Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): I warmly welcome Tommy McNamara, head of branch and policy lead on restrictions on hazardous substances in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs; and Niall Chambers, deputy director of environmental resource policy division in the Department. You are welcome, Niall and Tommy. Happy new year to you both. When you are ready, please brief the Committee.

Mr Nigel Chambers (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Just a small correction: it is Nigel.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): Nigel. Sorry.

Mr Tommy McNamara (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to brief the Committee on directive 2025/2456, amending directive 2011/65 as regards the reattribution of scientific and technical tasks to the European Chemicals Agency, which is commonly referred to as "the ECHA". I will refer to it as the ECHA to save a mouthful every time that I use the terminology.

I understand that the Committee has already received a copy of DAERA's assessment of the impact of the directive. I also understand that it has received a copy of the UK Government's (UKG) impact assessment. We were not able to provide a link to that, because it had not been published at the time of producing our assessment. I will briefly set out an overview of the changes, the anticipated impact and how much engagement there has been on the issue.

Directive 2011/65 provides the European Union regulatory framework on the restriction of use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. That policy area is currently reserved to the UK Government, and there is no devolved aspect to it. Currently, there are 10 restricted substances listed, including lead, cadmium and mercury, which account for over 99% of the exemption applications. That is where manufacturers seek permission to manufacture electronic equipment using one of the restricted substances in excess of the restricted limits laid down in the directive. Directive 2011/65 is listed in annex 2 of the Windsor framework, and the amending directive will apply fully in Northern Ireland.

Directive 2025/2456 was published on 12 December 2025 and enters into force today, 8 January. It is relevant to note, however, that the amendments will apply only from 13 August 2027, effectively providing for a substantial lead-in period. The directive is linked to the EU's "One substance, one assessment" package, which is part of the chemical strategy for sustainability. The overarching goal of the package is to streamline the EU's chemical risk assessment framework by reducing duplication, ensuring consistency and transparency and fully utilising scientific expertise and resources across a suite of EU legislation.

The policy rationale underpinning the directive is twofold: to ensure that the allocation of responsibilities makes the best use of expertise and resources and to adopt transparent and inclusive procedures, delivering high scientific quality outcomes. To achieve those objectives, scientific and technical work on chemicals needs to be consolidated in the relevant Union agencies, with obligations on Union agencies to cooperate in developing assessment methodologies and exchanging data and information. That simplifies the current chemical regulatory framework, improves the quality and coherence of safety assessments across Union legal Acts and ensures that existing resources are used more efficiently. The directive does that through amendments to directive 2011/65, including a revised application procedure with new and revised timelines whereby an application for granting, renewing or revoking an exemption must be made to the ECHA. That is a departure from the current process whereby an application is currently made to the EU Commission. In the case of an application for a new exemption or where the ECHA considers it appropriate, there is a requirement to request the opinion of the Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis and the Committee for Risk Assessment, both of which are EU committees. They will provide, among other things, clear guidance to the Commission on granting, renewing or revoking an exemption.

There is an obligation on the Commission to undertake a review based on restriction dossiers prepared by the ECHA of the list of restricted substances in annex 2 to directive 2011/65. Such a review must take place at least every four years. The Commission must also initiate a procedure for review and amendment of the list of restricted substances.

When we look at the impact on businesses, DAERA's assessment is that it is likely that the directive will not have a significant impact specific to the everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist. The relevant amendments will result in high-level reattribution of scientific and technical tasks among EU agencies and increase the efficiency of EU internal processes.

There is likely to be a modest increase in the EU level of resources to support the ECHA's new responsibility. Those costs are at an EU level, and there are no anticipated impacts in Northern Ireland. There is potential for some Northern Ireland-based stakeholders to experience indirect costs or benefits, depending on how the new procedures affect compliance, transparency and efficiency with the EU's new system. It is relevant, however, that none of the costs or benefits will be incurred due to any additional barriers to trade. It is also DAERA's assessment that non-application of the directive:

Should the directive not apply, the consolidation of chemicals work streams in EU agencies will still occur and decisions on granting, renewing or revoking an exemption will continue to be undertaken by the Commission.

Neither DAERA nor the UK Government carried out any public consultation in respect of the directive. The European Commission consulted the public on the "One substance, one assessment" approach, which generally received favourable feedback from stakeholders. The EU determined that a formal impact assessment was not required, given that there is little discretion over the policy choice to achieve the stated objectives of the directive. However, on the "One substance, one assessment" package, including the reattribution of tasks, the Commission stated that the:

There was no evidence of Northern Ireland stakeholders having any input in any of the EU assessments.

In setting out the background, I have referenced existing EU legislation on the restriction of the use of hazardous substances in electronic equipment. However, it is important to emphasise that the directive that is being considered today relates solely to the procedural reattribution of tasks and the efficiency of EU internal processes.

That concludes the presentation. We are happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Dr Aiken: I have a couple of questions. What interaction have we had with the Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis and the Committee for Risk Assessment?

Mr McNamara: On this issue, to the best of my knowledge, we have had no interaction with them at DAERA level. There has possibly been interaction at UK Government level, but at DAERA level —.

Dr Aiken: It does not look like they have had much interaction with them from the explanatory memorandum (EM), does it? Basically, anybody who is looking for any sort of derogation from the existing rules now has to go through the Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis and the Committee for Risk Assessment at the same time.

Mr McNamara: The applicant does not have to do that. The application goes straight to the European Chemicals Agency, which then engages. That is its responsibility, and there is an obligation on it to engage those other committees. Therefore, it is all about internal EU processes. At an industry level, if you want to make the application, you send it in —

Dr Aiken: To the ECHA.

Mr McNamara: — and, unless it requires additional information from you, all you will do is submit the application and get the outcome. That will not change.

Dr Aiken: OK.

Mr Buckley: Thank you very much and happy new year. First, am I right that you said that DAERA has had no consultation on this with stakeholders?

Mr McNamara: That is correct.

Mr Buckley: To your understanding, has the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) had any consultation on it?

Mr McNamara: No, it has not.

Mr Buckley: OK. That is my first point.

What are the trade flows? Has there been any analysis of them? I am thinking of a divergence of chemical supplies and others that go from GB to Northern Ireland. Do we have an holistic picture of present situation?

Mr McNamara: Although it is a chemicals-based directive, it is not concerned with the flow of chemicals; it is concerned with the possible flow of electronic equipment. Although there is legislative divergence, operationally there is little divergence. Any time that an exemption has been created by the EU, GB has mirrored it so that there has been no disruption. They are closely aligned.

Mr Buckley: You would accept that legislative divergence could, ultimately, lead to trade divergence.

Mr McNamara: Not on this.

Mr Buckley: I am looking at your assessment. In it, you say that the application of the directive:

You also say that the non-application of the directive is unlikely to have an impact. That is quite a position. The EU text talks about how the regulation seeks to improve:

What local involvement is there in that?

Mr McNamara: To the best of my knowledge, from a Northern Ireland perspective, there is none because we do not form part of Union agencies, even at a UK level.

As Nigel said to me, this is basically the EU moving the furniture around, which is a good analogy. It is all about the EU's internal processes. Therefore, it will not disrupt the use of the substances in electronic equipment. From an industry point of view, there will be no change. It is all about EU internal processes.

Mr Buckley: You have said that UKG are likely to mirror some of the changes: am I not correct in saying that?

Mr McNamara: No, apologies if I was not clear. What I am saying is that, to date, the UK Government have mirrored any exemption that has been granted, and we have had no indication that that will change. A large proportion of exemptions are granted in respect of medical devices. If the exemption is granted for the production of certain medical devices, the UK Government generally reciprocate, and there is no issue. To date, there have been no issues with that.

Mr Buckley: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): Are the changes purely administrative?

Mr McNamara: The changes are purely administrative and are within the EU context.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): Thank you. If there are no other questions, I thank Tommy and Nigel for their presentation this morning.