As debate continues around the UK REACH Alternative Transitional Registration Model (ATRm), industry engagement with Government and Parliament is intensifying. The Alliance of Chemical Associations has again taken the sector’s concerns to Westminster, while wider political engagement continues through receptions, ministerial correspondence and conference-season activity.
The central issue is no longer whether the UK chemical sector supports safety. It does. Businesses already work within robust systems to understand hazards, assess risks, classify substances, prepare safety data sheets and communicate safe-use information throughout supply chains. The question is whether ATRm creates any meaningful additional safety benefit, or simply requires information already generated under EU REACH to be submitted again through a separate UK process.
Defra argues that companies need hazard, use and exposure data to manage chemicals safely. Industry agrees, but points out that this information already exists and is used every day. ATRm does not create new science, identify new hazards or improve understanding of risk. Similarly, businesses already have duties under GB CLP and other supply chain legislation to manage and communicate chemical risks. These existing obligations arguably demonstrate that safe chemical management is already being delivered without duplicated registration.
Industry also recognises that Defra’s ATRm proposals may reduce the cost of full EU REACH replication, but reducing the cost of duplication does not answer the more fundamental question of whether duplication is necessary at all. If significant costs remain, Government must explain what additional protection those costs will deliver.
This question has become sharper as the UK Government indicates that UK REACH will increasingly consider decisions made by trusted jurisdictions, particularly the EU, and align with European restrictions and authorisations unless there is a strong reason to diverge. If the UK intends largely to follow EU regulatory outcomes, many businesses struggle to see why a parallel UK registration database is required.
The chemicals sector is not arguing against regulation or safety. It is asking for a proportionate system that avoids unnecessary duplication while maintaining high standards of protection. Until Defra can clearly explain the specific safety, environmental or regulatory benefits created by duplicated UK registrations, industry will continue to ask why substantial resources should be spent recreating information that already exists and is already being used safely.
Read the full article on the BASA website
BASA represents the £1.7 billion UK and Irish adhesives and sealants sector supporting business growth and industry standards.
