Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life Contents

3Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations 1988

Flame retardants

43.Flame retardants have been in widespread use in consumer and industrial products since the 1970s. They are chemicals in consumer products to slow or prevent them catching fire. They are commonly found in furnishings, electronics, building and construction materials and transportation products.145 They can be chemically incorporated into products or added to materials after production. Legislation has mandated their use in furniture since 1975 in the US and 1988 in the UK.146 In 2017, the Chief Medical Officer said of flame retardants, there is ‘no known causative linkage between exposure from the environment and adverse health outcomes;’147 however they are being phased out due to their persistence.148 The most commonly used flame retardant is aluminium hydroxide which is generally considered to be safe.149 There are many classes of flame retardants with different chemical structures and properties including brominated, chlorinated and organophosphorus. Brominated flame retardants are generally considered the most effective as relatively small amounts are required to achieve high protection.150

44.Flame retardants have been detected in air, soil, water, food, wildlife and humans. They are present in homes and offices via dust and on surfaces including windows, floors and carpets.151 Exposure occurs when additive flame retardants leach from goods into the air, dust and surfaces.152 Breast Cancer UK suggests the US and UK have the highest levels of flame retardants in human body fluids.153 Legacy polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are in breast milk in the highest concentrations in women in the US and UK. A comparative study of dust in the UK and Norway found that UK levels of PBDEs were 20–30 times higher and levels of organophosphorus flame retardants were 11 times higher.154 There is a growing body of research that some flame retardants pose a threat to human health and the environment. The Cancer Prevention and Education Society noted the effects include ‘cancer, neurotoxicity, developmental, behavioural, endocrine, metabolic, reproductive, developmental and allergy.’155

45.As flame retardants are found to be persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic to humans and wildlife, they have been classed as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and banned under the Stockholm Convention. They are also restricted under REACH as SVHCs. This classification is carried out on a substance by substance basis. Groups of similar flame retardants have not been considered together. Historically, penta-, octa- and decabromodiphenyl ether (PBDEs), tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBP A) and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) were most widely used. Each is persistent and bio-accumulate in humans and wildlife and are now subject to restriction.156 Deca-BDE was widely used as a flame retardant in UK furniture. It was classed as an SVHC in 2012157 and banned in March 2019.158 Regrettable substitution occurred as it was replaced with flame retardants which are now being considered for restriction (TCEP, TCPP, TDCP).159 It also poses waste disposal challenges as it is present in many peoples’ sofas and mattresses.160

46.Internationally, further restrictions are being placed on flame retardants. In 2013, California revised its domestic furniture standard, Technical Bulletin 117, which reduced the use of flame retardants in upholstered furniture and children’s products. In 2018, it also banned the sale of furniture, baby products and mattresses containing flame retardants and repealed its open flame test standard for upholstered furniture in public spaces.161 Several other states have adopted similar measures.162 The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is considering a ban on additive organohalogenated flame retardants in children’s products, mattresses, electronic casings and furniture.163 The EU has also proposed a ban on halogenated flame retardants in electronic displays under the Eco-design Directive. This is due to be implemented from April 2021.164 In addition, it has proposed a restriction on the sale of children’s products and upholstered furniture with polyurethane foams containing the flame retardants TCEP, TCPP and TDCP. ECHA is due to publish its decision in July 2019.165

Fire deaths

47.The UK and Ireland are the only EU member states to have additional national fire safety controls on domestic, upholstered furniture. This requires products to pass ignition (match) and flammability (smoulder) tests before being placed on the market.166 The use of flame retardants is generally the primary method of compliance. In the UK, deaths from fire increased in the 1960s and 1970s due to the introduction of synthetic polymers. Polyurethane foam replaced natural materials such as horsehair and cotton causing increased ignitability and fire growth, dense smoke and greater smoke toxicity.167 A major fire in a Manchester department store in 1979, which killed ten people and injured six more, contributed to calls for limits on flammability. In 1988, the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations [hereafter ‘the Regulations’] covering domestic furniture were introduced.168 The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 covers the fire safety of furniture and furnishings in non-domestic environments.

48.UK fire deaths stabilised in the mid-1980s at 12–13 deaths per million. This rate declined following the introduction of the Regulations to 10 deaths per million in the mid-1990s.169 The rate has continued to decline in recent years. In 2017/18 there were 395 fatalities in Great Britain, a rate of 6 deaths per million.170 A comparison of deaths from fire in the UK and New Zealand since the 1970s shows a similar rate of decline, despite New Zealand having no furniture flammability regulations.171 Declines have also been measured in European countries which do not use a match test, only a smoulder test.172

Box 1: Fire deaths per 100 000 population in the UK and in New Zealand

Source: Centre for Fire and Hazard Science, University of Central Lancashire (TCS0033), p. 4.

49.There is disagreement about the contribution of flame retardants to this reduction. Reports commissioned by the flame-retardant industry and the Government attributed 50 percent of this reduction to flame retardants and 50 percent to increased use of smoke alarms.173 A 2009 report by consultancy firm Greenstreet Berman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) provided an estimate for the reduction attributable to the Regulations: 1,065 fires prevented, 54 lives saved and 780 casualties avoided per year.174 The Centre for Fire and Hazard Science, based at the University of Central Lancashire, is critical of this analysis suggesting that it does not account for changes in cigarette smoking habits, the move away from exposed flame heating sources and improvements in living standards.175

50.In an analysis of the smoke toxicity of UK furniture, the Centre for Fire and Hazard Science found that 12.6 percent of fires occur in bedrooms, living rooms and dining rooms, where most upholstered furniture is located, accounting for 71.2 percent of fatalities.176 They found that since the 1990s, the majority of deaths and injuries from fires are caused by the inhalation of toxic smoke.177 Its study concluded that ‘while we are unlikely to ever have robust data showing how effective flame retardants are in suppressing ignition, it is evident that, once ignition occurs, the presence of flame retardants has little effect on the fire growth rate, but does have an adverse effect on the smoke toxicity.’178 Professor Anna Stec of the University of Central Lancashire told us that the toxicity of the fire is dependent on the type of material burning and the scale of the fire.179 She explained how flame retardants affect this toxicity:

Typically, what we have learned with the use of fire retardants is that manufacturers somehow find a way to meet furniture regulations by using fire retardants. What is happening is that fire retardants generally, on a positive note, are supposed to suppress ignition time, and slow fire growth. But if we are adding fire retardant to, let’s say, fabric, more combustible material can be added at the same time, which will eventually, together with the fire retardant, quench in the gas phase. It will stop reactions in the gas phase. Typically, if you have clean flame it is getting you cleaner products. If you stop those reactions, you are going to generate more incomplete combustion products, which would increase toxicity and concentrations of other toxicants, which will overall create a more hazardous situation.

… Gas-phase flame retardants. Generally, we found that they increase acute toxicants—carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide—in a gas phase, as well as chronic toxicants, which would also have an effect in an environment where they are persistent … Generally, we have classified them as chlorinated, brominated ones and organophosphorus flame retardants.180

Box 2: Causes of UK fire deaths from 1955 to 2013

Source: Centre for Fire and Hazard Science, University of Central Lancashire (TCS0033), p. 1.

51.Jonathan Hindle of the British Furniture Confederation maintained the Regulations provide ‘a number of front end benefits’ by preventing early ignition and providing time for people to escape.181 When questioned about the role of toxic smoke inhalation, he said ‘ … there is a palpable lack of research to show exactly where all the deaths are coming from. Often they are in catastrophic fires and it is a cumulative effect of many things impacting on that and it is very difficult to pin it back on one particular item.’182 Kasturirangan Kannah of flame-retardant producer Lanxess, referenced escape time when asked about the toxicity of smoke.183

1988 Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations

52.The purpose of the Regulations is ‘to ensure that upholstery components and composites used for furniture supplied in the UK meet specified ignition resistance levels.’184 They are UK-wide, cover flammability testing and labelling requirements and apply to all suppliers of materials in the supply chain through final product. They also apply to hire and second-hand furniture suppliers. Products within scope of the Regulations include furniture intended for private use, children’s and nursery furniture, beds, mattresses and garden furniture.185 There are four main flammability tests contained within the Regulations. The ‘match’ and ‘cigarette’ tests cover fabrics while two further tests cover foam and non-foam materials.186 The Regulations do not specify the use of flame retardants, but their use is generally accepted as the most cost-effective method of achieving compliance.187 Trading Standards is the enforcement body under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.188 We heard evidence that the test requirements under the Regulations push the use of different flame retardants and make it more difficult for EU based companies to put furniture on the UK market.189

The Match Test

The current match test requires cover fabrics to be tested over highly flammable, polyurethane (plastic) foam which is banned in final products due to its flammability. Flame-retardant chemicals are applied via backcoating. This is completely different to the equivalent EU test (EN 1021–2) which requires the finished product to be assessed, as found in final products.190 Further, as the test has not been revised since 1988, it does not consider modern furniture construction techniques, does not account for the use of protective materials underneath the cover, it is unclear at what stage a component or piece of furniture must comply. This therefore creates doubts over the ability to prosecute under the current Regulations.191

The 2014 consultation proposed amending the match test to test filling materials over combustion modified foam (the foam that is used in final furniture products and which would reduce the use of flame retardants), removing the cigarette test requirement for any fabrics which passed the match test and invisible linings, regulating lining fabrics and testing more parts of furniture currently unregulated materials within 40mm of the surface of the product.192 However, the unamended test remains in place.

53.The Regulations have not been significantly revised in over thirty years. A review began in 2009.193 In 2010, the Government’s Red Tape Challenge identified two issues with the Regulations and concluded Government intervention was required.

Firstly, in order to meet the requirements, manufacturers use significant quantities of potentially harmful Flame Retardant chemicals (FRs) to make covers fire resistant to the required standard. Secondly, weaknesses in the current testing regime mean that the testing which takes place (particularly the ‘match test’) may not actually be delivering the desired outcome (i.e. match-resistant furniture) for finished products. Government intervention is required to resolve these two issues to ensure the regulations maintain fire resistance standards for all products.194

In the same year, a study commissioned by Defra found ‘there is significant scope to move towards design-based and inherent FR [flame retardant] material approaches which can avoid the use of chemical FR [flame retardant] technologies.’195

54.In 2011, a report for the European Commission considered the use of flame retardants in consumer products. While acknowledging the difficulties in comparing varied statistical data from different countries, it concluded:

… in some instances, drops in the number of fire deaths coincide with the introduction of non-flammability requirements for domestic consumer products. In other instances, however, there is no change in the ongoing trend of fire deaths. This suggests that these numbers do not reflect the stringency of non-flammability requirements, respectively that non-flammability requirements do not visibly decrease the number of fire deaths.196

At the same time, the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupation Health & Safety (ANSES) began a four-year appraisal of the effectiveness of flame retardant treated furniture, as available on the UK market. Its findings, published in September 2015, said there was insufficient data ‘to conclude that fire-retardant treatment of upholstered furniture significantly contributes to reducing the frequency and severity of domestic fires. It therefore seems impossible to determine the possible safety benefit of using flame retardants in upholstered furniture.’197 It recommended that other fire safety measures be adopted over the use of flame retardants. While this appraisal was ongoing, BIS was engaged in an 18-month informal consultation with stakeholders to review the Regulations. This work led to a consultation on the Regulations in August 2014.198

2014 BIS consultation

55.The consultation proposed reform of the match test. The technical paper accompanying the consultation explained:

It is possible to demonstrate in full scale tests that the Regulations are ineffective. Consumers are, in many instances, being led to believe that the furniture they buy is match resistant when it is not so in its final form (because it has been sprayed by persistent and flammable materials or has covers which behave favourably in test but not in the finished item or has components near the surface which are flammable).199

The consultation estimated that the changes would reduce flame retardant use by up to 50 percent, save industry up to £50m per year and would facilitate the transition to greener furniture in the UK.200 Implementation of the proposals was planned for April 2015.201

56.In outlining the need for change, BIS cited growing evidence that flame retardants are harmful to health and the environment, moves by the EU to classify brominated flame retardants as SVHCs, the rising price of chemicals to meet the testing requirements, changes to the furniture flammability standard in California, growing concern amongst UK consumers, future EU legislation on the disposal of furniture containing hazardous substances and the Regulations posing a barrier to trade on the EU market.202 The barrier to trade was of particular concern. We received evidence that during its review of the Regulations, BIS feared ‘legal action from the European Commission for violating single market rules.’203 In 2016, the European Furniture Industries Confederation lodged a complaint with the European Commission about the Regulations. The Commission has not yet responded to the complaint.204

Stakeholder response

57.The 2014 consultation received 113 responses, with the highest proportion coming from manufacturing and retail sectors. BIS published its official response to the consultation within six months, in March 2015. The response included a summary of stakeholders’ replies but not their full submissions.205 The full responses were only published following a Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations request by CHEM Trust in September 2015.206 45 percent of respondents believed the proposals would result in no cost savings or would increase costs. Some respondents felt that the changes could result in an increase in the use of flame-retardant chemicals. Only 18 responses believed the proposals would make UK furniture greener and only 16 responses felt the proposals would make UK furniture more fire safe.207 Terry Edge, a former civil servant involved in the review of the Regulations, said of the consultation responses:

They did not give any reasoning or evidence for why they disagreed. There were 113 responses. Over half of those were positive, particularly from individual fire services, which were universally pleased that furniture should be fire safer, and from the enforcement authority, but from the chemical industry and its supporters all they really said to the questions we asked was, “No”.208

BIS decided not to implement the measures it proposed in the 2014 consultation. The Department announced it would conduct a full review of the Regulations. It identified required work as engaging with stakeholders to develop a consensus on the changes required and working with the British Standards Institute (BSI) on the proposed new match test.209

2016 BEIS consultation

58.The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS - the Department was renamed in July 2016), published a second consultation in September 2016 which proposed replacing the Regulations with an updated version.210 Unlike the earlier consultation, the Government’s response remains unpublished nearly three years later. It stated the proposals were developed following two stakeholder workshops in summer 2015 and feedback from the British Standards Institute as proposed in 2014.211 In evidence, Terry Edge contested that work with the British Standards Institute was carried out.212 He also suggested that the consultation was instigated ‘under pressure from the Sunday Times reporting on my whistle-blowing case.’213

59.The consultation restated the Department’s ambition to revise testing methods to better reflect the construction of modern furniture and to enable manufacturers to reduce the use of flame retardants.214 The proposals covered scope, testing and, traceability and enforcement including:

A single definition to cover all items in scope, supplemented by a list of exclusions including sleeping bags, mattress protectors, outdoor furniture, pushchairs, prams and carry cots.215
A revised match test building on previous proposals including the option to include an interliner or non-flame retardant treated fire barrier to achieve protective compliance and removal of the cigarette test for most covers.216
A revised permanent label including information on the use of flame retardants.217
An increase in time available for Trading Standards to bring a prosecution from six to twelve months.218

Government response

60.The Chemical Industries Association told us it understood there were 125 responses to the 2016 consultation.219 As of July 2019, BEIS had not published either its response to the 2016 consultation or the stakeholder submissions, a delay of nearly three years. The Government’s guidance on consultations advises that ‘government responses to consultations should be published in a timely fashion.’220 A timeframe of 12 weeks is recommended or the Department should ‘provide an explanation why this is not possible.’221 In evidence to the inquiry, the Government cited the complexity of the area as the reason for delay.

Plans to revise the current Regulations have been ongoing for some time. It is a complex area that requires careful balancing of evidence and close engagement with diverse stakeholders to find consensus on the right way forward. Specifically, in relation to furniture, there is a need to manage the risks of both fire and chemical hazards from the flame-retardant chemicals and their potential health and environmental impacts.222

Kelly Tolhurst, Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Corporate Responsibility, told us the Government’s response would be produced ‘imminently’223 and ‘within this month [June].’224

Industry views

61.It is evident that there is no consensus about the review of the Regulations. Evidence to the inquiry illustrated the range of stakeholder perspectives. FRETWORK, the Flame Retardant Textiles Network, were supportive of the Regulations saying ‘the FFR [Furniture and Furnishings Regulations] are fit for purpose in addressing a very real consumer safety concern.’225 The Chemicals Industries Association told us that ‘any updating of the FFRs should not compromise fire safety.’226 Lanxess agreed with this view saying that ‘anything at all is fine as long as you do not jeopardise fire safety. That is our single number one concern.’227 It defended the use of flame retardants in products. Citing the example of deca-BDE, a brominated flame retardant classed as a SVHC, it said ‘this does not imply that its prior use in furniture is causing harm to people.’228 The Furniture Industry Research Association (FIRA) said the industry is not opposed to change but wants to ensure it ‘is going in the right direction’ and that the industry can meet new requirements in a consistent way.229 Opponents of the current Regulations said they ‘do not create a strong enough impetus to change furniture design and construction to design out both flammability and the use of flame retardants.’230 Therese Lilliebladh of IKEA told us the company was in favour of a change saying ‘we believe it is possible to have both fire safe products, but also that are free from harmful chemicals.’231 Gemma Brierley of Kingfisher also expressed support for a proposal that reduces overall use of flame retardants.232 Silentnight Group said it wants ‘to be in a position to supply products which don’t compromise fire safety but at the same time don’t contain materials known to release harmful substances into consumer’s homes or the environment when they become post-consumer waste.’233

62.In evidence the industry was unable to explain why fire death rates in the UK are similar to New Zealand, with no flammability regulations on domestic furniture, and other EU countries.234 Lanxess contested the 2014 consultation figure of £50 million in industry savings saying the actual figure was likely to be between £1.5 million and £3.75 million.235 Jonathan Hindle identified cost as a significant factor in moving away from flame-retardant treated products. He said the use of natural materials as alternatives to flame retardants was likely to cost an additional 25 percent.236 This was contested in written evidence from mattress manufacturer Cottonsafe who said the additional cost to move to natural materials in a double or king-sized mattress would be £19.237

British Standards Institute

63.Kasturirangan Kannah of Lanxess questioned if a resolution could be found through public consultation saying ‘ … when you come to complex areas like fire safety testing methods, the match test, the smoulder test, it cannot be done by public consultation. You could have another half a dozen and unfortunately you will not come up with a solid outcome.’238 He advocated that the relevant British Standards committee be tasked with finding a solution239 and that this work could be completed within three years.240 FIRA also supported British Standards completing further work on the test.241 According to the 2016 consultation and evidence from the Minister, British Standards have facilitated work and been involved in the stakeholder engagement throughout the review process.242 The Minister intimated that the British Standards Institute will be tasked with devising a solution:

I am minded to develop the outcome-based approach based on essential safety requirements … it will mean that potentially there will be a range of requirements that are devised by the British Standards Institution.243

64.The Furniture and Furnishings Regulations have been under review by BEIS and its predecessor department for ten years. In that time, a growing body of research has linked some flame retardants to adverse human and environmental health outcomes. Some of the most commonly used flame retardants in consumer products, such as deca-BDE, have been classed as persistent organic pollutants and substances of very high concern. Some have been banned and regrettable substitutions have occurred. Internationally, restrictions are increasingly being placed on their use in furniture, mattresses, children’s products and electronics. In addition, evidence has emerged that flame-retardant chemicals increase the toxicity of smoke in domestic fires, which calls into question their overall benefit. We understand the challenges the Government has faced in finding consensus with varied and opposing industry views and share its belief that there is a need for both fire and chemical safety; however, that does not justify continued ministerial paralysis while the public remain exposed to harmful chemicals in their homes. Inaction has allowed unnecessary and potentially toxic chemicals to continue to enter homes for over a decade. Chemicals which, while purporting to protect the public from fire, cause more toxic smoke and increases the production of carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide.

65.The UK and Ireland stand alone in requiring these chemicals in domestic upholstered furniture with a hotly contested debate about whether they reduce fire deaths. We strongly disagree with the industry view that a resolution cannot be found by public consultation. We are concerned that the Government’s intention to involve the British Standards Institute in devising a new test, at the behest of industry, will be used by industry to frustrate change and further delay reform. The Government should bring the UK into line with the rest of the EU and develop a new flammability test standard based on the EU’s smoulder test and California’s standard Technical Bulletin 117–2013. This should be delivered with a clear legislative timetable for the adoption of revised regulations. In the meantime, industry must acknowledge this practice is no longer sustainable and begin the process of innovating and adopting alternatives to chemical flame retardants.

66.There is action the Government can take immediately to reduce public exposure. We heard that in-utero and early childhood are the most sensitive times for exposure to chemicals. As proposed in the 2016 consultation, we call on the Government to remove children’s products from scope of the 1988 Regulations without further delay. The Government should also introduce a new permanent label for all upholstered furniture products containing flame retardants. This should clearly state if the product has been treated with chemical flame retardants and list all chemicals used, including those below the substance of very high concern threshold. The label should also direct consumers to an online platform where they can view independent scientific advice on the relative toxicity of the chemicals listed.

67.The presence of harmful chemicals in furniture, and their classification as hazardous waste at disposal, have been highlighted as particular problems. In addition to the measures proposed to reduce the use of chemical flame retardants, the Government should take measures to restrict regrettable substitutions through banning the use of groups of chemicals with similar properties. In addition, the use of substances of very high concern, at any threshold, should be banned in line with the precautionary principle. The Health and Safety Executive has been aware of the heightened occupational risk to sinonasal cancer from furniture making since 2012.244 It needs to assess the dangers posed to furniture workers from the handling and use of foams and flame retardants including when using personal protective equipment.

68.It is completely unacceptable that BEIS has not responded to a public consultation for nearly three years. BEIS has provided no reason for this delay beyond stating that the issue is complex and stakeholder consensus has not been achieved. We recommend the Cabinet Office strengthen its guidance on consultations. This should apply formal time limits to departmental responses to consultations with penalties for departments who do not comply. The expected response date should be published on the consultation webpage. If it is not possible to publish a full response, there should be a binding requirement to publish an update on the consultation webpage listing the reason for the delay, outlining what work is ongoing and giving a revised publication date. Stakeholder responses to consultations should be published as standard with sensitive or personal information redacted. The departmental Permanent Secretary and the Secretary of State should personally review any consultations which suffer a delay of more than six months in response and provide an account to parliament of the action they propose.

Whistle-blower allegations

69.Terry Edge was the lead civil servant on the review of the Regulations.245 In evidence to the inquiry, he alleged inappropriate behaviour by individuals working in the fire sector and officials at BIS during the review of the Regulations. His evidence, and that of journalist Gareth Simkins, set out examples of obstruction and delay within BIS:

Mr Edge and the technical advisor leading the review of the responses to the 2014 consultation were removed from the job by a senior BIS official leading BIS to miss its implementation deadline.246
Two drafts of the Government’s official response to the 2014 consultation were put before then Minister, Jo Swinson. The draft compiled by Terry Edge allegedly raised questions about the intention not to implement the new match test immediately.247
A senior BIS official refused to publish the consultation responses to the 2014 consultation until obliged to following a request from CHEM Trust under the Freedom of Information Act.248
Senior BIS officials informed the then Minister Jo Swinson that further work was required on the match test proposed in the 2014 consultation. Terry Edge claims that ‘this was against Ministers’ and lawyers’ advice, which was that the new test had already been consulted upon and should be implemented straight away.’249
Two senior BIS officials introduced new amendments and convened a technical panel requiring a further consultation on proposals in 2016.250
The two senior BEIS officials left their roles reviewing the Regulations as the 2016 consultation responses required analysis. According to Simkins, they were replaced by ‘a new and inexperienced team.’251

70.Terry Edge retired from BIS in March 2016. This was following two formal complaints to BIS about the review of the Regulations and the conduct of certain colleagues. He initially launched a Civil Service Code complaint against his managers. He alleged that the then Minister was wrongly informed of his complaint that certain BEIS officials had misled Ministers. When this complaint was not resolved to his satisfaction, he initiated a complaint under BIS’s internal whistleblowing policy. This complaint was dealt with by the Government Internal Audit Agency.252 Terry Edge and Gareth Simkins alleged that this complaint was mis-handled and that a final report was only issued in August 2016 following an intervention by the Sunday Times. Gareth Simkins alleges that the final report was written by one of the BIS officials Mr Edge had made a complaint against.253

71.In response to questioning about the allegations, BEIS provided no information about the actions taken to investigate individual employees and told us:

A complaint was made in 2015 about a potential breach of the Civil Service Code in relation to the intended approach to the Review and information that had been provided to the then-Minister.

An internal investigation, and then a further internal review of both the Civil Service Code complaint and the policy process/approach, concluded that there had been no breach of the Civil Service Code.

Further complaints were raised and were investigated externally by the Government lnternal Audit Agency (GIAA) under the Department’s Whistleblowing Policy and Procedure. No evidence was found to substantiate the allegations.254

Playing with Fire

In 2012, the Chicago Tribune ran a Pulitzer Prize nominated investigative reporting series into flame retardants. The series uncovered evidence of misleading and deceptive activity by the chemicals industry in lobbying against the restriction of flame retardants. This included paying witnesses to advocate positions in favour of flame retardants at state legislature hearings,255 promoting flawed scientific studies256 and the use of advocacy groups funded by the industry to promote the use of flame retardants.257

72.In evidence, Terry Edge further alleged that ‘there is a long history of fire sector/medical officials accepting large sums of money from the FR [flame retardant] industry to support its products’258 and that this extends to named individuals in the UK fire sector. A 2017 BBC Newsnight report identified former Manchester firefighter Bob Graham’s role in the Alliance for Consumer Fire Safety in Europe. The Alliance advocated the use of flame retardants in some products and for the EU to adopt the UK’s flammability standards.259 In oral evidence, Terry Edge named other individuals he believed were involved in blocking changes to the Regulations260 and said that lobbying activity in the UK ‘is a bit more subtle’ than in the US.261 He did not have evidence of direct lobbying of his colleagues and was questioned about whether this action was normal activity in a consulting capacity:

Yes, but as Bob Graham did in his time, to lobby heavily in Europe for flame retardants in furniture, so I am not quite sure of the consultant role there.

When asked if he had any evidence that Mr Graham lobbied Mr Edge’s colleagues at BEIS, he said:

Not directly, no. I will not mention names but there is an open secret of several people currently in the fire sector who are funded by the flame retardant industry and their actions certainly suggest that too. These are currently-serving fire sector people … It is not so much a job. I think it is more intentionally, deliberately blocking in the case of two or three of these people who are prominent in blocking changes to the furniture regulations and that is all on record. I have recorded evidence of that. They would say, “Well, we just believe these changes would not result in better fire safety” but the fact is they have blocked those changes and these were the same people, for example, who suggested more work needed to be done but have never followed up on that work and have never explained why it has not been done and what have they done about the fact that, with that work not being done, the current match test is unsafe.262

73.In follow-up written evidence one of the individuals named denied the allegations made against him saying ‘I was not given ‘a large sum of money’ (or, indeed, any sum of money) by the Flame Retardant Industry at the time of changes to the match test nor at any other time.’263 Kasturirangan Kannah also denied a covert lobbying campaign took place in the UK.

I completely disagree that it was covert or any other kind of lobbying. We had concerns with the regulations, we went to our local MP in Trafford Park in Manchester and expressed our concerns. I mentioned the impact assessment and mentioned the grossly overstated figures there. I talked about the fact that brominated flame retardants had been described in the whole, in the round, as though they were all one cohesive whole. We objected to that.264

74.Lanxess acknowledged that its predecessor company, Chemtura, funded the Fire Safety Platform and current European Fire Safety Alliance but said ‘we completely refute any suggestion of corruption, totally.’265 The current Minister, Kelly Tolhurst, also denied there was lobbying activity within BEIS:

… in the time that I have been the Minister—10 months—I have not spoken to any corporate around this particular work, which has firmly fallen under me.266

75.We agree with evidence provided by Terry Edge that inaction and obstruction within BEIS has contributed to the delay in reforming the Regulations. It is clear that opposition from some in the furniture and flame-retardant industries, and protection of their market share, also contributed to the delay and the inability to achieve a consensus for reform. The evidence indicates that there are strongly held feelings regarding reform on all sides of the argument. We take Terry Edge’s allegations against individuals within BEIS and the industry very seriously; however, we have been unable to substantiate these allegations. We recommend that the Minister makes a decision and publishes the consultation responses before the change of government that will take place on 24 July. Failure to do so will add to the view that officials are deliberately delaying the process and waiting for a new minister so the process can start again.

145 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Flame retardants [accessed 12 June 2019].

146 Green Science Policy Institute, Flame retardants in furniture [accessed 9 July 2019].

147 Davies, S., Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2017: Health impacts of all pollution - what do we know? (2017), p 57.

148 Davies, S., Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2017: Health impacts of all pollution - what do we know? (2017), p 57.

149 Breast Cancer UK, BCUK Background Briefing - Flame retardants (June 2017), p 1.

150 KEMI, Brominated flame retardants [accessed 18 March 2019].

151 Cancer Prevention & Education Society (TCS0005), p 1.

152 Cancer Prevention & Education Society (TCS0005), p 3.

153 Breast Cancer UK, BCUK Background Briefing - Flame retardants (June 2017), p 4.

154 Breast Cancer UK, BCUK Background Briefing - Flame retardants (June 2017), p 4.

155 Cancer Prevention & Education Society (TCS0005), p 1.

156 KEMI, Brominated flame retardants [accessed 18 March 2019].

157 ECHA, Bis(pentabromophenyl) ether (decabromodiphenyl ether) (DecaBDE) [accessed 9 July 2019].

158 European Commission, News [accessed 9 July 2019].

159 ECHA, Registry of restriction intentions until outcome [accessed 22 June 2019].

160 Q83

161 Green Science Policy Institute (TCS0035), pp 1–2.

162 Safer States, Toxic Flame Retardants [accessed 22 June 2019].

163 U.S. agency struggling with organohalogen flame retardants in consumer products, Chemical & Engineering News, 23 September 2018.

164 Proposed EU ban on halogenated flame retardants set for July adoption, Chemical Watch, 20 May 2019.

165 ECHA, Registry of restriction intentions until outcome [accessed 22 June 2019].

166 Furniture flame retardants in focus, Chemical Watch, April 2018.

167 Mckenna, S.T. et al., Flame retardants in UK furniture increase smoke toxicity more than they reduce fire growth rate, Chemosphere, vol 196 (2018), p 2.

168 Fire safety ignites rules rethink, ENDS Report, 21 March 2016.

169 ARCADIS, Identification and evaluation of data on flame retardants in consumer products (2011), p 309.

170 HM Government, FIRE0501: Fatalities and non-fatal casualties by nation and population [accessed 22 June 2019].

171 Centre for Fire and Hazard Science, University of Central Lancashire (TCS0033), pp 1; 4.

172 ARCADIS, Identification and evaluation of data on flame retardants in consumer products (2011), pp 310–11.

173 Mckenna, S.T. et al., Flame retardants in UK furniture increase smoke toxicity more than they reduce fire growth rate, Chemosphere, vol 196 (2018), p 3.

174 Fire safety ignites rules rethink, ENDS Report, 21 March 2016.

175 Mckenna, S.T. et al., Flame retardants in UK furniture increase smoke toxicity more than they reduce fire growth rate, Chemosphere, vol 196 (2018), p 3.

176 Mckenna, S.T. et al., Flame retardants in UK furniture increase smoke toxicity more than they reduce fire growth rate, Chemosphere, vol 196 (2018), p 6.

177 Mckenna, S.T. et al., Flame retardants in UK furniture increase smoke toxicity more than they reduce fire growth rate, Chemosphere, vol 196 (2018), p 6.

178 Mckenna, S.T. et al., Flame retardants in UK furniture increase smoke toxicity more than they reduce fire growth rate, Chemosphere, vol 196 (2018), p 29.

184 FIRA, Fire safety of furniture and furnishings in the home: A guide to the UK regulations (2009), p 3.

185 BIS, Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988: Consultation on proposed amendments to Schedule 5 – the Match Test – Part 1 and Schedule 4 – the Cigarette Test (August 2014), p 10.

186 BIS, Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988: Consultation on proposed amendments to Schedule 5 – the Match Test – Part 1 and Schedule 4 – the Cigarette Test (August 2014), p 11.

187 BIS, Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988: Consultation on proposed amendments to Schedule 5 – the Match Test – Part 1 and Schedule 4 – the Cigarette Test (August 2014), p 5.

188 BIS, Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988: Consultation on proposed amendments to Schedule 5 – the Match Test – Part 1 and Schedule 4 – the Cigarette Test (August 2014), p 11.

189 Qq121–122

190 BIS, Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988: Consultation on proposed amendments to Schedule 5 – the Match Test – Part 1 and Schedule 4 – the Cigarette Test (August 2014), p. 11.

191 BIS, Technical paper: Systematic rationale for modification of the Furniture & Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations in relation to Schedules 4 & 5 (October 2014), pp 12–14.

192 BIS, Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988: Consultation on proposed amendments to Schedule 5 – the Match Test – Part 1 and Schedule 4 – the Cigarette Test (August 2014), p 12.

193 Mr Terry Edge (TCS0029), p 1.

194 BEIS, Amendment to the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 - Impact Assessment (July 2016), p 1.

195 Defra, Fire Retardant Technologies: safe products with optimised environmental hazard and risk performance (November 2010), p 3.

196 ARCADIS, European Commission Health & Consumers DG – Identification and evaluation of data on flame retardants in consumer products (2011), p 311.

197 ANSES, Opinion of the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupation Health & Safety concerning the “request regarding the fire safety of domestic upholstered furniture” (September 2015), p 4.

198 BIS, Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988: Consultation on proposed amendments to Schedule 5 – the Match Test – Part 1 and Schedule 4 – the Cigarette Test (August 2014), p 26.

199 BIS, Technical paper: Systematic rationale for modification of the Furniture & Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations in relation to Schedules 4 & 5 (October 2014), p 15.

200 BIS, Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988: Consultation on proposed amendments to Schedule 5 – the Match Test – Part 1 and Schedule 4 – the Cigarette Test (August 2014), p. 5.

201 BIS, Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988: Consultation on proposed amendments to Schedule 5 – the Match Test – Part 1 and Schedule 4 – the Cigarette Test (August 2014), p. 16.

202 BIS, Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988: Consultation on proposed amendments to Schedule 5 – the Match Test – Part 1 and Schedule 4 – the Cigarette Test (August 2014), pp 11–12.

203 Mr Gareth Simkins (TCS0031), p 10.

204 Alliance for Flame Retardant Free Furniture in Europe, Competitiveness [accessed 18 March 2019].

205 BIS, Consultation on amendments to the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations: Summary of responses (March 2015), p 5.

206 Mr Terry Edge (TCS0029), p 4; Confirmed in correspondence by Dr Michael Warhurst, Executive Director of CHEM Trust.

207 BIS, Consultation on amendments to the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations: Summary of responses (March 2015), pp 5–7.

208 Q78

209 BIS, Consultation on amendments to the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations: Summary of responses (March 2015), p 8.

210 BEIS, Consultation on updating the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations (September 2016), p 3.

211 BEIS, Consultation on updating the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations (September 2016), pp 9; 14.

212 Qq87–88

213 Mr Terry Edge (TCS0029), pp 4–5.

214 BEIS, Consultation on updating the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations (September 2016), p 4.