Special report: New UK government and the impact on Britain’s chemical regulations

With a new Labour government in power in the UK, PPCJ reports on what this could mean for Britain’s chemical regulations and specifically, the impact it could have on UK REACH 

The election of a new Labour government in the UK comes at a critical time for chemical – and hence paint and coatings – regulation in Great Britain, with public consultation under way on potential changes to how GB (not Northern Ireland) regulates its chemical industry and market [1]. 

When the UK quit the European Union (EU) on January 1, 2021, it left the EU’s comprehensive REACH chemical control system, which was formally replaced by a UK REACH system. It controls mirrored EU REACH, with existing registrations and restrictions grandfathered to the national system, although GB companies lost access to EU databases run by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Under the Windsor Framework agreement, Northern Ireland, which remains within the EU single market for goods, remains under EU REACH, however [2]. UK REACH operates in England, Wales and Scotland under the Health & Safety Executive (HSE). 

With the election of a new Labour government on July 4, which lacks the ideological support for Brexit, even though it will not seek EU membership, new PM Sir Keir Starmer will be bound by manifesto commitments to “work to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with the EU, by tearing down unnecessary barriers to trade” [3]. 

That comes as the paint and coating sector has been invited to participate in public consultation on how UK REACH rules may differ from EU REACH, which straddled the election campaign and ends on July 25 (2024). It is being run by DEFRA (the department for environment, food and rural affairs), with the consultation paper saying (as written by the now departed pro-Brexit Conservative government): “There is now an opportunity for the UK to review these processes to make them smarter, more agile and functional…”   

READ MORE:

PPG completes US$2.7M expansion of powder coatings factory in Sumaré, Brazil

Also, the consultation suggests that “in general, hazard information concerning the intrinsic properties of a substance would not lead to different hazard conclusions in UK REACH compared to EU REACH”, hence “there is no need to completely replicate ECHA’s database of hazard information,” said the paper, saving GB chemical and chemical product companies maybe GB£1.4bn (US$1.8bn) in assessment costs. It also proposes trimming three months off the procedure for imposing restrictions on chemicals (from 27 months today to 24 months). It adds that GB could intensify to go further than EU REACH to further our protections against unnecessary animal testing. 

The consultation will allow the paint and coating industry to say how it wants the new Labour government to handle chemical regulation. Speaking to PPCJ, Tom Bowtell, the British Coatings Federation (BCF) CEO said: “BCF members would welcome moves to reduce friction in trade between the UK and EU, and between GB and NI. This would be true in terms of red tape at the border, which has increased since Brexit, and also working more closely on chemical regulations.” 

Could the UK just re-enter EU REACH, without rejoining the EU customs union and single market for goods? After all, this is the case with Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK customs territory (and is part of UK free trade deals) even though under the Windsor Framework it applies the EU’s customs code. 

One option might be the Swiss approach: while remaining outside the EU, its customs union and ECHA, non-EU Switzerland has adopted what it calls “autonomous adaptation” of its chemical controls with EU rules, without striking an agreement with Brussels. 

A note from its Federal Council said it “has resolved to harmonise Swiss Chemicals legislation with that of the EU” to avoid trade barriers, protect human health and the environment, make changes reflecting technical progress and avoid animal experimentation 

Moreover, by copying and pasting EU rules, Switzerland avoids spending money on chemical safety checks, which would be a heavy burden for its paint and coating sector [4].  

READ MORE:

View from the UK: Essential Coatings

Mr Bowtell said: “While Labour has said they will not rejoin the SM [single market] or CU [customs union], there is still a lot of scope for change. Alignment on REACH as per the ‘Swiss model’ is something we have advocated as a possible solution before, but we would, of course, need to see the details of any new proposal to work out all the pros and cons. As we have said before, the critical thing is that a solution is found swiftly: business needs certainty. If UK chemical regulations and strategy remains in a state of limbo for too much longer, investment in the UK may be reduced or lost, and that is something the new government will definitely not want to see happen.” 

University of Sheffield researchers writing in the academic journal Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM) in May (2024) warned in an article ‘REACHing for divergence?—UK chemical regulation post-Brexit’ about the risks of GB chemical rules moving away from the EU model [5]. 

“If the United Kingdom fails to strengthen UK regulation in line with EU control, any divergence from EU REACH could result in significant cost (in the form of tariff and/or checks) to UK businesses trading with the EU, as they comply with two separate regulatory systems,” said the researchers.  

In principle, they said, UK chemical producers and manufacturers could adopt two different sets of standards, one for the EU market and another for the rest of the world. “However, it may soon be uneconomical for substances to be registered with both UK and EU REACH given the costs associated with registration and compliance,” said the paper. For products widely traded between the UK and the EU, “there is a strong case for regulatory alignment where regulations and commitments are designed to address transboundary and/or shared resources”. 

Didier Leroy, Technical and Regulatory Affairs Director of the European Council of the Paint, Printing Ink and Artists’ Colours (CEPE) for one, certainly hopes that UK chemical regulation does not diverge much from EU REACH: “As an EU association we regret that the future UK REACH might deviate from the EU one as it adds administrative burden and could hamper the trade of those companies operating on both sides of the channel,” he told PPCJ.