REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026

Debate between Baroness Grender and Viscount Stansgate

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Grand Committee

[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.

Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026

Debate between Baroness Grender and Viscount Stansgate

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend and the statutory instrument that he has moved. I understand entirely that it is designed to support a resilient aviation sector, and I just want to ask one question.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee referred, as indeed did my noble friend, to the example of 2022, when, as I understand it, there was a 30% hand-back of slots. I just want to ask, if the information is to hand: what happened afterwards, when the temporary provision ended? Did the slots go back in precisely the same way to the airlines that had them at the time? The reason I ask is because I am curious as to whether, in the current conditions, a 10% hand-back will result in these eventually being handed back to the same airlines. It may or may not be the case, but I would be interested if the Minister has anything he might be able to add on this.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this draft instrument and explaining its purpose, and for the advance meeting with his officials and the briefing they sent. As with all such measures, we need to look not only at the administrative detail but at the practical impact on passengers. Other noble Lords referred to the impact on the airlines themselves; quite a bit of my comment will be about the passengers and about the impact on the wider aviation sector and its sustainability.

These regulations amend the slot usage rules so that airlines at specified UK airports can return a limited proportion of slots for the summer and winter 2026 seasons. We understand the case for flexibility during a period of considerable uncertainty, including in particular the conflict in the Middle East. We do not want airlines to be incentivised to operate empty or near-empty flights simply to preserve the historic slot rights as described by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. That said, flexibility, in our view, must not come at the expense of passengers. Even where there is some notice, these changes, we fear, could still lead to cancellations with relatively little warning, causing significant disruption to travel plans. In a period when household budgets are under pressure and fares remain high, that could mean higher replacement costs for families, as well as losses on hotels, onward travel and other arrangements already paid for. I notice that train tickets is an example that is laid out in the fifth question of appendix 1 of the Department for Transport’s answers to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. That is a very good example of what I am talking about here.

There is, too, a broader question of balance. The airline sector is under pressure. We recognise the need to support its long-term sustainability, but we worry that the burden of adjustment should not fall unfairly on passengers, especially leisure travellers, who are less able to absorb sudden change. We feel that we need to be careful that a measure intended to provide resilience does not instead create avoidable uncertainty for customers.

I have a few questions for the Minister. First, what assessment has been made of the likely pattern of cancellations under these rules, including whether certain groups of passengers are more likely to be affected than others? Secondly, what discussions has the department had with airports about the impact of these arrangements on their income, operations and resilience—particularly given that, as I understand it, two airlines opposed this proposal and airports across the board were against it? Thirdly, what evidence led the Government to settle on this particular threshold when airlines had sought a different level of alleviation?

On a point of clarity, I note that the instrument is made under powers in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Can the Minister confirm precisely how these powers interact with the timetable for these regulations?

Last but by no means least, I return to the impact on passengers. We understand why the Government are seeking to avoid unnecessary flights being operated simply in order to retain these slots, but the answer cannot be to shift the cost of uncertainty on to travellers. If an airline believes that it cannot operate a slot, there must be a clear and fair mechanism for dealing with that in a way that protects consumers as far as is possible. For that reason, although we recognise the intention behind the regulations, we have some scepticism that this is not entirely the right balance. However, I look forward to hearing more persuasive arguments from the Minister.