---

REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this draft instrument and explaining its purpose. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we recognise the case for this measure and will support it. We do so because it is a pragmatic step to avoid a cliff edge—not because we believe the current system is in any sense satisfactory.

As described by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the chemicals sector could be described as the invisible backbone of our economy. It underpins everything from advanced manufacturing to pharmaceuticals, construction and consumer goods. It matters that we get the regulatory framework right, not just for the industry but for the people who work in it, the consumers and, importantly, the environment. The alternative transitional registration model, which the Minister described to us, is intended to reduce unnecessary duplication. According to the Government’s assessment, it could cut one-off industry costs by around 70%, or roughly—I think this is the estimate that the noble Baroness is looking for—around £2 billion. To stop that additional payment is extremely welcome, but businesses need certainty, not a rolling series of extensions that leave everyone guessing what comes next.

We very much appreciate that this Government are having to square the circle of a previous negotiation and a Brexit that we view as the gift that keeps on taking from the British people and from every industry in Great Britain. Nevertheless, I have four questions for the Minister.

First, can she set out the milestones that will determine whether the ATRm is delivered on time, given that the design and implementation are not, as she described, expected to be completed until summer 2027? The Committee needs some confidence that we are moving towards some kind of stable system, not simply pushing the problem further down the road. Will the Minister also confirm how progress will be monitored and how often updates will be published? What will trigger, in turn, some kind of remedial action if the timetable slips? There is a danger of the perception that the sector continues to run on a series of sticking plasters; I am sure she appreciates that.

Secondly, what assurance can she give that any future divergence from EU REACH will be strictly evidence led and transparent? I read somewhere that

the system is like reading the description on the back of a book without having any of the information inside the book that is necessary to move at pace. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has already raised concerns about the lack of clarity around the circumstances in which the Government would diverge, and the Office for Environmental Protection has highlighted the problem of new EU hazard classes that have not yet been brought into GB law. How will the Government avoid creating an unpredictable system in which decisions appear to be made case by case, without a clear scientific basis? I think this is something that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, was reaching towards. If the default position is alignment with EU REACH unless there are compelling reasons to diverge, we need to know what those reasons are, how they will be tested, and how the public and Parliament will be able to scrutinise them.

4.45 pm

Thirdly, what is the Minister’s assessment of the interim risk while this new regime is still being designed? The Government say that the COSHH—the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations—and the safety data sheets provide adequate protection. But, as she will be aware, many NGOs remain concerned that delaying full hazard data submission leaves workers, consumers and the environment exposed for longer than is desirable. On what evidence does the Minister conclude that the existing safeguards are sufficient during this extended transition period? Are there specific substances or sectors where the risk is judged to be higher and, if so, what additional measures are being put in place? Will the Government commit to reviewing the health and environmental impact of these delays, once the ATRm is fully operational?

Finally, what is being done to ensure that SMEs are not left behind? The impact assessment accepts that smaller businesses may benefit from these changes less proportionately, but SMEs make up the overwhelming majority of firms, particularly in this sector. If we are serious about supporting growth, we need a model that works for them in practice, not just in theory. Can we have some understanding of what guidance, support or transitional arrangements will be available to help those smaller firms navigate the new system? Will there also be additional resources for the HSE and the Environment Agency to ensure that compliance is proportionate and that SMEs are not unfairly penalised by default?

The Liberal Democrats support these regulations as a necessary and pragmatic step, but we also expect and hope that the Government will find ways to move faster to deliver a final, stable model that protects both our environment and our economy. As I am sure they understand, the current approach cannot continue indefinitely. Therefore, we need clarity, speed and a system that commands the confidence of industry, regulators and the public.