REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026
House of Lords · Grand Committee · 7 Jul 2026 · 22 speeches · Official Report
Considered in Grand Committee
Moved by
That the Grand Committee do consider the REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026. Relevant document: 57th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2024-26 ( s pecial attention drawn to the instrument)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before this House on 24 March. They will amend UK REACH, which is a central part of the framework governing the safe use of chemicals in Great Britain. EU REACH continues to apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework. UK REACH retains the core approach and key principles of the EU system, including its fundamental aim of ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment. I want to be clear from the outset that nothing in the instrument changes those aims or reduces those protections. The instrument will make two key changes. The first change will extend the deadlines in Article 127P by which registrants, namely manufacturers and importers, must submit information on their chemicals to the Health and Safety Executive, the HSE. At EU exit, transitional measures were introduced to support a smooth and orderly transition to the UK REACH regime, including deadlines to submit complete registration data. Under the current legislation, those deadlines fall on 27 October 2026, 27 October 2028 and 27 October 2030. The most hazardous and highest-tonnage substances must be registered first. This SI will extend the deadlines to 27 October 2029, 27 October 2030 and 27 October 2031 respectively. I recognise that these deadlines have been extended previously. Indeed, this is the third extension since UK REACH replaced EU REACH in January 2021. I therefore want to address directly why a further extension is necessary. In...
The territorial extent of this instrument is the United Kingdom. The instrument applies to the UK REACH regime in Great Britain, as EU REACH continues to apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments formally considered this instrument without comment, but I will turn to the concerns that were raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which drew this instrument to the special attention of the House. First, this extension does not create a regulatory gap. Existing duties under UK REACH and wider chemicals legislation remain in force. Businesses must continue to classify and label chemicals correctly, provide safety data sheets and ensure safe use throughout the supply chain. The HSE also retains its powers to act where risks are identified, including through evaluation, restriction and requests for further information. Secondly, this instrument does not reduce protections. UK REACH will continue to ensure a high level of protection for human health and the environment. We have published a statement confirming that the amendments remain consistent with Article 1.
The Government have published our intended approach to the ATRm timetable. We will consult on technical details later this year and we expect legislation and guidance next year. This should give industry time to prepare before the first extended deadline in October 2029.
Finally, on EU alignment, we are committed to closer alignment with trusted jurisdictions, especially the EU, using their regulatory decisions as a starting point. Divergence would occur only where there are compelling reasons and we intend to consult publicly on those circumstances.
These regulations ensure that UK REACH can continue to operate effectively while we complete the transition to a more proportionate registration model. They ensure high standards of protection for human health and the environment while giving industry the time and certainty that it needs to comply in a way that avoids unnecessary costs and disruption. For those reasons, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I am most grateful to the Minister for presenting these regulations before the Committee. I probably ought to say that I was a Member of the European Parliament when the original REACH agreement and regulations came forward. I am also grateful to the Minister for commenting on the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I have just two questions on that. First, the Minister said right at the end that legislation and guidance will be published next year. I do not sit on that committee but, from the way I read that report, the final date of the extended timetable and when it will reach its long-term end remain a concern. The committee asked us to raise-I think it is a very good point-the intended timetable for the full implementation of UK REACH. What is the endgame? I am grateful to the Chemical Industries Association-CIA-for the briefing that it shared with me in preparation for today. It is fair to place on the record that the chemical sector not only is critical for the functioning of the UK economy but underpins manufacturing, clean technologies and many of the Government’s priority growth sectors. At the time that Britain left the European Union, I personally was led to believe and we were promised-I realise that there was a different, Conservative Government-that there would be friction-free trade with the European Union. However, we have ended up with duplicate registers, therefore duplicate costs, and a lot of increased costs to the sector in...
My Lords, I hope I will not detain the Committee for long, but this is a very important and intricate area. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has great experience of this from her time at the European Parliament. I remember visiting the European Parliament-it must have been almost 20 years ago-when REACH was being debated. It was, and I believe it remains, the largest piece of legislation ever passed by the European Parliament. I did not have the benefit of the CIA briefing, but I will take the opportunity of paying tribute to the work of the CIA, because it does a great deal in this area and I have placed that on record. I have worked with it in the past, as with other organisations such as the Society of Chemical Industry and scientific bodies such as the Royal Society of Chemistry, which 20 years ago were taking a very close interest in this subject. I am glad that my noble friend the Minister referred to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, because it has quite rightly raised some concerns. My points are very brief. First, I understand the case for extending the current deadlines in the way that my noble friend has set out. I also understand the case for aligning the UK REACH submission deadlines with the development and implementation of the alternative transitional registration model. But I hope my noble friend will understand if I say that we hope that we will not be here in a few years with my noble friend making the case for further extensions to the...
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this draft instrument and explaining its purpose. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we recognise the case for this measure and will support it. We do so because it is a pragmatic step to avoid a cliff edge-not because we believe the current system is in any sense satisfactory. As described by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the chemicals sector could be described as the invisible backbone of our economy. It underpins everything from advanced manufacturing to pharmaceuticals, construction and consumer goods. It matters that we get the regulatory framework right, not just for the industry but for the people who work in it, the consumers and, importantly, the environment. The alternative transitional registration model, which the Minister described to us, is intended to reduce unnecessary duplication. According to the Government’s assessment, it could cut one-off industry costs by around 70%, or roughly-I think this is the estimate that the noble Baroness is looking for-around £2 billion. To stop that additional payment is extremely welcome, but businesses need certainty, not a rolling series of extensions that leave everyone guessing what comes next. We very much appreciate that this Government are having to square the circle of a previous negotiation and a Brexit that we view as the gift that keeps on taking from the British people and from every industry in Great Britain. Nevertheless, I have four questions for the Minister....
Thirdly, what is the Minister’s assessment of the interim risk while this new regime is still being designed? The Government say that the COSHH-the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations-and the safety data sheets provide adequate protection. But, as she will be aware, many NGOs remain concerned that delaying full hazard data submission leaves workers, consumers and the environment exposed for longer than is desirable. On what evidence does the Minister conclude that the existing safeguards are sufficient during this extended transition period? Are there specific substances or sectors where the risk is judged to be higher and, if so, what additional measures are being put in place? Will the Government commit to reviewing the health and environmental impact of these delays, once the ATRm is fully operational?
Finally, what is being done to ensure that SMEs are not left behind? The impact assessment accepts that smaller businesses may benefit from these changes less proportionately, but SMEs make up the overwhelming majority of firms, particularly in this sector. If we are serious about supporting growth, we need a model that works for them in practice, not just in theory. Can we have some understanding of what guidance, support or transitional arrangements will be available to help those smaller firms navigate the new system? Will there also be additional resources for the HSE and the Environment Agency to ensure that compliance is proportionate and that SMEs are not unfairly penalised by default?
The Liberal Democrats support these regulations as a necessary and pragmatic step, but we also expect and hope that the Government will find ways to move faster to deliver a final, stable model that protects both our environment and our economy. As I am sure they understand, the current approach cannot continue indefinitely. Therefore, we need clarity, speed and a system that commands the confidence of industry, regulators and the public.
My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome this measure to extend the transition period for businesses to submit information to the Health and Safety Executive under the UK REACH regulations. I thank the Minister for bringing these regulations to the Committee. The UK’s registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals replicated the EU REACH regime. To manage the transition, requirements to submit further information were phased, and the deadlines were extended twice by our previous Government, in 2020 and in 2023. This statutory instrument extends the deadlines to submit information to the HSE for registrants, downstream users and distributors that continue to import chemicals from the EU. This will allow the compliance costs of registered businesses in the chemicals sector to be spread more evenly. It is worth noting that 98% of registered businesses in the chemicals sector are small, medium or micro businesses. In addition, the SI will provide more time for the Government to introduce a new transitional registration model to cover registrations of substances that were already on the EU market at the time of Brexit. This is expected to reduce costs for industry significantly, so can the Minister update the Committee on when this new model will be introduced? The Minister might be pleased to hear that I do not have many additional questions, given that so many have been asked. But I highlight the Government’s response to concerns submitted to the...
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their important contributions and for the careful consideration given to the regulations. I will go through some of the questions and issues raised. Noble Lords asked about the deadline extension. Clearly, this is now the third time. The deadlines were first altered when we were still preparing for EU exit, to allow businesses enough time to compile and submit the full required information, given the complexity and scale of the task. As I mentioned, there was a further extension in 2023 to address transitional challenges, especially the considerable cost to business of acquiring the additional information. This Government wanted to reassess their broader chemicals policy, and it then became clear that we could not implement the ATRm in time for the original deadline. We want to get a robust and effective policy framework for the future, which is why we have extended the deadlines. My noble friend Lord Stansgate in particular asked what guarantee we can give that we will not extend it again. Clearly, we really do not want to do that. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that businesses need certainty, and continually moving the goalposts and changing dates does not help, so we have absolutely no intention of extending the deadlines further. We published our policy conclusions on the ATRm back in March, and that set a firm path forward for government. On the questions around timetables, we are looking to consult...
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I am very grateful, but the problem is that the data already exists. The point is that they are having to register the same data twice, so there is obviously a conflict of views here.
That was the problem with leaving EU REACH; that was going to have to take place when we set up our own system in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about the gift of Brexit-it just keeps giving. That is unfortunately one of the outcomes of that decision. But, as I say, we need to understand better the use of chemicals. Part of the reason why we want to explore better relationships with the EU is to help with many of these things. We are obviously not in a position to rejoin EU REACH, but better working relationships will help right across the board. On costs, as I said in opening, they will be reduced by 70% with the ATRm. The estimate for the separate UK registrations is around £2 billion, instead of the previous figure. Intellectual property barriers were also brought up; companies already have legal duties to classify hazards and provide safety information through the supply chain. We assume that they are meeting those duties, so if industry is managing intellectual property issues in those contexts, we would ask why REACH registration would be any different. We also think that registration dossiers should be developed through substance groups, as those groups can draw on different sources of evidence. Clearly we cannot comment on every source, but if industry has legal advice showing that intellectual property is a real barrier to the ATRm then we would absolutely welcome receiving and hearing about that evidence. SMEs were mentioned. The...
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Could the noble Baroness also respond to the point about the possible compromise to intellectual property rights? I will send her the briefing, because it is all there.
If the noble Baroness sends me the briefing, I would be happy to pick it up. Perhaps we can meet to discuss it further.
Motion agreed.