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

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 General Committees

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

Thank you, Dr Murrison, for enabling me to speak even though I am not a member of the Committee. It seems like a long time ago, but I should declare that I was a shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister and part of my portfolio included chemicals, so that is why I am here today to speak about chemicals and possible unintended consequences. I also lived through the painful immediate post-Brexit era.

I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and for outlining so clearly the need for this delegated legislation. I understand that and welcome most of it, but I have concerns about its implementation and possible unintended consequences.

We know that since Brexit, the HSE has had significant policymaking and delegated authority powers. Where that has been exercised, decisions have often been more ad hoc and less protective than the EU’s. Since January 2021, the UK has operated its own chemical regulation system, but UK chemical regs are a casualty of Brexit and we have fallen behind the EU. I welcome the environmental improvement plan, which was introduced by this Labour Government in 2025. It is a sensible shift back towards EU-aligned protection, which is still the best in the world. However, I still have concerns about four specific areas.

First, how will the proposed changes not lead to unnecessary and undesirable divergence from the EU chemicals regulations? That is against the HSE’s explicitly stated policy. Also, how will any changes be reported to Parliament and to the devolved Administrations?

Secondly, we need exact dates for when protective EU hazard classes will be adopted in GB law. Why does this delegated legislation not enact the six new hazard clauses that the EU introduced in 2023? Northern Ireland, as the Minister outlined, already has those new hazard classes applied, so why should not the rest of us have them?

Thirdly, we need to tighten the broad and wide-ranging criteria for diverging from the EU. The HSE talks about “exceptional divergence”, but gives very broad criteria, including economic and industrial considerations. If we are talking about forever chemicals, carcinogenic or harmful biocides, we must ensure environmental and population safety before broad economic or industrial considerations.

We need clarification and transparency to ensure that we do not regress from environmental and public health protections retained in GB law post Brexit. This SI introduces changes that include postponing expiry dates to July 2031 for all biocidal active substance product type combinations. That could mean contaminated products. It could mean the continued free circulation of products in Great Britain that are blocked in the EU due to their potential to cause harm. We in the UK pride ourselves on protecting humans, animals and the environment. We should look to align closer and not diverge further from the highest chemical standards in the world—the EU’s.

I want to ask about the EU-UK reset, which the Minister alluded to. I understand negotiations are ongoing and I am not privy to behind-door conversations, but this realignment is a chance to improve our chemical safety in Great Britain. We should grab the opportunity with both hands. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I understand the need for this delegated legislation, but I press the Minister to ensure that the chemicals industry’s concerns are acknowledged and, more importantly, addressed in terms of the HSE’s remit and accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Ruth Jones]

I would very much welcome that opportunity to talk to the Minister outside this Committee. In terms of the UN alignment, that is fine, but what happens when the UN has countries that have lower and weaker chemical regulations than the EU and the UK? What happens with the alignment then? Do we align down or up?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

No, we are only aligning with the very highest standards worldwide. The question is: what is the framework for that? We are adopting the UN framework, and we think that is the right one. There is still a question about what the EU will do in relation to the UN classification, but I would be very happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend. It is not the case that, as she was concerned about, we might permit some things because it is a good idea on industrial production grounds, even if it is not a good idea in terms of human health, animal health or the environment. We are maintaining in these regulations—and indeed in future regulations in this area we are determined to maintain—the very highest standards of protection for human health and for the environment. There is no weakening there at all.

On my hon. Friend’s point about whether we should be aligning more closely, as I have indicated, it is our view that our chemicals regulatory arrangements should be aligned with EU arrangements in the future. This instrument is a step in that direction. There will no doubt need to be further debate and discussion once the current negotiations are concluded, but it is interesting to me that across the whole spectrum, from those whose primary focus is on maintaining human health and safety and the environment to those who are concerned about how much we can export from the UK and how much we can manufacture here and sell elsewhere, pretty much everybody agrees that we should be very closely aligned with the EU.

There are, as I said earlier, some areas where, given that we have quite constrained testing resources, we do not want to be required to test every product that is tested in Europe, if it is a product that is of no use or interest in the UK. There will therefore be instances in which our arrangements are not absolutely identical to the EU arrangements, but we want to align for very good commercial and also environmental and health reasons.

The regulations that the Committee is considering are a practical and necessary set of amendments. They prevent disruption to critical biocidal products that safeguard public health; they reduce unnecessary burdens on business while keeping protections in place; they enable the regulator to focus its resources on the hazards that matter to Great Britain; they strengthen the coherence, efficiency and future readiness of the chemicals regulatory system; they maintain the protection to human health, animal health and the environment; and they make the regulatory process more efficient by delivering a proportionate regulatory environment aligned with the country’s needs. I commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.