REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026
(1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 57th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2024–26 (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before this House on 24 March. They will amend UK REACH, which is a central part of the framework governing the safe use of chemicals in Great Britain. EU REACH continues to apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework. UK REACH retains the core approach and key 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 the instrument changes those aims or reduces those protections.
The instrument will make two key changes. The first change will extend the deadlines in Article 127P by which registrants, namely manufacturers and importers, must submit information on their chemicals to the Health and Safety Executive, the HSE.
At EU exit, transitional measures were introduced to support a smooth and orderly transition to the UK REACH regime, including deadlines to submit complete registration data. Under the current legislation, those deadlines fall on 27 October 2026, 27 October 2028 and 27 October 2030. The most hazardous and highest-tonnage substances must be registered first. This SI will extend the deadlines to 27 October 2029, 27 October 2030 and 27 October 2031 respectively. I recognise that these deadlines have been extended previously. Indeed, this is the third extension since UK REACH replaced EU REACH in January 2021. I therefore want to address directly why a further extension is necessary.
In 2023, the previous Government extended the deadlines in response to transitional challenges. Chief among these was the estimated £2 billion cost to industry of acquiring the information required under the existing registration model. That extension allowed exploration of an alternative transitional registration model, known as the ATRm, with the aim of developing a fairer, more proportionate and workable system. Following the general election, this Government reassessed their broader approach to chemicals regulation while completing the exploration of the ATRm. This work reflects our improved relationship with the European Union.
There was a consultation in 2024 and we then published our proposed approach to the ATRm on 30 March 2026, providing long-awaited clarity for industry. The ATRm will reduce the information that businesses must submit for transitional UK REACH registrations. It is expected to reduce the one-off costs to industry of those registrations by around 70%. At the same time, the model will maintain the important protections provided by UK REACH. It recognises that companies placing chemicals on the Great Britain market remain responsible for understanding and managing the risks that those chemicals may present to human health and the environment. Registration will therefore remain central to ensuring that businesses meet that responsibility and properly manage the risks arising from the hazardous properties of chemicals and how they are used in Great Britain.
The Government are acting decisively by bringing forward the legislation on the ATRm so that industry knows what it needs to do in good time for the extended deadlines. However, the ATRm cannot be implemented in time for the first existing deadline of 27 October 2026. It is therefore necessary to extend the deadlines once more to ensure that we put in place a robust and effective policy framework. Extending the deadlines will provide the additional time needed to finalise and implement the ATRm in a proportionate and workable way. It will also provide businesses with the certainty that they need to plan for compliance and help to maintain continuity in important supply chains. Without this extension, businesses would have to meet the existing deadlines and submit the full registration information currently required by UK REACH, despite the Government’s clear intention to replace those requirements and reduce the £2 billion cost to businesses by around 70%.
I turn to the second change introduced by this instrument. The regulations amend the deadlines by which the HSE must complete compliance checks on 20% of registration dossiers. These dates must remain aligned with the revised registration submission deadlines. Otherwise, the HSE could be required to complete compliance checks before the relevant registration information had been submitted. Under these regulations, the compliance check deadlines will move to 27 October 2030, 27 October 2032 and 27 October 2036. The time available between each registration deadline and its corresponding compliance check deadline remains unchanged.
As with the previous amendment to UK REACH made using powers in the Environment Act 2021, we have followed the safeguards set out in Schedule 21 to that Act. We have worked closely with both the Scottish and Welsh Governments, who have both consented to this instrument. We conducted a public consultation to ensure that stakeholders could provide their views and evidence.
We have also published a statement confirming that the amendments are consistent with the overarching aims of UK REACH, including the objective of ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment. We have published an impact assessment that demonstrates that extending the deadlines will reduce unnecessary costs to businesses while maintaining an effective regulatory framework. The impact assessment builds on the options assessment published in March 2026, which the Regulatory Policy Committee rated fit for purpose.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am most grateful to the Minister for presenting these regulations before the Committee. I probably ought to say that I was a Member of the European Parliament when the original REACH agreement and regulations came forward.
I am also grateful to the Minister for commenting on the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I have just two questions on that. First, the Minister said right at the end that legislation and guidance will be published next year. I do not sit on that committee but, from the way I read that report, the final date of the extended timetable and when it will reach its long-term end remain a concern. The committee asked us to raise—I think it is a very good point—the intended timetable for the full implementation of UK REACH. What is the endgame?
I am grateful to the Chemical Industries Association—CIA—for the briefing that it shared with me in preparation for today. It is fair to place on the record that the chemical sector not only is critical for the functioning of the UK economy but underpins manufacturing, clean technologies and many of the Government’s priority growth sectors.
At the time that Britain left the European Union, I personally was led to believe and we were promised—I realise that there was a different, Conservative Government—that there would be friction-free trade with the European Union. However, we have ended up with duplicate registers, therefore duplicate costs, and a lot of increased costs to the sector in that regard. Obviously, we are all paying that in the way of substances such as paint and other toxic substances that we use. I do not know whether the noble Baroness’s department has made an estimate—it might well be in the papers, but I did not see it—of the current cost of having two registers.
The chemicals industry believes that the regulations before us this afternoon should be approved. For the reasons the Minister set out, it is so important to have the necessary extension to the UK REACH registration and compliance deadlines—again, we are going on to finalise the approach on the ATRm. However, the industry has raised with me—I want to share this with the Minister this afternoon—the fact that the revised timetable remains challenging. Although the regulations extend the first registration deadline by three years, they also compress subsequent deadlines into a much shorter period, which will put enormous pressure on the companies concerned. The industry also says, more importantly, that approval should not be interpreted as meaning that the underlying challenges have been resolved. There remains significant uncertainty regarding access to registration data, the cost of compliance and the risk that businesses could be forced to infringe intellectual property rights in order to meet UK registration requirements.
Therefore, I press the Minister to make sure that the Government provide certainty regarding future registration requirements by three specific asks this afternoon. First, avoid placing businesses in situations where compliance conflicts with intellectual property rights, ensuring lawful and affordable access to the data needed for registration. This is currently not the case. Secondly, and alternatively, look to other economies such as Switzerland, which has successfully implemented a model that supports innovation and competitiveness and strengthens supply chain resilience, all while maintaining the same robust health and environmental protections as the EU. Thirdly, monitor whether the compressed timetable from 2029 to 2031, which the Minister set out, remains realistic for both industry and regulators. The goal here is not less regulation or further delays but a model, like the one that exists in Switzerland, that protects the environment, for the reasons the Minister set out, while allowing businesses to drive growth, which lies at the heart of the Government’s priority in economic policy.
I believe the outline model that the Minister has set out this afternoon still leaves Great British manufacturers and importers facing avoidable cost—which they were specifically told would not be the case at the time that Britain left the European Union—inhibits the introduction of new products to the Great British market and leaves serious questions over proprietary data requirements, despite the goalposts on regulating chemicals via REACH having shifted to EU alignment by default.
I welcome the opportunity to raise these issues today. On 13 May 2026 the ACA, the Alliance of Chemical Associations, wrote to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the honourable Emma Hardy, to raise these points, but they are very pertinent as well to the regulations before us this afternoon. The Government, and particularly the department, owe it to the chemicals industry to make sure that we can reduce this dichotomy of having two registers and the duplication of costs that it currently has to face.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I hope I will not detain the Committee for long, but this is a very important and intricate area. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has great experience of this from her time at the European Parliament. I remember visiting the European Parliament—it must have been almost 20 years ago—when REACH was being debated. It was, and I believe it remains, the largest piece of legislation ever passed by the European Parliament.
I did not have the benefit of the CIA briefing, but I will take the opportunity of paying tribute to the work of the CIA, because it does a great deal in this area and I have placed that on record. I have worked with it in the past, as with other organisations such as the Society of Chemical Industry and scientific bodies such as the Royal Society of Chemistry, which 20 years ago were taking a very close interest in this subject. I am glad that my noble friend the Minister referred to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, because it has quite rightly raised some concerns.
My points are very brief. First, I understand the case for extending the current deadlines in the way that my noble friend has set out. I also understand the case for aligning the UK REACH submission deadlines with the development and implementation of the alternative transitional registration model. But I hope my noble friend will understand if I say that we hope that we will not be here in a few years with my noble friend making the case for further extensions to the deadlines. If there is any word of reassurance she can give on that, I would be very grateful.
My second point is to ask whether UK businesses still have difficulty accessing the hazard data required to support registrations. As I understand it, the data is still held by EU-based consortia under the provisions of EU REACH.
Thirdly—I apologise to the Minister in advance if I am wrong—am I right that in the last month 15 substances of very high concern were added to the UK list? I am encouraged by nodding elsewhere along the Benches. If this is true, can my noble friend say a little more about what the substances are? I understand that they are the first major additions to that list for some time. It would be interesting for the Committee to know the reasons for it and to be reassured that there are very good reasons for doing so.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this draft instrument and explaining its purpose. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we recognise the case for this measure and will support it. We do so because it is a pragmatic step to avoid a cliff edge—not because we believe the current system is in any sense satisfactory.
As described by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the chemicals sector could be described as the invisible backbone of our economy. It underpins everything from advanced manufacturing to pharmaceuticals, construction and consumer goods. It matters that we get the regulatory framework right, not just for the industry but for the people who work in it, the consumers and, importantly, the environment. The alternative transitional registration model, which the Minister described to us, is intended to reduce unnecessary duplication. According to the Government’s assessment, it could cut one-off industry costs by around 70%, or roughly—I think this is the estimate that the noble Baroness is looking for—around £2 billion. To stop that additional payment is extremely welcome, but businesses need certainty, not a rolling series of extensions that leave everyone guessing what comes next.
We very much appreciate that this Government are having to square the circle of a previous negotiation and a Brexit that we view as the gift that keeps on taking from the British people and from every industry in Great Britain. Nevertheless, I have four questions for the Minister.
First, can she set out the milestones that will determine whether the ATRm is delivered on time, given that the design and implementation are not, as she described, expected to be completed until summer 2027? The Committee needs some confidence that we are moving towards some kind of stable system, not simply pushing the problem further down the road. Will the Minister also confirm how progress will be monitored and how often updates will be published? What will trigger, in turn, some kind of remedial action if the timetable slips? There is a danger of the perception that the sector continues to run on a series of sticking plasters; I am sure she appreciates that.
Secondly, what assurance can she give that any future divergence from EU REACH will be strictly evidence led and transparent? I read somewhere that the system is like reading the description on the back of a book without having any of the information inside the book that is necessary to move at pace. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has already raised concerns about the lack of clarity around the circumstances in which the Government would diverge, and the Office for Environmental Protection has highlighted the problem of new EU hazard classes that have not yet been brought into GB law. How will the Government avoid creating an unpredictable system in which decisions appear to be made case by case, without a clear scientific basis? I think this is something that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, was reaching towards. If the default position is alignment with EU REACH unless there are compelling reasons to diverge, we need to know what those reasons are, how they will be tested, and how the public and Parliament will be able to scrutinise them.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome this measure to extend the transition period for businesses to submit information to the Health and Safety Executive under the UK REACH regulations. I thank the Minister for bringing these regulations to the Committee.
The UK’s registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals replicated the EU REACH regime. To manage the transition, requirements to submit further information were phased, and the deadlines were extended twice by our previous Government, in 2020 and in 2023. This statutory instrument extends the deadlines to submit information to the HSE for registrants, downstream users and distributors that continue to import chemicals from the EU. This will allow the compliance costs of registered businesses in the chemicals sector to be spread more evenly. It is worth noting that 98% of registered businesses in the chemicals sector are small, medium or micro businesses.
In addition, the SI will provide more time for the Government to introduce a new transitional registration model to cover registrations of substances that were already on the EU market at the time of Brexit. This is expected to reduce costs for industry significantly, so can the Minister update the Committee on when this new model will be introduced?
The Minister might be pleased to hear that I do not have many additional questions, given that so many have been asked. But I highlight the Government’s response to concerns submitted to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about divergence from the EU in this policy area. The Government stated—the Minister was kind enough to repeat this—that
“divergence only occurs where there are compelling reasons, for example to protect the resilience of essential national infrastructure. In doing so, we will retain full control of our regulatory decisions”.
If that is the case, why will the Government not take the same approach to the SPS regulations soon to be determined by the EU, in particular on the role of precision breeding?
I will take advantage of this opportunity to ask one question on something not directly related to this SI: the chemical Asulox. Emergency authorisations for its use ended a few years ago, and we are already seeing the impact of the withdrawal of Asulox from the market, as bracken moves further and further up the hill, outcompeting grass, outcompeting degraded peat and undermining our habitats. Will the Minister commit to take that away and see whether anything can be done to reintroduce Asulox to the market? I very much look forward to her response.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their important contributions and for the careful consideration given to the regulations. I will go through some of the questions and issues raised.
Noble Lords asked about the deadline extension. Clearly, this is now the third time. The deadlines were first altered when we were still preparing for EU exit, to allow businesses enough time to compile and submit the full required information, given the complexity and scale of the task. As I mentioned, there was a further extension in 2023 to address transitional challenges, especially the considerable cost to business of acquiring the additional information. This Government wanted to reassess their broader chemicals policy, and it then became clear that we could not implement the ATRm in time for the original deadline. We want to get a robust and effective policy framework for the future, which is why we have extended the deadlines.
My noble friend Lord Stansgate in particular asked what guarantee we can give that we will not extend it again. Clearly, we really do not want to do that. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that businesses need certainty, and continually moving the goalposts and changing dates does not help, so we have absolutely no intention of extending the deadlines further.
We published our policy conclusions on the ATRm back in March, and that set a firm path forward for government. On the questions around timetables, we are looking to consult very quickly on the legislation in order to bring the model into force next year so that businesses have ample time to prepare for the new deadlines. As I said, we do not plan to bring in any further extensions.
As I said, in March we published the timetable for implementing the alternative transitional registration model. By consulting quickly and then bringing in the new regulations next year, we want to ensure that industry has sufficient time to prepare its registrations so that it is ready to comply with the first revised submission in an orderly way, which is what we want. Now that we have said this is what we will do, we want to consult as quickly as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked about the Swiss style and why we could not take that approach to chemicals registration rather than developing a separate UK model. One of the core principles of UK REACH is that it is industry’s primary responsibility to understand and manage the risks of its chemicals, and registration is how it demonstrates that it is doing this. That means submitting data on hazard conclusions and classifications and how it is using chemicals in this country. We need to assure the public and consumers that chemicals are managed safely.
This “no data, no market” approach remains a central part of UK REACH, and that is not embedded in Switzerland’s system in the same way. However, we are exploring whether elements of a Swiss-style approach could help improve the speed and efficiency of UK REACH restriction decision-making, particularly where many GB businesses already comply with EU restrictions and there is no compelling reason to diverge. I hope that helps the noble Baroness, as we are still looking at the options around that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am very grateful, but the problem is that the data already exists. The point is that they are having to register the same data twice, so there is obviously a conflict of views here.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That was the problem with leaving EU REACH; that was going to have to take place when we set up our own system in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about the gift of Brexit—it just keeps giving. That is unfortunately one of the outcomes of that decision. But, as I say, we need to understand better the use of chemicals. Part of the reason why we want to explore better relationships with the EU is to help with many of these things. We are obviously not in a position to rejoin EU REACH, but better working relationships will help right across the board.
On costs, as I said in opening, they will be reduced by 70% with the ATRm. The estimate for the separate UK registrations is around £2 billion, instead of the previous figure. Intellectual property barriers were also brought up; companies already have legal duties to classify hazards and provide safety information through the supply chain. We assume that they are meeting those duties, so if industry is managing intellectual property issues in those contexts, we would ask why REACH registration would be any different. We also think that registration dossiers should be developed through substance groups, as those groups can draw on different sources of evidence. Clearly we cannot comment on every source, but if industry has legal advice showing that intellectual property is a real barrier to the ATRm then we would absolutely welcome receiving and hearing about that evidence.
SMEs were mentioned. The consultation response showed clear support for extending the deadlines, one reason for which is that it reduces pressure on smaller and micro-businesses. The options assessment recognised that smaller businesses are less able to absorb significant upfront compliance costs and would benefit from greater certainty and more time to prepare. The extension means that firms will not have to incur costs under requirements that we intend to change—that is one key reason—while maintaining the strong protections that we need. It is also important to note that SMEs will mainly be covered by the final deadline, so they will have the longest time to prepare.
On moving the dates for compliance checks, they need to align with the revised registration deadlines. Under UK REACH, the HSE must carry out compliance checks on at least 20% of registration dossiers. That safeguard remains unchanged. The checks can reasonably take place only once the relevant information has been submitted. Again—this is one of the key issues—if we do not bring in these changes without the amendment, the HSE could be required to complete checks before the dossiers have been received.
My noble friend asked how the alternative transition registration model will work in practice. It will provide a more proportionate route for registering substances that were already on the market under EU REACH before EU exit. It will reduce unnecessary duplication by removing the need for businesses to submit full EU hazard data packages up front, while still requiring key information such as hazard conclusions, classification and use and exposure data. This will still provide the means for business and regulators to assess and manage risk. The “no data, no market” principle will remain in place and the HSE will retain powers to request further hazard information where needed. My noble friend asked some very specific questions about a number of chemicals, so I will need to get back to him on that specific point.
Finally, on divergence, we are committed to drawing more from other trusted jurisdictions such as the EU by taking their regulatory decisions as a starting point and aiming to ensure that divergence occurs only where there are compelling reasons—for example, to protect the resilience of essential national infrastructure. In doing so, we retain full control of our regulatory decisions. We are currently defining the specific circumstances under which divergence may be considered for UK REACH and we intend to publicly consult on those proposals as well.
I hope I have addressed the questions raised by noble Lords. If I have not been able to provide a full response—for example, to my noble friend—we will come back in writing. I will check through Hansard, as there were quite a lot of questions flying around and it is quite a complicated area. I recognise the concerns that this is the third time we have had an extension, about the time it is going to take and about certainty. As I say, the important thing is that we have published our intended approach and we expect to legislate for the new model next year, because we absolutely need to give an assurance that we will not be in a situation where businesses do not have the certainty that they need to do this.
One final point I have just realised I did not respond to was from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, about Asulox and bracken. I am happy to take that away and discuss that further with the department.
We believe these regulations strike the appropriate balance. They will preserve strong protections while providing industry with the time and certainty needed to prepare for a more proportionate and effective registration model. I commend them to the Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Could the noble Baroness also respond to the point about the possible compromise to intellectual property rights? I will send her the briefing, because it is all there.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
If the noble Baroness sends me the briefing, I would be happy to pick it up. Perhaps we can meet to discuss it further.