The UK’s tentative pivot towards closer EU alignment on chemicals regulation is often presented as a pragmatic choice, grounded in technical and economic reality. In truth, it is a political one – and unless embedded in legislation, it could be easily reversed.
The 22 June resignation of Prime Minister Keir Starmer is a reminder of this, as any leadership change alters political objectives.
On this occasion, the transition of power may have little impact on chemical regulation.
The person widely tipped to take Starmer’s place is former Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, who is broadly pro-EU. Anti-EU sentiment is also limited within the parliamentary Labour party. A significant change of direction therefore looks unlikely.
The next general election, due by 15 August 2029, could have a far bigger impact.
A government can legislate for whatever outcomes it wants, but changes take time and are subject to parliamentary approval, which may not be forthcoming
Polls suggest the most popular political party is the right-wing populist Reform UK, which is ideologically opposed to aligning with EU regulations on the grounds that they limit UK sovereignty. Its leader, Nigel Farage, has been at the heart of anti-EU politics in the UK for 20 years and would be expected to lead the country if Reform won a majority.
Farage has consistently argued against alignment with EU rules and would likely seek to reverse the current direction of travel.
How easy that would be depends heavily on the legislative framework – particularly the powers it gives ministers.
A government can legislate for whatever outcomes it wants, but changes take time and are subject to parliamentary approval, which may not be forthcoming. Policy, by contrast, can be changed overnight.
The key question, then, is how much discretion ministers have within the legal framework.
Mostly, we do not yet know, because the legislation is still being written. The recent revision of GB CLP, however, seems to leave important regulatory decisions in the hands of policymakers.
There is, for example, no statutory timeline for the work plan, the key document for the controversial fast-track process, under which the UK could adopt GB mandatory classifications originating in the EU.
Could the government effectively shutter that process simply by withholding work plan updates?
In theory, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which produces the work plan, operates independently of ministers. In practice, ministers have well-established levers to influence non-departmental public bodies, including budgets and priorities.
Reform has also suggested it would replace senior civil servants, such as those running the HSE, with political or external appointees to ensure party priorities are implemented.
Would industry welcome a Reform government?
"I’m interested in working pragmatically, proactively with whoever’s in government," said Tim Doggett, chief executive of the Chemical Business Association (CBA), at a 16 June Chemical Watch Events & Training conference in Birmingham.
He added that senior civil servants – the "constants" of government – are the ones who make the difference, downplaying the idea that incoming ministers could dramatically change the system. He said they would get a "reality check" on arrival.
That view is difficult to reconcile with the changes already seen under Labour since 2024.
Furthermore, a transfer to Reform would be a seismic political shift, breaking a two-party system that has persisted for more than a century. It is unclear how the practical workings of government might change in that context.
Right now, stakeholders broadly agree that the current direction is positive.
Industry’s main frustrations are the slow progress since Brexit and the high expected costs of the proposed alternative transitional registration model (ATRm). Provided the legislation includes appropriate opt-out criteria, aligning with the EU could offer a degree of predictability lacking in the current regulatory limbo.
NGOs, meanwhile, have consistently argued for alignment by default on the grounds that EU regulations provide the highest level of protection for health and the environment globally.
If stakeholders want this direction to endure, they would be wise to press for legislative mechanisms that limit political discretion. There will be opportunities to do so.
A consultation on the ATRm regulation is expected later this year.
Additionally, to meet commitments in the 2025 Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP), the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is developing a proposal for changes to the REACH restriction process, with adoption expected by the end of 2028.
The current thinking is that the UK will adopt an opt-out process in which EU REACH restrictions are "a starting point", with divergence only in "exceptional circumstances", Defra chemicals policy team leader Edward Latter said in Birmingham.
Closer alignment with the EU may be the direction of travel today, but it is far from guaranteed tomorrow
Whether this approach will be legally required or simply policy-driven remains unclear.
Further changes are also expected to bring GB CLP closer to EU CLP, including the addition of hazard classes for endocrine disruption, persistence, mobility and bioaccumulation, as well as updated labelling requirements. The HSE aims to implement these changes by June 2027.
Closer alignment with the EU may be the direction of travel today, but it is far from guaranteed tomorrow. Unless it is embedded in law rather than left to policy discretion, the UK’s chemicals regime will remain contingent on political cycles – and vulnerable to reversal with each change of leadership.