Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It is important to clarify what the instrument does and does not do. It does not introduce new policy nor impose any significant new regulatory burdens on businesses. It ensures the obligations that are already in force in Northern Ireland can be properly enforced. Without these regulations, we would have rules on the statute book but no effective means to uphold them; that is not a position that the Government consider acceptable. I will try to answer as many questions as I can—unfortunately, I do not have very long. The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, talked about internal UK divergence as a result of this SI. As I said, different requirements now apply for batteries placed on the Northern Ireland market compared with those placed on the GB market as a result of the direct application of the EU Batteries Regulation in Northern Ireland. However, the majority of batteries will be manufactured to meet the Northern Ireland and EU requirements, whether they are physically placed on the market in mainland Europe, Northern Ireland or Great Britain. This SI will provide clarity, certainty and enforceability, and equip enforcement authorities with the powers they need to ensure that batteries placed on the Northern Ireland market meet the required standards. There have been a number of questions around divergence, impacts on business and enforcement. On divergence, I reassure the House that, in practice, the impact will be minimal because the reality is that most manufacturers already design their products to meet EU standards wherever they are sold. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, asked about enforcement and costs in the de minimis assessment covering the enforcement regime. They were extremely low, with an equivalent annual direct cost to businesses of under £8,000. That is across all Northern Ireland businesses that were affected, not each—so that £8,000 is right across the piece. The noble Lords, Lord Elliott and Lord Redwood, also asked about impact assessments and costs. The related calculated costs from the SI are minimal. A small, one-off familiarisation cost—around two hours per business—totalling £35,017 across all the affected businesses is estimated as they become aware of the SI and its enforcement provisions. Some 776 businesses that place batteries on to the Northern Ireland market are estimated to be in scope. There will also be some small additional costs for monitoring and enforcement activities for compliant businesses that are placing batteries on the Northern Ireland market, to enable regulator activity, such as audits or inquiries. They have been calculated to total £33,822 over the 10-year appraisal period. Ongoing costs of approximately £330,000 per annum are also expected to be incurred by Defra to fund market surveillance and enforcement activity undertaken by the OPSS. These include inspections, investigations and audit, which do not fall on businesses as costs and are not included in the equivalent annual net direct costs to businesses. There is no direct impact on households, so the equivalent annual net direct cost to households is therefore assessed as £0. The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, also asked about offences. Some 182 batteries industry stakeholders and other stakeholders were sent the proposed offences and penalties and invited to provide feedback in January this year. Out of the 182 stakeholders, only one responded: a trade body operating in Northern Ireland. It agreed with the rationale behind the penalty group and did not comment on other aspects of the SI. The very low response rate to those communications indicated that stakeholders are content with the approach taken and that concerns related to this SI are low. On enforcement, the Office for Product Safety and Standards, which enforced the previous placing on the market regulations, will be appointed by the Secretary of the State to enforce the new placing on the market requirements of the EU’s 2023 batteries regulation in Northern Ireland. To facilitate it, this SI amends the Market Surveillance (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021 to provide for the powers of enforcement under those regulations to apply to the enforcement of these regulations and to the EU batteries regulation requirements. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked some specific questions about the competitiveness of Northern Ireland businesses and the impact on the internal market, and about whether the proposed alignment in the consultation will form part of the Government’s wider aims for dynamic alignment. I thank him for those questions. We think that the practical effect will be limited. As I mentioned, the majority of batteries were manufactured to meet the Northern Ireland and EU requirements, whether they are physically placed on the market in Europe, Northern Ireland or Great Britain. Batteries meeting the Northern Ireland and EU requirements can also be placed on the market in Great Britain. As I noted earlier, the instrument does not introduce any new requirements or amend any existing ones; it is just to ensure that placing on the market requirements that are already in force or due to come into force are enforceable in Northern Ireland. We are satisfied the SI goes no further than is necessary to implement those provisions reflecting that position. On the question on alignment, we intend to consult later this autumn on the aligned regime across the whole of the UK that is consistent with the EU batteries regulation. We think that is the right thing to do. As I mentioned, it has to be for the whole of the UK and to protect the whole of the UK’s internal market. We have engaged extensively with businesses and others over a long period on the approach to batteries; for placing on the market matters, the industry has been clear that it wants to see this common set of standards. For waste and producer responsibility matters, the pace of battery technology development and change means that market and waste burden is very different now to when the current UK regulations were made, and there are a number of acknowledged difficulties with the operation of the existing approach. We hope that the consultation, with that UK-wide approach, will go a long way to address those issues, but it is important that the consultation should not be seen as a general approach to regulatory alignment. Rather, it reflects the specific circumstances of the batteries sector. The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, asked about the penalties regime and why the instrument has taken over three years since the batteries regulation was published in July 2023. The EU batteries regulation introduces significant new and evolving requirements, and it is important that any regime respects Northern Ireland’s dual market position. We feel that we have moved as quickly as we were able to bring forward this instrument on the placing on the market elements. As I previously set out, the UK-wide consultation we are going to do this autumn on waste and producer responsibility provisions will propose consistency, which we know is what business wants. On conformity—I am terribly sorry, I cannot remember who asked me this—the UKNI marking is a common requirement for regulatory regimes included in the Windsor Framework that require conformity assessment if assessment is conducted by a UK assessment body. If a product has been conformity assessed by a UK conformity assessment body, as opposed to an EU conformity assessment body, then it must be accompanied with the CE plus UKNI marking and can be placed only on the Northern Ireland market. I am going to wrap up because I want to give the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, time to respond. It is important to note that all this has been done with close engagement across government and industry, and we have not had concerns raised by stakeholders. The instrument is practical, proportionate and necessary. I thank all noble Lords again; anything I have not covered, I will pick up from Hansard.