Draft REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Hon. Members may remove their jackets, if they are brave enough to do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026.
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I welcome all hon. Members to the Committee. The draft regulations were laid before this House on 24 March. I will go through them in detail, but in short, all they will do is move six dates to enable us to finish the alternative transitional registration model; amend UK REACH, which is a central part of the framework governing the safe use of chemicals in Great Britain; and amend the dates by which businesses must submit information to the Health and Safety Executive on chemicals that they manufacture and place on the market.
UK REACH retains the core principles of the EU system, including its fundamental aim of ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment. I want to be clear from the outset that nothing in these draft regulations will change its aims or reduce its protections; they will just move six dates and make two key changes.
The first change will extend the deadline from article 127P by which registrants—that is, manufacturers and importers—must submit information on their chemicals to the HSE. Our EU exit transitional arrangements were put in place to support a smooth and orderly move to the UK regime, including later deadlines to submit complete registration data. Under the current system, the deadlines fall on 27 October 2026, 27 October 2028 and 27 October 2030. The most hazardous and highest-tonnage substances come first. The draft regulations will extend those deadlines to 27 October 2029, 27 October 2030 and 27 October 2031 respectively. These provisions apply to all substances that were already on the EU market at the time of EU exit.
I recognise that these deadlines have previously been extended, so let me address directly why we need to extend them further. In 2023, the then Government extended the deadlines because of transitional challenges, especially the considerable cost to the industry of acquiring the information required, usually from former EU partners. This allowed for the exploration of an alternative transitional registration model. The aim was a fair and workable system for all stakeholders. Since the election, this Government have reassessed our broader chemicals policy while we have completed exploration of the ATRm. This reflects our improved relationship with the European Union, but clearly the ATRm cannot be implemented in time for the first transitional registration deadline of 27 October 2026. As a result, it is necessary to extend the deadlines once more to ensure a robust and effective policy framework. This extension will avoid imposing significant and unnecessary costs on industry while we complete the development of a more proportionate and effective transitional model.
Following a consultation in 2024, we published our approach to the ATRm on 30 March 2026, providing long-awaited clarity for industry. It will reduce the data that businesses must submit for UK REACH registration. The ATRm aims to cut by about 70% the one-off industry costs of transitional registration, but it also maintains the important protections that UK REACH provides. It recognises that companies that place chemicals on the GB market are responsible for managing the risks to human health and the environment, including harmful effects arising from their hazardous properties or how they are used in this country. Registration therefore remains key to ensuring that businesses understand and properly manage those risks in Great Britain.
The extension of the deadline is to give us the extra time needed to finalise and implement the ATRm in a proportionate and workable way in the GB market. It will also give businesses the certainty that they need to plan for compliance, and will maintain continuity in important supply chains.
We are acting decisively by bringing forward ATRm legislation so that the industry knows what it needs to do in good time for the new deadlines. Without the extension, businesses would have to meet the existing deadlines and submit the full registration requirements currently in UK REACH. The industry would face the full estimated £2 billion costs, when we have made clear this Government’s intention to remove them. I believe that that would be as unacceptable to this Committee as it is to the Government.
The second change in the draft regulations is to the deadlines by which HSE must complete compliance checks on 20% of registration dossiers. The compliance check deadlines will thereby remain aligned with the revised registration submission deadlines; otherwise, HSE will have to complete checks before the relevant data is even submitted. Under the draft regulations, the deadlines for compliance checks will move to 27 October 2030, 27 October 2032 and 27 October 2036—I should have asked why 27 October, shouldn’t I? That will remain a mystery, but the time between the registration deadline and the related compliance checks deadline will remain unchanged.
As with the previous amendment to UK REACH, made using a power in the Environment Act 2021, we have followed the safeguards set out in schedule 21 to that Act. We have worked closely with the devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales, who have given their consent for this instrument. We have consulted publicly to ensure that stakeholders have had the opportunity to provide views and evidence.
We have published a statement confirming that the amendments are consistent with the overarching aims of UK REACH. We have also published an impact assessment, which demonstrates that extending the deadline will reduce unnecessary costs to businesses while maintaining an effective regulatory framework; it builds on the options assessment published in March 2026, which the Regulatory Policy Committee rated as fit for purpose.
The territorial extent of the draft regulations is the United Kingdom. The devolved Governments are engaged in their development and are content. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has formally considered them without comment.
The draft regulations will ensure that UK REACH continues to operate effectively during the transition to a more proportionate registration model. They will maintain high standards of protection for human health and the environment while giving industry the time and certainty to comply in a way that avoids unnecessary cost and disruption.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
The draft regulations will extend the current legislative deadlines for registration to submit information to the Health and Safety Executive under UK REACH. They will also extend the period during which downstream users and distributors who were importing from the EU before the end of the EU exit implementation period can continue to import chemicals from the EU without submitting a full registration. The official Opposition support this measure, because ultimately it seeks to serve businesses and save them money by extending deadlines.
The deadlines have already been extended twice, both times by the previous Administration: first in 2020, then in 2023. The Opposition agree that extending the deadlines further via the draft regulations will provide sufficient time for the Government to develop and introduce a new transitional registration model to cover registrations of substances that were already on the EU market at the time of EU exit. This approach aims to reduce industry costs significantly.
We welcome the findings of the impact assessment, which concludes:
“This policy is not expected to negatively affect businesses of any size.”
It also notes that the cost savings from discounted terms could benefit small and micro businesses “less proportionately” than larger businesses, and that this is
“due to shorter extensions linked to later deadlines for smaller tonnages.”
Of the 3,195 registered businesses in the chemical sector, 3,125—some 98%—are small, medium-sized and micro businesses, as the impact assessment outlines.
Although we support the draft regulations, I acknowledge that there has been some third-party concern about the impact of the proposed changes and the risk of divergence from the EU in this policy area, as noted by Wildlife and Countryside Link, which stated its concerns in a formal submission to the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I hope that the Minister can assure those organisations that have concerns that divergence from EU regulations will occur only when there is a convincing and compelling case for it, and not simply for its own sake. We will support this delegated legislation.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will endeavour not to detain hon. Members longer than is necessary.
I thank the Minister for her opening remarks and for clearly making the case for extending the submission deadline for chemicals registered for EU REACH. I agree that allowing more time for Government and industry to get this right strikes the right balance, particularly given that the vast majority of substances were previously registered under EU REACH and have established and well-understood risk management measures in place.
As the Minister will undoubtedly be aware, Mid Cheshire is arguably the birthplace of the UK chemicals industry. Brunner, Mond and Company was established in Northwich in 1873 and was one of the four main companies that merged to create ICI. It was in Northwich that polyethylene was discovered, and the chemicals we produce today at Lostock works are critical to maintaining our clean water supply.
The chemicals industry has welcomed the recent support from the Chancellor in the form of the £350 million critical chemicals resilience fund. Nevertheless, a £2.5 billion regulatory burden was created by the previous Government’s chaotic departure from the European Union and consequently from the EU REACH scheme. That needs to be addressed. My constituents voted to leave the EU, but I sincerely doubt that a single one of them did so because they yearned to be free of the yoke of European chemical hazard registration requirements. Turning to her husband on 24 June 2016, Mrs Trellis of Winsford did not say, “Finally, Brian, our great country can now diverge from the EU on registration and management of the risk of hazardous chemicals.” But leave we did, and that decision has had consequences for companies in my constituency.
Last year, I visited Indaver, a company with a site in Middlewich that specialises in the recycling of chemicals. A key issue that it has raised involves the registration requirements for chemicals after they have been recycled. Prior to Brexit, when a chemical or molecule was registered under REACH in the EU, recycling processes would not trigger the need for re-registration. This assumed that the chemical’s identity and structure remained unchanged during recycling, allowing the same registration to be used for both the original and the recycled material. Post Brexit, even if the molecular structure of recycled chemicals remains unchanged, UK companies are required to re-register those chemicals with the EU REACH scheme before they can sell or distribute them within the EU market.
In contrast, EU-based companies continue to operate under the previous system, under which re-registration of recycled chemicals is not required. The clear regulatory disparity that has been created is not only time-consuming, but costly, as it involves new testing, documentation and potentially lengthy approval timelines. For Indaver, this means that recycled chemicals must undergo the same rigorous procedures as new chemicals, despite no changes having been made to their chemical composition. These added costs and administrative burdens place UK businesses at a significant competitive disadvantage, especially in comparison with their EU counterparts that can bypass the process.
I know that the Minister’s Department continues to work to develop UK REACH, and I recognise that this is the situation that she has inherited and that she has a responsibility to make the system work. However, I ask her to consider whether, given the importance of regulatory alignment between EU REACH and UK REACH, mutual recognition of these schemes can be made a priority as part of future negotiations over our relationship with the EU. Ensuring consistency and mutual recognition of registrations would not only support local businesses, but foster fair competition and facilitate smoother trade between the UK and the EU.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats support the principle of reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and avoiding costly duplication for businesses in the UK REACH regime. We recognise the challenges that businesses face in complying with post-Brexit chemicals regulations, and we understand the need to develop a more proportionate and workable registration system.
The draft regulations will provide businesses with additional time to compile and submit complex chemical safety information while the Government develop their alternative transitional registration model. Given the significant costs and administrative burdens that the current system can impose on businesses, we support measures that avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens while maintaining existing environmental and public health protections. We will therefore support the draft regulations, but we urge the Government to move more quickly to deliver their replacement registration model and provide long-term certainty for businesses, regulators and consumers.
The Chair
I do apologise; I was under the impression that the hon. Lady was speaking from the Back Bench, but I take it from her opening remark that she was speaking for the Liberal Democrats.
The Chair
Had I known, I would have done the hon. Lady the courtesy of calling her to speak as a Front Bencher.
Emma Hardy
I thank all Committee members for their support and their contributions. UK REACH is a complex but important framework that underpins how we regulate chemicals to protect human health and the environment while supporting industry and trade.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire made an important point about the chemicals industry. Recent events have highlighted the importance of the chemicals industry and how essential it is to everything in the United Kingdom, including water. That is why I was so keen to work with the industry to make things as easy for them as possible.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the situation that he describes is an inevitable result of leaving the EU in the way we did. My constituency also voted to leave, but at none of the doors that I knocked on did anyone say that that was because they did not like the transitional arrangement for chemicals regulation, either, although maybe somebody somewhere did. Under UK REACH, recovered substances do not need to be registered if they meet certain conditions, one of which is that recovery must take place within the EU, so my hon. Friend is completely right.
Let me quickly set out where we are trying to go. We have published a document on the new approach to ensure that regulators and regulation support the growth action plan, and in the environment improvement plan we want to make greater use of regulatory decisions made by like-minded jurisdictions, particularly the EU. To support that, we are looking to reform UK REACH so that we can apply protections that address chemical pollution more quickly and efficiently and in a way that is more aligned with our closest trading partners, especially the EU, by December 2028. We will take regulatory decisions in accordance with that reform unless there is a compelling reason to diverge—and it would have to be compelling. We will assess and, where appropriate, add substances to the authorisation list and will update the candidate list. Drawing from regulatory decision making in other jurisdictions does not change the importance of registration by GB companies, but it is a sensible way to conduct trade with our nearest and closest neighbours.
In response to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, we are committed to closer alignment with EU REACH and we will ensure that divergence occurs only when it is compelling. We are currently defining the specific circumstances under which exemptions from EU alignment may be considered for UK REACH. We will publicly consult on those proposals, so I urge everybody to submit their thoughts.
The changes that we are introducing under the draft regulations are simply an amendment to the deadlines to enable that work and that public consultation to take place. They will not reduce our high levels of protection for human health, but they will make things easier for businesses. I thank everyone for their support, and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2026
(2 days, 17 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. The draft order was laid before the House on 21 May 2026.
Over the course of the past year, Parliament has debated, agreed and decided—through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, which received Royal Assent in April—that the voting system for mayors and police and crime commissioners should be changed to use the supplementary vote system. The SV system was used when the positions of elected mayor and police and crime commissioner were first established, decades ago, and the Government believe that it is the most appropriate voting system for single executive offices, where it is essential that an individual has a broad mandate from their electorate.
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act contains the main measures required to change the voting system used for those types of elections, and they will be commenced in due course. However, a number of other changes must be made to the election conduct rules via secondary legislation to fully enable the use of SV—for example, updating the images of ballot papers to allow a voter to select multiple preferences, and updating guidance to electors and the procedures used at the count should there be a second round of counting. We stated during passage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that the Government’s intention was to implement the change to SV for any mayoral or PCC election taking place after the scheduled May elections this year.
The order has been drafted to be concise and so will make only the necessary additional amendments to enable SV to be used for both combined authority and combined county authority mayors, including those who exercise police and crime commissioner powers. Therefore, the order will not make amendments with regard to elections for local authority mayors, the Mayor of London or police and crime commissioners. Further legislation will be brought forward for those in due course.
The draft order will make the change to SV for any combined authority or combined county authority mayoral election for which notice is given on or after the date that the order comes into force. As this is a reversion to the original voting system used for mayoral elections, the SV process will be familiar to administrators and electors, so implementing the changes will be straightforward and we are confident that returning officers will be able to make the necessary changes.
The conduct rules for elections of combined authority and combined county authority mayors are set out in the Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017. The draft order will make a number of amendments to the 2017 order. As I have said, the SV system was used when combined authority mayors were first established, so the changes will largely revert the 2017 order to its original drafting. The Electoral Commission has been formally consulted on the changes and has raised no objections.
Articles 3 to 5 of the draft order will amend schedules 1 to 3 to the 2017 order, respectively, which set out the conduct rules for these mayoral elections, both when the poll is a stand-alone poll and when the poll at a mayoral election is combined with the poll at another type of election or referendum. The amendments will update the guidance given to voters in polling stations to reflect the fact that they now have the option to select a second preference. They will also update the various processes involved in counting the votes to reflect that a second round of counting may be required. They will also make a number of consequential amendments throughout the conduct rules to ensure that references to votes refer to first and/or second preference votes as appropriate.
Schedules 1 and 2 to the draft order contain updated statutory electoral forms. Schedule 1 sets out the forms in respect of a stand-alone mayoral election, and schedule 2 sets out the forms where a mayoral election is combined with another type of election or referendum. Two types of forms require updating to enable SV. The first is the ballot paper. A new ballot paper image is provided in the draft order to allow voters to select both a first and a second preference of candidates. The draft order also contains the ballot paper to be used when there are only two candidates running, because in that scenario voters will not be given the choice to select a second preference and the poll will revert to a simple majority voting system. The second form is the postal voting statement. Such statements contain guidance to postal voters, and the draft order provides new postal voting statement forms, which will inform the voter that they may select both a first and a second preference where three or more candidates are running.
These are straightforward changes necessary to implement a change set out in primary legislation, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act, and I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting the draft order. I look forward to answering any questions Members may have.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.
There are many arguments of principle and technical detail regarding the merits or otherwise of the change to the voting system proposed by the Government under this draft legislation, but the Committee is not the place to debate those; they have been considered in Committee previously. I will be clear that the Opposition remain opposed to the change, which reverses a change that we made in government. We remain committed to the elegance and simplicity of first past the post as a means of carrying out elections, rather than any of the other many complex systems that are available around the world. For that reason, we will seek a Division, but I have no questions to put to the Minister.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.
We Liberal Democrats are pleased by the reversion to SV and are grateful to the Government for it. We would have liked them to go further and introduce the alternative vote system, but, as the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner mentioned, such discussions have already been had in full.
Before I end by saying that we will support the Government, let me ask the Minister whether the Government will make an order about police and crime commissioner elections in time to ensure that the surprise such election in Norfolk—because there has been a recent resignation—can take place under the SV system. The Government have established that that is a much fairer system so, given that we are making this shift, it seems wrong for that unexpected PCC election to take place under the old system, potentially wasting £2 million of expenses for an election under a system that the Government have admitted is unfair.
The Liberal Democrats will support the draft order. In future, however, we would like to see change go further, and we will continue to press for that.
Samantha Dixon
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I note the comments of the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. He is quite right: the arguments for and against this particular move have been rehearsed elsewhere in this House. I note, too, his intention to press for a Division.
With regard to the potential PCC election in Norfolk, the Government’s view is that it would not be appropriate to change a voting system when a ballot has already been triggered. Therefore, while we will move forward at pace with the changes to the systems for PCCs and other mayoral elections, we do not feel it is appropriate to do so at this stage.
The draft order is necessary to allow the SV system to be implemented for combined authority and combined county authority mayoral elections to ensure that those elected to those positions have a broad base of support from their electorates. We believe that to be of particular importance for single executive officers.
Question put.