Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 29 November 2022

Introduction

This document summarises the responses that the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) received to its consultation on extending the current UK REACH submission deadlines. The consultation exercise ran for 8 weeks before closing on 1 September 2022.

There were 20 questions in the consultation document. Seven of these were background questions about the respondents, providing important contextual information. This summary is a high-level overview of the main messages from the consultation responses, reflecting the views offered. It also provides a government response to these messages.

Defra is grateful to everyone who took the time and effort to respond. The responses have been analysed by Defra staff dealing with the consultation proposals.

Background to the consultation

The UK REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) Regulation is one of the main pieces of legislation for the regulation of chemicals in Great Britain. It established the UK REACH regime (UK REACH), which regulates the use of substances in Great Britain, while EU REACH continues to apply in Northern Ireland.

UK REACH requires substances that are manufactured in, or imported into, Great Britain to be registered with the Agency for UK REACH (the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)). Registrations include information on the hazards, uses and exposure of the substance. Registration information is used by HSE for regulatory purposes and by the registrants to identify appropriate risk management measures for themselves and other users down the supply chain.

The UK REACH Regulation contains transitional provisions to reduce the disruption to industry as they moved to the new regime from EU REACH. These provisions allow companies to submit initial ‘notification’ data in order to continue trading and then subsequently provide the full registration data. The transitional provisions apply to those that were registrants, downstream users or distributors under EU REACH before UK REACH came into effect. The current deadlines for completing this transitional registration process, depending on tonnage and hazard profile of the substance, are set down in Article 127P of UK REACH and are:

• 27 October 2023 for substances included on the EU REACH candidate list before UK REACH came into effect; substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction and manufactured or imported in quantities of 1 tonne a year or more; substances that are very toxic to aquatic life and manufactured or imported in quantities of 100 tonnes or more a year; and all substances manufactured or imported in quantities of 1,000 tonnes or more a year

• 27 October 2025 for substances added to the UK REACH candidate list before the 2023 submission deadline; and all substances manufactured or imported in quantities of 100 tonnes or more a year

• 27 October 2027 for all substances manufactured or imported in quantities of 1 tonne or more a year

In response to concerns raised by interested parties around the cost of acquiring the data to complete their registrations, the government is working with stakeholders to explore an alternative transitional registration (ATR) model. The aim of this model is to reduce costs to businesses of transitioning from EU REACH to UK REACH whilst maintaining existing human health and environment protections. Developing a new model is highly technical and complex and time is needed to develop a firm proposal. If a suitable model is found, operational (for example, IT development) and legislative changes would need to be made to implement it.

The first of the current registration submission deadlines is 27 October 2023. Therefore amendments to the current legislation are necessary to extend the deadlines to ensure there is sufficient time for substantive development of the policy, and to make operational and legislative changes to implement the new model. Industry will also need time to prepare for compliance with it. Extending the deadlines will reduce the likelihood of companies making nugatory investments in complying with current deadlines and data requirements. It will allow them time to plan their business decisions in relation to the extended deadlines.

Purpose of the consultation

The purpose of this consultation was to seek the views of interested parties on our proposal to extend the current UK REACH submission deadlines by up to 3 years. We consulted on 3 options, including a do-nothing option. These were:

• Baseline – Do Nothing – do not change the current submission deadlines (27 October 2023, 27 October 2025 and 27 October 2027)

• Option 1 – extend all the current submission deadlines of each tonnage band by 3 years to October 2026, October 2028 and October 2030

• Option 2 (government preferred option) – extend the first submission deadline by 3 years to October 2026, the second by 2 years to October 2027 and the third by 1 year to October 2028

We also sought views on our proposal to make related amendments to the dates for compliance checks under Article 41(5) of the UK REACH Regulation, so they are in lockstep with the proposed data submission deadlines and to ensure that this regulatory process is applied in the most effective manner. This would not be possible if the Agency continued to be subject to the current dates for compliance checks, as they would fall before the relevant submission deadlines. In addition, we asked a few questions (Question 15 to Question 19) about impacts of the options as outlined in the draft impact assessment published alongside the consultation document.

Consultation process

Defra met with a range of interested parties including industry, trade organisations and non-governmental organisations, to discuss the government’s proposal to extend the submission deadlines, before and during the period of the consultation. Many of those who took part subsequently responded formally to the written consultation. To increase awareness, especially among our target audience, we publicised the consultation on HSE’s website and via the HSE e-Bulletin, as well as on a chemical-based online platform. We also raised awareness during the period of the consultation through internal meetings with interested parties.

A draft impact assessment accompanied this consultation and, in accordance with the Environment Act 2021, an Article 1 Consistency Statement was also published alongside the consultation. The consultation ran for 8 weeks, between 5 July and 1 September, and was live on the Citizen Space website. E-mail responses were also accepted during this period.

Analysis of responses

A qualitative thematic analysis of the open-ended questions was undertaken, which identified the key issues raised. Where feasible, a numerical estimate of those for and against each proposal has been provided alongside a breakdown of responses by sector.

Overview of the respondents

A total of 289 responses to the consultation were received. 266 were submitted via the Citizen Space website and 23 via email. There was a good response to all the questions as illustrated in Figure 1. Each question was answered by 90% or more respondents.

Figure 1: Response rate to each consultation question (Q1 to Q20)

Question	Response rate to each consultation question
Question 1	100%
Question 2	97%
Question 3	97%
Question 4	100%
Question 5	100%
Question 6	94%
Question 7	100%
Question 8	100%
Question 9	100%
Question 10	100%
Question 11	100%
Question 12	100%
Question 13	100%
Question 14	100%
Question 15	100%
Question 16	96%
Question 17	95%
Question 18	100%
Question 19	100%
Question 20	100%

A list of consultees who did not wish to remain anonymous is in Annex A. Interested parties were encouraged to respond via the consultation portal on Citizen Space and via e-mail or by surface mail.

Respondents by organisation

As Figure 2 illustrates, 123 of the respondents were from a large business (250 or more employees), 58 from a small or micro business (less than 50 employees), 47 from a medium business (50 to 249 employees), 20 were consultants, 28 were from an industry association, 8 were from other types of organisations and 5 were from NGOs.

Figure 2: Number of respondents by organisation

Respondents by organisation	Number of responses
Other	8
Industry association	28
Large business (250 or more employees, including global operations)	123
Medium business (50 to 249 employees, including global operations)	47
Small or micro business (less than 50 employees, including global operations)	58
Consultancy	20
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)	5

Respondents by role

The majority of the responses came from those who identified as large businesses. There was also a higher response rate from respondents who identified as small and micro businesses than those who identified as medium businesses. NGOs had the lowest response rate to the consultation. Those who identified as ‘Others’ were all importers of substances and mixtures.

1. Question 7 of the consultation asked respondents about their legal responsibilities and roles under UK REACH. Respondents could select more than one role. The responses received (see figure 3) demonstrate that a significant number of respondents were importers of substances and mixtures from the EU and EEA. There was also a high number of respondents who identified as downstream users.

Figure 3: Distribution of respondents by role

Respondents by role	Number of responses as a percentage
Downstream user of chemical substances	128
Exporter of substances from Great Britain to rest of the world	100
Exporter of substances from Great Britain to the EU and EEA	117
Importer of substances and or mixtures from rest of the world	141
Importer of substances and or mixtures from Northern Ireland	26
Importer of substances and or mixtures from the EU and EEA	182
Manufacturer of substances	80
Only representative (OR)	73

Summary of responses

There were 20 questions in the consultation document. The first 7 questions relate to the identity and role of the respondents and are reported on in the previous section.

The responses received in relation to the specific questions (Q8 to Q20) raised in the consultation paper are summarised below.

Question 8. What is your preferred option on extending the registration deadlines?

• Do nothing
• Option1: Extend current submission deadlines of each tonnage band by 3 years to October 2026, October 2028 and October 2030
• Option 2: Extend the first submission deadline by 3 years to October 2026, the second by 2 years to October 2027 and the third by 1 year to October 2028
• Do not have a preferred option

Question 8 asked respondents which deadline extension option they were in support of: maintaining the status quo (do nothing); extending the deadlines for all tonnage bands by three years (Option 1) or extending the deadlines incrementally so that all submissions are complete by October 2028 (Option 2). Those who did not have a preferred option could also state this.

Figure 4: Responses to Question 8

Respondents by role	Number of responses
Option 1	82%
Option 2	13%
Do nothing	3%
No preferred option	2%

All those responding to the consultation (289) answered Question 8. Figure 4 illustrates the responses. It can be seen that overwhelmingly Option 1 was the popular option, with 82% of respondents selecting this. Option 2 was only selected by a small proportion of respondents (13%) and Do Nothing by only 3%. 2% of respondents did not have a preferred option.

Comments from respondents in favour of Option 1

The general view among respondents who chose Option 1 was that it would provide more time to prepare registration documents and that the longer timeframe would reduce burdens and maximise the opportunity for businesses to submit high quality dossiers. Respondents in support of Option 1 varied from SMEs to large businesses and included only representatives, manufacturers, downstream users as well as importers and exporters of chemicals and mixtures. No NGO was in favour of Option 1.

There was also a general acknowledgement that although the data requirements were less at the lower tonnage bands, a significant amount of resource would still be required to complete the registrations in the required time. Respondents noted that Option 1 provided them with the best chance of completing all their registrations in time to avoid any risk to the continuity of chemical supply.

Several respondents who selected Option 1, suggested that SMEs would struggle to provide the registration data within the truncated timescale under Option 2. They noted that Option 1 would allow them more time to implement any learnings that may transpire from the first wave of submissions in 2026. They also noted that the one-year gap provided under Option 2 would not provide the necessary time to establish and implement best practice.

Respondents in support of Option 1 also stated that, while some of their concerns may be mitigated by the proposed ATR model for UK REACH, Option 1 would provide more time to plan their registration strategies, either through consultancies or independently, and allow time to undergo appropriate training or recruitment as needed.

Several respondents in favour of Option 1, such as those identified as industry associations, consultants, and downstream users, noted that the new provisions under the proposed ATR model were likely to require significant expertise such as (eco) toxicologists to collate, assess and submit information. They suggested that the two-year interval between deadlines under Option 1 would allow a wider spread of resources as well as costs to meet the submission requirements for the lower volume substances.

Occasionally, respondents who identified as industry associations noted that most of their member companies that operate globally would have to deal with competing deadlines due to the combination of the upcoming regulatory commitments such as EU polymer registration, Turkey REACH (KKDIK), Korea REACH (K-REACH) and other global regulations. They described the wider demands and constraints faced by industry beyond the requirements of UK REACH. They noted that businesses were facing challenges with increased energy, logistics and related raw material costs and availability, and challenges associated with wider society’s transition to net zero.

Comments from respondents in favour of Option 2

Respondents who opted for Option 2 were in the minority (13%). Again, the responses varied across the organisation type. Our analysis carefully considered the points respondents made in support of this option.

However, unlike Option 1, no strong theme emerged from the analysis. One NGO did choose this option.

The majority of the respondents who chose Option 2 suggested it provided a reasonable period to comply with the submission deadlines, and was, on balance, the best option as the transitional registration data would still be received as early as possible, while allowing industry sufficient time to comply.

A small number of respondents suggested that the shorter deadlines provided by Option 2 would ensure a quicker transition to a settled regulatory environment. They noted that longer transitional deadlines under Option 1 could allow companies that have no intention of registering to keep their products on the market for longer.

Proponents of Option 2 suggested that the option provided sufficient time for the legislative changes to be made by the government and that it provides sufficient time for businesses to prepare for the new registration requirements for the most hazardous substances first, followed by those with low volume and low levels of concern.

Comments from respondents in favour of ‘Do Nothing’

The few respondents who chose the ‘Do Nothing’ option’ (3%) were in favour of maintaining the current data submission provisions. The majority of the proponents of this option identified as ‘NGOs’. They noted that they had not received reassurances about the basic principles underling the ATR model being developed and that the current proposals being considered under the model were likely to be weaker and less protective of human health and the environment.

There was only one industry response supportive of this option and they stated that they chose it because they were data owners, and that early submission was preferrable as well as beneficial to them.

Government response to Question 8

The government believes that an extension to the submission deadlines is clearly required to allow the ATR model to be developed. ‘Doing nothing’ is not considered a viable option as it could create a situation where industry submit information that may not be required, should an alternative model be found.

The government favoured Option 2 because it allowed for quicker receipt of the data compared to Option 1: allowing HSE access to UK specific data sooner. We also believed it would provide certainty for industry and ensure the Agency can take necessary regulatory actions in the quickest time possible.

The government has carefully considered all responses to Question 8 and has balanced the impact of extending the submission deadlines on human health and environmental protections against the potential impacts that the changes could have on businesses, especially the potential cost/burdens on downstream users and SMEs. While we would like to see the data submitted in the shorter deadline provided under Option 2, we believe that the extra time under Option 1 could lessen potential burdens on businesses - especially SMEs and downstream users - without significantly impacting on human health and environmental protections. We also recognise the potential for better quality data and maximising chances of compliance under Option 1.

Subject to the consent of the Scottish and Welsh governments, the UK government will be legislating to extend the current deadlines by 3 years for each tonnage band to 2026, 2028 and 2030.

Questions 9 and 10

Question 9. Do you think the reduced submission timeline for substances in the 100 tonnes or more bracket under Option 2 provides sufficient time to comply with the deadline? (Yes or No) Please explain the reasons for your answer.

Question 10. Do you think the reduced submission time for substances in the 1 tonne or more bracket under Option 2 provides sufficient time to comply with the deadlines? (Yes or No) Please explain the reasons for your answer. Subject to the consent of the Scottish and Welsh governments, the UK government will be legislating to extend the current deadline by three years for each tonnage band to 2026, 2028 and 2030.

Question 9 and Question 10 sought to ascertain whether the truncated deadlines for the respective tonnage bands under Option 2 provide sufficient time for stakeholders.

Figure 5: Responses to Questions 9 and 10

Department	No	Yes
For the 100 tonnes or more bracket under Question 9	76%	24%
For the 1 tonne or more bracket under Question 10	72%	28%

For the 100 tonnes or more bracket under Question 9:

• 76% of respondents to this question answered ‘No’
• 24% of respondents to this question answered ‘Yes’

For the 1 tonne or more bracket under Question 10:

• 72% of respondents to this question answered ‘No’
• 28% answered of respondents to this question answered ‘Yes’

The responses received to these questions correspond to, and are consistent with, the responses to Question 8. Respondents to Question 9 and Question 10 who were in favour of Option 1 did not feel the reduced timelines Option 2 represents for the 1 and 100 tonnage bands were sufficient. The corollary applies to the respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to the reduced deadlines for the 1 and 100 tonnage bands, as most of them were in support of the reduced timeline under Option 2. The NGOs who opted for the ‘Do Nothing’ option in Question 8 answered ‘Yes’ to Question 9 and Question 10 as they felt the reduced deadlines provided under Question 9 and 10 provided sufficient time in which to submit the data (figure 5).

As in Question 8, the key theme for those who answered ‘no’ was the benefits that ensue from the extra time under Option 1. The predominant view was that the option with the longer time would serve them best in terms of needing the extra time to adapt to changes, negotiate data access and spread costs.

Questions 11 and 12

Question 11. To what extent do you think Option 1 impacts on the regulatory aims of UK REACH in achieving a high level of protection of human health and the environment?

Question 12. To what extent do you think Option 2 impacts on the regulatory aims of UK REACH in achieving a high level of protection of human health and the environment?

The predominant view from respondents to Question 11 and Question 12 was that the extended deadlines, both under Option 1 and Option 2, were unlikely to have a significant impact on achieving high levels of protection of human health and the environment. Generally, respondents to these 2 questions felt that extending the deadlines would give industry more time to comply and consequently result in the submission of better-quality data.

A significant number of respondents to both questions also noted that there were sufficient ‘residual protections’ inherited from EU REACH because of the hazards and risk being well known and documented under EU REACH. Again, all but one the NGOs who responded to Question 11 and Question 12 felt that the extensions under Options 1 and Options 2 would weaken HSE’s ability to control hazardous substances.

Government response to Question 11 and Question 12

Overall, responses under Question 11 and Question 12 strongly supported the government’s assessment that moving the submission deadlines, either under Option 1 or Option 2 does not amount to a discernible reduction in human health and environmental protections. We believe that there are sufficient controls within UK REACH to provide the necessary safeguards within the extended period. Please see the government response to Question 15.

Question 13. Do you agree with the government’s proposal to move the current dates for compliance checks until after the submission deadlines in either Option 1 or Option 2?

There was a 100% response rate to this question and over 90% of the respondents supported the government’s proposal to extend the timelines for compliance checks under UK REACH^{[footnote 1]}. The majority of respondents to Question 13 described the proposal as a logical approach and acknowledged that the deadlines for data submission should naturally precede compliance checks. They stressed that selecting the required 20% of registrations dossiers for compliance checks on the dates currently set in legislation would not be possible if the dossiers are submitted on the proposed deadlines under Option 1 or Option 2. Although most of the NGOs were against extending the submission deadlines in Question 8, two out of the four who responded to this question agreed with the proposal to move the current dates for compliance checks.

There was no coherent theme from respondents who were against moving the compliance check dates. Those who disagreed with moving the dates suggested that moving them would allow substandard information to be relied on for longer.

Question 14. Do you have a view on what the revised dates for compliance checks should be?

A range of views were expressed under this question. In terms of the timelines, responses varied from completing compliance checks between 2 years and 7 years after all the data had been received. There were also suggestions from some respondents to this question that the compliance checks should be on-going and should occur immediately after the deadline for each tonnage band.

A few respondents noted an anomaly with current dates for compliance checks which were not dependent on toxicity. They called for the compliance checks to be aligned with the current submission deadlines.

A few respondents to Question 14 used the EU deadlines as a reference point and requested that compliance checks be conducted over 10 years on a par with the European Chemical Agency’s (ECHA) phased timelines. Some respondents stressed the importance of setting a realistic timeframe that reflects the current resource available to HSE and prioritises novel substances and substances of very high concern (SVHC).

The views expressed by the NGOs who responded to this question were that: compliance check dates should be moved to 1 January 2023; compliance checks should align with the current registration deadlines; compliance checks should start after the submission deadlines.

It was also noted by some respondents to this question that any timeline should consider the impact on businesses’ resource, as companies may have to potentially respond to HSE’s compliance checks requests and in parallel prepare for the second or third registration deadline.

Government response to Question 13 and Question 14

We agree that compliance checks are a significant contributor to ensuring the information submitted is sufficient to provide high levels of protection of human health and the environment. We acknowledge that the process cannot begin until we have the requisite data as Article 41 is clear on the HSE selecting a percentage of the total registrations received. HSE will aim to carry out compliance checks on at least 20% of the new dossiers in each tonnage band.

We also acknowledge the resource implication that is required by the Agency to conduct compliance checks and any inherent burdens they may have on businesses. We accept that the compliance checking process should start when the first transitional dossiers are received and not be delayed until the final submission deadline.

The government will carefully consider how soon after receiving the data HSE is able to complete the 20% compliance check requirement and what level of resource would be required to undertake them. We will also align the data submission deadlines with the timelines for the compliance checks under Article 41 to ensure that the timelines for compliance checks are also based on the same tonnage and hazard profile.

Question 15. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the government’s assessment of the impacts on human health and environmental protections in paragraph 38-40 and paragraph 44 of the Impact Assessment (IA)?

All those responding to the consultation (289) responded to this question. There was widespread agreement with the government’s assessment on the impacts of the extension on human health and environmental protections, especially in relation to paragraph 40 of the IA. Paragraph 40 of the IA outlines how the UK REACH regime will continue to ensure a high level of protection for human health and the environment during the extended period.

A few respondents did not agree with paragraph 38 and 39 of the IA. Paragraph 38 of the IA specifies that extending the submission deadlines would mean the gaps on information would remain on the highest tonnage and the most hazardous substances for a further 3 years beyond the current deadline of 2023. In paragraph 39 of the IA, it is stated that this absence could potentially impact HSE’s ability to conduct some of its regulatory processes. In general, those respondents who disagreed with our assessment in paragraph 38 and paragraph 39 of the IA did not accept there were data gaps in UK REACH because the data was publicly available for the HSE to access on the ECHA website.

Most NGOs who responded to this question cautioned against the serious consequences for human health and the environment as a result of these information gaps. They also argued that the publicly available data on the ECHA website was insufficient for taking regulatory decisions. They stressed that the process of HSE seeking risk management data from other sources would add more to their existing workload. One of the NGOs called for the UK to adopt the EU risk management decisions during the extended data submission period and for all candidate list substances to be moved to the first deadline.

Government response to Question 15

In paragraph 38 of the IA, we acknowledge that there is potential for gaps in information held by HSE. This is because there may not be a clear connection between the data held by ECHA and how companies in Great Britain exercise their responsibility for appropriate risk management, even when the data are publicly available. We also acknowledge that the absence of these data could impact HSE’s ability to carry out their regulatory processes leading to reduced regulatory oversight or delays in acquiring this data from other sources.

We have also been transparent in outlining the potential impacts of further extending the submission deadlines in paragraph 38 and 39 of the IA. However, we have noted in our IA and the Consistency Statement that these impacts would not be significant, within the extended data submission period, not least because of the mitigations outlined in paragraph 40 of the IA which demonstrate that UK REACH will still be able to ensure a high level of protection for human health and the environment.

Question 16. To what extend do you agree or disagree with our risks and assumptions in paragraph 47 to 48 of the IA?

Question 16 invited respondents to comment on the risk and assumptions we outlined in the IA.

Risks

On the issue of risks, the predominant view was that the risks we listed in paragraph 47 of the IA were a fair assessment and that the risks were negligible. Some respondents noted that the risks identified in paragraph 47 of the IA were mitigated by the points we raised in paragraph 40 of the IA.

However, occasionally, a few respondents disagreed with the government’s assessment that the absence of transitional data could impact HSE’s ability to carry out their regulatory processes. They offered similar reasons to that which they stated under Question 15 of the consultation (the use of publicly available ECHA data).

The few respondents who disagreed with the government’s assessment of the risk of reduced regulatory oversight felt this could be mitigated by the HSE being proactive in requesting information for risk assessment from companies based in Great Britain.

Assumptions

A significant proportion of respondents expressed scepticism towards the government’s premise that all grandfathered^{[footnote 2]} substances or substances notified by downstream users would translate to UK REACH registrations.

There was a predominant view amongst respondents that the ‘prohibitive cost’ of registrations would deter many importers, or their overseas suppliers, as they would see the market in Great Britain as not being sizable enough to justify the cost and effort of full registration. Comments and questions from respondents who discussed costs focussed on the cost reduction factor which was applied to the costs of UK registrations.

Government’s response to Question 16

We acknowledge the concerns raised in relation to our assumptions. We agree that there could be some businesses that have notified through grandfathering or downstream user import notifications (DUINs) that will not complete full registrations at the end of the transitional period.

In relation to the assumptions on our cost analysis, we have been transparent with our sources, and we acknowledge where there are weaknesses and uncertainties in the IA and the reason for them. We have also been transparent with the uncertainty around the cost reduction factor which we applied to the unit cost of registration and acknowledged it as a significant evidence gap which we hope to address through several questions focused on this issue in the consultation.

Question 17. To what extent do you agree with the public sector impacts in paragraph 45 of the IA?

The predominant view among respondents was that any public sector impacts would be negligible either under Option 1 or Option 2. Those respondents in support of Option 1 suggested that any impacts to the public sector would be less under that option as it would provide more time to prepare. It is worth noting that a significant proportion of respondents offered no opinion on this question because they felt they were not qualified to comment on public sector impacts.

Government’s response to Question 17

We acknowledge requests from some respondents for clarity on the wording on the public sector impacts especially around the moderation referred to in paragraph 45 of the IA where we have made a distinction between the impacts to both options. Nevertheless, we still consider any impacts on the public sector to be negligible.

Question 18. To what extent do you agree with the business and consumer impacts in paragraph 42 of the IA?

The majority of the respondents to this question agreed with the government’s assessment of the impacts of extending the deadlines on businesses and consumers. However, those respondents who disagreed with our assessment referred to the costs of acquiring the data for transitional registration or the cost industry have already incurred under EU REACH.

Government’s response to Question 18

The government’s assessment in paragraph 42 of the IA is limited to moving the submission deadlines under Option 1. It is worth noting that it does not relate to scale of the costs of transitional registration in paragraph 35. We have explained in the IA that extending the deadlines does not change the scale of the costs of transitional registration. The change to the deadlines only shifts the costs back in time and generates savings to businesses in net present value terms.

Question 19. For substances that your company or companies you act on behalf of have joint data ownership of under EU REACH: on average, what percentage of the price of generating a full dataset do you expect your company or companies you act on behalf of to be charged by the EU consortium? For example, if you expect the consortium to charge full price, then please answer “100%”. If you expect them to charge half of that amount, then please answer “50%”. If you do not know please state “Do not know”.

More than 50% of responses to Question 19 were “Do not know”. Nine percent (9%) of respondents to this question believe that they could be charged the full price for the data by the EU consortium. Six percent (6%) of respondents provided responses which could be summarised as the view that pricing would be variable. Around 6% of the respondents to this question believed that they would not be charged for the data.

A few respondents noted that the EU consortium were not willing to engage with them at this stage. Others used the opportunity to explain the complexities of data sharing and the hold EU consortiums have over data sharing. Some respondents noted that there could be legal as well as financial constraints in relation to accessing the data from EU consortiums.

Question 20. For substances that your company or the companies you act on behalf of does not own data under EU REACH: on average, what percentage of the price of generating a full dataset do you expect your company / the companies you act on behalf of to be charged by the EU consortium?

Question 20 of the consultation enquired about scenarios where companies do not own any of the data. The key messages from respondents who responded this question were similar those in Question 19 with the pricing being highly uncertain, and could realistically take any value from the range from “no charge” to “full price”.

Government’s response Question 19 and Question 20

The responses demonstrate that data pricing is highly uncertain both in cases where firms already have some data or no data at all ownership. Prices could realistically take any value from “full price” to “no charge”, depending on circumstances.

Next steps

The government welcomes the replies received to this consultation. We have carefully considered the responses to the options to extend the submission deadlines, including the ‘do nothing’ option. Overall, respondents are in support of the government’s assessment on the negligible risks/ impacts that the extensions (either under Option 1 or Option 2) have on human health and environmental protections.

On balance, we acknowledge that the extra time Option 1 provides could lessen burdens on SMEs and downstream users without significantly reducing levels of protection of human health and of the environment. Therefore, subject to the consent of the Scottish and Welsh governments, the UK government intends to introduce legislation that would give effect to extending the submission deadlines across all tonnage bands by 3 years.

The UK government will also legislate, subject to the requisite devolved administration consent, to extend the statutory dates for compliance checks so that they do not precede the data submission dates.

Appendix A: List of responding organisations

Below is a list of consultees who responded to this consultation and did not request Anonymity

• 3M United Kingdom PLC
• AB
• Agas Electronic Materials
• Alcohols Limited
• Alfa Chemicals Ltd
• Allnex
• Anglo Adhesives & Services Ltd
• Apollo Colours
• Argus Consulting
• Arpadis UK Ltd
• Avocet Dye & Chemical Co Ltd
• AkzoNobel
• Axalta Coating Systems Huthwaite UK Ltd
• Azelis UK Ltd
• Baerlocher UK Ltd
• BASA - British Adehsives and Sealant Association
• BASF plc
• Bayer Crop Science Ltd
• BCA
• Beeline Chemicals Ltd
• Beckman Coulter
• Biachem Ltd
• BIC
• Blue Frog Scientific Limited
• BMW UK
• BOC Ltd x2
• Bounds Consulting Ltd
• Bowden Chemicals Ltd
• Brenntag UK Limited
• British Aerosol Manufacturers’ Association Ltd
• British Chemicals Association (formerly BACS)
• British Coatings Federation Ltd
• British Compressed Gases Association
• British Glass
• British Retail Consortium
• British Plastics Federation
• Brineflow Ltd
• Cabot Corporation
• Cast Metals Federation
• Cedo Limited
• Celanese
• Caldic UK Ltd.
• Celtic Chemicals
• Centre Colours Ltd
• Chemical Business Association
• Chemical Compliance Advisory Services Limited
• Chemical Industries Association
• Chemsage Ltd
• CHEM Trust
• Chimcompex SA Borzesti
• Claremont Chemical Co. Ltd
• Connect Chemicals UK Ltd
• Croda Europe Limited
• Cropel Lifesciences PVT Ltd
• Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association
• Cruelty Free International
• Dacrylate Paints Ltd
• DCL Corporation
• Dixon Chew (Batley) Ltd
• Domino UK Ltd
• Dow UK Ltd
• Ecoegg Limited
• EDF
• Energy UK
• Ensus
• Envirostik Holdings (UK) Ltd
• EOC Belgium NV
• Essar Oil UK Limited (EOUKL)
• Etex Building Performance Ltd
• EUROGYPSUM
• European Oilfield Speciality Chemicals Association (EOSCA)
• Fsi Ltd
• Fidra
• Firmenich SA
• Fuchs Lubricants (UK) plc
• Gojo Industrie - Europe Ltd
• Graham & Brown
• Grad Speciality Products Ltd
• Greater Manchester Hazards Centre
• Green Alliance
• Greenergy International
• Grolman Ltd
• Gypsum Products Development Association (GPDA)
• Haltermann Carless
• Hawks Chemical Co Ltd
• Henkel
• Higgi Limited
• HG&Co. Ltd
• Huntsman
• ICoNiChem
• IFRA UK - The International Fragrance Association
• Imerys Minerals Ltd
• Ingevity UK Ltd
• Ingredion UK Ltd
• INOVYN
• INX International
• ITAC Limited
• J. V. Barrett & Co Ltd (Trading as Barrettine Group)
• Johnson Matthey
• John Reid Professional Services Ltd
• Kemira
• Klüber Lubrication
• Knauf Insulation
• Lechler Coatings Ltd
• Less Common Metals Ltd
• London Bullion Market Association
• L’Oreal UK&I
• Mapei UK Limited
• McBride plc
• Megachem (UK) Ltd
• Metaflake Ltd
• Mineral Wool Insulation Manufacturers Association (MIMA)
• Miswa Chemicals Ltd
• Mitsubishi Chemical UK Ltd
• Monarch Chemicals Ltd
• Muntajat BV
• Nordmann UK Ltd
• Offshore Energies UK
• Oldbury Energy Solutions (UK) Ltd and Solvay Solutions UK Ltd
• Orica UK Limited
• Orthene
• Oqema Ltd
• Paterson Enterprises Ltd t/a Morris Lubricants
• Pennwhite Global Chemical Solutions Ltd
• Petrofer UK PLC
• Polynt Composites UK Ltd
• Porsche Cars GB
• Potter & Moore Sourcing Team
• PQ Silicas UK Ltd
• Prime Surfactants Ltd
• Prinova Europe
• Privi Speciality Chemicals Ltd
• Quaker Houghton
• Quin Global UK
• Rakem
• REACHwise Ltd
• Reckitt Benckiser Group plc
• RGE Engineering
• Reichhold UK Ltd
• Ricoh UK Products Ltd
• RS Clare & Co Ltd
• Rubix UKII
• SGL Carbon Fibers Ltd
• Silcarbon Aktivkohle GmbH
• Solenis UK Industries Ltd
• Solventis Ltd
• Songwon
• Stepan
• Stort Chemicals Ltd
• Synthos
• Tata Chemicals Europe Ltd
• Teal & Mackrill Ltd
• Technical Advisor (Regulatory Compliances)
• The Agricultural Industries Confederation
• The British Plastics Federation
• The Institute of Materials Finishing
• The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd
• Thermo Fisher Scientific
• Thomas Howse Ltd
• Thor Specialities UK Ltd
• TIB Chemicals UK Ltd
• Timab UK
• Tradebe Chemicals
• Treatt PLC
• Tremco CPG UK Limited
• Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH
• TÜV SÜD Iberia S.A.U
• UK Cleaning Products Industry Association (UKCPI)
• UK Lubricants Association Ltd
• UK Petroleum Industry Association
• UK Steel
• Unilever
• U-POL Limited
• Valtris Specialty Chemicals
• Venator
• Vestolit GmbH
• Wedge Group Galvanizing Ltd
• Wella (UK Ltd)
• Westlake Epoxy BV
• WhitChem Ltd
• WSP UK Ltd
• Yara UK & Ireland
• Zanos Ltd
• Zotefoams plc

1. Article 41(5) - to check compliance of registration dossiers the Agency shall select, until 31 December 2023, a percentage of those dossiers no lower than 20 % of the total received by the Agency for registrations in tonnage bands of 100 tonnes or more per year. The Agency shall, until 31 December 2027, also select a percentage no lower than 20 % of the total received by the Agency for registrations in tonnage bands of less than 100 tonnes per year. ↩

2. UK-held EU REACH registration (as defined in Article 127A) which were carried over or ‘grandfathered’ into UK REACH. ↩