Consultation outcome

Consultation Outcome Report: On the proposal to make the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Harmful Substances) Regulations 2024

Updated 10 April 2024

Section 1: Introduction

1.1 The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), an Executive Agency of the Department for Transport (DfT), carried out a public consultation on the draft Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Harmful Substances) Regulations 2024 and the associated guidance, which ran from 8 December 2023 to 26 January 2024. The consultation was published on GOV.UK, and notifications of the consultation were sent to marine industry stakeholders, Government Departments and maritime bodies with professional and specialist functions.

1.2 The proposed 2024 Regulations would revoke the Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1997, along with a number of other dangerous goods related regulations, and replace them with a single set of regulations which have been developed to provide a more complete, consolidated and up to date legal framework for the carriage of dangerous goods and harmful substances by sea. The proposed 2024 Regulations are set out in a more succinct format than the existing 1997 Regulations. They point directly to the relevant Convention requirements of Chapter VII of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (“SOLAS”) and Protocol I and Annex III of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (“MARPOL”).

1.3 The proposed 2024 Regulations include an ambulatory reference provision (AR). AR is a tool used in certain secondary legislation which allows future amendments to mandatory instruments which have been agreed in the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to become UK law when they enter into force internationally. This is more efficient and requires significantly less legal and policy resources to achieve than the current requirement for new or amending legislation each time amendments are made to international standards. The AR provision should help to prevent any misalignments between UK regulations and international requirements in the future.

1.4 In practice, the inclusion of an AR provision in the proposed 2024 Regulations means, for example, there will no longer be a need to update the regulations with a Merchant Shipping Notice (MSN) each time a new edition of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code or International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes (IMSBC) Code comes into force. This means that ship owners, shippers and other interested parties can refer directly to the text of SOLAS Chapter VII, MARPOL Annex III or the mandatory codes to determine both the domestic and international requirements. Guidance will still be published prior to the international coming into force date.

1.5 The proposed 2024 Regulations apply to the carriage of dangerous goods and harmful substances by non-UK ships whilst in UK waters (or, in some cases, in controlled waters) and by UK ships wherever they may be. The proposed 2024 Regulations mirror the provisions of SOLAS Chapter VII and do not include aspects covered by other SOLAS chapters. Since the SOLAS Convention concerns the safety of merchant ships, the provisions in the proposed 2024 Regulations relating to safety also reflect the application provisions of SOLAS when there are certain ship types to which the proposed 2024 Regulations do not apply. These ship types are ships of war or naval auxiliaries, pleasure vessels, wooden ships of primitive build, ships not propelled by mechanical means and fishing vessels.

1.6 The consultation sought views on all aspects of the proposed 2024 Regulations and accompanying guidance and, in particular, on the likely impacts and any unintended consequences.

1.7 The consultation was generally well received with no respondents recommending any substantial changes to the proposed 2024 Regulations or accompanying guidance. There was support for the use of AR provisions to ensure timely alignment of UK and international requirements and for the consolidation of existing dangerous goods related Regulations into one Statutory Instrument. Most of the responses received during consultation were focused on clarifying specific details and application of the new Regulations. 

1.8 This Report summarises the comments received from respondents, both positive and negative. It does not seek to cover every individual comment received, but all responses received have been taken into consideration.

1.9 The MCA received seventeen responses from stakeholders, including maritime specialists, public bodies, professional and trade associations and vessel operators. The MCA would like to take this opportunity to thank all who took the time to respond to this consultation.

Section 2: Key Findings

2.1 This consultation was carried out between 8 December 2023 and 26 January 2024. It can be found on the gov.uk website here.

2.2 Whilst the consultation was promulgated on gov.uk for anyone who wished to read it and respond to it (which would also send notifications to anyone who is subscribed to receive such Government notifications), a sample of interested individuals and organisations were also contacted individually by email. These recipients comprised a mixture of representative organisations, individual operators, Government departments including devolved administrations, classification societies and other interested parties. All persons and organisations who had specifically requested notification were included. This numbered approximately 500 individuals and organisations.

2.3 Based on the consultation results, it is unlikely that the new regulations will have a disproportionate impact on small, micro and medium businesses. The consultees agreed that the expected impacts and anticipated costs associated with these changes will be low. Overall, the responses have shown that stakeholders are in favour of the proposed 2024 Regulations and have confirmed that no substantive changes to the Statutory Instrument (SI) and Marine Guidance Notice (MGN) are required.

2.4 A number of respondents to the consultation felt that the addition of AR provisions in the proposed 2024 Regulations was a positive step forward as it is an efficient way of ensuring the UK regulations stay up to date and aligned with the relevant international standards.  

2.5 In terms of specific sections of the proposed 2024 Regulations, regulation 12 of the draft SI was the most commented on. The comments received queried whether regulation 12 could be clearer in defining the responsibility of each party in the transport chain for example, the responsibility of a shipper / agents for the stowage and securing of cargo within a cargo transport unit (CTU) (IMDG code 7.3), the responsibility for placarding of the CTU and other parts of the consignment procedure. The comments received also queried whether regulation 12 of the new 2024 Regulations is sufficiently explicit in stating that for all those transporting dangerous goods by sea all relevant parts of the IMDG Code apply.

2.6 Generally, the responses to the consultation demonstrate that there is support for the proposed 2024 Regulations and accompanying guidance which are part of an important and longstanding, international, merchant shipping regulatory framework. Further detail on the key points listed above and an outline of the expected next steps can be found below. 

Section 3: Summary of Responses

3.1 Below provides a summary of the responses received to each of the questions posed by the Consultation document, including government comments and MCA actions as a result of the feedback.

Question 1

Do you agree with the proposed approach to the implementation of SOLAS Chapter VII and MARPOL Annex III in the new Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Harmful Substances) Regulations 2024? Yes / No. Please provide a brief explanation why/why not.

Summary of Consultee Views

Ten responses were received for Question 1. All indicated general support for the proposed approach. Three aspects of the proposed 2024 Regulations were highlighted as being particular improvements on the existing Regulations. These are the consolidating of several existing dangerous goods related SIs into one new Regulation; the addition of AR provisions in order that UK dangerous goods and harmful substances Regulations remain up to date and stay in step with international requirements; and the restructuring of the SI to directly signpost SOLAS Chapter VII and MARPOL Annex III.

Government comments

The proposed 2024 Regulations were drafted with the intention of providing as clear, streamlined and up to date dangerous goods and harmful substances regulations as possible and the responses from stakeholders suggest that this is important to them and is likely to be achieved by the proposed Regulations.

MCA Actions

No actions required.

Question 2

Do you consider that the restructuring and consolidation of the existing dangerous goods related regulations adds clarity to the requirements and assists the reader in navigating their way through the requirements? Yes / No. Please provide a brief explanation why/why not.

Summary of Consultee Views

Eight responses were received for Question 2. All respondents indicated agreement that the restructuring and consolidation of the regulations would provide clarity. In particular, it was felt that it was important that the SI was able to stay in alignment with international requirements going forward and that signposting the requirements of SOLAS Chapter VII and Protocol I and Annex III of MARPOL made the Regulations easier to navigate and to ensure compliance with both UK and international obligations.

Government comment

The respondents did not highlight any issues with the clarity and ease of navigation through the restructured SI.

MCA Action

No action required.

Question 3

Do you consider the accompanying draft guidance produced by the MCA adds clarity to the requirements for the safe carriage of dangerous goods and harmful substances? Yes / No. Please provide a brief explanation why/why not, identifying any gaps in the guidance.

Summary of Consultee Views

Eight responses were received for Question 3. All respondents agreed that the draft guidance provided clarity for the requirements for the safe carriage of dangerous goods and harmful substances. One respondent felt that the guidance was concise and easy to read. Another respondent felt that it was clear and useful but long and could be split into multiple MGNs. A third respondent agreed that the guidance was clear but suggested further information on the applicability to ships under 500gt could be included.

Government comment

The Government considers that the responses to this question have not highlighted any issue with the clarity of the guidance documents. However, the length of the guidance and the inclusion of further information for certain vessels have been identified as potential points for improvement.

MCA Actions

The MCA have reviewed the guidance in light of the comments received. As most respondents were content with the length and content of the guidance, the MCA will not split it into multiple MGNs, the intention always was to provide a single point of information to make life easier for stakeholders. However, the MCA has reviewed the publication format of the MGN and will ensure that the published edition includes a hyperlinked index to aid the speed of navigation to the required information within the document. With regard to vessels under 500gt, both SOLAS Chapter VII and MARPOL Annex III apply to all ships carrying dangerous goods and harmful substances and not just to vessels 500gt or over. The SI therefore does not apply a tonnage limit. A small editorial amendment has been made to the MGN to ensure that this is clear in the guidance.  

Question 4

When considering the effect of the changes resulting from the proposed 2024 Regulations compared to the existing regulations, the current assessment is that the expected impacts and anticipated costs associated with these changes will be low. Do you consider this to be accurate? Yes / No. If not, how would you expect the expected impacts and anticipated costs to vary? Please provide a brief explanation why/why not.

Summary of Consultee Views

Eight responses were received for Question 4. All respondents agreed that the expected impacts and costs would be low. The respondents expressed the view that since the proposed 2024 Regulations implement existing International/IMO instruments which should already be complied with by those trading internationally, the impacts should be low. 

Government comments

The Government considers that the responses to this question confirm no significant costs have been overlooked.

MCA Actions

No action required. However, the proposed 2024 Regulations will be subject to a post implementation review at which point the evidence on impacts will be reassessed in order to confirm the actual impact.

Question 5

Is the assumption that owners/operators of gas carriers are already compliant with the 2016 edition of the IGC Code (where relevant) correct? Yes/No. If no, please provide a brief explanation of why not.

Summary of Consultee Views

Five responses were received for Question 5. Four respondents agreed there should already be compliance with the 2016 edition of the IGC Code (where relevant and largely for vessels constructed / converted post 1st July 2016) given that it is the mandatory international standard. One respondent explained that this question did not apply to them as they do not transport liquefied gas in bulk.

Government comments

The carriage of liquefied gases in bulk is a specialist area. The responses to this question have not highlighted any non-compliance or additional impact.

MCA Action

No action required. However, the proposed 2024 Regulations will be subject to a post implementation review at which point the evidence on impacts will be reassessed in order to confirm the actual impact.

Question 6

Are you / do you know of a small and/or micro business(es) who will be disproportionally affected by any of the measures outlined? If so, please provide relevant detail and evidence.

Summary of Consultee Views

Of the eight responses received for this question, no respondents identified any disproportionally affected small or micro businesses.

Government comments

The Government considers that the responses have not highlighted any issues where small or micro businesses are prejudiced. 

MCA Action

No action required. However, the proposed 2024 Regulations will be subject to a post implementation review at which point the evidence on impacts will be reassessed in order to confirm the actual impact.

Question 7

Do you foresee any other consequences (positive or negative) of the proposed 2024 Regulations that have not been mentioned in this document? If so, please provide any relevant insight and/or evidence.

Summary of Consultee Views

Six responses were received for Question 7. No respondents foresaw any gaps or unintended consequences. One respondent felt that a positive consequence would be a better understanding of the applicable regulations across industry. 

Government comments

The Government thanks respondents for their responses.

MCA Action

No action required. However, the proposed 2024 Regulations will be subject to a post implementation review at which point the evidence on impacts will be reassessed in order to confirm the actual impact.

Question 8

Do you have any additional comments to add to the response?

Summary of Consultee Views

The final question was intended to invite responses on anything related to the proposed 2024 Regulations and associated guidance that had not already been covered in previous questions and which respondents felt needed to be expressed or that needed to be explored further before the Regulations are finalised and come into force. The responses to Question 8 are summarised below. Where more than one respondent commented on the same issue, they have been grouped into one comment and one response which captures and combines the substance of each comment. The summary below focusses on questions, requests and proposals rather than on comments which were outside the scope of the Consultation, which did not require a substantive response or action, or where general dangerous goods issues were raised which were not specifically related to the consultation on the proposed 2024 Regulations. Nine respondents did not use the consultation response form to provide their feedback. Therefore, where their comments were clearly closely related to one of the questions listed above, their response is captured in the relevant summary above and all other feedback from these nine respondents has been grouped as responses to Question 8.

1. Comments related to regulation 12 of the 2024 Regulations

Regulation 12 (requirements in relation to shippers and forwarders) of the proposed 2024 Regulations could be clearer on the responsibilities of those involved in the transport chain, in particular the shipper / forwarder / agent’s responsibilities for the stowage and securing of cargo within the cargo transport unit (CTU) and for placarding of CTUs and also with regard to Part 6 of the IMDG Code (packaging). Regulation 12 lists sections of the IMDG Code which apply in each case but does not reference IMDG Code section 7.3 (packing of goods inside the CTU). Regulation 10 of the proposed 2024 Regulations clearly states that master and owner must comply with all relevant sections of SOLAS Chapter VIII and MARPOL Annex III but there is no equivalent clear application of all relevant sections of the Conventions to shippers and forwarders in regulation 12. The equivalent land-based regulations (the Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment Regulations 2009) use the term ‘no person shall cause or permit…’ and perhaps this would also be appropriate for regulation 12?

MCA Response

In light of the comments received and in order to ensure that the application of SOLAS Chapter VII and MARPOL Annex III is clear and is unambiguously applied to those with particular responsibilities in the transport chain, policy leads and legal advisors have reviewed the text of regulation 12. Consequently, the text has been amended so as to more closely mirror the text already set out in regulation 10 for master and owner, making the two regulations more consistent in their wording and clearer on the application of the Regulations to shippers / forwarders.

2. Comments related to Ambulatory References (AR) provisions

The inclusion of AR provisions in the proposed 2024 Regulations is supported and is a cost-efficient mechanism to ensure that UK regulations stay up to date with the relevant IMO Codes. The IMDG Code and the International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes (IMSBC) Code are both on a two-year amendment cycle. AR will mean that when each new edition of the Codes becomes mandatory on an international basis, they will be implemented in UK law so how will the MCA ensure that operators know when each new edition of the Code is mandatory and when they can choose to voluntarily comply with the new editions?

MCA Response

In relation to the carriage of dangerous goods, currently, the MCA issues a Merchant Shipping Notice (MSN) each time the IMDG Code is updated in order that the current Dangerous Goods Regulations reference the most up to date editions of the IMDG Code and IMSBC Code. This MSN includes details of the dates on which each edition of the Codes becomes mandatory. Operators are also permitted to voluntarily adopt the next edition of each Code in the 12 months leading up to that new edition becoming mandatory and the relevant dates of voluntary and mandatory implementation are included in the MSN. When the 2024 Regulations come into force, this MSN will not be needed. However, the MCA is still required to publish guidance for stakeholders each time that amendments are made to the 2024 Regulations by way of the AR provisions in the Regulations. This commitment is set out in the Explanatory Note at the end of the SI. This guidance will continue to include details of the effective dates of voluntary and mandatory implementation in the UK and internationally so that all stakeholders are clear.

3. Comments related to different regulatory definitions of ‘harmful substance’

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) also use the term ‘harmful substance’ on their website. Does this mean the same thing as ‘harmful substance’ in the 2024 Regulations and, if not, is there a conflict?

MCA Response

The proposed 2024 Regulations refer to ‘harmful substances’ rather than ‘marine pollutants’ as used in the existing 1997 Regulations. This change in terminology is not intended to change the scope of the international obligations implemented in the proposed 2024 Regulations. The term ‘harmful substance’ better reflects the terminology used in the MARPOL Convention. MARPOL Annex III makes provisions for the prevention of pollution by harmful substances carried by sea in packaged form and defines ‘harmful substance’ as being anything identified as a marine pollutant in the IMDG Code, or which meets the criteria in the appendix to Annex III. In turn, the IMDG Code at Chapter 2.10 identifies a marine pollutant as being any substances which are subject to the provisions of Annex III of MARPOL. This being the case, both terms essentially encompass the same substances, but the term ‘harmful substance’ better connects the implementing regulations to the Convention.

The HSE also use the term ‘harmful substance’ on their website when providing guidance on the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH). However, when using the term ‘harmful substance’ in the COSHH guidance, the context is that of materials or substances used or created in the workplace that can harm your health. The COSHH regulations themselves do not use the term ‘harmful substance’, instead they refer to ‘substance hazardous to health’ which more clearly relates to the health and safety at work purpose of the Regulations. The term ‘harmful substance’ in MARPOL Annex III (and consequently in the 2024 Regulations) refers to substances harmful in the marine environment (marine pollutants) and this is clearly set out in MARPOL Annex III, in the 2024 Regulations and in the accompanying guidance. Following a summary review of the two Regulations, it is not felt that there is any conflict.  

4. Comments related to the International Convention for Safe Containers (CSC)

The CSC is referred to in the IMDG Code on a number of occasions. Should the 2024 Regulations or guidance provide a definition of the CSC?

MCA Response

The 2024 Regulations do not implement the CSC and the CSC is not referred to in SOLAS Chapter VII or MARPOL Annex III. The CSC is primarily implemented by the Freight Containers (Safety Convention) Regulations 2017. However, as noted during the consultation, the IMDG Code references the CSC in a number of places, in particular in Parts 6 and 7. Policy leads have reviewed the guidance provided for the 2024 Regulations, and also the guidance provided for the proposed Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Cargoes) Regulations 2024 given that these Regulations will implement SOLAS Chapter VI, which does reference the CSC. The draft Marine Guidance Notes (MGNs) for both sets of Regulations have been updated to include a short explanation of the CSC and a link to the relevant HSE guidance on the Freight Containers (Safety Convention) Regulations 2017.

5. Comments related to the Great Lakes

Two respondents queried why the 2024 Regulations include a provision that specifically excludes ships solely navigating the Great Lakes and parts of the St Lawrence River, given that they are not in the UK.

MCA Response

This exception in the application of the 2024 Regulations might seem out of place in UK Regulations. However, the 2024 Regulations will apply the requirements of SOLAS Chapter VII to all UK ships wherever they may be but, as SOLAS does not apply on the Great Lakes or parts of the St Lawrence River, without this exception the Regulations would require UK flagged ships to comply with the Convention in an area where the Convention should not apply. Therefore, the exclusion in this (and other) UK Regulation which implements SOLAS is necessary to avoid a regulatory overlap. This is not a new provision in SOLAS.

6. Comments related to Annex II of MARPOL

Will the 2024 Regulations conflict with the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution from Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk) Regulations 2018 in terms of the implementation of the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code)? The 2024 Regulations do not reference the Offshore Support Vessel (OSV) Chemical Code (A.1122(30)) for offshore support vessels which carry bulk liquid chemicals or the OSV Guidelines (A.673(16)), should they?

MCA Response

The IBC Code is a mandatory code under both the MARPOL and SOLAS conventions. It is primarily implemented in the UK by the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution from Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk) Regulations 2018. The 2018 Regulations primarily focus on MARPOL implementation and the inclusion of the IBC Code in the 2024 Regulations ensures full SOLAS implementation. In light of the responses received during the consultation process, policy leads and legal advisors have revisited the application provisions of both the 2024 Regulations and the 2018 Regulations in order to confirm that there is no conflict. This was a useful exercise, no gaps or conflicts were identified and, therefore, no further action has been taken.

With regard to provisions for OSVs which carry bulk liquid chemicals, consultation feedback questioned why the 2024 Regulations implement (in part) the IBC Code but not the OSV Chemical Code (A.1122(30)) or the OSV Guidelines (A.673(16)). These non-mandatory IMO instruments were developed to offer alternative compliance to mandatory SOLAS VII and MARPOL Annex II requirements for offshore support vessels required to carry in bulk either some of the bulk liquids listed in Chapter 17 of the IBC Code, or some of the liquefied gases listed in Chapter 19 of the IGC Code. Both the OSV Chemical Code and the OSV Guidelines are primarily implemented in the UK by the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution from Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk) Regulations 2018. As a non-mandatory alternative route to compliance for a specific vessel type, the OSV Chemical Code is referenced in MARPOL Annex II and is therefore implemented in the UK regulations which implement Annex II. Sections 6 and 7 of the draft MGN which has been prepared to support the 2024 Regulations, include details of the implementation of both A.1122(30) and A.673(16). It should also be noted that the OSV Chemical Code (A.1122(30)) has superseded the OSV Guidelines (A.673(16)) and, therefore, the OSV Guidelines only relate to offshore support vessels constructed or adapted before 1 July 2018.

7. Comments related to mandatory documents required by the IMDG Code

The IMDG Code requires the provision of specific documentation when dangerous goods are consigned for transport by sea. This includes a dangerous goods transport document and a Container/Vehicle Packing Certificate. Perhaps the revision of the dangerous goods regulations is a good opportunity to improve both documents. For example, the dangerous goods transport document requires the provision of information on the quantity of dangerous goods by mass or volume, however, the template form for the dangerous goods transport document has a box for mass in kilos but not volume in litres. For the Container/Vehicle Packing Certificate, for example, an improvement could be the clarification of responsibilities / requirements for the certificate where there are consolidated loads in one vehicle/container.

MCA Response

The dangerous goods transport document (often referred to as a Dangerous Goods Note or DGN) is a mandatory document and, as identified by respondents to the consultation, it is a multi-modal document meaning that it is a requirement of the UN Model Regulations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. Therefore, the requirement for a DGN is common to regulations for all modes of transport (road, rail, air, sea) and is harmonised across the modes, as far as is possible. Although a template form for a DGN is provided in the UN Model Regulations and the IMDG Code (and also available to download from gov.uk), this is a recommended template only and, provided that all of the information required by the IMDG Code is provided (which includes mass or volume as appropriate), it does not have to be presented in the template format. The template form does include a box for cubic metres but respondents to the consultation have suggested that volume in litres as an alternative to mass in kilos would be appropriate. Any amendment to the template form is outside of the scope of these Regulations and outside of the remit of the IMO to amend given that it originates in the UN Model Regulations. However, policy leads have noted the recommendation and will address this with international colleagues.  

With regard to the Container/Vehicle Packing Certificate, similarly, the requirements listed in the IMDG Code are outside of the scope of this consultation. However, policy leads have reviewed the draft MGN to determine whether further clarification on consolidated loads could be provided. The MCA already provides an interpretation of the requirements which explains that one certificate can be completed for an entire load. To improve clarity and link existing guidance with the draft MGN, the MGN has been updated with a link to the relevant information on gov.uk.

8. Comments related to emergency telephone numbers

The withdrawal of the requirement for an emergency telephone number is regrettable. We welcome seeing the removal of the unnecessary requirement to include emergency contact information on the DGN.

MCA Response

The provision of an emergency telephone number is not part of either the SOLAS Chapter VII or MARPOL Annex III requirements for the carriage of packaged dangerous goods and marine pollutants by sea. This requirement was added to the current Regulations in order to implement Directive 2002/59/EC. Prior to the Consultation, the purpose, validity and usefulness of this requirement were questioned by stakeholders.

The IMDG Code requires the provision of the consignor’s name and contact details and also requires that a ship carrying dangerous goods must have on board emergency response information which must be immediately available at all times for use in an emergency. This emergency response information must be appropriate to the dangerous goods being carried. The Supplement to the IMDG Code includes the Emergency Response Procedures for Ships Carrying Dangerous Goods (EmS Guide) and the Medical First Aid Guide for Use in Accidents Involving Dangerous Goods (MFAG).

In the event of a dangerous goods incident at sea which requires medical attention, the UK (and other coastal states) provide a free of charge telemedical advice service (TMAS) for ships at sea. The two designated providers of this service in the UK are the Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, and Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. To obtain telemedical advice ships should contact HM Coastguard on either MF DSC, VHF DSC or VHF Channel 16. Whilst GMDSS compliant satellite voice communications systems, or mobile phones, can be used for medical advice or assistance, they should not be relied upon as the only means of communication. Further information is available in MGN 623. In the event of an incident involving dangerous goods, emergency services, including HM Coastguard, have access to 24hr emergency response support to incidents involving hazardous chemicals from the National Chemical Emergency Centre. 

With the above in mind, the provision of an emergency telephone number has not been retained in the 2024 Regulations. However, it should be noted that this remains a requirement for dangerous goods entering a port in the EU, meaning that all dangerous goods exports entering an EU port must still comply with the requirement for an emergency number. This omission from the 2024 Regulations will be reassessed at post-implementation review stage.

Section 4: MCA Response and Next Steps

The Government will finalise the proposed Regulations and guidance, incorporating the amendments referred to above, with a view to publishing in Spring 2024. The 2024 Regulations are expected to be laid in draft in May 2024 and, once approved by both Houses, they will be made and are expected to come into law in June 2024.

Section 5: Who Responded

Respondents to the consultation included large businesses (shippers and carriers), trade associations (in particular representing cargo interests), specialists such as marine surveyors, cargo surveyors, port agents and dangerous goods consultants, and other Government agencies.