Chemicals Strategy
Question
2.53pm
Asked by
of Ullock
To ask His Majesty's Government when they intend to publish the
chemicals strategy to which they committed in their 25-year
environment plan of January 2018.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs () (Con)
My Lords, protecting human health and the environment from the
risks posed by chemicals is a priority of the Government. The
Government will meet their commitments on chemicals set out in
the Environmental Improvement Plan 2023. The short delay in
publishing the chemicals strategy is due to the new Secretary of
State being more ambitious with its scope. We continue to engage
regularly with industry, we have a draft strategy just here,
right behind me—I do not want to do a spoiler alert—and we aim to
publish it very shortly.
of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, it is now over six years since the chemicals strategy
was first promised, to set out the UK's approach post Brexit to
ensure that chemicals are safely used and managed, with the
promise of a world-class system. However, this month, Hazards
magazine published data on workplace exposure limits for
chemicals, which found that not a single new protective workplace
exposure limit has been introduced into Britain since the UK left
the EU. Worryingly, in 10 instances, the British standard was
weaker than the new EU occupational exposure limit. Can the
Minister confirm that when the strategy is finally published, it
will urgently address this in order to reassure our British
workers?
(Con)
This is a complex area. I entirely agree with the noble
Baroness's thoughts and will take them back to the department to
see whether we can get that included if it is not already
there.
(LD)
My Lords, the Minister characterised the delay with the strategy
as a short delay. Let us talk about another delay—the delay in
publishing the 2023-24 UK REACH work programme. The Minister is
relatively new and will not be aware of the saga of his
department's regulating and authorising the use of chemicals. The
Minister sitting beside him, the noble Lord, , has suffered it rather more.
That annual work programme was published 10 months late. This is
a vital document for the chemical industries to work out what
they need to do to meet safety and regulatory concerns. Will the
Minister promise that the 2024-25 report, which is due in the
summer, will be published on time?
(Con)
Again, the noble Lord raises a very good point. This is serious
stuff which needs to be adhered to in great detail, so I will
take his comments back and ensure that we strive much harder this
year to get that report out on time.
(CB)
My Lords, antimicrobial resistance is a major global health
problem, including in the UK. What are His Majesty's Government
doing regarding surveillance for antibiotics and their residues
in aqueous environments and to reduce the contamination of those
aqueous environments with antibiotics and residues, which can
spread and facilitate the development of antibiotic resistance in
humans and animals?
(Con)
Antimicrobial resistance has been raised a number of times in the
House. I have had several meetings with the noble Lord and his
colleagues, talking about the UK's success story in this area.
Antibiotic use has been reduced by more than 50% over the last
five years. However, there is more progress to be made and the
noble Lord raises a series of very valuable points, which I will
write to him on.
(Con)
Does my noble friend agree that if we do not get some of these
things out pretty quickly and the European Union goes on
improving its situation, many people will ask whether there was
any point in taking back control in the first place?
(Con)
That is certainly an interesting perspective but not one that I
would agree with, I am afraid. Now that we have left the UK, we
will follow the best—
Noble Lords
Oh!
(Con)
I think that your Lordships spotted my mistake. We will follow
the best scientific advice and adopt the most appropriate
approaches for the UK.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that firefighters have a cancer
risk that is conservatively estimated to be two to three times
higher than that of the general population and that one key
factor in that higher risk is the presence of “forever chemicals”
in firefighter foams and PPE? Can the Minister confirm that
consulting with the FBU on issues such as regular health checks,
and a strategy to mitigate and, ideally, prevent that risk, is in
that draft updated strategy that he has next to him? Does he
agree that dithering and delays in this strategy cost lives?
(Con)
The noble Baroness is quite right. Forever chemicals are a
serious concern. They are linked to a number of different
firefighting products—the foam and chemicals that come out of the
extinguishers present a particularly serious issue, and not only
to those who are using them, for that product gets inextricably
linked to the environment around it. A number of issues which
will come through in the strategy are in place to address
that.
(LD)
My Lords, how long do the Government plan to keep granting
emergency exemptions from the ban on neonicotinoid pesticides?
When are they planning to ban these dangerous substances
permanently?
(Con)
My Lords, as the noble Earl knows, restrictions preventing the
general use of three neonics in agriculture have been in place
for several years. The Government continue to support these
restrictions and have no intention of reversing them. A neonic
seed treatment, Cruiser SB, is allowed to be used on sugar beet
in England only if yellows virus is predicted to pose a threat to
that year's crop. This decision is not taken lightly and is based
on a robust assessment of the environmental and economic risks
and benefits.
of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in the last four years, the EU has added 31 substances
to its list of substances of very high concern and has banned
eight substances on that list outright. The UK is reported to be
considering adding four to its equivalent list of substances of
very high concern, by 2025 at the earliest. Analysts have
suggested that this is because of either the Government's general
reluctance to regulate or the lack of Civil Service capacity.
Will the Minister change either of those two factors?
(Con)
I believe there might be choices other than the two that the
noble Baroness highlights. One is that not all those substances
are necessarily being, or will be, used in the UK; therefore,
banning them seems in no way appropriate. However, I take the
noble Baroness's point and will look into it further.
(Con)
My Lords, since leaving the EU, we have the freedom to phase out
the most harmful and persistent pollutants. Are we on target to
eliminate the use of polychlorinated biphenyls next year?
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. It might be best if I
write to her with the details.
(LD)
My Lords, I always get the impression that chemicals regulation
is at the bottom of Defra's in-tray. Its performance since Brexit
has been atrocious. I also get the impression that the
Government's strategy now is to lighten the burden on industry by
reducing the amount of information that is put on UK REACH, but
that has a lot of other effects. Can we not get to a point where
we save real money for the UK chemical industry, which exports
into the EU, by finding a pragmatic way—I mean pragmatic—to align
with EU REACH, so that the industry can really perform, export
and save a huge amount of money; in fact, billions of pounds?
(Con)
The noble Lord raises a bigger point, and this is exactly what
the chemicals strategy aims to achieve. I hope that when it is
published, and it will be shortly, the noble Lord will be
satisfied.
