Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): I welcome Dr Jennifer Stewart, head of the firearms and explosives branch in the Department of Justice; Alan Lunn from fertiliser policy in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs; and Mark McGregor from the Department for the Economy. Over to you, Mark.

Mr Mark McGregor (Department for the Economy): Good morning, Chair. Thank you for inviting us to provide information on the two proposals that are being considered by the Committee. I will be leading the evidence overall on behalf of DFE. I will provide members with a brief overview, before turning to colleagues from the Department of Justice and DAERA. Following that, we will move to your questions.

The proposals form part of the sixth omnibus package, which aims to simplify EU chemicals legislation by decreasing compliance costs and administrative procedures for businesses across the chemical value chain, while maintaining a high level of protection. I will refer to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and Council amending regulation 2024/2865 as regards dates of application and transitional provisions as "the first proposal". I will refer to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and Council amending various regulations as regards the simplification of certain requirements and procedures for chemical products as "the second proposal".

The first proposal will amend regulation 2024/2865, which was amending regulation 1272/2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, which is more commonly known as CLP. That amending regulation was subject to an inquiry, with your report published on 19 December 2024. The amending regulation that is being amended by this proposal amended the main CLP regulation. The CLP regulation imposes requirements on manufacturers, importers, downstream users and distributors to classify and label their chemicals in accordance with an internationally agreed system — the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) — and to package them safely before placing them on the market.

The first proposal seeks to defer the application date of measures introduced by regulation 2024/2865 by removing the provisions setting time limits for relabelling, advertising, distance sales and measures relating to the labelling of fuel pumps, which are set out in annex Il, from the list of provisions that will apply from 1 July 2026. Secondly, it removes certain provisions on mandatory formatting requirements from annex I from the list of provisions that will apply from 1 January 2027. Deferred application dates will apply to article 30, which is a deadline for updating labels following a change in chemical classification or labelling; to articles 48 and 48a on hazard communication rules for advertisements and distance sales offers; to part 5 of annex II on fuel station labelling requirements; and to article 31(3) and sections 1.2.1.4 and 1.2.1.5 of annex I on mandatory requirements of labels.

The proposed amendments are part of a wider simplification package that was adopted by the European Commission on 8 July 2025 to strengthen the competitiveness and modernisation of the EU chemical sector. It appears unlikely that the application of the proposed replacement act would have any significant impact specific to the everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist. Deferring the application date would provide businesses with more time to adapt to the changes. However, the overall effect of the simplification package will be that those measures no longer apply, resulting in cost savings for businesses that are regulated under EU CLP.

The second proposal will amend various regulations, the first of which is regulation 1272/2008 on classification, labelling and packaging — CLP. That regulation falls under the competence of DFE, with DOJ having competence for civil explosives only. That proposal would also amend regulation 1223/2009 on cosmetic products, which I will refer to as CPR. CPR is a reserved matter that sits with the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) in the UK Government, particularly with the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS). However, DFE has been the point of contact with DBT and has brought together their input for today's briefing.

Regulation 2019/1009, on the making available of marketing of EU fertilising products, amends various regulations. I will refer to it as FPR. FPR falls to our colleagues in DAERA.

Overall, the proposals seek to simplify and streamline requirements and procedures of the EU's CLP, CPR and FPR in order to reduce compliance costs and the administrative burden on the chemicals industry.

The amendments in the second proposal are also part of the wider simplification package that was adopted by the European Commission on 8 July 2025. For CLP, it focuses on provisions that were recently introduced to the EU CLP by the amending regulation 2024/2865. As I noted, that regulation was subject to the Committee's inquiry, the report of which was published on 19 December 2024.

Regulation 2024/2865 imposed a series of new requirements on suppliers concerning hazard identification and communication in order to provide more comprehensive identification and classification of chemical hazards, to improve hazard communication by making labels more accessible and understandable and to address legal gaps and ambiguities. It either reverses or further clarifies certain labelling and other product communication provisions that were introduced by regulation 2024/2865.

For the cosmetic products regulation, it seeks to introduce a procedure for requesting the inclusion of substances used as colourants, preservatives and UV filters in the relevant annexes to provide greater legal clarity and certainty for applicants requesting approval of the use of those substances in cosmetic products. There are amendments to the derogation process in article 15, governing the use of severely hazardous chemicals in cosmetic products, including carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (CMR) substances.

It does not appear likely that the application of the proposed replacement EU acts would have a significant impact specific to the everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist. The proposals seek to simplify and streamline requirements and procedures in order to reduce compliance costs and the administrative burden for the chemicals industry, whilst aiming to ensure the strong protection of human health and the environment.

I will now pass to Jennifer from the Department of Justice for comment, before taking some comments from DAERA, and then we will move to members' questions.

Dr Jennifer Stewart (Department of Justice): Thanks, Mark. The Department of Justice has an interest in the classification, labelling and packaging, but, as Mark said, it is solely in respect of explosives for civil uses. We rely on the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in Great Britain for technical support by way of an agency agreement, to which DFE is also a party. As Mark has said, we do not believe that there will be a significant impact in respect of explosives for civil uses.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): Thank you, Jennifer.

Mr Alan Lunn (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. I will follow up on the information that Mark has already provided with some comments specific to the amendment to regulation 2019/1009 — the fertilising products regulation — for which DAERA has responsibility. I will refer to that regulation as FPR.

The proposal will amend FPR in several ways — four in total. It will amend it in relation to the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) requirements; it will change the assessment of microorganisms in plant biostimulants; it will provide support for digitalisation; and it will amend article 43 of FPR to remove what is known as the "unbundling clause". I will go through each of those in turn.

Currently, the extended REACH registration requirement applies to some component materials used in fertiliser manufacture. That requirement places a disproportionate burden on manufacturers because of the compliance costs involved. The proposal will remove the requirement to register substances and, instead, use general REACH provisions as opposed to extended REACH provisions.

The current mechanism for adding new microorganisms is creating a bottleneck for marketing plant biostimulants in the EU. The proposal will amend the FPR to allow the Commission to set safety and economic efficiency criteria for microorganisms. It will also set out the methodology for manufacturers and notified bodies to use when assessing compliance with the new criteria.

Several updates are proposed to support digitalisation. Certain documents related to conformity assessment and labelling should be in electronic form and accessible through an internet address. Documents and exchanges between economic operators and notified bodies should be in electronic form. Certain reporting obligations will change from paper or electronic format to electronic format only. Economic operators are to include a digital contact on products that are placed on the market. If a digital label is used, access should also be provided to the EU declaration of conformity. If a product requires a digital product passport, there will be an obligation to provide the information contained in the EU declaration of conformity and, if applicable, digital labelling on the digital product passport when the product is subject to other EU legislation that requires the use of such a digital product passport. The Committee considered the impact of digitalisation on labelling for fertilisers on 10 October 2024. These proposals further support that process.

The amendment to article 43 of FPR is a procedural amendment, which changes how the EU Commission amends the regulations. FPR classifies products by component material category depending on the constituent materials used to make the fertiliser. Currently, each component material category in FPR must be amended via a separate delegated act. The proposal will remove the unbundling clause to enable the Commission to adopt delegated acts that amend multiple component material categories at once. It is a technical amendment to simplify and streamline the amendment process.

Fertiliser regulations in Northern Ireland are partially harmonised. That means that not only do the EU regulations apply but fertilisers can be marketed under UK regulations. There is, therefore, dual regulation, and fertiliser manufacturers can choose to market using either the EU or the UK regulatory regime. If manufacturers choose to go down the EU route, these regulations and requirements will apply. The amendments aim to simplify that process as well as to change the Commission's process for making amendments to the regulations. I echo what Mark said regarding the aims of the proposals, which are to simplify and streamline the operation of fertilising product regulations in order to reduce compliance costs and the administrative burden that is on the fertiliser industry. For FPR, it does not appear likely that the application of the proposed replacement EU act would have a significant impact that is specific to the everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): Thank you, Alan, Mark and Jennifer, for your presentations.

Mr McGregor: Chair, are you content to move on without the questions being addressed? You had eight questions —.

Dr Aiken: I think that we probably are.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): I think that we are. We have received the answers and will be able to read them. Thank you, Mark.

Mr Brooks: Thank you very much, and thanks for being with us today. It is good to see the Departments here. I will probably refer to one of the questions that is in our papers. I have scanned through some of the answers. My understanding is that, in general, this measure is about simplification. From what you said, it is essentially a positive; I have not heard too much about it that is negative. Our concern, obviously, is sometimes with divergence. Something can be good for the EU and can smooth things from its end and, therefore, that can be seen as positive for us as well. It can lead at times, however, to friction. To be fair, in answer to the first question, the DFE response highlights some of the issues in which there is existing divergence. It seems to be saying that it will simplify things and make products less harmful. Can I take it as read that that is generally the feeling? Moreover, where there is divergence, it is noted that you feel that it is less significant because GB duty holders are complying with it on a voluntary basis anyway. I accept the fact that we would clearly not see that as the optimal situation, so we would object to it. Nevertheless, I have noted that in how things are working at the moment. Do you see anything in the regulations that would bring about any greater friction through divergence for any particular product that you are aware of and in how we interact with the GB market in particular or how it interacts with us?

Mr McGregor: From the perspective of commenting on CLP, we took the input on the cosmetics element. The intention there is broadly, or mainly, to not introduce measures that were brought in under the previous revision, which will prevent those additional layers of divergence coming in. If they were to come about in 2026 and 2027, there would be a small additional divergence. When we presented evidence previously on that, we thought that that was manageable divergence. However, that measure will stop those forms of divergence coming in. There will be other areas where elements of the previous revision proceed, and there will be elements of divergence where GB businesses have generally been complying voluntarily as duty holders to access to the EU and NI market. This regulation specifically, however, is about preventing additional burdens in the main in relation to CLP on cosmetics coming in, so it will prevent that divergence initiating.

Mr Brooks: Thank you very much. Is there any sense that the UK Government (UKG) are likely to move in a similar direction as this?

Mr McGregor: We really do not know at the moment. The Health and Safety Executive got back to us. It is in the middle of a consultation on chemicals legislation and is reviewing the responses to that. It is very much a watch-this-space scenario.

Mr Brooks: We are used to that on the Committee. That will be key as we consider issues on divergence. Quite often, we do not have that information, so I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Mr Martin: Thank you for your evidence today. I will talk a wee bit about the UK Government's explanatory memorandum (EM) and pick up, first, where my colleague left off. The EM dated 26 August states that changes to the CLP regs will:

and that the:

Forgive me if I missed this on the way through; I was trying to follow the answer that you, Mark, gave to my colleague David. Do you see any issues with what we have before us in the movement of chemicals from GB to NI? The EM states that the regulation is not going to:

What about from GB to Northern Ireland?

Mr McGregor: We were not able to identify any impact that the regulation that you are considering today, as opposed to the one that it is amending, will have on that. That is because it is not bringing in additional burdens to the CLP regulation. Any additional burden or obstacle that was there previously could remain, but none will be added as a result of the amendment to CLP.

Mr Martin: I will read out something else, which I could not quite get my head around. DFE and DOJ state:

DAERA states that non-application is not likely to have a significant impact but:

regarding chemicals.

Is my reading of what I just read that you are taking different positions?

Mr McGregor: I do not think so; it is just a slight difference in nuance in how the Departments are presenting it. One of us has been able to be more forthright than the others, but the assessment is broadly the same. I do not believe that we are taking different positions; it is just a slightly different nuanced —

Mr Martin: Nuance.

Mr McGregor: — presentation. Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): If there are no other questions, on behalf of —.

Mr Brooks: I would like to ask something on the back of that to make sure that I understand. Obviously, if there is difference in how the information is presented — I get that there is nuance — is that largely because you are looking at different aspects of how the process operates, and, therefore, you are seeing that the aspect that you are responsible for is not likely to be as impacted on, whereas the other Departments are saying that that might be the case?

Mr McGregor: There are various factors in play. The policy areas are very separate, and we are all taking scientific and expert advice from different UKG partners. That information comes back to us, and, once we have interpreted and understood it, how we present it can end up being slightly different, because the Health and Safety Executive in Great Britain may have a different way of assessing it compared with DEFRA. We are trying to present information that is coming from very disparate sources, so there can be some differences.

Dr Aiken: Mark, thanks very much indeed. Thanks, everybody. As you can imagine, everybody in the Committee starts getting nervous when somebody uses the word "nuance", particularly when there are different approaches from different Departments. One of our jobs is to try to interpret the degree of divergence and whether something will have a significant impact. When you use the word "nuance", are we talking about a small difference of opinion or a larger one? "Nuance" is not a very accurate word to use when we are talking about regulation, is it?

Mr McGregor: The nuance is based on the input that we have from our UKG partners, and we have to —.

Dr Aiken: Mark, you are our experts.

Mr McGregor: They are the subject matter experts, and we assess that information. That gives us the basis of our understanding. If the initial base is presented slightly differently, it will stay in the various approaches. There are three strands — CLP, cosmetics and fertiliser — that are very disparate policy areas that sit across different Departments here and in UKG. A lot of it is done under agency agreement. There is no UK Government lead Department; the Department for Work and Pensions outsources that work to the Health and Safety Executive of Great Britain. Those different, separate people feed into us. We cannot take the risk of misrepresenting or inadvertently misadvising a Committee, so we present the information on the basis of what we receive. Making the language consistent across all three was a bit difficult, so we went with reflecting the information that we received through our partners.

Dr Aiken: Mark, I am not trying to be difficult, but I get very nervous about the word "nuance". If you said, "This is what they would say, and that is what they would say", I would be quite happy for that to be presented and for the difference to be there. I just think that it is important that we be quite careful sometimes about how language is being used, and that is not a criticism. I know exactly where you sit. I read 900 pages of this guff nearly every week now. I would love to be able to do it with nuance, but the EU does not do nuance.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): Peter, do you have a different question now?

Mr Martin: I just want to follow up on that line, if that is OK. Sticking with the EM of 26 August, the evidence that we have from UKG states that the practical effects of that divergence would be:

other requirements that are due to come into force on "1 July 2026". Do you know what those are? It is an honest question. I do not know what they are, but I wonder whether you do.

Mr McGregor: I will have to take that away to our Health and Safety Executive colleagues.

Mr Martin: Will you come back to us with that? Chair, my suggestion on action points on this is that we write to UKG, if the Committee agrees, and ask, "What are the other requirements that will nullify the impact of the changes?". That is all that I have for the witnesses.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): That is two proposals. You have asked the Department for the Economy, through Mark, to follow that up, and, likewise, you are asking that we —.

Mr Martin: Sorry, Chair, I was maybe not very clear. I am asking Mark to come back to us with some stuff from HSE, and, separately, I am asking whether the Committee is willing to write to UKG to ask what the other requirements that are due to come into force are.

The Committee Clerk: If it is the HSE in GB, we might be asking the same question via two different routes.

Mr McGregor: If you want to direct the question to me, I can engage with the Health and Safety Executive in Great Britain. We meet it very regularly.

Dr Aiken: Let us see if we get the same answer.

Mr Martin: That would be quite a test, would it not? I am now tempted to say that we should do that and see what we get back. More seriously, I do not mind, Chair. It is completely up to your discretion whether we want to ask Mark to do it or whether we, as a Committee, think that it is better that we write as a Committee.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): I think that there is no harm in doing both.

Mr Martin: Hopefully, HSE and the Government are watching the Committee so that they can get their lines and ducks in order on that one.

Dr Aiken: I will have a fair bet that that is not going to happen, Peter.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): On behalf of the Committee, I thank Jennifer, Mark and Alan for their evidence this morning. Thank you very much. It is much appreciated.