Safety regulator taken to court over new GB chemical rules

Jrtwynam/Shutterstock

ENVIRONMENTAL campaigners have filed a claim against the GB Health and Safety Executive (HSE) over a new law providing “fast-track” market approval for chemicals. 

In papers filed with the High Court in London this week, campaign group Fighting Dirty argued that an amendment to existing regulations was made unlawfully. A judge will now decide whether their claim against the HSE and the secretary of state for work and pensions, who has ministerial responsibility over the HSE, can go to a full judicial review. A decision is expected within two to four months. 

All potentially hazardous chemicals are subject to an approval process by the HSE before they can be placed on the GB market. However, under legislation that came into force in May 2026, a “fast-track” regime will now approve chemicals by default if they are already approved in countries that have a “similar” regulatory framework to the UK and that operates a “transparent” classification process. 

In response to a public consultation on the proposals, the HSE said in February that the fast-track programme would be “restricted to the EU”. Fighting Dirty believes it was unlawful to then apply the legislation to more, unspecified countries without further consultation. The campaigners argue that the new rules could open the door to chemicals approved in countries with “weaker” standards or where toxic chemicals are more prevalent, such as the US and Brazil. 

The HSE has been tasked with drawing up new chemicals regulations since the UK left the EU. On the same day the new legislation came into force, civil servants told the ChemUK trade show they had struggled with the “significant workload” created by Brexit. A Department for Environment and Rural Affairs official said GB chemicals regulation would be near-identical to the EU’s, “diverging only where necessary”, which would “avoid the time-consuming, costly and unnecessary duplication of EU assessments.”

Fighting Dirty founder Georgia Elliott-Smith said toxic pollution in towns like Thornton-Cleveleys shows “the human cost when agencies that are supposed to protect us from harmful substances such as PFAS are too slow, too stretched or too focussed on economic growth to regulate effectively”. 

She added that the new fast-track regime “lets HSE decide for itself which countries qualify, with no independent check and no parliamentary vote. We believe the government has put industry convenience ahead of public health. 

“But this case isn’t about whether we agree with the policy. It’s about whether the government acted lawfully and kept the promises it made to the public”. 

The HSE said it would not comment on ongoing legal proceedings. The Department for Work and Pensions did not respond to a request for comment.