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

Approximate read time: 18 minutes

On 27 April 2026, the House of Lords is scheduled to debate the following motion:

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party) to move that this House declines to approve the draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026, 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. Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 55th Report.

1.  What would the regulations do?

1.1 Overview

The draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026 would make a number of changes to three sets of assimilated (formerly retained EU) regulations which concern chemicals in Great Britain (GB):

• the Biocidal Products Regulation (GB BPR)
• the Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation (GB CLP)
• the Prior Informed Consent Regulation (GB PIC)

The government has said that the changes would rectify a number of issues that could not be addressed at EU exit due to the nature of the legal powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.^[1] Specifically, it has said that the regulations would:

• resolve critical issues in the GB biocides regime which could otherwise lead to a large group of biocidal products being removed from the GB market^[2]
• introduce simplification and greater flexibility to prioritise hazard classification evaluations that are the most relevant to the GB market and ensure that other legislative requirements and processes are more relevant to the needs of the GB market
• remove redundant administrative requirements to reduce burdens on business and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as the regulator

Further detail on the changes the regulations would make can be found in the government’s explanatory memorandum.

1.2 Territorial extent and application

The regulations would extend and apply to England, Wales and Scotland. Scottish and Welsh ministers have granted their consent.^[3] However, the regulations would not apply to Northern Ireland as EU legislation continues to apply under annex 2 of the Windsor Framework.^[4]

1.3 Biocidal products

GB biocidal legislation is based on an EU regulation (No 528/2012) and is commonly known as the Great Britain Biocidal Products Regulation (GB BPR).^[5] The legislation regulates the placing on the market and the use of biocidal products, a diverse range of products which control harmful organisms, such as insecticides, rodenticides and disinfectants. GB BPR also provides for the assessment of active substances that are used in biocidal products that have the controlling effect on the harmful organism.

Active substances are subject to a scientific risk assessment to ensure that their risk profile is accepted and that they have the intended biocidal effect against the target organism.^[6] Where an active substance meets the regulatory criteria for use in a particular product type it is granted approval which is usually given for 10 years. At the end of this period, a renewal assessment is required to determine whether the criteria are still met, based on current scientific knowledge. Where the criteria are met, the secretary of state takes a renewal decision to extend the expiry date. The HSE’s priority is to assess first-time approvals. Under the current rules, the secretary of state can postpone expiry dates of active substance approvals where it appears their evaluation will not be completed before the expiry date. These powers have been used three times since GB BPR took effect at the end of 2020.

The government has said that currently the approvals of up to 173 active substances would lapse, through no fault of the applicants, if action is not taken because they would reach their expiry dates.^[7] The proposed regulations would prevent this large group of biocidal products being removed from the GB market by extending the expiry date of any active substance approval which currently falls between 23 June 2026 and 30 July 2031 inclusive. The government has argued that there are societal benefits of maintaining these active substances on the market including preventing the spread of disease.

The draft regulations would also update provisions which allow essential biocidal products to remain on the market where they are necessary to deal with a danger to public health, animal health or the environment which cannot be contained by other means.^[8] They would allow for the product to be kept on the GB market either for up to 550 days (as at present) or until the biocidal product is authorised in cases where the continued need to use it is unlikely to be temporary. In addition, the regulations would amend data protection rules to clarify how the EU-derived legislation is intended to be applied as the government has said the original legislation was “ambiguous”.

1.4 Classification, labelling and packaging

As with biocidal products, Great Britain’s Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation (GB CLP) is based on EU regulation (No 1272/2008).^[9] It aims to ensure the effective identification and communication of chemical hazards and the safe and secure packaging of chemicals to protect human health and the environment. The regulations also provide the legislative means through which the UK continues to adopt and give legal effect to the UN’s globally harmonised system of classification and labelling of chemicals, an internationally agreed voluntary system of hazard identification and communication.

The government has said that the EU’s regulation in this area was designed with the needs of the EU and the combined resources of member states in mind.^[10] It has therefore argued that GB CLP contains some procedures and requirements which HSE has found to be time consuming and costly to comply with. In addition, the government has highlighted that greater oversight of chemical substances supplied in GB is also provided under other regulations governing the supply of chemicals, including assimilated regulations. It argued that the benefits of the existing notification requirements are therefore outweighed by the burden they place on businesses.

The government has said that the draft regulations would introduce simplification and greater flexibility to prioritise hazard classification evaluations that are the most relevant to the GB market and ensure that other legislative requirements and processes are more relevant to the needs of the GB market.^[11]

1.5 Prior informed consent

Similarly, Great Britain’s Prior Informed Consent Regulation (GB PIC) is based on an EU regulation (No 649/2012).^[12] It concerns the export and import of hazardous chemicals and requires exporters of certain hazardous chemicals from GB that are specified in the GB PIC list to notify the importing country. For some chemicals, the consent of the importing country is required before export can proceed.

The government has said that the draft regulations would remove redundant administrative requirements to reduce the burden on business and the HSE as the regulator.^[13] For example, it explained that although GB PIC does not apply to small quantities of chemicals being exported for research or analysis that are unlikely to affect human health or the environment, businesses exporting these chemicals are required to obtain a special reference identification number (SRIN) from the HSE. A SRIN is also needed when chemicals are exported in relation to an emergency situation. The draft regulations would revoke the SRIN procedure, with the government arguing that this would remove “a redundant regulatory requirement”.

GB PIC also implements the UK’s obligations as a party to the Rotterdam Convention on the prior informed consent procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade. It is administered by the HSE as the designated national authority. The government has said that the changes contained in the draft regulations are to provisions of GB PIC that do not directly implement convention requirements.^[14]

2. What is the background to the draft regulations?

Between June and August 2025, the HSE ran a public consultation on a set of proposed changes to the three areas, biocides classification, labelling and packaging and the export and import of hazardous chemicals (prior informed consent).^[15] The government said that the consultation included more ambitious proposals for future reform that would have required primary legislation.^[16] However, it reported that the consultation’s findings indicated a preference across all chemicals sector stakeholders to continue to align with EU regulatory decisions, to minimise barriers to trade, protect the UK internal market and ensure GB continued to have “high standards of protection”. The government said that while the draft regulations would make changes to the GB regulatory framework, they would continue to allow for alignment in regulatory decisions where they are consistent with health, environmental and socio-economic priorities in GB.

3.  What parliamentary scrutiny has there been?

3.1 Overview

The government laid the regulations before both Houses on 24 February 2026 under the draft affirmative procedure.^[17] This means that the regulations were laid in draft and require approval in Parliament before becoming law.^[18]

3.2 Parliamentary committees: Concerns raised by the SLSC

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the regulations and did not raise any concerns.^[19] However, the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) noted the regulations of interest stating:

These draft regulations are drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that they are politically or legally important or give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House.^[20]

The committee said that it had received five submissions which mainly raised concerns about the proposed changes to GB CLP but also about the potential impact on Northern Ireland.^[21] In addition, the SLSC recommended further questions which could be posed to the government about the divergence on chemicals classifications, efficiency savings and further legislation.

Proposed changes to GB CLP

The committee said that four of the five submissions it had received were from environmental organisations that had principally raised concerns about the proposed changes to GB CLP.^[22] These included that decoupling GB CLP from EU chemical classification assessments and removing statutory time limits on evaluating classification proposals risked “introducing delays and creating divergence with the EU”. The SLSC therefore recommended that:

The House may wish to seek further assurances that the proposed changes will not lead to divergence contrary to the HSE’s stated policy intention and ask how this will be reported in certain cases. The House may also wish to seek further assurances in relation to the exceptional circumstances in which divergence from the EU may be considered necessary, particularly where that is on the grounds of broader economic or industrial policy considerations.^[23]

The committee also said that concerns had been raised about a lack of evidence to support the HSE’s claims that the changes proposed would reduce regulatory burdens and increase efficiency.^[24] It recommended that the House may therefore wish to seek further information from the minister.

Northern Ireland

The SLSC received a submission from Jim Allister (TUV MP for North Antrim) which raised concerns about the regulations not applying to Northern Ireland and the potential for this to create divergence between GB and NI.^[25] Responding to these concerns, the HSE disagreed, arguing that the regulations would seek to minimise divergence with the EU unless there are exceptional circumstances by which GB would wish to take a different decision. It also said that changes to the hazard evaluation procedures of the GB CLP may “reduce divergence by delay by reducing the time taken to reflect instances of GB-NI alignment on legally binding mandatory classifications and labelling requirements”. In addition, it argued that other changes would “positively impact” NI suppliers through the removal of “disproportionately burdensome” notification requirements which apply to NI-based businesses directly supplying chemical substances to the GB market as Northern Ireland qualifying goods.

Also focusing on this area, the committee noted that recent changes made to the EU CLP, namely the introduction of new hazard classes, were the subject of a request from the NI Assembly to trigger the ‘Stormont brake’.^[26] Under the Windsor Framework, this mechanism allows members of the NI Assembly to formally object to the automatic application of an updated EU law in NI. The UK government rejected the request to trigger the brake arguing that it did not believe all of the conditions for it had been met.^[27] However, the government committed to consulting on incorporating the recent changes to hazard classes into GB CLP.

The HSE’s public consultation (detailed in section 2 of this briefing) included proposals to incorporate changes to EU CLP into GB CLP.^[28] However, in submissions to the SLSC, stakeholders raised concerns that these changes have not been included in the draft regulations.^[29] On this, the HSE said that:

HSE’s intention is to amend GB CLP to safeguard the UK internal market as it acknowledges the importance of applying a consistent regime across the UK. HSE will be undertaking work in 2026 and 2027 to consider the replication of new EU CLP measures with the aim of making GB CLP amending legislation at least six months prior to new EU CLP labelling changes taking effect in Northern Ireland and the EU (in January 2028). To enact these changes to GB CLP, HSE will seek to use powers linked to the Windsor Framework provisions under the EU Withdrawal Act to make secondary legislation.^[30]

The SLSC noted that while labelling requirements for the new hazard classes do not take effect in the EU and NI until 2028, the new hazard classes themselves have already been adopted in the EU.^[31] The committee said it had asked HSE how it would consider substances classified in the EU using the new hazard classes while it has not adopted these for GB. HSE said it would:

[…] also expect to include substances which meet the criteria for other hazard classes not specifically mentioned in Article 36 of GB CLP on a case-by-case basis where justification for the need for such action is provided to HSE.^[32]

Divergence on chemicals classifications

The SLSC said that submissions from environmental organisations had raised concerns about the proposed changes causing divergence from the EU. For example, it said that the removal of the requirement to consider the European Chemicals Agency’s Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) assessments was at odds with HSE’s stated policy intention to align with standards in the EU.^[33] Concerns were also raised about the timelines for producing the workplan which would instead determine which proposals for mandatory classification would be evaluated.

In addition, environmental organisations argued that the removal of certain statutory timeframes under the proposed fast-rack route for considering mandatory classification proposals could delay HSE evaluations, again leading to short-term divergence from the EU.^[34] In particular, they noted the current six-month time limit to produce a technical report which would be removed under the new fast-track procedure. The SLSC received evidence that the HSE has found the current six-month timeframe challenging to comply with. The committee therefore recommended that:

The House may wish to ask the minister how confident they are that the time savings introduced by the fast-track route will not be eliminated by the time taken to produce technical reports. The House may also wish to seek assurance from the minister that these changes will not result in the UK falling behind in evaluating EU proposals for mandatory chemical classifications.^[35]

Questions were also asked about the HSE’s policy intention to align with the EU apart from in exceptional circumstances.^[36] Environmental organisations raised questions about the circumstances in which the HSE would consider it appropriate to diverge from the EU. The SLSC said that the information given by the HSE could be interpreted to offer a wide scope to diverge from the EU on mandatory chemical classifications. Citing opposition to divergence from the chemicals industry and major UK users, the SLSC stated that “the House may therefore wish to seek assurances from the minister regarding the use of this criterion”.^[37]

Focusing on how divergence would be monitored and reported, the SLSC said that the HSE had told it that the technical reports on chemical evaluations would begin with a statement as to whether its conclusions align with the EU’s classification proposals.^[38] The committee noted that technical reports would only be produced for mandatory chemical classification proposals included within the workplan and therefore recommended that:

The House may therefore wish to ask the minister how any divergence as a result of proposals not being included within the workplan will be reported.^[39]

Efficiency savings

The SLSC highlighted the claim that the changes proposed in the regulations would reduce burdens on the HSE and enable it to regulate more effectively.^[40] It said submissions from environmental organisations had raised concerns about a lack of evidence that the proposed changes would reduce costs and increase efficiency. The SLSC recommended that “the House may wish to press the minister for more detail on the level of resource savings that these changes are expected to generate”.

Further legislation

In the public consultation on the proposed changes contained within the draft regulations, the government also set out proposals for broader reforms which would require primary legislation to deliver.^[41] The HSE told the SLSC that this legislation would be taken forward when “parliamentary time allows” stating that the changes were “less urgent” than those proposed within the draft regulations.

However, the SLSC noted that in the government’s explanatory memorandum to the draft regulations it said that powers in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 are the only ones currently available to amend the three assimilated chemicals regimes using secondary legislation.^[42] The committee highlighted that powers in the 2023 act are due to expire in June 2026. It said that as the HSE could not provide it with a timeframe for bringing forward primary legislation containing further powers, it had asked whether any risks would arise from the lack of powers in the interim. Responding, the HSE said that it did not pose “an immediate operational risk”. It also argued that the current powers are “tightly defined” and more general powers are required. The SLSC said that:

Whilst it is reassuring that the HSE believes there is no immediate operational risk, we encourage the department to address this issue as soon as possible. The House may wish to press the minister on the expected timeline for introducing primary legislation.^[43]

Further evidence to the SLSC

In March 2026, the SLSC published further evidence it had received from Fidra, an environmental charity.^[44] Summarising its key concerns with the draft regulations, Fidra said:

The draft statutory instrument increases ambiguity on which states and territories the HSE considers in forming its recommendations on chemicals, it increases complexity by adding extra regulatory stages and it removes statutory time limits, resulting in inefficiencies and delays to critical decisions on chemicals.^[45]

The charity also said that it had particular concerns about changes to GB CLP as it impacts other regulations and areas of policy including workers’ health, product safety regulations, health and environmental protections and trade both within the internal market and with the EU.^[46] Overall, Fidra argued 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”.

3.3  Fatal motion

Baroness Bennett tabled her fatal motion to stop the regulations from becoming law on 27 March 2026.^[47] It will be debated by the House of Lords on 27 April 2026. It is rare for the House of Lords to agree fatal motions on delegated legislation; there have not been any successful fatal motions rejecting an affirmative instrument since 2012.^[48]

---

Image by James Baltz on Unsplash