Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on these regulations. I thank the Minister for explaining and setting out the statutory instrument with clarity and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling an amendment to ensure that we have a detailed debate here in the Chamber on what is a particularly important issue. My thanks also go to the Wildlife and Countryside Link for its briefings on this issue.

These regulations address matters of real significance: the protection of public health, the integrity of our environmental standards and the effectiveness of chemical regulatory systems, on which both businesses and consumers rely. I think we can all agree that it is not a narrow technical adjustment but a set of changes that have wide-ranging implications.

No one in this House would dispute the need to keep such frameworks under review. Science evolves, risks change and regulation must be fit for purpose. The Government argue that these measures will resolve practical issues arising from the EU exit, streamline processes and reduce burdens on business. In particular, the extension of expiry dates for a substantial number of biocidal active substances is intended to avoid disruption and ensure continuity. These are legitimate objectives.

However, the question is whether the balance between efficiency, scrutiny and scientific rigour has been correctly struck. One concern relates to the increased flexibility given to the Health and Safety Executive, as mentioned by others, alongside the removal of certain statutory timeframes. Time limits are not mere administrative detail; they provide discipline, transparency and accountability. If they are to be relaxed, the Government need to explain how timely and robust scientific decision-making will be maintained.

A more fundamental concern is that these regulations appear to fall behind developments in the European Union system. In particular, the failure to incorporate six new hazard classes—covering, for example, endocrine disruptors and persistent, mobile and toxic substances—raises questions about whether this framework represents progress or, in practice, a step backwards in protections.

That concern is closely linked to the broader issue of alignment, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Teverson. The European system remains highly relevant for trade, regulatory coherence and the operation of supply chains. Evidence to consultation on this suggested strong support for continued alignment. Where the UK chooses to diverge, that should be done deliberately, transparently and with clear rationale, not by omission or delay.

The position of Northern Ireland—I note that colleagues are absent; they have really missed out this evening, and we are all very grateful—adds a further layer of complexity. Because these regulations do not apply under the Windsor Framework, divergence is not theoretical but immediate. For example, it is entirely conceivable that a substance such as bisphenol A could be restricted in products such as toys in Belfast under EU rules, while remaining permissible in Great Britain. That kind of divergence risks confusion for consumers and real challenges for businesses operating throughout the United Kingdom.

It is also important to recognise the context in which these changes are being brought forward. The impending June 2026 sunset of powers under the retained EU law framework appears to be a significant driver of the timetable. That, in turn, raises legitimate questions as to whether this is the product of a fully considered, long-term strategy or a more hurried response to an approaching legislative deadline.

As we have heard in this debate, chemical regulation is not abstract; it affects the safety of products, the protection of workers and the quality of our environment. From these Benches, we support close and constructive co-operation with the European Union—it will not come as a shock to anyone to hear that—especially where it promotes trade and stability. But we will always insist on robust environmental protections, high scientific standards and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore approach these regulations with caution. I recognise the case for a more workable system but need a bit more convincing that the mechanisms proposed provide sufficient clarity or confidence.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has taken us on quite a useful tour of the statutory instrument. I am not sure she nailed the rationale for a fatal amendment.

In that spirit, I would be grateful if the Minister could address three specific questions. First, why have the Government chosen not to incorporate the six new EU hazard classes at this stage, and what timetable exists for considering their adoption? Secondly, what criteria will be used to determine when Great Britain aligns with or diverges from EU classifications, and how will those decisions be transparently reported to Parliament? Thirdly, what assessment has been made of the real-world impact of divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including specific cases such as bisphenol A, as I mentioned earlier, and how do the Government intend to minimise resulting complexity for businesses and consumers? I am conscious of time. I am conscious that we are in ping-pong. I am very happy to be written to on any of those questions.

The answers to these questions will be central to determining whether these regulations deliver an effective and credible framework. Without that clarity, there is a risk that increased flexibility may come at the expense of certainty, coherence and, ultimately, public confidence.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, the Opposition do not oppose this instrument. We broadly welcome the intent behind it. The chemicals regulatory framework is one of the more technically demanding legacies of our departure from the European Union, and the Government are right to bring it up to date to make it work for businesses in Great Britain and to reduce unnecessary burdens on those who must navigate it daily. That is a legitimate and sensible aim.

The amendments to the Great Britain biocidal products regulation are simply common sense, and the changes proposed to the classification, labelling and packaging regulation are a step in the right direction. They reduce the time taken for the HSE to make clarification decisions and streamline the process. Equally, the introduction of a fast-track route for classification proposals drawn from the trusted international systems, such as the EU and comparable UN GHS jurisdictions, is a pragmatic reform. Where international consensus already exists, it makes no sense to duplicate the work at domestic level.

However, welcoming the intent is not the same as passing this instrument without scrutiny. The Government are making changes to a framework that exists ultimately to protect human health and the environment. We have a duty to satisfy ourselves that these simplifications do not come at the cost of safety and that the new structures will function in practice as they are designed to in theory. On that basis, I have several questions for the Minister.

First, on safety, the instrument shifts significant decision-making power to domestic institutions, to the HSE and to the Secretary of State, and removes procedural safeguards that, whatever their origins in EU law, provided a degree of independent check. Can the Minister explain what safety assessment of these changes has been carried out? Has the HSE conducted a formal review of its capacity to absorb the new responsibilities placed on it under the revised Article 37 process? Can she confirm that the removal of the notification database has been assessed not simply as an administrative saving but for any downstream impact on the completeness of information available to regulators?

Secondly, on how this has been tested, any significant change to a regulatory process should be road-tested before it is placed on a statutory footing. Can the Minister tell the House whether the new unified classification procedure, in particular the fast-track route, has been piloted or modelled in any way? Has the HSE trialled processing proposals under the new framework and, if so, with what results? Has industry been consulted, not only on the policy design but on the operational workability of the new system? We would be concerned if this instrument is in effect the first real test of whether these procedures function as intended.

Connected with this, I note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has raised concerns that removing the six-month deadline for technical reports could slow down decision-making in practice, particularly if the HSE is considering proposals from multiple international jurisdictions. Can the Minister explain how the Government will ensure that the new system delivers genuine efficiencies rather than simply shifting delay to an earlier stage of the process?

Finally, on the transitional provisions, the saving provision in this instrument preserves the old classification procedures for proposals already in train and opinions already issued by relevant bodies before commencement. That is sensible in principle, but in practice the boundary between the old system and the new one will require careful management. Can the Minister set out how that boundary will be communicated to industry, to applicants and to the HSE itself? What guidance will be published and when? What happens in cases where a proposal is at an intermediate stage and some steps have been taken under the old framework but the process is not yet complete? We would be grateful for clarity on how those edge cases will be handled and whether any guidance has already been shared with stakeholders. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said, if the Minister would find it more helpful to write, we would be happy with that.

We do not seek to obstruct this instrument. The direction of travel is right. A GB-led, streamlined chemicals framework that reduces unnecessary burdens while maintaining robust protections is something we support. But streamlining and safeguarding are not in tension; they should go together. We hope the Minister can give the reassurances we need. We look forward to her response and to any letters she might send.