CHEMICAL REGULATION DILEMMA FOR NEW UK GOVERNMENT

The election of a new Labour government in the UK comes at a critical time for chemical regulation in Great Britain (GB) – and hence textile-finishing materials. Public consultation is currently underway on potential changes to how GB (not Northern Ireland) regulates its chemical industry and market.  

When the UK left the European Union (EU) on 1 January 2021, it also left the EU’s comprehensive REACH chemical control system, which was formally replaced by a UK REACH system. This mirrored EU REACH, grandfathering existing registrations and restrictions 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, is also regulated under EU REACH. UK REACH operates in England, Wales and Scotland under the Health & Safety Executive (HSE).

With the election of a new Labour government on 4 July [2024], new Prime Minister 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”.

Before the election, the textile finishing sector was invited to participate in a public consultation on how UK REACH rules may differ from EU REACH, which straddled the election campaign and ends on 25 July (2024). It is being run by DEFRA (the department for environment, food and rural affairs), and the consultation paper states (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…”

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 the ECHA’s database of hazard information,” said the paper, saving GB chemical and chemical product companies maybe £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 rules to further British protections against unnecessary animal testing.

The consultation will allow the textile finishing industry to say how it wants the new Labour government to handle chemical regulation. While his organisation will not be making a formal response to the consultation, Andrew Filarowski, technical director for the UK Society of Dyers and Colourists, told WTiN that he offered the following advice regarding UK future chemical controls: “Don’t impose any additional restrictions on top of what Europe does or do anything that’s different.” Indeed, he said: “For the UK to act separately in terms of chemical sector safety for the textile sector, it doesn’t make sense. It means a whole different set of testing regimes for companies that are selling not just within the UK but within Europe as well.”

That would mean additional costs associated with compliance with UK REACH and EU REACH: “It really doesn’t make any sense to me that the two should diverge from each other in any way. I don’t believe that any chemical manufacturer would supply to the UK anything that wasn’t compliant with EU REACH – there’s not a big enough market in the UK to do that.”

Also, 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.

Filarowski said that was legally possible, but politically difficult: “If there was a way of doing the deal where we could buy into EU REACH or have some agreement that they will accept our UK REACH, then that would be the best way forward so you wouldn’t have to have extra checks and extra assessments taking place at whatever point in the supply chain.” For sure, the UK finishing chemical and finishing sector would benefit if the UK was part of EU REACH consultations in new chemical restrictions within Europe, he said.

One option might be the Swiss approach. While remaining outside the EU, its customs union, and ECHA, the non-EU country 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 textile finishing and supplies sector.

Bowtell said: “While Labour has said it 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.”

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.

“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), certainly hopes UK chemical regulation will 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 said. Filarowski warned that UK textile manufacturers may be blocked from importing important new finishing chemicals if the regulatory cost under UK REACH was too high. EU REACH companies can share safety data needed to secure registrations – information denied to UK companies, at present.

“I don’t think anyone would register anything just to put it into the UK because…it’s not commercially viable…if it’s not required for the EU. We’ve got to think about textiles being much wider than fashion. It’s all those industrial fabrics that we sell vast quantities of – whether it’s military, healthcare, or aviation,” with regulatory risk “causing a headache for these high product-makers and exporters. “There are a lot of people out there who are producing technical textiles, [such as] carpet manufacturers for cruise liners. There are large employers with large volumes who would be affected by this.”

*This article has appeared in international textile industry publication WTiN.com

Image credit – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UK_with_EU_flag_elements_interposed.png