In June's issue, Furniture News shared a range of viewpoints on the likely upcoming reforms to the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988, which are set to impact domestic upholstered furniture later this year. Here's what Tony Attard OBE, the chairman of the British Furniture Confederation (BFC) and Panaz Group, had to say …
It’s not often in life that you encounter something so shocking it stays with you forever. For me, that moment came in 1979 – the day of the Woolworths fire disaster.
At the time, I was a textiles and management student at the University of Manchester, walking across Piccadilly Gardens on my way to campus when the first fire engines arrived. Thick plumes of black smoke were already billowing from the department store. Within minutes, crowds gathered as firefighters raised ladders to reach the upper floors in a desperate attempt to contain the blaze.
It quickly became clear this was no ordinary incident. Ambulances began to arrive, and the scale of the tragedy unfolded in real time. Ten people lost their lives that day.
The subsequent inquiry found that the fire had been caused by a faulty electrical circuit, which ignited upholstered furniture in the store’s furniture department. What followed was a rapid and devastating spread of flames and toxic smoke – something that, at the time, both industry and regulators were not adequately equipped to prevent.
That tragedy, alongside others in the years that followed, fundamentally changed how we think about fire safety in the home.
Less than a decade later, the UK Government introduced the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 – a landmark piece of legislation that transformed furniture manufacturing in this country. It imposed stringent requirements on every component of upholstered furniture, from fillings to cover fabrics.
Foams were required to meet far higher fire-resistance standards, effectively removing non-compliant materials from use. Cover fabrics had to pass rigorous testing, including the smouldering cigarette test and the small flame (‘match’) test under BS 7176.
The impact has been profound. Today, the UK has among the lowest rates of fire-related deaths in the home globally. While this success cannot be attributed to furniture regulations alone – declining smoking rates and the widespread use of smoke alarms have also played a major role – it would be a serious mistake to underestimate their contribution.
Now, nearly four decades on, the regulatory framework is once again under review – and rightly so. The world has changed.
Smoking in the home, once a leading cause of domestic fires, has declined significantly. Material science has advanced, bringing forward new generations of flame-retardant technologies. Many of the chemical treatments historically used – such as decabromodiphenyl ether – have been phased out or heavily restricted. In their place, we are seeing increased use of inherently flame-retardant fibres, where fire resistance is built into the molecular structure rather than applied as a surface treatment.
This progress matters. It demonstrates that safety and sustainability need not be mutually exclusive.
However, as we approach this latest review, we must be clear-eyed about the risks of getting it wrong.
Fire remains a very real and present danger. Recent tragedies – from the Grenfell Tower fire to other incidents across Europe – are a stark reminder of what is at stake. Remove fire protection from upholstered furniture, and you are not simply reducing regulation – you are increasing risk, potentially dramatically.
Anyone who has witnessed a controlled house fire demonstration will understand how quickly a room can become engulfed once upholstered furniture ignites. The danger is magnified in modern living environments – particularly in flats and high-rise buildings, where fire can spread rapidly and escape routes are limited.
Introducing unprotected furniture into such settings would be, quite simply, irresponsible.
At the same time, we cannot ignore growing concern about chemicals in the home. Media coverage has increasingly focused on substances such as PFAS, microplastics, and other potentially harmful compounds found in everyday products. Some of these concerns are legitimate and deserve careful, evidence-based consideration.
But too often, the debate becomes distorted. Headlines can be sensationalist, and technical nuance is lost in the pursuit of impact. Not all risks are equal, and not all exposures are significant. The presence of a substance does not automatically equate to harm.
As an industry, we must engage constructively – continuing to innovate, improving transparency, and reducing environmental impact where possible. But we must also ensure that decisions are grounded in robust science, not fear or misinformation.
The challenge facing policymakers is therefore one of balance. We must preserve the life-saving benefits of the existing fire safety regime while allowing for modernisation where evidence supports it. We must encourage the adoption of safer, more sustainable materials without compromising the fundamental objective of protecting lives.
Above all, we must remember why these regulations were introduced in the first place.
For those of us who witnessed events like the Woolworths fire, the lesson is clear – fire safety in upholstered furniture is not an abstract policy issue, it is a matter of life or death.
As the consultation proceeds, I urge all involved to keep that reality firmly in mind.
Read the rest of the feature in June's issue. Tony’s response is not a reflection of the BFC board’s, which remains diverse in its opinion on fire safety matters for upholstered furniture.
