A senior Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) official has said the revised UK REACH registration model – which would reduce data requirements for substances already registered in the EU – is final, with no further cost cuts planned despite ongoing industry criticism.
The government in March unveiled its alternative transitional registration model (ATRm) for more than 20,000 substances transferred to UK REACH after Brexit. The long‑awaited measure eases the burden on industry by reducing data requirements and abandoning earlier plans for supplementary domestic risk data.
Industry, however, has criticised the revised plan, with trade bodies saying that costs remain too high – at around £600m – and urging the government to cut them further by waiving additional data requirements or recognising all existing EU registrations. They argue this would be consistent with the government's stated aim of aligning UK chemicals decisions with those taken in the bloc.
But Marc Casale, deputy director for chemicals at Defra, told Chemical Watch News & Insight that the government has no intention of changing the model presented on 30 March.
"We have lowered the cost as far as we can," he said on the sidelines of the CHEMUK expo last week, adding that the government is constrained by the existing UK REACH framework’s ‘no data, no market’ principle, which it has no plans to revisit.
Rebecca Leete, head of UK REACH at Defra, declined to say whether options beyond the ATRm – including removing UK registration requirements under a new deal with the EU – are under consideration. "We set out the ATRm and the Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP). That’s the direction," she told Chemical Watch News & Insight.
However, industry continues to challenge Defra’s approach, saying that closer UK-EU ties under the Labour government could pave the way for a less costly system based on recognising EU registrations.
Data concerns
Several industry leaders said significant uncertainty remains around the ATRm, with companies' obligations still unclear.
One key issue is how registrants can ‘lift and shift’ basic hazard data from ECHA’s registration database for use in UK registrations, as required under the ATRm. Even limited data, which companies may rely on, could be subject to strict use conditions, prompting concerns about potential legal risks, particularly where ongoing access may be needed for purposes such as dossier updates.
Industry has called for clarity on this, but the government has yet to set out the legal basis for using the data or whether it has received assurances from ECHA that such use would be permissible.
Neil Hollis, regulatory affairs manager at BASF, said at the expo that despite the reduction in data requirements under the ATRm, companies would still need to set up substance information exchange fora. For substances with 200-400 co-registrants, he said, this remains a significant undertaking.
Some industry participants at the event also said the new model removes the potential advantages of having an entirely separate UK regime, arguing that the revised ATRm no longer delivers clear benefits for either the domestic environment or industry, but adds costs.
REACH reforms
The government plans to introduce the changes through forthcoming REACH reform proposals, which it expects to implement by December 2028.
Casale said the timeline reflects the need for stakeholder consultation on the proposals and parliamentary approval.
The government is also extending UK REACH registration deadlines, with the first submission date now set for October 2029. The legal text on this is expected by the end of this year, followed by guidance 12 months later, giving industry a two-year window to prepare for the first submission.