Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): I very much welcome Colin Armstrong, the deputy director of water and marine policy in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Colin, I invite you to brief the Committee.

Mr Colin Armstrong (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you very much, Chair and members, for this opportunity to give you an overview of this new regulation on detergents and surfactants. First, I will provide an overview of the regulations and the main changes that have been introduced, and then I will outline the potential impacts on Northern Ireland and the stakeholder views that we now understand.

This regulation repeals and replaces the previous detergents regulation and lays down the rules that detergents need to comply with in order to be placed on the market and move freely across the EU. These rules were initially aimed at ensuring the safe use of detergents and a high level of environmental performance for detergents and surfactants. The European Commission carried out an assessment of this in 2019 and identified a number of weaknesses. While, overall, the regulation was achieving its objectives, the assessment highlighted some complexities around the regulatory framework and identified some areas where there could be simplification, particularly around removing overcrowded labels for product users.

The main changes include the simplification of labelling requirements; the abolition of the ingredient data sheet for hazardous detergents — a key change; the introduction of a digital product passport that is used for surveillance and customs purposes; and the prohibition of the use of animal testing methods. The regulation also introduces stricter standards around biodegradability of surfactants in detergents, in particular the films that cover capsules etc. A few new things have emerged since the original regulation was introduced. The new regulation covers the increase in the use of refill sales and recognises the increased and new use of microbial cleaners.

Turning to the policy around this, the regulation of detergents is a reserved matter and is therefore administered by the UK Government through the provisional framework for chemicals and pesticides. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is the competent authority in Great Britain, and DAERA is the competent authority in Northern Ireland. Any enforcement action in Northern Ireland is reactive and is based on intelligence that comes from complaints through, in particular, things such as health and safety inspections and businesses that have asked for support. To date, there has been no enforcement action taken in relation to any of the detergents regulations. Given that it is a reserved policy area, the Department's assessment is mostly based on the UK Government's explanatory memorandum and discussions that we have had with DEFRA about the proposal. Overall, from what we have seen so far, there are expected to be benefits as a result of the proposal, in particular improved communication and simplified compliance of labelling. There will be some new costs. However, those seem to be quite low. I highlight the fact that there will be cost savings, which is an overall benefit, because of the removal of hazardous detergents. The EU estimates that there will be savings of around €7 million in the EU market. The requirement to have digital product passports will also involve some costs, but those are likely to be low as well.

I turn now to the impact on Northern Ireland specifically. The regulation is not expected to have a significant impact. I note the consultation responses that the Committee received from the London Oil Refining Company and SC Johnson in which they raised concerns about the potential implications of divergence and the impact that that would have on the availability of products and consumer choice in Northern Ireland. It is important to highlight the fact that we got some reassurance from DEFRA this week that the UK Government's opening position will align, insofar as possible, with the EU approach and will only diverge from that if there is a compelling reason to do so. That provides some helpful assurance.

Another helpful piece of information that we got from DEFRA this week was about the nature of the market and the manufacturing companies that produce detergents. It had discussions with the UK Cleaning Products Industry Association (UKCPI), which is the representative body for the majority of the industry. The UKCPI said that all its members currently export to the Republic of Ireland and other European locations, that they are also multinational and that they still follow a business model whereby they have management structures that operate as a UK and Ireland approach. Historically, the same products have been supplied to the UK and Ireland markets because of the common language on labels etc. The association highlighted the fact that any divergence would therefore have implications for that. At present, we do not hold precise figures on the number of businesses involved in production of detergents. However, we are working to better understand that. Based on discussions with DEFRA, we believe that the number of such manufacturers in Northern Ireland is likely to be in single figures.

It is very helpful that there is a 42-month transition period for any changes to labels, business processes etc. While the regulation itself comes into effect on 22 March 2026, the provisions will not apply until 23 September 2029.

Finally, in conclusion, DEFRA has provided us with assurances that it will continue to work with the UK industry and other interested parties and will seek to better understand the implications for Northern Ireland businesses. It will provide up-to-date guidance on any changes to the GB detergents regime. It hopes to do everything that it can to maintain Northern Ireland's dual access to both the UK and EU markets. Chair, thank you. That is a summary of our analysis. I hope that I am able to answer any questions that you may have.

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

Mr Buckley: Thank you very much, Colin. The last time that an official sat before us in relation to this regulation was on 1 May 2025. They were unable to answer most of the questions that we put to them. That was understandable at the time. However, certain commitments, which are registered in the Hansard report, were made that engagement was going to take place. I will run through a number of those questions to see where things are.

Can you provide updated information on how many businesses produce detergents and surfactants in Northern Ireland and will be affected by the regulation? At the previous meeting, I heard that it was a handful of businesses. I think that you repeated that type of comment. Do you have a specific number?

Mr Armstrong: We do not have a specific number yet. We still do not have that from DEFRA. It has not been able to provide that level of detail. It did provide us with one example, but is still saying that it is likely to be in single figures.

Mr Buckley: If it is saying that it is in single figures, you would think that it would be very easy to give us a definitive number. How sure can we be that it is only a handful?

Mr Armstrong: We cannot provide any more detail at this stage.

Mr Buckley: We cannot? OK. What is the scale of trade from GB to Northern Ireland in this sector, given that, if it is only a handful, the majority of that trade is going to come potentially from GB into Northern Ireland? Do we have any figures on the scale of that trade?

Mr Armstrong: We do not have any specific figures on the scale of trade.

Mr Buckley: Do any companies in Northern Ireland make microbial cleaners? What is the scale of that trade from GB to NI in this sector?

Mr Armstrong: I do not have specific numbers on that at the moment.

Mr Buckley: If the UK Government do not align with the EU regulation, or if they align after the transition period, what are the potential impacts for Northern Ireland?

Mr Armstrong: The potential impacts if there is not a full alignment are going to be dual labelling, not the simplification that is provided, and some of the implications that have been highlighted by stakeholders around the products or choices that are available. The reassurance that we have been given on that is that DEFRA is going to work towards aligning as far as possible.

Mr Buckley: I suppose that how and when that will take place is not clear, because it is light on detail. We then have to look at the two responses that the Committee received via the survey, from SC Johnson and the London Oil Refining Company, which were pretty scathing about the impact of the regulation from the perspective of their consumers. SC Johnson is a multinational company with household brands such as Mr Muscle, Pledge and Duck — all items that are used across Northern Ireland. It says:

Is that a particular concern for the Department?

Mr Armstrong: Yes, and that is a concern that we highlighted to DEFRA, and DEFRA responded by saying that that was one of the reasons why it took the position of the starting position being alignment, diverging only if exceptional circumstances showed that that needed to happen. Its opening position is to align the UK regime with the EU regime.

Mr Buckley: Yet no real detail on when that would take place. The questions that I have just asked you are the same questions that I asked another official on 1 May 2025. I have received no answers to them, so I am unable to ascertain the level of trade and, therefore, the impact for consumers in Northern Ireland based on the evidence that has been provided to me.

At that 1 May 2025 meeting, we talked extensively about an NI chemical stakeholder forum.

Mr Armstrong: Yes.

Mr Buckley: It was under discussion for a considerable time before that 1 May meeting. How has that progressed?

Mr Armstrong: That is something that we are looking to establish and set up — a stakeholder forum for that — but there has not been one as yet.

Mr Buckley: To me, that is damning. The Hansard record for 1 May 2025 shows that that chemical stakeholder forum was progressing and starting to meet. It stated that limited resources meant that it had not progressed to where it would want to be. Given the budgets that I have looked at over the past few weeks in the House, the indication is that there have been additional allocations to the Department in relation to the Windsor framework. Have they been used to try to get that chemical stakeholder forum off the ground?

Mr Armstrong: I will need to come back to the Committee on the exact position with that stakeholder forum.

Mr Buckley: OK. It should come as no surprise that I am not satisfied with the answers that I have received. That is no reflection of your professionalism. However, when the Committee asks basic questions and gives departmental officials the courtesy of significant advance notice — that happened on 1 May 2025. We are now 10 months on. Surely the Department would know that I would be coming back to the questions that I asked then and to which I did not receive answers. There still being no answers is nothing short of ridiculous, Chair.

Mr Martin: Colin, thanks for coming this morning. My colleague has covered a fair range of my questions, and I have only one additional question to tease out some information that Johnny asked you about. In its Citizen Space response, SC Johnson said:

As far as I am aware, your response in the reference paper is the following:

Does DAERA have any additional information as to what "the UK Government intends" to do or when that might be enacted?

Mr Armstrong: We know a little bit about their timeline. Discussions have started, and there will be further discussions over the coming months and years. Their intention is to align their timetable between now, when this regulation comes into effect or starts, but then not coming into effect until 42 months — that the UK regime is put in place and is ready and aligned so that there is not a disturbance. That is the time frame that they are going to have to work to. The positive about the 42-month run-in period is that it will provide time for them to better understand the implications and engage with stakeholders and for the affected businesses to make sure that they have prepared for the change. That is one of the advantages of the 42-month period.

Mr Martin: My fear in all this — I have said this a few times in this Committee — is that sometimes the UK Government intends to do a range of things, and they do not always necessarily follow through on those good intentions. If the UK Government changed or changed policy or decided not to do that, would you accept the earlier contention that, if it did not proceed with the changes, there would be divergence from GB detergent regulation if that was introduced? Is that a reasonable contention?

Mr Armstrong: Those are scenarios that I cannot see. I can only go on what the UK Government have set out as their position, and the position is that they intend to align. The reason they intend to align is because of their understanding of the market, and particularly, as has been set out, that the manufacturers are already operating in the European market. They have UK and Ireland management structures, and that provides a good rationale for the UK Government’s starting position that they should be alignment, because they understand the market. We need to learn a bit more specifically about the businesses from Northern Ireland that are in the market, but they have set out the reasoning. When we had discussions with DEFRA earlier this week, DEFRA was clear about that.

Mr Martin: Yes. DEFRA says that the majority of UK businesses have a legal presence in the EU, but there is no detail about what the majority is. In theory, it could be 52%, or it could be much larger than that.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): I think that the information in the papers says that it is 90%.

Mr Martin: DEFRA says that 90% of companies represented in the UK cleaning product sector already supply in the EU. However, my point is more about the legal presence. Notwithstanding that, the reason I ask that is that the Committee, to a degree — with respect to you, Colin — has to look at our experience of what Governments say and what their good intentions are and make a judgement. If this does not happen —. There are a lot of "ifs". My understanding, in terms of pure logic, is that, if the UK Government change policy or do not align in the way that it has been indicated that they intend to —. My question is whether you accept SC Johnson's contention that, in such a scenario, there would be divergence from GB regulation and that that would have a detrimental impact on Northern Ireland markets?

Mr Armstrong: I will give the stakeholder view. The stakeholder has set out its view of what the issue is, and that is understood when it comes to markets. If there is not consistency across the market, there is potential for things like that to happen. That happens across everything, regardless of whether it is detergents or any product. That is, in general, understood. We have to go back to the fact that the UK Government have set out their reasoning on why they think that the chemicals policy should align. That is a reserved policy, so that is really all that I can rely on. We have raised those very points, because the two stakeholder responses that you have got refer to issues that we know can happen. We put that to DEFRA and said, "There are some occasions when there is a restriction on product availability because of issues like this". DEFRA understands that, because we put that position to it as the reason why alignment is good.

Mr Martin: OK. That is good, Colin. I will echo the comments from my colleague. These are two absolutely enormous players in this market. SC Johnson is a global company, and hearing its view — I accept that it is just its view, Colin — and feedback about this legislation is concerning for me. It did not dance around its thoughts on the impact, notwithstanding the intentions of the UK Government.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): Do any other members want to come in?

Mr Brooks: It is more of a comment, Chair. As my colleague said, you said that there are products out there that are, at times, impacted, and their availability is perhaps not what it would be otherwise. To echo what Jonny said about SC Johnson, Mr Muscle, Pledge and Duck are household names, and it would cause concern in our local communities if, suddenly, products that have been used over many years and are familiar to people were to be threatened in any way. I take your point that the starting position is alignment, but you will understand — I know that you are here to give a representation to us — that we are being asked to take an awful lot in good faith and show good faith in a British Government that have not always given us good reason to show that good faith. As you said, that is a starting position. My fear is about where the starting position will go. It will only take them to want to hold back on alignment in one or two areas and, even though it might be a minor detail, all of a sudden, those products will get wiped off the market. I just want to emphasise that and outline our concerns about it; my colleagues have asked the relevant questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): Before I bring Cathal in, can you once again highlight the benefits of this to companies, Colin?

Mr Armstrong: The main benefit of the change is that there is simplification because detailed hazards are no longer required to be on the label. There is definitely simplification in labelling resulting from this. It also allows us to deal with things that were not in the original, such as refill sales. You can now go to shops and buy refills; you do not need to buy more plastic. There are definitely benefits. That is a new and emerging way to put detergents on the market, and that can now be dealt with in the new legislation. It is also recognising that new microbial cleaners are coming, so it is allowing a framework for that to happen. The biggest saving was the cost saving. The savings to manufacturers of abolishing the ingredient data sheet and the simplification of the labelling has been assessed at €7 million across the EU. There are benefits for the manufacturers. It is intended to be a beneficial change. However, that is balanced against the risk of those changes not continuing at the same pace.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): Are there any benefits to human health?

Mr Armstrong: Overall, it is about assurances around the detergent products. It is about making sure that animal testing has been prohibited and the environmental impact is controlled at the point of manufacture, rather than being concerned about what happens to them once they get into the water system and things like that. It is all controlled at the point of manufacture. Those are the benefits of this detergents regulation.

Mr Boylan: I am a newbie on the Committee — I have to say that — but I have experience of EU regulations in Committees that I have been on, such as the Environment Committee back in the old days. I know the role between yourselves and DEFRA. We are saying that alignment is the starting point. For clarity, have you said that there is unlikely to be a significant impact? Is that what you said? Or is that what DEFRA is saying?

Mr Armstrong: That is what they are saying. The UK Government's assessment is that this is small and the overall implications of the new regulation are not significant.

Mr Boylan: I appreciate the previous questions from members. We used to talk about derogations. Is a transition period the same thing? You are saying that they are going to use the 42-month period to test some things and work through some of the things that might be challenging. Is that right? Is that what you are saying?

Mr Armstrong: Yes, that is right. DEFRA is going to use the 42-month period between the law being made and the law being required to come into effect, which is when all of the labels etc will need to be in. That is time for businesses in the EU to prepare, and the UK Government have said that they are also going to use that time to make sure that the UK regime is consulted on and brought towards alignment with what the EU is aligned on. That is what the 42-month period is for.

Mr Buckley: Thank you for letting me back in, Chair. I am looking again at the briefing of 1 May with departmental officials. It was recognised that enforcement responsibility sits with councils and that it was likely that this regulation would increase enforcement responsibilities. In an earlier session, we heard that as the regulation has gone through its journey, the requirement for enforcement has got higher again. At that time, it was said:

Has any work been done on that? Did we do a detailed assessment in that regard?

Mr Armstrong: There has been nothing more detailed done yet on what the actual implications would be or what they are going to be. That can be done over the 42 months.

Mr Buckley: Do you not think that it would have been better if that had been done? Obviously, we will be coming to a decision on whether to hold an inquiry into this regulation. Information like that could have been helpful to the Committee. Does the Department recognise that that would have been an appropriate time to have done that? Or is it because it is only getting final clarity now on what the regulation will look like overall?

Mr Armstrong: We are only seeing now what it is. We have only had the discussions and, more recently, the discussions with DEFRA around what it potentially will be. This is DEFRA's responsibility. Through its exploratory work, DEFRA has been doing its research, and it will continue to do research to understand what it is. That work is work that will be done. You raise good points. We will need to understand the actual scale and numbers but, at this stage, that level of detail is not available. When we spoke to DEFRA, other than its discussions with the UKCPI, it had not yet had full statistical or economic information on the sector.

Mr Buckley: I recognise what you are saying about DEFRA's responsibilities, but it is my understanding that DAERA has responsibility for detergents and surfactants in Northern Ireland. Is that correct?

Mr Armstrong: Yes, we are a competent authority —

Mr Buckley: Yes, a competent authority.

Mr Armstrong: — but chemicals policy is a reserved matter.

Mr Buckley: We talked about engagement during the meeting with departmental officials on 1 May 2025. One of your DAERA colleagues stated:

Ten months on, what specific engagement has happened that we were told would be addressed?

Mr Armstrong: There have been discussions feeding into the development, and my colleagues fed into the development of the explanatory memorandum that has now been published by the UK Government. A number of discussions have taken place over the past couple of weeks. In particular, we had a very helpful discussion with DEFRA earlier this week where it was able to say that it had done further work and now had a better understanding of the business models and the nature of UK/Ireland management structures etc. It had got a better handle on what manufacturing looked like, and it provided us with assurances that it would continue to discuss that with us as it develops the UK policy. DEFRA will continue its own stakeholder engagement, which has only just commenced. It has not carried out any real targeted or detailed stuff. However, it will take Northern Ireland's position into consideration as regards trade between GB and NI.

Mr Buckley: We are now 10 months on. Are you aware of the details of any of the monthly meetings of DEFRA's stakeholder engagement forum that were specifically about detergent-related conversations?

Mr Armstrong: I do not have the detail of those meetings, no.

Mr Buckley: Does DAERA attend those meetings?

Mr Armstrong: I would need to check that. I know that some of my colleagues attend regularly, but I would need to check whether they are at the monthly meetings.

Mr Buckley: I am keen to know whether that happened.

Mr Armstrong: We can follow up on that, yes.

Mr Brooks: On the back of the Chair's question about the benefits for companies, have there been any submissions through any channels from companies of similar standing to SC Johnson and so on that have roundly welcomed these changes in the sector?

Mr Armstrong: Yes. DEFRA provided us with the responses that it got from its discussions, which were welcoming of the changes, recognising, however, that —.

Mr Brooks: No one has put their name to that?

Mr Armstrong: It was the association. DEFRA has been consulting with that trade representative body. I am not sure of the names of the individual members of the body are, but they are listed out. Certainly, the association recognised the benefits of the changes and has also been making the point very clearly to DEFRA —.

Mr Brooks: Has it raised any concerns similar to those other —?

Mr Armstrong: It made the point about the benefits of alignment, very much highlighting issues and saying that, as UK policy is developed —.

Mr Brooks: It has raised issues that are similar to those that were raised by SC Johnson.

Mr Armstrong: Yes. It is highlighting concerns, but just saying, "As you develop this, the market is — we trade with the EU." It was not in opposition to the starting position.

Mr Brooks: We all recognise that companies would rather have access to as many markets as possible. What I have garnered from what you are saying, however, is that they are expressing the same concerns as SC Johnson and the London Oil Refining Company.

Mr Armstrong: Yes. It would not be as pointed as that, if you want to say that, but very much saying that there are issues here, that markets need to have a level playing field and that consistency of approach is beneficial for markets. That is how it is being set out.

Mr Boylan: Just a wee question in light of some of the questions that Jonny asked. You were unable to give some of the information. What is the earliest point at which you could start to reflect on some of the questions that Jonny asked in relation to those —?

Mr Armstrong: I will follow up with specific numbers if you would like specific numbers. DEFRA provided us with one company, yesterday, that it said is a Northern Ireland company. When I go back to DEFRA, I will ask your questions directly, and I can let you know what evidence it knows of.

Mr Buckley: Thanks for that. As a Committee, we normally supply questions to the Department. We did that in the first instance, and the Department answered that it was unable to answer them. I have asked most of those questions verbally. If possible, it might be best if we provided those questions to the Department, and it could answer as it sees fit. We have a time frame anyway, but that would be helpful.

Mr Brooks: If we are to have an inquiry, we will want to have had as many of those answers as possible.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): OK. No other members have questions. Thank you for your presentation, Colin: it was much appreciated.