Stephen Timms MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2026 · Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI, 2026, No.457) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have not yet got to that bit in my list, but I am coming to it—I am looking forward to that part of my speech. The Conservative party is telling us that it would maintain its failed approach, with hardly any assessments being carried out face to face. That does at least have the benefit of consistency, I suppose, but we do not think it is good enough, and we will make the changes necessary to do far better. As my hon. Friend correctly highlighted, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, this change that we have announced will reduce benefits spending by almost £2 billion—£1.9 billion—over five years. We inherited an assessment system that was not equipped to do the job. The previous Government agreed contractual limits that meant at most 20% of assessments would be face to face. That was written into the contracts they signed, but there was not nearly enough capacity even to meet that level. We are having to fix a broken system, and we are making good progress, with the measure we are debating being an important step. The purpose of this straightforward change is to provide the Secretary of State the power to extend personal independence payment awards in a limited set of circumstances, where it is deemed necessary to do so to safeguard the efficient administration of benefits. Before the amendment, a decision to extend an award of PIP required either a new claim for PIP, evidence of an error or mistake in the first decision, evidence that the claimant’s circumstances had changed, or the completion of a report by a healthcare professional appointed by the Secretary of State. In many cases, that would involve a claimant undergoing an assessment. Where such a decision could not be taken before an award expired, claimants would cease to be entitled to PIP until a further decision was completed. They would remain so until a further decision on entitlement could be made. The amendment grants a specific discretion, making it possible to extend only the length of an award, and only where doing so is necessary for the administration of the benefit. As well as allowing the more efficient use of assessment resources, the discretion protects vulnerable claimants who would risk losing entitlement to PIP if, as in the pandemic, circumstances threatened to limit the state’s capacity to administer it. We are ensuring that the Department can lawfully maintain benefits payments to the most vulnerable people. The new power will be used initially to increase the length of existing awards in line with the policy on award lengths for new awards, for which the Secretary of State already has the power. Existing claimants’ awards will be extended so that most first-time awards for those over 25 will be reviewed after three years, and most subsequent awards will be reviewed after five. Only awards deemed to be appropriate for those durations will be extended. The Committee may well be interested to know that the average annual increase in the PIP caseload has slowed under this Government: it fell from an increase of about 13% a year in 2019-20 to 2024-25, to a forecast average of about 7% a year over the subsequent five years. The hon. Member for Horsham made a point about the Social Security Advisory Committee. I think he said that the committee had not looked at this; that is not correct—the committee has looked at it. It looks at all the regulatory changes that we propose, and it does a very good job. It plays an important role, and we welcome its scrutiny. As the hon. Gentleman said, the committee asked questions, and we were happy to set out the purpose of the regulations and the reasons for them. The committee accepted the information that we provided, and it chose not to take the regulations on formal reference. I think the hon. Gentleman can be reassured about the committee’s view of this change. I am grateful for the points that have been made and the opportunity for scrutiny that the debate has provided. The changes we are making enable the Department to make more efficient use of limited assessment capacity, to reduce assessments where they are not needed in order to focus on where they are needed, and to allow PIP awards to be extended in an emergency or crisis, as emerged during the pandemic, thereby protecting some vulnerable people from unnecessary hardship. This is a measured amendment to ensure the effective administration of the benefits system. I hope that the hon. Member for South West Devon will not press the motion to a Division, but I fear she probably will—her party issued a press release before this Committee to say that Conservative Members would vote to annul the amendment, possibly before they realised what exactly was going on. If that is the case, I urge the Committee not to vote against the amendment.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI, 2026, No.457) · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. Thank you for permitting us to take our jackets off. I thank hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. As we have heard—my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley made the point absolutely correctly—this statutory instrument amends regulations to enable the best use of the assessment resources that we have available. It will help us to repair the broken system that we inherited, which needs to be repaired, and provides a much-needed safeguard against potential future challenges, in order to protect payments to vulnerable people. As mentioned by my hon. Friend, under the contracts with assessment providers that were negotiated by the last Government, we can call on only a finite volume of assessment capacity. We could, as the last Government did, use a large chunk of that capacity for frequent reassessments of PIP claimants whose circumstances most likely have not changed at all, or we can use that resource in a more productive way. That is what we have chosen to do. We want to do two new things. First, we want to recommence, properly, reassessments for the work capability assessment, which provides a gateway to the health premium in universal credit. The situation we inherited is that work capability assessments are carried out when somebody makes a new application, and after a period that person is due a reassessment. The number of reassessments that it has been possible to carry out has been lamentably low. The hon. Member for South West Devon commended PIP reassessments—if only the Conservatives had carried out the work capability reassessments. We want to switch some of the assessment capacity that was being used ineffectively by the last Government, so that it will be used effectively in future. The second thing we want to do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley referred to, is to increase substantially the proportion of assessments that are carried out face to face. Almost all of them used to be face to face, then came the pandemic, and for reasons that we all understand, they switched to being phone-based or occasionally video-based assessments instead. But once the needs of the pandemic had passed, face-to-face assessments were never properly switched back on. Telephony was retained as the main channel, with just a small number of face-to-face assessments restarting in 2021. In our view, that is not good enough.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Workplace Exposure to Silica Dust · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) on securing this important debate. I also pay tribute to her for her consistent work on this issue in supporting her constituent, Caroline Hudson, whose brother-in-law, George Elliott, tragically died of silicosis, as we have heard. I am very pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) in his place, as he invariably is for debates on health and safety matters, and to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), too. I am the Minister responsible for health and safety in the workplace and for the Health and Safety Executive, or HSE. There has rightly been a lot of interest and correspondence lately about the increased dangers of silicosis resulting from engineered stone, the concerns that have been raised in this debate. Workers—often quite young people, as we have heard—who have worked with engineered stone have been made seriously ill or even, on occasion, lost their lives. I want to extend my deepest sympathy to all individuals and families affected. We have been rightly informed that respirable crystalline silica—RCS—is a fine dust. It cannot normally be seen by the naked eye when airborne, but it does generally arise in visibly dusty processes. It is breathed in through the nose and mouth, can stay in the lungs for years and can cause irreversible lung damage before any symptoms become apparent. The illness it causes can continue to worsen after exposure stops. Breathing in RCS can lead to silicosis and the very serious harms we have heard about. It can also lead to other problems, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh said. Every worker should be able to return home safe from work without fear of succumbing to a preventable deadly lung disease. Silica dust risks have long been recognised but we now know that engineered stone can contain very high concentrations of crystalline silica, as we have been reminded. What is particularly alarming in the past couple of years is the emergence of accelerated silicosis, which is linked to the processing of engineered stone containing high levels of silica at a much higher throughput without effective exposure controls being in place. As one might expect, engineered stone can be processed much more quickly than natural stone and that means that the volume of silica dust a worker can be exposed to is much greater. As a result, we have seen across the world rapid onset of illness after quite short exposure periods, with severe and irreversible lung damage occurring. As we have rightly been told in this debate, all of that is preventable where exposure to silica dust is controlled. We are determined that it should be prevented. It is well known, as we have been reminded, that Australia introduced a ban on engineered stone in July 2024, and California is now considering a similar approach. It is worth noting, though, that the danger of silicosis arises from natural stone, not just engineered stone. Having introduced a ban on engineered stone in July 2024, Australia then introduced restrictions on the use of natural stone in September of that year. We are not currently proposing a ban in the UK, because we do not think that is the right approach. HSE is working closely here with the Worktop Fabricators Federation. That has developed, in conjunction with the British Occupational Health Society, for which I have a high regarded, a quality mark for worktops, to reassure consumers that they are buying a worktop that has been produced safely, not putting workers at risk. It has a logo and the wording “strict silica safety standards applied”. Being able to display that quality mark is dependent on the fabricator demonstrating to a registered occupational hygienist compliance with a 16-point list, including, for example, point number 3: “The use of lower silica products (below 30%) wherever possible.” Accredited products can now be bought from some retailers listed on the Worktop Fabricators Federation website. As I said, we are going to keep this closely under review, though we are not currently proposing a ban on engineered stone in the UK. It would not solve the problem in workplaces that did not have adequate safeguards, because as I have said, problems can arise with natural stone. And the evidence is clear that workers can be protected from the dangers of engineered stone if the right control measures are in place. Those controls need to be in place now to make sure that exposure to harmful dust does not occur. One difference with Australia is the concern there about the safety of people installing the worktops. That has not been raised with me as yet. The risk that we have identified here is to people in workshops cutting the materials ahead of installation. There is a serious problem there, but of course it is possible that the problem could arise in installation as well, and we will keep this closely under review. A ban could lead to unintended consequences with alternative, less well-known materials introducing new risks. Last week, the Health and Safety Executive met Safe Work Australia—the body responsible—to discuss the impact of the ban there. It did an initial review and it identified potential concerns that the ban had led to complacency about the safety of other products that are not prohibited, suggesting that they were assumed to be safe to use without control measures when actually they are not. Control measures are needed for those products as well. But we are going to keep in touch with Safe Work Australia and keep the experience of the ban in Australia under review. A lot of workers in Britain work with these materials every day. Workers and their employers need to understand that controls to prevent exposure are essential, not optional. For many decades, we have had in place a robust regulatory framework—the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations, known as COSHH. That includes the need for control measures, substitution with less harmful materials, and health surveillance. There is also a workplace exposure limit of 0.1 mg per cubic metre for working with silica. That ceiling must not be exceeded, but those with duties are required to minimise exposure below that level. The HSE has published a range of practical guidance—some of it very recent—for those where risks are highest. That is focused on the need to control the dust at source. But the law and guidance are effective only when followed, and it is here that the HSE is now focusing its efforts. Over the last two years, the HSE has been building the evidence base, working with suppliers and developing an effective response. I was pleased to see the hon. Member for Eastleigh welcome that activity recently.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Workplace Exposure to Silica Dust · Hansard source

  More

  Employers need to take care that visitors to their premises are protected. What is being done includes making sure that workers at risk are having respiratory health checks, lung function testing and X-rays at intervals decided by an occupational health professional, and that employers have clear processes for identifying and reporting symptoms. In this debate, the importance of carrying out reporting has rightly been identified. The HSE is currently consulting on expanding the requirements in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations to include silicosis once again. The consultation on that is under way, and it will conclude at the end of the month. The hon. Member for Eastleigh was quite right to raise that issue. For those who choose not to comply with the law, we need effective enforcement. Starting in April and throughout the summer, HSE will be carrying out more than 1,000 inspections across the industry. It will inspect every place that we know of where this stone is being cut— if anyone knows of a place that we may not be aware of, please let me know; I want to make sure that HSE can go and look at it. HSE has carried out 13 inspections since they started at the end of April. Those were visits to places that concern was expressed to us about. Out of the 13 inspections so far, two businesses had ceased trading, but six of the remaining 11 were made to stop processing immediately. Prohibition notices were served for dry processing, unguarded machinery or both. Eight businesses received improvement notices for failing to provide the correct respiratory equipment, while eight received them for failing to provide health surveillance for employees. Just one of the 13 was operating in an exemplary way. Through the programme, HSE will inspect every site it can identify in the country that works with engineered stone. HSE’s inspectors are being briefed on the programme this week. The resources are available to do the job properly, and inspections are under way across the country. Wherever standards are not met, enforcement action will be taken, including a prohibition notice if necessary. As a result of the inspections, HSE may give a duty holder advice or, where there are more significant concerns, issue improvement or prohibition notices that require a duty holder to make improvements or stop dangerous activities altogether. The inspections are now under way, and we are determined to drive out the poor practice behind the problems we have heard about in this debate. We remain committed to ensuring that every worker in every sector is properly protected from this entirely avoidable harm. I welcome the contributions of Members who spoke today. I commend the campaign of The i Paper on this issue and all those who are working to highlight this important and alarming development. I will continue to monitor the evidence available in this country and keep an eye on what is going on elsewhere in the world. I will be very happy to consider further measures if it becomes clear that they are needed. Question put and agreed to.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Workplace Exposure to Silica Dust · Hansard source

  More

  Not just at the moment. I may be able to later. Last month, the HSE launched a campaign specifically on this area of risk, with dedicated pages and resources on the HSE’s Work Right website. Media activity supported the launch; there was coverage in national publications and trade media, as well as the HSE appearing at the Natural Stone Show at the Excel centre in London. Also last month, the HSE published new COSHH guidance for those working with engineered stone. Businesses now have unambiguous instructions on what the law requires for compliance to be achieved. The guidance sets out what is expected to protect workers: water suppression of dust and mist control, appropriate respiratory protective equipment and effective ventilation. Those are not optional extras; they are what is required to comply with the law. Dry cutting of engineered stone is not acceptable. It must not happen anywhere. When dry cutting happens, workers will be inhaling significant quantities of silica dust. Where it remains on their clothing, they are also potentially spreading that silica dust to others. The HSE has also strengthened its guidance on health surveillance to make it clear that where there is a risk of exposure, employers must ensure that workers’ health is regularly monitored. That addresses the point that the hon. Member for Eastleigh correctly raised.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Autism: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  I commend my hon. Friend’s important work as chair of the all-party group and thank her for hosting me at the roundtable. This year, we funded ACAS to deliver masterclasses on recruiting neurodivergent people to 1,800 small and medium-sized enterprise representatives, addressing exactly the concerns that she raised. My Department has also set up the online support with employee health and disability service specifically to help employers on those issues. We will be considering what more we can do.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Autism: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  We are committed to supporting autistic people into work. Our supported employment programme Connect to Work will be open throughout England and Wales by the summer. It has in its supported employment quality framework a specialist pathway for neurodivergent people and those with a learning disability.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Autism: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to hear about what has happened in the hon. Member’s constituency, and I very much agree with him. We recently received the report of our expert academic panel on neurodiversity in the workplace, which was set up last year, and are carefully considering its recommendations. We will act as he suggested.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Disability Living Allowance for Children · Hansard source

  More

  As I said to the hon. Member, we did hit the 90% target last month. That reflects a steady improvement over the last few months. We are also introducing a new online evidence portal to improve evidence gathering, in particular from schools and people in education professions. That will also reduce delays, and we plan to roll that out fully in autumn. We are on the case and making significant improvements.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Disability Living Allowance for Children · Hansard source

  More

  In the six months up to March last year, we appointed an additional 111 case managers to help deal with increased demand for child DLA. The current target is to clear 90% of new child DLA claims in 45 days. Performance has steadily improved, and I am pleased to say that in March we did hit that target.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Yes. I was recently at a roundtable with someone who has multiple sclerosis who described to me the process of applying for PIP as “retraumatising”, rather like when she was initially diagnosed with MS. The steering group is determined to deliver a better system and when we report our recommendations to the Secretary of State in the autumn, I very much hope that that is what we will be able to do.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that we are ensuring genuine co-production. Two co-chairs, Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson, were appointed last October. The three of us have recruited a steering group of 12; they are almost entirely disabled people. Our fifth full-day steering group meeting was in Manchester last Thursday. We have issued a call for evidence, which is open until 28 May. We have had over 10,000 responses so far, and I hope we will receive many more. That is just step one in a programme of wider engagement. This is genuine co-production that will deliver.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the hon. Member’s consistent interest in this important topic, and he will know that the SEND reforms that have been announced have been well received. Our youth guarantee will apply to young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and the trailblazers that we have set up are trying out new approaches, but I would be delighted to meet him and discuss how we can do this job.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am very sorry to hear that the system was not properly understood in the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. He is absolutely right that there is special treatment for compensation payments of this kind within the universal credit system. I will certainly talk to my officials about ensuring that those arrangements are properly understood in the Department.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I regularly meet the lead Ministers on disability from all Departments, including the Department for Transport; I know that my colleague there is particularly interested in transport accessibility for disabled people. I would be very happy to pick up with them the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is right; there is a three-month period to wait after the onset of the incapacity or impairment. Sometimes I think there is a bit of confusion; people think it is three months after the application, but it is not: it is three months after the issue arises. That is to make sure that it is a long-term incapacity; that is what the benefit is there to support. I would be happy to have a conversation with the hon. Member about this. Of course, this matter is devolved in Northern Ireland, but Northern Ireland conventionally keeps in line with England.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, we have now started reviewing those 200,000 cases. We anticipate that there will probably be 25,000 people among the 200,000 who could have debts cancelled, or could possibly be refunded. If carer’s allowance has been overpaid and should not have been, we will of course need to recover the money. The problem has been that the previous Government’s guidance in the Department was wrong. We have now corrected that, so I am hopeful that that particular kind of mistake will not occur again.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Disabled People: Benefits Reassessments · Hansard source

  More

  There is an urgent need to address the big rise in the number of young people not in work, education or training that took place before the last general election. We think that better support might help young people more than extra cash. Alan Milburn’s review on the NEET problem more broadly will report in September; we will wait until then to decide whether to delay access to the universal credit health element until the age of 22. If we did do that, there would need to be exceptions.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Disabled People: Benefits Reassessments · Hansard source

  More

  I point the hon. Gentleman to the Keep Britain Working review, which Sir Charlie Mayfield is leading; it addresses exactly the issue that he rightly raises. We are also looking at reforming Disability Confident, which has huge potential—19,000 employers have signed up, I think. There is a lot of enthusiasm on the part of employers. We want to make sure that those who sign up to the scheme then progress up the levels so that Disability Confident makes a really significant difference. I am very hopeful that it will.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Disabled People: Benefits Reassessments · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the fact that my hon. Friend’s local authority is joining up with Connect to Work, which will be available across the whole of England and Wales by this summer. These regulations are a very important step forward. More needs to be done to give people confidence that moving into work or embarking on volunteering will not trigger a benefit reassessment. I also point him to our Pathways to Work guarantee, giving tailored personalised support to young people in the position that he described, and to the “Keep Britain Working” review by Charlie Mayfield, making employer vacancies accessible to my hon. Friend’s constituents and others in the position that he described.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Disabled People: Benefits Reassessments · Hansard source

  More

  The support provided by Access to Work is absolutely vital. There has been a big surge in demand for the scheme over the last few years, which has led to some significant delay. I am very sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent has been affected in the way that he described. We said last year that we wanted to reform Access to Work, and that reform is much needed given the greatly increased demand. We are working on proposals and as soon as we are able to put them before the House, we will do so.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Disabled People: Benefits Reassessments · Hansard source

  More

  We are determined that disabled people should have the confidence to try work. Our “right to try” legislation will come into force on Thursday. People claiming universal credit, new style employment support allowance and personal independence payment can take steps towards employment and be confident that doing so will not automatically trigger benefit reassessment.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I welcome all Members to the Committee. I am very pleased to introduce this instrument, which was laid before the House on 24 February. The draft regulations are important to keep our post-Brexit chemicals regime robust, proportionate and fit for the long term. They amend three pieces of chemicals legislation that we assimilated from the European Union, putting right things that could not be put right at the point of EU exit due to the limited powers available then under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I am satisfied that they are compatible with the European convention on human rights. The draft regulations maintain high standards of protection for human health and the environment, making sure that the regulatory system works efficiently for businesses, and supporting economic growth. In combination with the commitment of the Health and Safety Executive to aligning with the European Union’s regulatory decisions other than in exceptional circumstances, the draft regulations create a framework for adopting EU chemical hazard classifications more quickly in Great Britain. Chemicals stakeholder groups across the board broadly share the wish to stay as aligned with the European Union as possible, to support trade and to maintain the high standards of protection that we share with our closest trading partners, and this statutory instrument reflects those wishes. It is very important that this legislation has been laid now, because the powers provided for in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 expire in June, and no other suitable powers are available. The changes being made here are about keeping on the market things that are currently available. New things that are not currently available will still be subject to existing classification and approval requirements, and will be permitted in Great Britain only if the HSE has undertaken an evaluation of them, as is the case at present. There will be a fast track for classification evaluations, but only if the substance has already been subject to classification by a regime that adopts the United Nations globally harmonised system on the same basis as the UK—which means, at present, only the European Union’s. Substances approved elsewhere will not be eligible for fast-tracked evaluation in the UK. The measures strike an important balance, giving more certainty and flexibility, with a more proportionate system for chemicals suppliers and the regulator, while protecting the natural environment from the risk of chemical pollution, protecting people who use and work with hazardous chemical substances, and retaining the benefits of important biocidal products, such as those used to provide clean drinking water. The Health and Safety Executive’s chemicals supply framework is overseen through three regimes. First, there is the Great Britain biocidal products regulation, BPR, which controls the placing on the market and use of biocidal products—disinfectants, insecticides, and so on. Secondly, there is the Great Britain classification, labelling and packaging—CLP—regulation, which provides for the identification and communication of chemical hazards, adopting the UN globally harmonised system of classification and labelling. Thirdly, there is the GB prior informed consent—PIC—regulation, which governs the export and import of some hazardous chemicals. Those regulations were carried over from EU law under the 2023 Act, which enables sensible amendments to keep those regimes operating effectively. The regulations before the Committee apply to England, Wales and Scotland, whose Ministers earlier this year consented to the making of the regulations. In Northern Ireland, EU chemicals legislation continues to apply under the Windsor framework. The chemicals supply framework that we inherited from the European Union provided a high level of protection, but there are some structural and operational problems in applying it in a single country. We used, for example, to share access to the testing resources of all European Union countries; now we just have access to our own. Without these regulations, we would very quickly run into serious problems. Up to 173 active substances used in essential biocidal products would very soon lose approval and have to be removed from the market. Those products include insecticides used to remove disease vectors from aircraft, disinfectants for infection control in hospitals, anti-fouling coatings needed by ships at sea, wood preservatives that protect businesses and homes, and other biocides that are important for public health. There would also be inadequate powers to issue temporary permits for critical products, so that it would no longer be possible for essential products such as aviation fuel preservatives and chemicals used to disinfect public drinking water supplies permitted under those powers to be supplied and used legally. Businesses would continue to face unnecessary administrative burdens such as notification requirements that no longer serve any purpose, and the ability of the Health and Safety Executive to prioritise more quickly and flexibly chemical hazard assessments relevant to the Great Britain market would remain limited. At the moment, the HSE has by law to consider EU risk assessment committee classification proposals, including those that are irrelevant to this country. Exporters of hazardous chemicals would continue to have to carry out pointless tasks such as obtaining a special reference identification number that customs authorities do not use. I also want to make clear that there would be no corresponding benefits at all to health or to the environment. Taking them one by one, the BRP extends the expiry date for the up to 173 approved active substances to 31 July 2031, provided that renewal applications are submitted. That will prevent them from lapsing through no fault of the suppliers and will avoid very severe disruption. It also reforms emergency provision so that essential biocidal products such as aviation fuel preservatives and drinking water disinfectants can remain available until an authorisation decision is made, where the need for use is long term. Of course, at some point it may be that a decision will be made that these products should not be available, but we do not want that to happen between now and June, because then they would become non-available. [ Official Report, 13 May 2026; Vol. 786; c. 3WC.] (Correction) The regulation clarifies and extends data protection rules to ensure that businesses investing in scientific data can recover costs consistently across all relevant approval routes. On 9 March, the Government announced that the biocides regime would be in scope of a new UK-European Union sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—agreement as part of the reset negotiations for the relationship between us and the European Union. We do not know the outcome of those negotiations, but the direction of travel, as the Government have made clear, is that the UK will follow a model of dynamic alignment with the European Union for biocide products. The measures maintain important disease prevention and public health protections while enabling SPS agreement negotiations to conclude and any agreement to be implemented. The changes do not allow the introduction of new biocidal products that have not been evaluated and approved under the rigorous biocides regulatory framework, but rather maintain the availability of existing biocidal active substances and products that are already permitted under the current rules. The changes deliver certainty and continuity, not deregulation. The regulation on classification, labelling and packaging introduces a streamlined procedure for seeking the consent of devolved Governments to update the mandatory classification and labelling list—the MCL list—by removing duplicative actions. It removes the obligation to automatically consider all initial EU hazard classification proposals—even those for products that nobody is interested in using in the UK—so that the HSE can prioritise what matters for this country and introduce a bespoke GB work plan, setting out the classification priorities for the HSE over a three-year period. The plan will be subject to annual review and agreed following consultation with the devolved Governments. The regulation will also allow the Health and Safety Executive to respond to changes resulting from later European Union decisions; flexibility that the current regime does not allow. It creates a faster evaluation pathway for adopting EU classification proposals other than in exceptional circumstances. It relocates technical notes to the HSE website so that updates will no longer require legislation, making technical guidance more up-to-date and accessible, and revokes unnecessary notification requirements, eliminating the need for businesses to submit data that is no longer needed. The changes simplify regulation and introduce greater flexibility to direct limited resources to hazard classification evaluations that are relevant in Britain. They maintain high standards of protection, and do not in any way change the legal requirement for the Health and Safety Executive to evaluate chemicals for mandatory classification on the basis of their being carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction. It will also be possible to legally require the assessment of other types of hazards, such as those in the new EU hazard classes, on a case-by-case basis, until the future legislation is introduced. That allows us to adopt EU measures if we need to and maintain coherent trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The regulation on the export and import of hazardous chemicals removes the redundant requirement for exports of small quantities of chemicals for use in research, analysis or emergency situations from Great Britain to have special reference identification numbers. It harmonises conditions for granting waivers where importing countries fail to respond to consent requests, removing a barrier to legitimate trade. It makes the Health and Safety Executive, as the designated national authority, responsible for reviewing and updating the GB list, reducing administrative delays and ensuring faster implementation of international obligations. It also aligns our updates more closely with the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions, giving exporters greater clarity on prohibited substances. All those changes will streamline export procedures and maintain our strong commitment to our international obligations. They will not affect the import of chemicals to this country. I want to comment on the situation regarding the UK internal market. Under the terms of the Windsor framework, EU chemicals regulations continue to apply in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market is important. The more efficient regulatory process and the more timely decision making, which enable alignment with decisions made in the European Union, are expected to have minimal impact on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland within the UK internal market. There may be exceptional circumstances in which a different regulatory decision is made in Great Britain, but the potential impact on the supply of chemicals to Northern Ireland will continue to be a consideration in making such decisions. Regulatory divergence has been a big concern following EU exit. In December 2024, the Northern Ireland Assembly applied to trigger the Stormont brake to ask the UK Government to prevent the application of new measures adopted into EU classification, labelling and packaging legislation. It was decided that the conditions for application of the brake were not met, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has committed to addressing the impact of regulatory divergence and to consider how to apply a consistent classification, labelling and packaging regime across the United Kingdom. The powers in the 2023 Act, to which I have referred a couple of times, have not permitted us to make changes to introduce a consistent regime for classification, labelling and packaging now, in this statutory instrument. However, the HSE has committed to further work, throughout this year and next, on how to make updates to deliver a consistent classification and labelling regime in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, within the UK internal market, using powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  No, we are only aligning with the very highest standards worldwide. The question is: what is the framework for that? We are adopting the UN framework, and we think that is the right one. There is still a question about what the EU will do in relation to the UN classification, but I would be very happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend. It is not the case that, as she was concerned about, we might permit some things because it is a good idea on industrial production grounds, even if it is not a good idea in terms of human health, animal health or the environment. We are maintaining in these regulations—and indeed in future regulations in this area we are determined to maintain—the very highest standards of protection for human health and for the environment. There is no weakening there at all. On my hon. Friend’s point about whether we should be aligning more closely, as I have indicated, it is our view that our chemicals regulatory arrangements should be aligned with EU arrangements in the future. This instrument is a step in that direction. There will no doubt need to be further debate and discussion once the current negotiations are concluded, but it is interesting to me that across the whole spectrum, from those whose primary focus is on maintaining human health and safety and the environment to those who are concerned about how much we can export from the UK and how much we can manufacture here and sell elsewhere, pretty much everybody agrees that we should be very closely aligned with the EU. There are, as I said earlier, some areas where, given that we have quite constrained testing resources, we do not want to be required to test every product that is tested in Europe, if it is a product that is of no use or interest in the UK. There will therefore be instances in which our arrangements are not absolutely identical to the EU arrangements, but we want to align for very good commercial and also environmental and health reasons. The regulations that the Committee is considering are a practical and necessary set of amendments. They prevent disruption to critical biocidal products that safeguard public health; they reduce unnecessary burdens on business while keeping protections in place; they enable the regulator to focus its resources on the hazards that matter to Great Britain; they strengthen the coherence, efficiency and future readiness of the chemicals regulatory system; they maintain the protection to human health, animal health and the environment; and they make the regulatory process more efficient by delivering a proportionate regulatory environment aligned with the country’s needs. I commend them to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot say how many of the 173 have had such calls made in relation to them, but my guess is that some of them probably have because of the nature of the substances. As the hon. Lady says, they all have current approval. The statutory instrument just ensures that they carry on being approved beyond June. [ Official Report, 13 May 2026; Vol. 786; c. 3WC.] (Correction) However, science is developing our understanding of the impacts of these substances on the environment and our health, and there may be a case to make about some of them. As I said, I do not have the information for the 173, but it would not surprise me if there were significant calls for some of them to be considered for removal. The point is that we do not want that to happen by accident because we did not have the powers to enable them to continue being used. In terms of the exports that we are addressing in the third of these measures, the UK is a very responsible supplier, and those who supply from the UK are well regulated and behave conscientiously. As I set out earlier, the SI makes sure that if something is ordered to be exported from the UK, and there is no problem with it and there is no response when one has been requested from authorities, the export can continue. That is if there is no response. Clearly, if the response is, “No, this is not approved here”, or something similar, that product would not be supplied. We just want to ensure that what could be an impediment to legitimate trade is not imposed. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) has had the opportunity to contribute to the debate, given her a long-standing interest in this area. I did not catch all six of the questions, so perhaps she and I should correspond separately about some of them. She asked why all six new EU classes are not covered here. The question is what will happen at UN level, because our commitment is to align properly with the UN globally harmonised system. There is a question about how the six EU classes will relate to the UN system, and I do not think that we quite know the answer yet. Perhaps I can send my hon. Friend a fuller response on that point.