The Alliance of Chemical Associations (ACA) has today responded to the recent publication of the Government’s response to the consultation on the UK REACH Alternative Transitional Registration model (ATRm). After almost five years of debate and delays, the response still leaves industry facing additional regulatory burdens, hinders new products being brought onto the GB market and leaves serious questions over data requirements despite the goalposts on regulating chemicals in the UK through bans or use authorisations and restrictions via REACH having shifted to ‘EU alignment by default’.
Whilst the Government will not introduce the additional use and exposure requirements proposed in the consultation, which is welcomed, the requirements to submit some hazard and use and exposure information, and in some cases chemical safety assessments and reports, remain, all via substance groups for data sharing and joint submission. The Government response repeats the “no data, no market” mantra. This ignores the fact that data already exists, hazard and use and exposure data being publicly available on the ECHA website and in substance safety datasheets.
Our position on providing data for the registration of substances already registered under EU REACH is and has always been clear. There is no added benefit to the high level of protection for human health and the environment or logic in what is still expected to be a costly £500 million plus data gathering and administration exercise, given that we (GB) will be aligning with EU bans, authorisations and restrictions, with any divergence only in exceptional cases. This cost will ultimately be borne by UK businesses across the chemicals and wider manufacturing supply chains.
We have yet to hear a clear and concise argument why Government is insisting on building a costly UK chemicals database for potentially up to the ~20,000 substances already registered under EU REACH before the end of the EU Exit Transition Period. As the Government is prepared to accept EU regulatory decisions anyway, it is unclear to what extent any additional information collected through a separate UK registration process would be used for in practice.
What’s more, by insisting on fully duplicating UK and EU REACH registration requirements for new or novel chemical innovations registered in the EU since the end of the EU Exit Transition Period the approach undermines yet again the UK’s attractiveness as a location for innovation, investment and scale-up. One of many challenges clearly outlined in the Government response that remain unaddressed.
There is already a clear approach the UK could adopt: recognise all EU registrations, in line with the overarching UK objective to align with the EU, which the Government has already drawn on in other areas of chemicals’ regulation. Extending this logic to UK REACH registrations would be the most effective way to support innovation, competitiveness and secure supply whilst maintaining the same robust health and environmental protections as the EU. This does not need to be agreed by the EU.
The UK authorities could still maintain visibility of which substances are placed on the GB market and in what quantities by requiring this information through a notification process. This information could additionally be regarded as satisfying the legislation’s “no data, no market” requirement.
This Government announcement is just another example of a missed opportunity by a UK administration that claims it is committed to “growth” and scaling back regulation. The cost of doing business in the UK continues to rise due to energy, employment and raw material costs, and this long-delayed consultation response does nothing to alleviate that burden.
*The Chemical Business Association (CBA) is a member of the ACA.
