Heavily researched/consulted, supported by all relevant experts
- Scotchgarding still a problem potentially
New Match Test as proposed by BEIS in September 2016:
- In essence propose a new test which is identical to that proposed in August 2014
- Minor or optional additions only:
Remove 'filling 1'
Agreed over a year ago anyway. Can remove on basis that anything that passes 'filling 2' will pass 'filling 1'
Remove centralised list of materials which pass/fail the moderated match test
Again, agreed over a year ago. Very minor point.
Option of using an interliner as protection
- Will add huge extra amounts of flame retardants to products
- Will cause massive rise in industry's overall costs - up to around £270m per year
- Blocks innovation
- Solves current test's safety problem but at the price of more flame retardants/costs
- No research or consultation undertaken; has no expert backing
- Will, therefore, cause further delays to the implementation of a new test
- Extremely unlikely that any manufacturer will use it, i.e. costs are additional 'pennies' vs around £60 per sofa
2) Current Flammability Requirements of the FFRs
Basically, these are the three main flammability requirements in the FFRs -
- Match test (or alternative Schedule 3 'interliner' test) for cover fabrics
- Cigarette test for cover fabrics
- 'Crib 5' test - main test for filling materials (there is a different test for composite fillings)
These tests are for the most part a combination of the standard BS 5852 Parts 1 & 2 (versions as in place in 1979 and 1982, not the most current) and the Schedules to the FFRs.
(Since it does not affect this case, we will not be looking at Schedules 1 & 2 which are the tests for filling materials.)
Please note that none of these tests stipulate the use of flame retardant chemicals (FRs). In fact, certain cover fabrics will pass without FRs - e.g. leather. For almost all man-made cover fabrics, however, FRs are used by manufacturers as the cheapest/most convenient route to compliance. In cover fabrics, these include Brominated Flame Retardants (BFRs) which are found to cause massive damage to health/environment.
It is important to bear in mind the history of furniture fabrics. When the FFRs were implemented in 1988 most furniture fabrics were made of natural materials, like cotton. These form a char layer when ignited that tends to put out the flame. Less thermoplastics (like polyester) were in use at the time. However, increasingly the furniture industry wanted to produce furniture with cheaper materials to suit the changing needs of consumers. Materials such as polyester, however, burn very easily. The FR industry came up with the 'solution' which was mostly to heavily back-coat fabrics to resist ignition and protect fillings. Hence, the current match test is out of date and leads to the use of large volumes of FRs in products that were not originally intended.
Match Test
(Schedule 5 of FFRs)
- Cover fabric placed tightly over test foam in an L-shaped rig.
- Small flame held against the fabric for 20 secs; must extinguish within 2 minutes.
The purpose of the match test is two-fold: to prevent ignition and to protect what lies beneath the cover.
Cigarette Test
(Schedule 4 of FFRs)
This test measures the effect of smouldering sources on cover fabrics. We do not need to look into the details for the purposes of this case.
Interliner Test
(Schedule 3 of FFRs)
This is an alternative to the Match Test for 'cellulosic' cover fabrics, i.e. those made of at least 75% cotton, flax, viscose, etc - 'natural' fabrics. An 'interliner' is placed between the cover fabric and the filling (important with regard to the recent changes proposed by BIS management) which is subjected to the same test (crib 5) as filling materials. Most interliners contain organo-phosphate chemicals which research is finding to be very toxic. The same chemicals were banned from weedkiller in the UK because they are so toxic. Also, while this is an option, in practice many manufacturers prefer to backcoat/treat the cover fabric, simply because that is cheaper than buying, treating and fitting an interliner.
How the current match test works
Cover fabric is placed tightly against the test foam filling. When it is ignited, a dome of flame-retardant gas forms around the flame, extinguishing it (or untreated fabric like leather simply does not form holes before the flame goes out).
The test foam is not the flame-resistant type found in finished products but the old highly-flammable kind that is now illegal in the UK (to use in Furniture Regs products) – for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as 'worst case'.
Because the test foam is so flammable (therefore a rather blunt instrument), and because fabric mixes can vary, a perception has developed that a 'margin' of error exists in the test, i.e. the same fabric can fail at one test house and pass at another. This 'margin' has allowed for the rather wide-scale practice of (criminal) undertreatment. This is when the chemical treatment processor applies less FRs to the mix than he should. Often his own test house will register a pass, but when the same fabrics are tested by Trading Standards, they fail. While this undertreatment practice would appear to comply with BEIS's objective to reduce FR use, it is of course at the expense of creating unsafe and dangerous cover fabrics.
Please note: the new match test is much more finely tuned and eliminates the 'margin' that can lead to undertreatment.
Why many cover fabrics are ignitable when they shouldn't be
1. Undertreatment and other failings.
Trading Standards have been registering failure rates of between 50-80% over recent years. They believe undertreatment is the main culprit.
The practice of applying anti-stain sprays such as 'Scotchgard' also contributes to the failure to prevent ignition, in that these sprays can be highly flammable. BIS's 'technical annex' tells us that the untested combination of chemicals in the sprays and in the cover fabrics of furniture "can have a catastrophic effect on the flammability of materials to which they are applied".
The furniture industry tried to get round this situation by claiming that the FFRs apply only to materials before they are finally constructed. BIS lawyers, however, told them that is not the case: that the FFRs apply to the finished product. Many companies are still Scotchgarding.
2. Test does not reflect final constructed products.
In practice most sofas are constructed with a thin fibre wrap layer between the cover fabric and the filling material. While this layer may have passed the relevant fillings test in the FFRs, it unfortunately introduces air to feed the flame when a finished product ignites, meaning it won't extinguish. While the cover fabric may have passed its test and is therefore legal, it's clearly dangerous in practice. As soon as Trading Standards were made aware of this issue (around BIS's 2014 consultation period) they informed BIS that they could not prosecute under the current test. BEIS's own published research shows that around 55% of UK furniture cover fabrics fail in practice by this principle.
This means that for nearly four years, the match test has been unenforceable. This has encouraged a rising increase in unsafe, black market furniture – as reported by Trading Standards to BEIS in 2015.
Taken together, these two factors suggest that around 80-90% of all cover fabrics are ignitable when they shouldn't be. Indeed, Trading Standards reported on the BBC's 'Rip-off Britain' in 2017 that they were discovering 84.3% failures in the match test in finished products.
3) Proposed New Match Test (as in BIS's consultation of August 2014)
Main initial changes:
- Replace highly flammable test foam with flame-resistant foam as found in finished products.
- Introduce a fibre wrap layer between cover and filling as in finished products.
- Introduce a modified match test for currently 'unregulated' materials (see below).
- The cigarette test unnecessary for any cover that passes the match test i.e. because it will automatically pass the cigarette test too. Note: materials must still be cigarette resistant, contrary to some people claiming that the proposals mean they are no longer so.
This would result in the reduction of FRs (particularly BFRs) by up to 50%.
Unregulated materials:
Our feeling was that introducing flame-resistant foam would not lessen fire resistance. However, some stakeholders would no doubt argue that it would - because the foam would not now be 'worst case'. It is not possible to determine if sofas, say, are more or less safe under the current or new test - because there are too many variables.
What we did know, however, was that many materials used in modern furniture are highly flammable - cardboard, hessian, etc. These are not a problem when they are more than 40mm below the surface (because a match flame does not penetrate further than that). But in places like sofa arms, they are much nearer the surface and can/do ignite. The current test does not pick up these materials since it only tests cover fabrics over a thick slab of foam.
A video made by the Alliance for Consumer Fire Safety in Europe (front organisation for the FR industry) - you can view it here - comparing the fire safety of an EU and a UK sofa shows that the FR industry (and their ex-firefighter front man) knew about this issue at least as far back as 2008. Note how Bob Graham (around 1.50 mins in) is careful to apply the small flame close to the EU sofa arm where, no surprise, a fire quickly forms. Later, however, he applies flame (and the wrong test!) to the UK sofa in the centre of the cushion, well away from materials close to the cover in the sofa arms. EFRA has of course always claimed that fire safety is its number one concern. Strange, therefore, that they never reported to the government or their customers the fire safety problem of unregulated materials close to the cover.
The early proposal, therefore, was to deem that any unregulated materials within 40mm of the surface must pass a modified match test. This would be a cheap, once-only test. (Cover fabrics have to be tested to the full match test regularly, due to changing combinations, batch variables, etc.) Because materials like fibreboard are standard, only one test would ever need to be undertaken, on behalf of all manufacturers.
However, some manufacturers complained that some of their unregulated materials cannot be made to pass the modified test, e.g. hessian webbing (which John Lewis, for example, uses a lot of). At first, we suggested they use alternatives (which do exist) but in order to be helpful, we introduced an option for the modified test: that cover materials could be either 'non-protective' or 'protective'.
'Non-protective' means an unregulated material passes the test by melting away and no longer being ignited. 'Protective' means it passes the test by not forming holes. This means that any materials lying under the 'protective' material do not need to be tested. So, for example, John Lewis could keep their hessian webbing provided it was protected (when within 40mm of the cover) by material which does not form holes. In practice, this would involve manufacturers placing pieces of cheap flame-resistant cotton, say, over materials which would fail the test on parts of exposed covers. DFS, for example, very quickly worked out that all their materials that wouldn't pass the test could be thus protected for, to quote, 'pennies'.
Similarly, the final test proposal (in the consultation document) provided two match tests for main cover fabrics: one without a fibre wrap - 'protective'; the other with a fibre wrap - 'non-protective'. In practice, manufacturers told us (as we expected) that they would take the 'non-protective' route - i.e. where cover fabrics melt away - because treating unregulated materials would be far cheaper than going the 'protective' route (i.e. because in order to prevent cover fabrics forming holes, much more FRs would be required).
In summary, while there would be small extra costs to industry with the new unregulated materials test, this would be dwarfed by savings from reduced FRs. Products would also be safer overall and greener.
4) Further Changes Suggested/Planned After the August 2014 Consultation
During and after the consultation, one or two stakeholders complained that having two match tests for main cover fabrics was too complicated, and that the 'protective' route could be dropped. We didn't really agree with this but said we could do so in the final specification (although this would inconvenience a few small manufacturers who use this route exclusively).
One or two opponents of the new test claimed you can't measure 2mm holes (for the purposes of the 'protective' route - both for cover fabrics and unregulated materials). This is not true: holes are measured under many different standards, and there are probes of various sizes used to do this. Please bear in mind that, as said, most manufacturers will take the 'non-protective' route anyway, where fabrics will form huge holes.
Therefore, up until September 2016, the original proposed new match test was in effect still ready to go and effective. It had been in the public domain for 16 months and not one single objection/change had been suggested other than the two grumbles mentioned above.
5) Changes Proposed to the New Match Test by the Policy Team to the Minister, Anna Soubry, in December 2015
1. Remove the 'protective' route for unregulated materials, i.e. no hole measurement required.
2. Introduce instead the option that manufacturers can use full-product interliners to protect unregulated materials or:
3. Ask consultees to devise an alternative way of demonstrating protectiveness.
Important note: Anna Soubry originally agreed to implement the new match test as it was in August 2014, by April 2016. The team subsequently did two things to ensure this wouldn't happen: 1) took 6 weeks to provide Soubry with a formal proposal (that should have been put up within days), thereby missing the April 2016 window; 2) included other amendments to the FFRs which were certain to warrant a further consultation and therefore further delays. This was after BIS's lawyers had put it in writing that a further consultation would not be needed if following the Minister's wishes for April 2016 implementation of the new match test. The lawyers had also instructed the team that they must implement the match test by April 2016 to avoid possible legal action.
Problems:
1. While removing the protective route doesn't present many problems with main cover fabrics (see above), it has a massive effect on unregulated materials. It means that protective pieces of flame-resistant cotton, for example, cannot be placed over say hessian - because without hole measurement, there is simply no way to demonstrate that the cotton is 'protective'. This means that every unregulated material used in a sofa must pass the test in its own right. Which means that industry will have to find alternatives that may not do the job so well, are more expensive, etc.
2. The suggestion is that to counter the problems in 1), an interliner sheet is placed over the entire product, thereby protecting any unregulated materials within 40mm of the cover. (Please note: this would be an additional measure to all products other than those which already use an interliner.) However, it costs around £60 to buy and fit an interliner. At a rough estimation such a route could therefore present industry with up to around £270m additional costs per year. It also introduces huge further amounts of FRs to UK furniture (which are used to treat interliners). Crucially, such a route also blocks innovation, since manufacturers would be required to us FR interliners. It also adds a further barrier to the single market.
3. Apart from the absurdity of BIS removing a workable and simple method of protecting unregulated materials and asking stakeholders to come up with another solution - logic says that there is no other solution anyway, since the only way for material to demonstrate that it's protective is by it not forming holes. Indeed by September 2016, BEIS had failed to find an alternative.
6) Changes Proposed to the New Match Test in the September 2016 Consultation Document
1. Reintroduce the 'protective' route for unregulated materials of hole formation measurement.
2. Retain December 2015 option that manufacturers can use full-product interliners to protect unregulated materials.
3. Modified match test for unregulated materials - remove exemptions list.
In effect this means the proposed new match test as at September 2016 is identical to the one proposed over two years previously. The only significant change put to the Minister in December 2015 - to remove hole measurement - has been taken out. This was the only change that the BEIS policy team could come up with to justify their delays. In December 2015, they proposed replacing it with the option to use an interliner over the entire product (additional to interliners used with fabrics that are 75+% cellulosic materials). This was an idea I came up with 15 mins before a team meeting, having realised that the team leader was going to renege on her promise to the Minister to implement the new match test by April 2016 unless she could find a change. A few hours later I realised that it would not work and told her so. Soon after, I was put out of the job. (See 'Full Facts Extra' for more on this.)
While the option of using an interliner has been retained, it has gradually been reduced in viability, as indeed it should since it is highly unlikely that any manufacturer will take that route simply on costs grounds, i.e. 'pennies' vs at least £60 per sofa.
7) Arguments for and Counter-Arguments Against the Various Elements of the Proposed New Match Tests
BIS/BEIS managers' arguments with my counter arguments:
Industry told us that the proposed new match test will mean more FRs.
Not true. Only a few (opposed to the new test) claimed this at consultation stage and none proved it (shown by the consultation responses).
For some fibre mixes, more FRs may be needed. However, there will be an overall reduction across UK furniture of up to 50%, and it's highly likely that manufacturers will use new technologies available with the new test and/or new fibre mixes to cut FRs in these fabrics too.
The fact that the original new test will reduce FRs has been verified by all key leading test experts, Intertek's and FIRA's research testing, the Fire Protection Association, and British Standards Institute.
BIS management only made this claim around the December 2015 submission to the Minister - before, they were totally in agreement that FRs will be reduced overall.
Industry told us that it could drop the 'protective' route; hole formation measurement unnecessary.
[Included as a recommendation to the Minister in the December 2015 submission. Reinstated in the September 2016 consultation document. ]
Distinction needs to be made between a) protective route for main cover fabrics and b) for unregulated materials.
Regarding a), only one or two stakeholders suggested this. BIS agreed, on the grounds that the vast majority of manufacturers will go the 'non-protective' route anyway. Regarding b), only one person suggested this, who did not understand the principles at play.
Removing hole formation measurement for unregulated materials would be disastrous. This was eventually acknowledged by BEIS when they reinstated it in the September 2016 consultation document.
No stakeholders have suggested removing the protective route for unregulated materials.
BIS management introduced this idea only for the December 2015 submission to the Minister and purely to show they had done something to justify delays. Note: BIS presented the original proposed new match test, unchanged and without this suggestion, at a stakeholder meeting in August 2015. No further consultation or research has been done since.
Unregulated materials can be protected instead by the use of an interliner covering the whole product.
[Included as a recommendation to the Minister in December 2015.]
No one outside BIS has ever suggested this.
It would raise industry's costs by up to around £270m per year.
It would hugely increase the use of FRs in furniture.
It would block innovation.
It will never be used by manufacturers.
We can ask stakeholders in the consultation process to come up with other ways to protect unregulated materials.
[Included as an optional recommendation to the Minister in December 2015 and to a lesser degree in September 2016.]
Undermines the previous, intact, proposed new test and BEIS's reputation.
Will invite ridicule from stakeholders.
Clearly, the formation of holes is the only way to tell if a material is protective.
Remove option of 'Filling 1'
[Included in December 2015 and September 2016]
See 3 and 4, and this table, above.
This was suggested purely as a sop to those opposed to the new match test. Their only argument was that it made things 'too complicated'. This is clearly absurd against the already very complicated testing regime of the FFRs.
Remove externally managed (probably by BEIS) exemptions list.
In 2014, it was proposed that an exemptions list could be maintained on probably BIS's website, so that all unregulated materials could be listed in order that manufacturers would know what did not need to be tested. At a stakeholder meeting in August 2015 it was suggested that this isn't necessary; that manufacturers will simply use materials that pass. This was accepted by BIS, i.e. a very minor point and agreed over a year before the September consultation anyway.