The CIA gathers industry insights through a quarterly business survey to advocate for our members’ interests with policy makers, regulators and other stakeholders.
Read more
The CIA is proud to announce the launch of the new Sustainable Health Metrics Tool.
Read more
The chemical and pharmaceutical industry is fundamental to modern society. With an immense variety of products, from vital medicines and foods, the construction of buildings, to transport and leisure, the industry truly does have an impact on virtually every aspect of our daily lives.
Read more
Leaving the European Union has meant the operating environment for chemicals regulations in the UK has changed for both UK regulators and business. Both have taken on significant, new responsibilities and continue to make progress towards UK chemicals regulation that brings a more forward-looking approach to managing chemicals[1].
The main issue we see today with UK chemical regulation is the uncertainty and the longer this goes on, the less stable the business environment becomes irrespective of organisational size. With a challenging commercial operating environment and limited available public money, this short blog explores the case for a new UK chemicals agency by focussing on the foundations of a well functioning UK chemicals regulatory regime, and how today’s challenges & ‘frustrations’ can be resolved by addressing these.
Upon leaving the EU, the UK’s chemical regulatory legislation was ‘copied and pasted’ from EU legislation with minor adaptation to reflect UK authorities. A lot has already been achieved despite several ministerial changes. Whilst there are still some ‘frustrations’ in making this work for UK purposes; work is continuing to this day to resolve these, examples being work under the REUL Act and the UK-REACH Alternative Transition Registration model.
Hazardous substances continue to be regulated and are enforced with the UK prioritising for its own needs, and industry being required to consider the life-cycle of a substance and its waste disposal[4]. One example of this is the recent outcome on hexavalent chromium compounds, highlights the UK’s ability to make its own authorisation decisions since leaving the EU. More importantly, it demonstrates the difference in assessment approaches in the EU and UK. The EU did not consider appropriate existing risk management measures and operational conditions set out within other chemicals regulations relating to occupational health, site safety and environmental controls, resulting in overlapping conditions and a disconnect in regulatory approaches. Whereas the UK’s more holistic approach considered existing requirements, ultimately resulting in joined up regulatory decision making, certainty for business and ultimately leading to better health and environment outcomes for the UK.
We should also remember it was not long ago that UK government authorities used to be fully involved in the EU processes including the writing of the well-respected EU-REACH regulation. These UK authorities still exist today, and they retain the same international credibility and reputation as they did before. By creating a new agency, would we run the risk of losing this international reputation since this new body would have no recognition initially. Regulations and policy determined by the ‘administration’ have the most impact on protecting human health and the environment, therefore re-location of their ownership to a new single agency does not infer this can be achieved any better than we have today. When setting UK chemical policy direction, a holistic approach is important and this may come with ‘trade-offs’ – can a single agency deliver this better, could there even be a risk of a single body becoming ‘blinkered’ compared to the existing system that involves input from several government bodies. Creating a new agency would also require legal standing and the parliamentary legislative process to achieve this takes time (typically 2-3 years); surely what we all want to see is prompt delivery of certainty and not further delays.
Can ‘frustrations’ therefore really be perceived as failings of the current UK chemicals regime when there is more still to be put in place?
There needs to be holistic thinking, clarity, certainty and transparency in the UK chemicals regime with incentivisation from government to promote innovation, as well as regulators support for innovative approaches. Businesses would like to see more on these and hope the new government can deliver. When it comes to investment decision making, the chemicals regulatory regime is just one of many aspects at ‘play’ (others include cost of carbon and energy, workforce, R&D intensity, innovation, political stability, competitive funding). Publishing the UK Chemicals Strategy, clarifying a timeline for the UK-REACH reform programme and making use of the Chemicals Annex in the EU-UK Trade Cooperation Agreement to allow information exchange between the UK and EU would all help in providing regulatory certainty, but are not the answer alone to enabling innovation & growth.
Sufficiently skilled resource and coordination within government and business is important in enabling the UK chemicals regulatory regime to work. Whether this is (eco)toxicology or training to interrogate data stored within the regulatory software, all are needed. It is generally recognised there is a chemicals skills gap, particularly with (eco)toxicologists (this is also the case in the EU and within industry). A great initiative from the British Toxicology Society seeks to upskill the existing resource, as well as improving education routes. New Approach Methods (NAMs) to animal testing can also sit within the existing regime structure and further support a well-functioning regulatory regimes in the UK, but again what is needed is upskilling from those carrying out compliance checks of dossiers.
Whether a new agency could enable a more cost effective approach is an open question. The only real comparison we can look to in terms of funding costs is the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), since they are the European body undertaking the work on chemicals (REACH and Biocides) with Member States contributing to this. Considering almost 70% (88.6 million euros) of ECHA’s 2024 total budget (127.9 million euros) comes from the General Budget of the European Union and ECHA’s year-on-year income show that the income from the General Budget of the European Union is increasing each year, funding such a body is likely to be substantial and the feasibility of this is questionable particularly in the current economic climate.
Whilst we conclude “No” on the basis of the skills resource, there remains the question of whether there is a more cost effective means to further improve coordination.
There have been unfounded concerns raised that the UK is falling behind in managing chemicals.’ On the contrary, the HSE’s long standing policy approach and principle in ensuring the most appropriate route has been selected at the earliest stage of the process to avoid delays and uncertainty is well supported. Simply comparing headline numbers does not provide a true reflection of efforts and progress being made by the UK authorities. Publishing the UK Chemicals Strategy, clarifying a timeline for thUK-REACH reform programme and making use of the Chemicals Annex in the EU-UK Trade Cooperation Agreement to allow information exchange between the UK and EU would all help in providing a long term clear plan towards a chemicals regulatory environment to protect, drive innovation & growth, and be (cost-)effective. Beyond regulation, collaboration and good stewardship have not only proved to be valuable tools but a means to identify and fill in missing gaps, paving the way for jointly agreed research projects and mandates. Examples initiated by CIA include an industry-government PFAS Information Exchange Forum and a new multi-stakeholder approach considering product stewardship.
[1] National Audit Office. 2022. ‘Regulating after EU Exit’. Available at: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Regulating-after-EU-Exit.pdf.
[2] ECHA. 2024. ‘Budget 2024’. Available at: https://echa.europa.eu/about-us/the-way-we-work/financial-management-and-budgetary-reporting/2024
[3] House of Commons. 2021. ‘Briefing Paper - End of Brexit Transition: Chemicals Regulation (REACH)’. Available at: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8403/CBP-8403.pdf.
[4] CIA. 2024. ‘UK’s Approach to Managing Chemicals of Concern in REACH: Building on Progress’. Available at: https://www.cia.org.uk/about/policy-areas/chemicals-management.
The Chemical Industries Association highlights the UK’s independent approach to regulating chemicals of concern under UK REACH following its separation from EU REACH.
