Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made
towards introducing (1) a regulation system for chemicals to
replace the European Union’s Registration, Evaluation,
Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals regulations, and (2) a
conformity assessed quality standard to replace the CE
certification mark.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy () (Con)
The preparations that we have made for the possibility of a
no-deal exit mean that we are well placed to be ready with our
own independent regulatory regime for chemicals by 1 January
2021. On that date, the UKCA marking will also be introduced as a
replacement for the EU’s CE marking. Further details on that were
published earlier this month.
(Lab) [V]
The Minister is in great demand today, but I have to tell him
that his proposed framework for the UK REACH is weaker than the
one that it is replacing, yet, if we want frictionless trade, we
must have common standards. The existing system has kept us safe
and secure for many years and has protected our environment.
Surely in the current circumstances, instead of pointless and
risky duplication, our resources should be put into rebuilding
our economy and preserving jobs. This can be helped by simply
seeking associate membership of the scheme and not duplicating
it. That is what the industry wants. Will the Government do it?
(Con)
As I am sure the noble Lord is well aware, we have made it clear
that seeking associate membership of the European Chemicals
Agency would require us to accept the judgment and oversight of
the European Court of Justice, which is not acceptable.
Therefore, we will set up our own regime.
(Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, this is yet another burden of Brexit. Will the Minister
tell the House what the cost will be to the Government and to
businesses? Given the fiasco of test and trace, will he give an
absolute guarantee that the regime will be up and running by 1
January?
(Con)
Yes, I can give the noble Lord that guarantee. We will keep the
transition to UK REACH as simple as possible. We have put in
place measures to minimise the cost to businesses and maintain
access to both the EU and the UK market.
(Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many different EU
product regulation systems currently govern UK trade with the EU
and what progress the Government have made in providing some sort
of replacement for them?
(Con)
I can tell my noble friend that there are a number of distinct EU
regulatory regimes, including bespoke regimes for chemicals,
automotive products, aerospace products, cosmetics and medicines,
as well as the CE marking regime, which covers a range of goods.
Some but not all of these include registration requirements.
Cosmetics and medical devices, as well as chemicals, are examples
of areas that include registration or notification requirements.
I can confirm that all the necessary regulation and systems will
be in place for 1 January 2021.
(Con)
My Lords, I understand that the UK agency replacing REACH will
spend £13 million a year and employ about 40 staff, to replace an
agency with more than 600 staff and a budget of more than €100
million. As the UK’s new database of chemical safety will not
have access to the EU’s chemical safety database, is there a
risk, about which my noble friend might be able to reassure the
House, that we might not be equipped to counter the potential for
unscrupulous manufacturers to dump products on the UK market that
fail to meet the safety standards?
(Con)
We are aware of the possibility, but of course we are working
hard to make sure that does not happen. The registration
requirements in the UK will be as strict as they were previously;
we are seeking to duplicate many aspects of the previous regime.
Of course, we are seeking during the negotiations a data-sharing
agreement with the European Chemicals Agency which will reduce
the costs and burdens of the new scheme.
(LD)
My Lords, the Government have been flexible. They have listened
and proposed lengthening the registration time for chemicals
under British REACH, which I think is welcomed by the industry.
However, the cost of registering chemicals has not been
addressed. That additional red tape will cost British industry at
least £1 billion—that is its estimate. This is money being spent
on re-registering chemicals today that cannot be spent on
creating jobs for tomorrow. Can the Minister undertake to be
similarly flexible when looking at costs and redouble efforts
with his department and other departments to address this tax on
British business?
(Con)
As I said in previous answers, we are endeavouring to be as
flexible as possible to keep the transition as simple as possible
and to reduce the costs. As I said, we are seeking a data-sharing
agreement with the European Chemicals Agency which will make the
registration process relatively straightforward.
(Con)
My Lords, the EU Environment Sub-Committee wrote to my noble
friend before the summer. Can he confirm today whether he shares
my concern at the risk of a lack of oversight of the
decision-making process within UK REACH? Can he further confirm
what significant resources will be made available to the Health
and Safety Executive to give it the tools it needs to manage
effectively a new regulation regime?
(Con)
We have put in place a new UK REACH IT system, closely modelled
on the European system to make the process as simple and as
easily replicable as possible. The HSE has been provided with the
appropriate resources to police the new system.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, when the transition
period ends, health and environmental protection in Northern
Ireland in respect of chemical and pesticide imports will be
considerably better than in the rest of the United Kingdom
because Northern Ireland will still be covered by the existing EU
REACH rules and regulations under the withdrawal agreement?
(Con)
No. We intend the system in the UK to be as safe and as effective
as the EU REACH system.
(LD) [V]
Under the Northern Ireland protocol, the process for Northern
Ireland businesses moving goods to and from the EU under EU REACH
will not change. What does that mean for goods going from Britain
to Northern Ireland? Will Northern Ireland businesses have to
grandfather their EU registrations into UK REACH?
(Con)
Under the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol, Northern
Ireland will remain aligned with all relevant EU rules relating
to the placing on the market of manufactured goods and with the
EU REACH system.
(LD)
My Lords, the UKCA marking will not be applicable in Northern
Ireland, whereas the CE marking will be, as well as the UKNI
marking. Can the Minister afford the House some advice? What
advice would he give to suppliers and traders working in the
United Kingdom and producing in Great Britain if they might see
their goods popping up in a shop in Northern Ireland? Should they
register both with the CE marking and the UKCA marking to ensure
that their goods can be marketed not only in Northern Ireland but
across the European Union?
(Con)
If those traders wanted to sell their goods into the European
Union market, because that was the system they had, they would
have to be CE marked. They would have to comply with similar
standards if they wanted to sell them in the North American
market.
