Baroness Grender (LD)

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on these regulations. I thank the Minister for explaining and setting out the statutory instrument with clarity and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling an amendment to ensure that we have a detailed debate here in the Chamber on what is a particularly important issue. My thanks also go to the Wildlife and Countryside Link for its briefings on this issue. These regulations address matters of real significance: the protection of public health, the integrity of our environmental standards and the effectiveness of chemical regulatory systems, on which both businesses and consumers rely. I think we can all agree that it is not a narrow technical adjustment but a set of changes that have wide-ranging implications. No one in this House would dispute the need to keep such frameworks under review. Science evolves, risks change and regulation must be fit for purpose. The Government argue that these measures will resolve practical issues arising from the EU exit, streamline processes and reduce burdens on business. In particular, the extension of expiry dates for a substantial number of biocidal active substances is intended to avoid disruption and ensure continuity. These are legitimate objectives. However, the question is whether the balance between efficiency, scrutiny and scientific rigour has been correctly struck. One concern relates to the increased flexibility given to the Health and Safety Executive, as mentioned by others, alongside the removal of certain statutory timeframes. Time limits are not mere administrative detail; they provide discipline, transparency and accountability. If they are to be relaxed, the Government need to explain how timely and robust scientific decision-making will be maintained. A more fundamental concern is that these regulations appear to fall behind developments in the European Union system. In particular, the failure to incorporate six new hazard classes—covering, for example, endocrine disruptors and persistent, mobile and toxic substances—raises questions about whether this framework represents progress or, in practice, a step backwards in protections. That concern is closely linked to the broader issue of alignment, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Teverson. The European system remains highly relevant for trade, regulatory coherence and the operation of supply chains. Evidence to consultation on this suggested strong support for continued alignment. Where the UK chooses to diverge, that should be done deliberately, transparently and with clear rationale, not by omission or delay. The position of Northern Ireland—I note that colleagues are absent; they have really missed out this evening, and we are all very grateful—adds a further layer of complexity. Because these regulations do not apply under the Windsor Framework, divergence is not theoretical but immediate. For example, it is entirely conceivable that a substance such as bisphenol A could be restricted in products such as toys in Belfast under EU rules, while remaining permissible in Great Britain. That kind of divergence risks confusion for consumers and real challenges for businesses operating throughout the United Kingdom. It is also important to recognise the context in which these changes are being brought forward. The impending June 2026 sunset of powers under the retained EU law framework appears to be a significant driver of the timetable. That, in turn, raises legitimate questions as to whether this is the product of a fully considered, long-term strategy or a more hurried response to an approaching legislative deadline. As we have heard in this debate, chemical regulation is not abstract; it affects the safety of products, the protection of workers and the quality of our environment. From these Benches, we support close and constructive co-operation with the European Union—it will not come as a shock to anyone to hear that—especially where it promotes trade and stability. But we will always insist on robust environmental protections, high scientific standards and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore approach these regulations with caution. I recognise the case for a more workable system but need a bit more convincing that the mechanisms proposed provide sufficient clarity or confidence. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has taken us on quite a useful tour of the statutory instrument. I am not sure she nailed the rationale for a fatal amendment. In that spirit, I would be grateful if the Minister could address three specific questions. First, why have the Government chosen not to incorporate the six new EU hazard classes at this stage, and what timetable exists for considering their adoption? Secondly, what criteria will be used to determine when Great Britain aligns with or diverges from EU classifications, and how will those decisions be transparently reported to Parliament? Thirdly, what assessment has been made of the real-world impact of divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including specific cases such as bisphenol A, as I mentioned earlier, and how do the Government intend to minimise resulting complexity for businesses and consumers? I am conscious of time. I am conscious that we are in ping-pong. I am very happy to be written to on any of those questions. The answers to these questions will be central to determining whether these regulations deliver an effective and credible framework. Without that clarity, there is a risk that increased flexibility may come at the expense of certainty, coherence and, ultimately, public confidence.