Consumer Products (Control of Biocides) Bill [HL]

Lord Leong Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, before I was asked to respond to this Private Member’s Bill debate for the Government, I had absolutely no clue about biocides. I must admit that I have been a sucker for the 99.9% claim on every bit of packaging and every product in my flat in London. After hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, speak about the range of biocides that are in some of these products, I think that I shall go back this afternoon and look at every single product and see whether I should keep it in the flat.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for the discussion that her Bill has generated, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed in this debate. I also thank the noble Baroness for the briefing, articles and various reports that she kindly sent to me. I must admit that I read Dr Fady’s briefing note last night.

The Government recognise the intent of the Bill and the importance of ensuring that consumer products, including those containing biocides, remain safe. While the Government have reservations about the Bill, this should not be taken as dismissal of the concerns raised or the intent of the Bill. Rather, government believes that cosmetics regulation and biocidal products regulation, in addition to so many other regulations, provide long-standing regulatory frameworks that ensure that products containing biocides are safe. We believe that the Bill will create duplication in an area that is already well regulated and understood by industry, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.

If products have a primary biocidal function, they will fall under the biocidal products regulation. These products must meet consumer safety and environmental protection requirements before being placed on the market in Great Britain. There is a very strict two-stage process that a biocidal product will go through: the active substance must be approved, which costs a lot of money, and the biocidal product in which the substance is used must be authorised.

As mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Sugg, and many other noble Lords, there is existing legislation on biocides. The Biocidal Products Regulations broadly define biocides as substances intended to control harmful organisms. The legislation covers something like 22 product types in four main groups, including preservatives, disinfectants and pest control products. This definition is well understood and has been used by regulators, stakeholders and manufacturers for some time. This Bill introduces a separate and conflicting definition of a biocide, which applies only to substances with antimicrobial effects. This cuts across the established definition, undermining rather than strengthening the existing robust, evidence-based regulatory regime.

Furthermore, the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association, which represents something like 85% of the industry in the UK in this area, does not support the Bill, precisely because the UK Cosmetics Regulation is already robust, evidence-led and fit for purpose. The provisions in the Bill would result in additional complexity for industry seeking to comply with regulations, as well as potential difficulties in enforcement, without any additional safety benefits. The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, is absolutely right that we do not want to impose additional regulation on SMEs, which are really the drivers of growth in the country.

Biocides may also be found within cosmetics, usually as preservatives. The Cosmetics Regulation applies to products with a primary cosmetic purpose, as opposed to the Biocidal Products Regulation. It outlines a robust set of safety requirements for cosmetics. Annexe 5 lists which preservatives, including biocides, may be used in cosmetics, subject to any specified conditions. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, we must keep pace with technology developments and evidence, which is precisely why the Secretary of State has the power to amend the Cosmetics Regulation to restrict or prohibit the use of substances in cosmetics, subject to conditions: for example, where there is sufficient scientific evidence indicating a potential risk to human health.

The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, mentioned the HSE’s spreadsheet of biocides that are unauthorised. I will take that back to the department for clarification and ask why this is not enforced.

The Office for Product Safety and Standards, the OPSS, and Ministers use expert advice from the Scientific Advisory Group on Chemical Safety in Consumer Products to inform policy decisions and amendments to the Cosmetic Regulation, as indicated by the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay, Lady Finlay and Lady Sugg. We do not want a new scientific advisory board. Having said that, the Government will listen to any scientific evidence and act appropriately.

The Government consider that the Biocidal Consumer Products Advisory Board, proposed in the Bill, would duplicate the purpose and work of the well-established SAG-CS. We consider such a board to be unnecessary and think it could, in fact, create significant confusion. Other regulations, such as the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals Regulations, REACH for short, also apply to the use of chemicals to ensure that human health and the environment are protected. I will take back to the department the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the database and whether we have kept it up to date.

The Bill proposes that marketing, including implicit claims relating to the efficacy of a consumer product containing biocidal ingredients, can be made only if proven to the satisfaction of the Biocidal Consumer Products Advisory Board. The Government agree that manufacturers should not be able to make misleading claims. Accordingly, in addition to the Advertising Standards Authority, both the cosmetics regulation and the biocidal products regulation contain provisions that prohibit products from making misleading claims regarding functions or safety.

As mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in addition to the existing regulatory framework, the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which I introduced to the House on 4 September 2024, will ensure that the UK is better placed to address safety issues. The powers in that Bill will allow the Government to make regulations to reduce or mitigate the potential risks presented by products. This may include further regulating the use of chemicals in consumer products. As noble Lords know, the Bill completed Lords Committee stage in December and will, I hope, come back on Report some time in February.

Antimicrobial resistance, or AMR, which this Bill aims to address, is a complex issue that requires action across all sectors, and the UK is fully committed to tackling the threat of AMR. The 2024-29 national action plan, launched by the previous Government, is the second five-year plan within the UK’s 20-year vision to control, contain and mitigate AMR by 2040. Tackling AMR resistance requires a holistic approach across government, not just targeting biocides in one area. The Government’s approach is evidence-led.

The national action plan provides a unified strategic approach. It was informed by consultation with a wide range of stakeholders to identify and prioritise actions needed to tackle AMR. It also supports the co-ordinated action between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and across sectors, that is necessary to tackle AMR.

In summary, I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for initiating the debate. I respect the intent behind the Bill. Antimicrobial resistance is a complex and serious issue requiring work across all sectors. I also agree that we need to be able to address the potential risks that biocides may pose in cosmetics and personal care products. However, we already have in place for these products robust regulatory frameworks that seek to ensure consumer safety and are well understood by industry. Consequently, the Bill may cloud and confuse the existing regime, which is very well established—a concern also voiced by the industry, as I mentioned earlier. The Government therefore do not support the Bill in its current form. However, officials would be happy to meet with the noble Baroness to discuss the safety of these products and any scientific evidence that may warrant consideration of changes to the current requirements, within the current legislative framework. In addition, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I will also ensure that officials organise roundtables with manufacturers.

In conclusion, I encourage the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to support the Government’s Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which will provide the powers needed to ensure we are better placed to address modern-day safety issues in order to protect consumers.