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

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 General Committees

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

These regulations ensure that potentially harmful chemicals are carefully controlled, and will provide greater certainty for business, so we Liberal Democrats will not seek to divide on them, or to oppose them. However, I do have two short questions for the Minister.

First, the Minister said that this SI applies to 173 active substances, and he was good enough to give some examples of those we would particularly like to keep, such as those that clean our water so we can have access to clean drinking water. To the best of his knowledge, have any of those 173 active substances faced sustained calls to be banned because of claims related to harming either biodiversity or human health?

Secondly, the Minister mentioned, very fleetingly, that the instrument would not affect any imports; I just want to ask whether it might affect any exports. Although I recognise that the regulations apply to legal and controlled biocidal and other products, the Minister will be aware that both the UK and the EU have been criticised for exporting hazardous pesticides and biocide products that are banned in the UK, yet are exported to other countries. Will the Minister say a word or two about the Government’s policy in that area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful for the Committee’s support for this statutory instrument. I will have a go at answering the questions raised. Is there a possibility that any of these 173 substances will be banned at some point? Did I understand that correctly?

[Daisy Cooper]

I had two separate questions. The first was whether any of the 173 active substances have faced sustained calls to be banned already. I recognise that none are banned, but have any of them faced calls to be banned because of potential damage to biodiversity or human health?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I cannot say how many of the 173 have had such calls made in relation to them, but my guess is that some of them probably have because of the nature of the substances. As the hon. Lady says, they all have current approval. The statutory instrument just ensures that they carry on being approved beyond June. However, science is developing our understanding of the impacts of these substances on the environment and our health, and there may be a case to make about some of them. As I said, I do not have the information for the 173, but it would not surprise me if there were significant calls for some of them to be considered for removal. The point is that we do not want that to happen by accident because we did not have the powers to enable them to continue being used.

In terms of the exports that we are addressing in the third of these measures, the UK is a very responsible supplier, and those who supply from the UK are well regulated and behave conscientiously. As I set out earlier, the SI makes sure that if something is ordered to be exported from the UK, and there is no problem with it and there is no response when one has been requested from authorities, the export can continue. That is if there is no response. Clearly, if the response is, “No, this is not approved here”, or something similar, that product would not be supplied. We just want to ensure that what could be an impediment to legitimate trade is not imposed.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) has had the opportunity to contribute to the debate, given her a long-standing interest in this area. I did not catch all six of the questions, so perhaps she and I should correspond separately about some of them. She asked why all six new EU classes are not covered here. The question is what will happen at UN level, because our commitment is to align properly with the UN globally harmonised system. There is a question about how the six EU classes will relate to the UN system, and I do not think that we quite know the answer yet. Perhaps I can send my hon. Friend a fuller response on that point.