© pcruciatti stock.adobe.com
UK industry groups have taken their battle over the proposed UK REACH registration model to the highest levels of government, urging the prime minister and Treasury to step in over costs they say are economically damaging, according to sources.
Industry has "given up" on persuading the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to further revise its alternative transitional registration model (ATRm), an industry insider told Chemical Watch News & Insight.
Businesses are now seeking a political intervention to cut the estimated £600m remaining compliance burden to a "bare minimum", the source said.
The move reflects growing frustration within industry over the UK’s standalone chemicals regime, which has struggled nearly six years after Brexit.
"If we are to see any change it will have to come via the Treasury or No 10, who will intervene on ‘business grounds’," said the insider on condition of anonymity. "We really are worried about product lines being cut, product availability to other manufacturing sectors being affected, site closures and job losses."
Defra last week launched a "technical" consultation on legislation to implement the ATRm, which sets out new information requirements for post-Brexit transitional registrations and gives regulators powers to request additional data.
Although the consultation is limited to technical drafting and is not intended to revisit the underlying policy, industry groups are using the process to renew criticism of the associated costs and administrative burden.
They are calling for UK REACH registration requirements to be little more than a basic notification system, with additional information requested only for substances of concern. Industry also wants Defra to abandon mechanisms designed to coordinate data submissions.
"If Defra wants more information on specific substances, it can ask for it, and industry will provide it," the insider said. "Just don’t make us do it for 10,000-plus substances."
They added that industry also has little appetite for further consultation on alternative proposals.
‘Still time’
The British Coatings Federation (BCF) said the wider chemicals sector continues to view ATRm as unnecessary and duplicative, threatening investment, competitiveness and jobs, especially as Defra has decided to follow EU REACH decisions except in exceptional circumstances.
The BCF said it will keep pressing ministers to abandon the ATRm approach altogether, warning that the model could result in fewer substances being registered in the UK, reduced product portfolios and site closures.
"There is still time for an alternative approach to be pursued," it said.
Chemical Business Association (CBA) chief executive Tim Doggett said the proposal amounted to a diluted version of an old framework, rather than ambitious reform aligned with the government's growth and reindustrialisation objectives.
In August, the CBA presented a series of letters to the then-incoming prime minister, renewing calls for a practical, proportionate UK REACH regime. Doggett said the association does not accept Defra's justification for the ATRm and does not believe it would deliver meaningful additional protection.
Chemical Industries Association (CIA) policy director Nishma Patel said the consultation should be used to make substantive changes where evidence shows they are needed to protect both the environment and UK industrial competitiveness.
The CIA said it wants to ensure compliance requirements do not conflict with intellectual property rights or restrict access to registration data.
Meanwhile, BASF regulatory affairs manager Neil Hollis said the ATRm’s joint registration process would remain "expensive, bureaucratic and time-consuming". He called for a practical registration model based on individual submissions, with joint registrations made voluntary or reserved for cases requiring additional regulatory scrutiny.
"We believe Defra could put mitigations in place and consider if joint registrations are actually necessary, given that a lead registrant will no longer have to represent or submit study summaries on behalf of the substance group," Hollis said.