Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 February be approved.
Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
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.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
To leave out all the words after “that” and insert “this House declines to approve the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 February, as they grant the Health and Safety Executive powers to selectively adopt hazard classifications from foreign jurisdictions with limited accountability; fail to incorporate new European Union hazard classifications in line with government commitments on Northern Ireland; regress from environmental and public health protections retained in law post Brexit, thus extending the approval of harmful biocides; and make it easier for UK exporters of harmful chemicals to bypass controls.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very clear introduction; I think at least one piece of new information was presented to us. As the Minister said, this is a fatal amendment because I continue to have very grave concerns about this SI.
I declare my interests to show noble Lords where I am coming from. My Consumer Products (Control of Biocides) Bill, on which a large number of noble Lords contributed positively at Second Reading, will lapse at the end of this Session, but I remain committed to its principles in the interest of protecting our own microbiomes, our existence as halobionts and those of other creatures, the health of the environment and the prevention of even more out of control antimicrobial resistance. Associated to that, I declare my position on the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Antimicrobial Resistance and the support I receive from the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, as declared on the register.
I note that this may be the last such debate conducted before the new trial of restrictive rules on the time length of SI debates comes into force, so I hope we can enjoy the chance to debate fully what our own Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee described as being “politically or legally important” and giving rise to
“issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House”.
I was asked by a fellow Member what place this debate has in the midst of multiple bouts of ping-pong; I suggested that maybe it was a gymnasium wall on which a thin coat of paint is being hastily splashed, which cannot mask the uneven and failing surface underneath, while 1970s ceiling panels hang above it—the type to make a builder suck her teeth and worry about asbestos. For, as our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlights, and as the Minister herself mentioned, these draft regulations reflect the fact that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 powers expire in June this year, and they are the only ones available to cover the three assimilated chemical regimes using secondary legislation. The HSE has indicated that it considers that more general powers are required. I am interested that the Minister said she expects new legislation in 2027; I would like a further confirmation of that, because it is new information as far as I am aware.
All this is in the face of fast-changing knowledge of the risk we face from the chemical cocktail to which our bodies and the environment are being subjected. For context, I note the scathing report last week which had a call for urgent restrictions on the use of PFAS in consumer goods, including school uniforms, cookware and food packaging, from the Commons Environmental Audit Committee. I hope the Minister will be having a chat with her education colleague about that issue. At all main stages of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we heard support from around your Lordships’ House for a ban on PFAS in school uniforms. Given the action your Lordships’ House has just taken in ping-pong, the Government have a last-minute chance to take clear and decisive action on a cause of great health concern to many parents whose children are being forced to wear, by official rules, uniforms impregnated with these chemicals.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is making some very serious points. However, in respect of the responsibilities of the HSE, surely she recognises that it is not just restricted to workplace activities? Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act explicitly mandates the HSE to take account of any harm produced by workplace activities to the public.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising what is essentially my next point. Yes, the HSE has these responsibilities included, but its whole raison d’être is workplace safety. There have been many concerns that it does not have the regulatory or conceptual framework to truly consider environmental safety either for humans exposed through consumption, for example, or for the natural world.
This Government have added a growth duty for the HSE. Janet Newsham, a trustee of the Workers Policy Project, has noted how this compromises the independence of the HSE. If it has a duty to economic growth—that great God—it has got to balance that against health and environmental risks. Will the Government reconsider the growth duty, given that it is clearly hampering the HSE’s work?
Returning to the detail of the SI, I note that the environmental charity Fidra concluded that the draft regulations were
“not fit for purpose due to lack of specificity and lack of statutory timelines which could result in inaction or slow progress on critical chemical regulatory controls”.
On other recent concerning official pronouncements, I will start with the CLP elements of the SI. The Minister in the other place supported aligning with the UN’s Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, known as GHS, rather than aligning with the six new hazard classes introduced by the EU.
The Minister in the other place repeated the claim from the HSE that there is a question around what the EU will do if these classes are not adopted globally. That prompted the European Commission to formally put on the record that it had not expressed any such commitment. Can the Minister confirm that the Government understand that the EU’s position on the CLP, as it is so clearly stated, is not to change to the UN model but to keep to its own, reflecting its better understanding of the growing risks?
I turn to the detail of the SI, to which the Minister also referred, and the powers about foreign jurisdictions. I note what she said, that the EU is the only regime that fits within the Government’s classification. I welcome that assurance, but I wonder whether the Minister will consider what might happen if we had in future a different Government who might interpret those regulations in a different way.
I rather suspected we would have some more Northern Ireland people here. I am running out of time, but I raise the issue of what problems this raises for Northern Ireland.
The final element of my concern is around making it easier for UK exporters of some of the most harmful chemicals to bypass controls. These are the products we have decided are too dangerous to use in the UK. Can the Minister assure me that removing the need for a special reference identification number from the HSE is in line with our commitments under the Rotterdam convention on prior informed consent? Is this not just a reflection of an ideological attachment to this idea of cutting red tape, which has done so much damage across so many areas of our safety?
I note that, as campaigners often highlight with UK exports, last year we exported 8,500 tonnes of pesticides that are banned on British farms because of the dangers they pose to human health and nature. Some 98% of these are produced by the Swiss-headquartered, Chinese-owned agrochemical giant, Syngenta, and include huge quantities of diquat, which is reported to have caused symptoms in Brazilian farmers including tremors, temporary paralysis and permanent eye damage.
There has been enough exported of the notorious bee-killing insecticide thiamethoxam, banned here in the UK, to spray an area bigger than England. This is going to countries including Côte d’Ivoire and Morocco. A broader question than this SI is: are the Government planning to act on this clearly morally untenable and environmentally dangerous situation, which is a risk to people around the world? Ultimately, it is about the health of everybody: no one is safe until everyone is safe, and there may well be products coming back to the UK from those countries on which those products have been used.
I have one further specific question that I was asked to put to the Minister, because there is considerable concern about this. We have seen disbanded a regular Defra event, the UK Chemicals Stakeholder Forum, which had offered media, NGOs and other stakeholders some degree of access to chemical updates from the HSE. Are the Government planning to restore or replace that forum so that the public are able to scrutinise our chemical regulations?
I am aware that I have said a lot of very technical stuff and a lot of very large words, but this is stuff to which your Lordships’ House really needs to pay attention. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has a very long report with many expressions of concern in it. I have not yet decided whether to put this to the vote—I am well aware of the situation with fatal amendments—but there is real concern across many different NGOs and people concerned with public health, and it is really important that we have a full debate on these issues. I beg to move.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I do not have sympathy with the amendment, and the Minister is right to set out two main aims for her planned statutory instrument. It is right that we should allow certain products to continue which are necessary for wider health and safety issues while alternatives are found, or while we further research the known risks of these products. It is also right that the United Kingdom can have an independent strong body of health and safety and other chemical regulation which is also a bit more business-friendly and timely than that which the European Union produces.
I note that the Minister tells us that the system she is proposing for England, Wales and Scotland will be a little more flexible, and more helpful to innovation and to the products we currently have than the Northern Ireland system, which will be dynamically aligned with, or entirely dependent upon, the growing volume of regulation coming in Northern Ireland. So I have a lot of sympathy with her high-level aims. It would probably help the House if, when she comes to wind up the debate, we could have a little more information about whether Northern Ireland is going to be badly disadvantaged by losing access to the products that are currently used for important health and safety and chemical industry purposes, in a way that will not apply in England, Wales and Scotland.
That also poses the issue that when the Government get into even more detail in their SPS and other regulatory discussions with the European Union, they should dig in to avoid having to dynamically align with a known system of chemical regulation that the Government are quite rightly saying is less than perfect and which we need to differentiate the English, Welsh and Scottish system from to be more successful. The British chemical industry is in free fall at the moment, mainly because of the high costs of energy and the big retreat from petrochemicals. We have seen massive closures in the last year or so—it is really struggling. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to listen carefully to what it says about regulation.
I, like the Minister—and I am sure every noble Lord present in this place—would regard health and safety as the urgent priority. You do not compromise on safety. But we are talking here about being able to produce, make and sell—and then use—what are often intrinsically dangerous things, for a good purpose. You cannot ban them because they are in and of themselves dangerous, because they are not dangerous when they are used for a good purpose, as with a strong disinfectant killing germs—but, obviously, people must not drink it. We need rules, which the industry imposes, on handling and disposal, because there are obvious risks if people do not handle dangerous chemicals well or if they are not disposed of safely under controlled conditions. That requires a different kind of regulation.
I just hope that when we consider this, we can have a little more information about whether Northern Ireland is being disadvantaged, and whether there will be immediate problems either for its chemical industry or for the users of its chemicals, given that more things will be banned in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether we can have a little more reassurance that we will not sell out to an EU regulatory system that we think is far from perfect, when we could get some greater advantage out of better regulation but rather less of it. It would be good to set this into the broader context, that our chemical industry is in free fall. It is really struggling. We are losing factories and capacity, and it would be very important not to do anything in these regulations which made that more likely to occur.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is worth saying that the chemical industry—under pressure, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, said—is still a very important manufacturing sector in this country. It pays good wages, has high employment and, perhaps more importantly, is particularly centred in the north-east, the north-west and central Scotland, so it adds to regional policy in this country.
It suffers from high energy costs. It has also suffered from regulatory affairs, particularly immediately post Brexit, when the then Government were completely clueless about the cost and timing of setting up UK REACH. The estimates of the industry at the time were that it would cost some £10 billion to change from EU REACH to UK REACH within the timescales that were talked about. Thankfully, some degree of sanity then came along in terms of those dates. I note that the transitional compliance deadlines, which were originally supposed to take place in 2021, will finally take place in 2031, 10 years after originally expected.
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.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. Although we are having this debate in the Chamber rather than in Grand Committee, it is always good to have the opportunity to scrutinise things. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, made an important point. These things should not go through without any consideration. They are too important for that, and the chance to have the conversation is welcome.
The regulations introduce necessary changes to a highly technical set of regulatory regimes, but the changes preserve the high standards of protection we inherited from our time in the EU and ensure we can continue to recognise decisions made by the European Chemicals Agency, which remains highly respected. I will try to go through the points raised. I will not get to them all and I will have to write, for which I apologise. I will start with the list from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, as she tabled the amendment.
First, the noble Baroness asked about adding the EU’s SVHCs to our list. The Government intend to make secondary legislation by June 2027, providing for the incorporation of the six EU hazard classes in GB CLP. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, also asked about that. The work on developing that is already under way, and the HSE is currently engaging with stakeholders to understand the potential impacts of aligning with the EU on CLP measures, including its hazard classes. It has issued a stakeholder impact survey for exactly that purpose.
The work has been progressed separately from the SI, as I explained, due to constraints in the REUL Act that prevent an overall increase in regulatory burdens. The Government have made it clear that reaching a negotiated SPS agreement with the EU is a key priority. Negotiations are ongoing but we are committed to reaching an agreement by the end of this year. Broadly, it is expected that the areas in scope will dynamically align with the relevant EU legislation. I hope that reassures noble Lords on that front.
To be clear, we will continue engaging with the EU and other international partners at the UN GHS to consider the scientific basis for the six EU hazard classes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, knows, discussions at the UN GHS have not yet concluded, so the outcomes of those discussions have not been determined. The UK will take into account the EU’s intended action in response to the outcomes of the UN GHS work when formulating our own position on the conclusions of the UN GHS consideration. I underscore that we intend to make legislation by June 2027 that provides for the incorporation of the six EU hazard classes in GB CLP, and that is being done separately for reasons I have just explained.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman-Scott and Lady Bennett, raised questions about the resourcing of the HSE and its size. The HSE’s funding and its priorities and progress are monitored by the Government. DWP is the sponsor department for the HSE, and a delight it is. It is important work, much of which is at the centre of what we do. To be clear, the fundamental scientific judgments are not changing as part of our changing the regime here. The HSE’s business plan for this year confirms its continued commitment to concentrating on the most serious risks and to targeting industries with the greatest hazards and sectors with the worst risk management record.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, I note that the HSE significantly increased its resources to deal with the extra workload after leaving the EU. For example, on 1 January 2021 there were 262 technical staff in the HSE’s chemicals regulation division, working across the six chemical supply and use regimes. Today that division has approximately 440 staff—so where it is necessary to respond, additional resource is put into those areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the issue of the regulatory approach and the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, pulled it from the opposite direction. The HSE’s regulatory approach is aligned with the requirements of the growth duty, but its job is to achieve the right regulatory balance between supporting safe business practice and protecting workers and the public. Proportionate health and safety regulations facilitate economic growth, but the key is that they have to be proportionate. The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, is quite right. This is not about taking risks or cutting corners on safety; it is about making appropriate, proportionate decisions. There is no point in leaving regulatory requirements in place if they serve no purpose and do nothing to make anybody safer but simply make things more difficult for business.
I should make a correction. Apparently, when I was talking about how biocides actually have a useful role in controlling harmful organisms, I said, “harmful organisations”. If I did, I was not dissing anyone’s organisation, just the organisms, so apologies for that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked about the jurisdiction question. We can already consider a jurisdiction from anywhere—this is about speeding it up—but I reassure the noble Baroness that qualification for the fast-track evaluation process has to be subject to the criteria set out in the SI. The only jurisdiction that meets them now is the EU; no other jurisdiction adopts GHS in the same way as the UK, apart from the EU, and no other jurisdiction apart from the EU has an open and transparent classification system based on public consultation, as we do. Other jurisdictions can submit proposals, but they will be part of the normal-track evaluation process, and any proposals to add jurisdictions which are considered to meet the criteria will be included in the HSE work plan, subject to consultation as part of the work plan, and decisions are taken by Ministers. However, the bottom line is that they have to meet the criteria—that is the safety net.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked about removing the special reference identification number. She mentioned cutting red tape. Cutting red tape can sometimes be good. Special reference identification numbers are not a requirement of the Rotterdam convention. They were introduced for use in an EU IT system to which we no longer have any access, so they serve no useful purpose. Therefore, removing the requirement of the companies to obtain a special reference identification number for small quantities of chemicals being exported solely for research or analysis removes a completely unnecessary burden on businesses and on the HSE as the PIC-designated authority. They simply do not have a function.
The noble Baroness asked about the disbanding of the Defra stakeholder event. Regular stakeholder engagement is really important in this area, as in others, but it can take many forms. I am advised that Defra will continue to engage closely with a range of stakeholders to gather their input, harness their expertise and share Defra’s thinking. It does not plan to organise any further CSF meetings but its engagement remains strong through its monthly chemicals NGO forum and the industry chemicals policy communication forum, as well as through relevant events. With regard to any HSE materials that were discussed in that context, I want to say really clearly that the HSE is happy to engage and consult with stakeholders at any time. If there are concerns about the HSE, I encourage the noble Baroness to get in touch with me and we can take that forward from there.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about the exceptional circumstances. Just to be clear, these reforms do not allow exceptional circumstances to be used to weaken protections. Divergence will occur only in exceptional circumstances and only on scientific and technical grounds, not on economic grounds. Government priorities explicitly emphasise maintaining high standards of health and environmental protection, and leaning into alignment with EU decisions unless scientifically justified otherwise. That could, for example, be the fact that more information may have come to light after an EU opinion had been issued, but it is scientific.
I am assured that the HSE’s commitment to align with EU discussions has been welcomed across all chemical stakeholder groups—although, I acknowledge, possibly not by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood. That reflects a strong commitment across a number of priorities, including reducing trade barriers that arise from divergent standards, which will support trading goods with our biggest trading partner, and protecting the UK internal market by ensuring that different regulatory requirements do not apply in Northern Ireland, significantly reducing the risk of supplies of chemical products no longer supporting the market in Northern Ireland.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, that this process is not about banning other products in Northern Ireland. One of the things that closely aligning where possible does is to protect Northern Ireland’s supply chain by making sure that the company will still be able to supply and will want to supply. The extent of agreement or divergence with EU classification proposals or decisions will be identified and reported in the HSE work plan. I hope that answers the question he asked about that.
I think somebody asked whether extending expiry dates would reduce risk protection. Just to be clear, these are substances that have previously been evaluated under the GB BPR, meaning that the risks are understood and they have already been approved for use. Postponing the expiry dates allows the HSE’s regulatory resources to be focused on higher priority evaluations, including first-time approvals where the risk is less well understood, and a limited number of high hazard renewals. I hope that makes a difference. It will mean that critical biocides remain on the GP market that in themselves would cause issues if they were not available. Nothing in the regulations allows new biocidal products which are not already on the market—rather, the purpose is continuity to ensure that essential products, such as those critical for aviation safety and safe drinking water, are not lost.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, raised the GB CLP notification database. In the absence of that, GB CLP suppliers can use other resources, such as the European Chemicals Agency’s analogous database, which may encourage agreement between EU and GB suppliers on hazard classifications of their chemicals, otherwise known as self-classifications. Duty holders also still have a legal obligation to self-classify. Substances that pose higher risks are already regulated under frameworks such as REACH, the GB BPR and the GB Plant Protection Products Regulations, or other downstream legislation such as the UK cosmetics regulation or the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations. This ensures ongoing oversight of relevant hazards and associated risks.
I may be running out of things I can usefully say. I hope I have answered the things that are critical to today’s vote. I can assure the House that I will look carefully at Hansard and write to noble Lords with questions that I have not been able to answer.
Although I am grateful for the scrutiny, I stand by the case I have set out for these regulations. This instrument is practical, proportionate and urgent. It keeps essential biocides available, safeguarding public health and critical infrastructure, while preserving the ability to respond quickly to emerging risks. It speeds up our regulatory decision-making so that it is more transparent and better targeted to GB needs, enabling us to align more quickly with EU classification decisions and prioritise chemical hazard evaluations of greatest importance to the GB market, and it simplifies export requirements under GB PIC while ensuring that we continue to meet our international obligations. These are measured improvements to ensure that the system works for Great Britain as intended, supports our chemicals industry, protects people and the environment, and allows the HSE to regulate where it delivers the greatest value.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has been reassured and will not push her amendment to decline these regulations. If she does, I urge the House not to vote for it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this quite short but important debate—perhaps shorter than we expected due to the absence of our Northern Ireland colleagues.
I particularly thank the Minister for a comprehensive, careful and clear response. I think there will be significant reassurance in what she said to the campaigners with whom I have been working. For all noble Lords who might be thinking about their dinner, I give advance notice that I am not intending to put this to a vote, having heard the debate.
However, I will say a couple of things. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for a very clear explanation of the importance of this debate and for the important point that relaxing time limits is not a mere detail but potentially a matter of great safety and health concerns.
In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, I have to say first that he spoke with some glee about strong disinfectants killing germs. I would love to have a chat with him about antimicrobial resistance and where that interacts with what he said. I also think he suggested that this is some kind of Brexit freedom. I point to the fact that, on substances of very high concern, zero for us and 44 for the EU is not some kind of freedom—I do not think anyone could reasonably call it that.
I was pleased to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott—indeed, from the Tory Front Bench—about the concerns about HSE capacity. The Minister pointed out that additional resources were being put into chemical regulation. Of course, unless the overall resources increase, that means that resources are being taken away from other places. I note in passing silicosis, which I have done a lot of work on and which is associated with machine worktops, and the issues around that.
I may have misunderstood the Minister’s introduction, which is undoubtedly my fault. I was pleased to hear about the EU’s six classes and that the Government intend to lay a statutory instrument on that by June 2027. I think I misunderstood that, thinking that that was talking about primary legislation in 2027. I therefore ask the Minister to write to me about what the Government’s framework is for primary legislation, because both the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the HSE itself say that primary legislation is absolutely necessary to enable us to keep up to date with the secondary legislation.
I will conclude with one final thought on what kind of chemicals we are talking about here. There is a class of chemicals known as second generation anticoagulant rodenticides. Many Members of your Lordships’ House and of the other place have been asking the Government questions about this, including my honourable friend Ellie Chowns. She was told that the Government were considering monitoring residues of these very dangerous chemicals in red kites, buzzards, sparrowhawks, peregrine falcons, red foxes, otters and hedgehogs. That gives a sense of the way in which we are contaminating our environment, our natural world, with some very dangerous substances. That is something I urge your Lordships’ House to keep a very close eye on. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.