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

Motion to Approve

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 February be approved.

My Lords, I will come to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in a moment, but first, let me introduce the regulations. The measures in this instrument form an important part of the Government’s programme to ensure that Great Britain’s post-EU exit chemical supply regime is robust, proportionate and fit for the long term.

The regulations amend three pieces of assimilated EU chemicals legislation, rectifying issues that could not be addressed at the point of EU exit due to the limited powers available under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I am satisfied that these regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. They reflect the Government’s commitment to maintaining high standards of protection for human health and the environment, while ensuring that regulatory systems work efficiently for businesses and support sustainable economic growth.

In combination with the commitment from the Health and Safety Executive—HSE—to remain aligned with EU regulatory decisions other than in exceptional circumstances, the regulations create a framework by which EU chemical hazard classifications can be adopted more quickly in Great Britain. This supports the objective shared across chemical stakeholder groups to remain as aligned as possible with the EU to facilitate trade and to ensure that we maintain the high standards of protection we inherited from our closest trading partners.

The measures strike an important balance. They will introduce more certainty, flexibility and proportionality for suppliers of chemicals and the regulator while upholding a system that protects our natural environment from the risk of chemical pollution; protect those who use and work with hazardous chemical substances; and ensure that society can continue to benefit from the use of important biocides, such as those used to provide clean drinking water across Great Britain.

The HSE’s chemical supply framework is currently overseen through three major regimes. First, the Great Britain biocidal products regulation, or GB BPR, controls the placing on the market and use of biocidal products such as disinfectants, insecticides and rodenticides. Secondly, the Great Britain classification, labelling and packaging regulation, or GB CLP, provides a framework for the identification and communication of chemical hazards and adopts the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals. Finally, the Great Britain prior informed consent regulation, or GB PIC, governs the export and import of certain hazardous chemicals and implements the UK’s obligations under the Rotterdam convention.

These regulations were carried over from EU law and became assimilated law under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. The Act now enables us to make sensible amendments to ensure that these regimes operate effectively in a GB-only context while achieving the same objectives I previously set out. These regulations apply to England, Wales and Scotland, whose Ministers earlier this year consented to the making of the regulations. EU chemicals legislation continues to apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework.

Although the chemical supply framework inherited from the EU provided a high level of protection, it brought with it several structural and operational challenges when applied within a single-country system. Without these regulations, we would face a series of challenges. First, up to 173 active substances used in essential biocidal products would imminently lose approval, risking their removal from the GB market. This would have significant consequences, such as shortages of key disinfectants, rodenticides and other biocides that are vital for public health and the functioning of critical infrastructure. Secondly, businesses would continue to face unnecessary administrative burdens. Thirdly, the HSE’s ability to prioritise more quickly and flexibly those chemical hazard assessments relevant to the GB market would remain constrained, as it is currently obliged automatically to consider classification proposals from the EU risk assessment committee even when they are irrelevant to Great Britain. Finally, exporters of hazardous chemicals would continue to navigate redundant or inconsistent processes, such as needing to obtain a special reference identification number that even customs authorities do not use. Left unaddressed, these issues would risk market disruption, regulatory inefficiency and increased cost to business without any corresponding benefit to health or environmental protection.

Let me unpack the measures. For the biocidal products regulation, this instrument will extend the expiry date for up to 173 approved active substances to 31 July 2031, provided that renewal applications are submitted. This will prevent them lapsing through no fault of the applicants and avoid severe market disruption. It will reform emergency provisions so that essential biocidal products such as drinking water disinfectants may remain available until an authorisation decision is made where the need for use is long term, and it will clarify and extend data protection rules to ensure that businesses investing in scientific data can recover costs consistently across all relevant approval routes. On 9 March this year, the Government announced that the biocides regime would be in scope of a new UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement as part of the reset negotiations. Although we cannot speculate on the outcome of negotiations, the direction of travel is that the UK plans to follow a model of dynamic alignment with the EU for biocides. This will also supersede previous proposals for the reform of the biocides regime.

For the classification, labelling and packaging regulation, this instrument will introduce a streamlined procedure for seeking the consent of devolved Governments to update the mandatory classification and labelling, or MCL, list through removal of duplicative actions. It will also remove the obligation automatically to consider initial EU hazard classification proposals, enabling the HSE to prioritise what matters for Great Britain and replacing it with the bespoke GB MCL work plan, transparently setting out the HSE’s classification priorities over a three-year period. It will also create a faster evaluation pathway for adoption of classification proposals produced by the EU other than in exceptional circumstances. It will relocate technical notes to the HSE’s website so that updates to guidance no longer require legislation, meaning that technical guidance can be more readily updated and accessible, and revoke unnecessary notification requirements, eliminating the need for businesses to submit data which are redundant for regulatory oversight and saving suppliers time and cost.

Together, these changes will simplify regulatory processes while maintaining high standards of protection. They will not change the existing legal requirement for the HSE to evaluate chemicals for mandatory classification on the basis of being carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction. The HSE can already make a case-by-case assessment for other types of hazard, such as those covered by the new EU hazard classes, for possible inclusion on the GB MCL list.

For the export and import of hazardous chemicals regulation, this instrument will remove the redundant special reference identification number requirement for small quantities of chemicals exported for use in research, analysis or emergency situations. It will harmonise conditions for granting waivers where importing countries fail to respond to consent requests, removing barriers to legitimate trade. It will make the HSE the designated national authority responsible for reviewing and updating the GB PIC list, reducing administrative delays and ensuring faster implementation of international obligations. It will also align GB PIC updates more closely with decisions under the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions, giving greater clarity to exporters about prohibited substances. These improvements will streamline processes while maintaining the UK’s strong commitment to our international obligations.

EU chemicals regulations continue to apply in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Windsor Framework. These measures will introduce a more efficient regulatory process and enable more timely decision-making to facilitate faster alignment with decisions made in the EU. The Government are confident that these changes will not have a significant impact on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland within the UK internal market. The potential impact of GB decision-making on the supply of chemicals to Northern Ireland will continue to be a key consideration for the HSE and will be evidenced in its recommendations for ministerial decision. As part of the normal-track evaluation, the HSE will also consider the impact of GB decision-making on the supply of chemicals to Northern Ireland in its agency opinion.

Finally, I will address the fatal amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. There would be serious consequences were the House to decline to approve this instrument, but I hope I can dispel the concerns set out in her amendment.

First, the amendment says that these regulations mean that hazard classifications in GB will be adopted selectively from foreign jurisdictions, with limited accountability for the HSE as our regulator. This is not the case. I suspect this concern relates to provisions which permit hazard classifications made in a foreign jurisdiction to be adopted more quickly in GB, provided that that jurisdiction meets the defined criteria. Only the EU is currently known to meet those criteria, which effectively limits the use of the fast-track procedure to EU classification proposals. However, for the purposes of future-proofing, it must be right that our legislation is drafted in a way that recognises that every jurisdiction has the opportunity to match those high standards. I believe that the World Trade Organization and other adoptees of the UN GHS, including countries with which the UK has existing trade agreements, would agree. Nevertheless, the Government will consult before determining whether a non-EU jurisdiction meets the fast-track criteria before any changes are made.

Secondly, the amendment notes that these regulations do not incorporate the new EU hazard classifications in line with existing commitments on Northern Ireland. That is correct, but it is not an argument for declining to approve the regulations. The UK Government are committed to making further legislation to incorporate new EU hazard classes under the EU withdrawal Act by 2027. We have not been able to include the necessary provisions to deliver this commitment in this legislation because of constraints in the REUL Act, which do not permit an increase in the overall regulatory burden. However, the Government are committed to delivering the legislation to allow for the adoption of the EU hazard classes and other EU-related measures in the forthcoming 2027 legislation, on which the HSE has already begun work. That will complement this SI to create a regulatory system that works for GB and the UK as a whole.

Thirdly, the amendment says that the measures in this SI amount to a regression in environmental and public health protections, notably in extending the approval expiry dates for harmful biocides. Of course, by their nature, biocidal substances can sometimes be a cause for concern, but they also play a crucial role in controlling other organisms which present risks to society. The substances in question have previously been evaluated and their risks are understood. If we fail to extend their approval expiry dates then, between now and 2031, up to 173 substances could become illegal to place on the market in Great Britain, putting our society at risk from the harmful organisations which they control. I stress that this is a temporary measure which will secure access to those biocides while a new arrangement is negotiated with the EU in the context of the SPS agreement.

Finally, the amendment to the Motion suggests that these measures

“make it easier for UK exporters of harmful chemicals to bypass controls”.

The ability for HSE to issue a time-limited waiver from the explicit consent requirements of GB PIC already exists under the current arrangements; only a small number of these waivers are issued each year, and only if certain conditions are met. These measures simply harmonise those conditions so that the same conditions will apply to all chemicals for which a waiver can be granted. This is a valid regulatory approach where importing countries fail to engage with their trading partners and is in line with the requirements of the Rotterdam convention. In issuing a waiver only where official sources confirm a substance is already in use in the importing country, these measures in no way introduce new risks to our trading partners.