Batteries (Placing on the Market) (Northern Ireland) Regulations
Tuesday, 15 September 2026
Contributions
Motion to Approve
Moved by
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 4 June be approved. Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, in 2023, the European Union replaced its 2006 batteries directive with a new batteries regulation. This updated placing on the market requirements, covering design specifications for batteries and requirements relating to information and labelling. These requirements, designed to support the environmental and safety performance of batteries, relate to carbon footprint, performance and durability, recycled content, and removability and replaceability of batteries from devices. The new EU regulation has also introduced specific safety requirements for stationary battery energy storage systems and updates the information requirements to include state of health and expected lifetime. Finally, the EU regulation also introduces the digital battery passport and supply chain due diligence policies for larger organisations. Previous requirements relating to the restriction of certain substances in batteries are carried forward. I welcome the collaborative approach taken in the development of this instrument, which has drawn constructively on expertise from industry and government departments. The enforcement provisions set out in this SI meaningfully strengthen the application of the EU batteries regulation in Northern Ireland, where it has been law since its publication in 2023. By improving compliance in key areas such as battery safety, hazardous substances and environmental performance, it is reasonable to expect positive environmental outcomes through reduced risk of unsafe or environmentally harmful batteries being placed on the market. I am also reassured by the de minimis assessment undertaken in respect of this instrument. Given that the associated costs are minimal and that the instrument introduces no contentious or disproportionate impacts, this approach seems to be both reasonable and appropriate. Of course, it is right that this House scrutinises delegated legislation carefully. I am satisfied this instrument falls within the scope of the parent Act and represents an appropriate use of powers. It is for these reasons that I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Moved by
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown
At the end insert “, but that this that this House regrets that the draft Regulations impose a different legal requirement for the placing on the market of batteries in Northern Ireland in order to comply with the Windsor Framework; further undermine the integrity of the UK internal market; and could lead to higher costs for companies based in Northern Ireland.”
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendment in my name and make four main points. First, these regulations provide a graphic demonstration of the humiliating nature of the Windsor Framework. The substantive legislation which they enforce is EU Regulation 2023/1542. This legislation took effect in Northern Ireland automatically on 17 August 2023 by means of a dynamic aligning of the UK, with respect to Northern Ireland, with the EU, effectively treating part of the United Kingdom as an EU colony. Northern Ireland legislators were not even briefed on this matter. The first we learned of it was three years later, reading the Explanatory Notes to the regulations before us today, the purpose of which is to serve the EU by providing a means for enforcing its legislation. Secondly, the enforcement that these regulations provide is deeply problematic. Speaking when these regulations were debated in another place on 8 July, the Minister stated: “Offences are put in one of three penalty groups: summary-only offences, such as those subject to a fine, which can be unlimited; either-way offences; or imprisonment for up to 12 months and/or an unlimited fine for the most serious indictable-only offences. Offences include failure to keep appropriate due-diligence documentation; failure of a supplier of battery cells and modules to provide documentation to manufacturers; and failure by an importer to comply with certain battery safety-related obligations. Those fall into penalty groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively ”.—[ Official Report , Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 8/7/26; col. 4.] Let us take a step back for a moment. If the norm of the 18th century was such that there could be no taxation without representation then plainly we cannot contemplate fines and imprisonment in the 21st century further to contravention of laws unless the citizens in question were represented in the making of those laws that they have broken. The EU is expecting the United Kingdom Government not only to subject part of themselves to EU law but to introduce a legislative mechanism whereby EU law can be imposed with sanctions depriving UK citizens of money in the form of fines or potentially of their liberty through imprisonment. This is constitutionally completely absurd and unacceptable. Thirdly, we need to confront how these regulations are implicated in destroying the United Kingdom internal market for goods. By providing enforcement, the regulations before us today bring EU Regulation 2023/1542 into full effect, creating a new legal market for batteries as a matter of practice, subject to different rules from the rest of the United Kingdom. The regulations are called the “placing on the market” regulations, where the market in question is the EU internal market, not a United Kingdom internal market, which necessarily becomes, by default, a GB internal market for goods for these purposes. This presents an economic challenge for Northern Ireland. If we manufacture our own batteries, we will not do so on a level playing field with the rest of the United Kingdom, because we will be subject to EU regulations that do not apply to Great Britain. If, as a small and until recently completely integrated part of the United Kingdom economy, we get most of our batteries from GB, we will not be able to do so going forward unless GB companies provide batteries to the requirements of EU law and also pay to get additional Northern Ireland marking. Will they do this for a tiny market? This presents a very real supply chain concern. Fourthly, the Explanatory Memorandum attending these regulations is unlike the memoranda accompanying many other regulations forged in deference to the Windsor Framework. Often they state that the Government are planning to prevent divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland by bringing GB into line with Northern Ireland, and thus with the EU. However, the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying these regulations does no such thing. This prompted real concern that, on this matter, London was ready to cut Northern Ireland off, which resulted in concerns being expressed to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House. In the other place, the Minister said: “Let me be clear that we will take any steps necessary to continue to meet the Government’s commitment to protect the UK’s internal market. That is why we will consult in the autumn on an aligned regime in Great Britain that is consistent with the EU’s 2023 batteries regulation ”.—[ Official Report , Commons, Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee, 8/7/26; col. 5.] Thus, along with the tumble dryers regulations and the machinery regulations, the battery regulations now become an early expression of the Government’s reset policy with the EU. In closing, I want to anticipate and respond to the counterargument deployed by the Minister in another place when proposing this legislation in July. She said: “Implementing the measures helps Northern Ireland to maintain its dual market access ”.—[ Official Report , Commons, Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee, 8/7/26; col. 4.] The sense was that all the problems that I have outlined were worth while because of the great prize of dual market access. But let me be quite clear: dual market access is a myth. If Northern Ireland enjoyed dual market access, there would be no Irish Sea customs border or UK/Republic of Ireland customs border. Northern Ireland would enjoy unfettered input access, unfettered sales access to the rest of the United Kingdom, and unfettered input and sales access to the Republic. What has actually taken place is that Northern Ireland has been forced to exchange unfettered access to its home economy of nearly 70 million for unfettered access to another proximate economy of about 5 million. Rather than becoming less problematic over time, the Irish Sea border is becoming more problematic with every new piece of legislation that is published to try to accommodate it. This position is completely unsustainable. The Irish Sea customs and international SPS border must go. I beg to move.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, for moving this amendment so that we can again debate this crucial constitutional matter. I have every sympathy with the points he made, because what we face again here is legislation by sleight of hand. We are in fact approving comprehensive regulations for the battery sector, but we are told they are none of our business as a United Kingdom Parliament because it was determined in Brussels, without any of our representatives present, and formed into a directive which is directly acting in Northern Ireland, an important part of our country. We are asked to debate today the much lesser issue of the impact of the enforcement mechanism, which we are allowed to discuss and approve, not the wider impact of the battery regulation on a growing and complex sector, with many businesses at stake. So the Minister is able to tell us—reasonably accurately, perhaps —that the impact assessment says that it is not going to cost very much because that impact assessment assesses only the administrative costs connected with creating these new offences. It does not go into the detail of what might happen if people actually had to pay the fines, of course, and it leaves out the question of the huge compliance costs with the underlying directive. The case being made is that it already applies, so businesses have already had to impose it. It is rather odd that the Government have not got round to putting in the enforcement mechanism until now. We have been told that it is much delayed compared with the EU’s requirement upon us, but, none the less, they got there in the end. The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, made the powerful point that in a democracy, if you are imposing potential large fines or imprisonment on people, that is surely something which your country and elected Parliament should control, not something which you are told you have to do because of an EU imposition on part of your country. My second great worry about this is that it illustrates not only that laws are imposed on Northern Ireland without proper debate, democratic consideration or economic assessment, but that we end up with them in Great Britain as well. We are now told by the Government that the only way they think they can guarantee the very important integrity of our internal market—with a far bigger economic impact on both sides of the Irish Sea than the issues the EU is imposing, and with far less trade at risk—is that it all has to be taken for granted and that we have to adopt the measures that the EU is imposing on Northern Ireland, otherwise our internal market will be disrupted. Not only does the Windsor Framework now mean that Northern Ireland has to accept undemocratic law on itself, but we will probably end up with it in GB as well. These are mighty issues arising out of what look like rather technical and small directives and statutory instruments to handle them. I again urge the Minister to take back to the wider Government that they cannot go on like this. They cannot go on pretending that we live in a sovereign democracy if, by the back door, these laws can be imposed on part of our country, and then perhaps on the whole country, without proper consideration. This must be the number one issue in the reset and the Government should not take no for an answer. There are easy solutions in a reset. Please get on with them.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord McCrea. The Government present the regulations as a technical measure concerned with the placing of batteries on the market. However, like so many regulations flowing from the post-Brexit arrangements for Northern Ireland, they raise issues that extend far beyond their immediate subject matter. They concern the principle of equal treatment within our United Kingdom, the burden placed upon Northern Ireland businesses and the continuing erosion of democratic accountability. At the practical level, these regulations impose obligations on traders, manufacturers and distributors operating in Northern Ireland that are not faced by many of their counterparts elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Businesses will have to familiarise themselves with new requirements, maintain compliance procedures, keep appropriate documents and ensure that products satisfy the latest relevant regulatory standards. The Government may regard these obligations as modest but, for many small businesses and medium-sized enterprises, they are anything but. A family-run wholesaler or retailer in Northern Ireland does not have a dedicated compliance department or a team of lawyers on hand to interpret evolving rules. Every new requirement means additional paper, additional administrative time, additional record keeping and, of course, additional cost. Businesses supplying both GB and Northern Ireland may find themselves having to operate under distinct regulatory arrangements. That can mean separate packaging, documentation, compliance checks and reporting requirements. These costs are very real for small traders working on very tight margins. We must also consider the enforcement regime that accompanies these obligations. Businesses are not merely being asked to comply with another set of rules; they are being asked to do so under the threat of investigation, enforcement and sanctions if they fail. A trader who inadvertently breaks these technical requirements may face compliance notices, restrictions on the sale of products or further legal proceedings. The real concern is not simply the penalty but the risk that accompanies it. This debate is therefore about far more than batteries. It is about democracy, accountability and equal citizenship. The issue is not simply an environmental policy; it is a question of equal treatment under the law. Businesses in Northern Ireland deserve legal certainty. They deserve democratic accountability and the same regulatory framework as their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom, unless there is a compelling justification otherwise. Increasingly, however, we see Northern Ireland subject to distinct requirements which create barriers within the internal market of our own nation. My noble friend Lord McCrea’s amendment rightly highlights these concerns. It recognises that every new layer of regulatory divergence carries practical consequences for traders and constitutional consequences for Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom. I support my noble friend Lord McCrea’s amendment.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak against the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, although I understand the tenacity with which this point is being put on a very regular basis and how sincerely he feels about these issues. I also understand, having listened repeatedly to these points being raised, that it is not a case of persuading my good friends and colleagues in this House that this is just about batteries, that there is a pragmatic need to get on with this and that these are probably good regulations anyway, so what is the harm? Those arguments get nowhere in this debate: I recognise that. So I am going to seek to put this in a bit of context around how we have got to where we are. The Windsor Framework is better than the Northern Ireland Protocol it replaced, but it is still unfortunately imperfect. It creates friction in the Irish Sea and additional burdens on businesses. It is probably wise to just be honest, open and upfront about this and not pretend otherwise. It is a fudge; it was necessary. I heard the noble Lord, Lord McCrae, say that he was not aware that these regulations would be coming into place. I can see why he says that, but surely, when the vote to leave the European Union took place, it must have been anticipated that there would need to be some kind of arrangement for Northern Ireland that would entail a huge amount of compromise—and, ideally, flexibility and understanding on both sides and a real determination to find a solution. I do not remember that atmosphere around those discussions at the time, so we are left with this unsatisfactory way of working. But it is the operational reality in which we find ourselves and, while it is there, it is one that we must make work. I have heard it said that dual market access is imaginary and not a thing. I understand that there are problems with GB-NI trade; that is true. But it is not fair and not correct to say that there is no such thing as dual market access. There is and it is a position that businesses in Northern Ireland—small enterprises, big exporters and manufacturers—talk about wishing to take advantage of. You can see the growth that is being achieved in Northern Ireland as a consequence of dual market access and the unique economic position of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is succeeding, perhaps, you could argue, in spite of some of these challenges—and when was it not the case that business and enterprise were not able to overcome such things? My experience of talking to businesses in Northern Ireland is that they want clarity, they want certainty and they can deal with it. That is their intention. It is right—if it is what you believe—to criticise the complexities of the current arrangements. But, equally, please do not ignore the concrete advantages that see Northern Ireland consistently expanding sales into the EU in advanced manufacturing, life sciences and aerospace, with local pioneers openly pointing to the Windsor Framework as a net positive, giving them access to a £6 trillion market. We should try, when we can, to have a calm, level-headed approach to all of this. The foundational agreements of the peace process stand. What is needed is flexibility, pragmatism and a real focus on making sure that we never lose the stability, prosperity and good governance that Northern Ireland will always need.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, who made some very interesting points—some of which I do not agree with, but that is politics. It is quite clear that there is a UK conformity assessment in this legislation. It is not going to be as simple as some people try to make out; that is the difficulty that we have. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that some people may see the Windsor Framework as positive in the business sense. Many others do not, and that is the difficulty. If you are running a small or medium-sized business, the extra burden of administration and bureaucracy put on to you sometimes makes it hugely difficult to find your way around it. The second issue, which has been mentioned by a number of speakers, is the control that there will be on those who break the law. There will very severe penalties that, as has been highlighted, the UK will have no control over. I note that the instrument did not require a full consultation and that the de minimis amount has been put on it regarding costs. I am not sure what all that covers. Maybe the Minister can help us out and say what the best estimates are. I see the estimates in the legislation, but I am not sure whether they are the full amount. My final point goes back to the management of the entire Windsor Framework process. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, who is in the Chamber, had a report out last year. He stated: “The UK Government should work to make Windsor Framework related guidance accessible in a single ‘all-in-one service’ and do more to signpost businesses, especially small to medium-sized businesses, towards this support”. I am not sure that has taken place yet. I am not sure whether there has been any progress on it. I would like to hear from the Minister about this. It will not resolve the issue of divergence between the UK and Northern Ireland, but it would, at least in the meantime, help small and medium-sized businesses in Northern Ireland by signposting to them so that they get the proper help and security they may need. I would like to hear whether there has been some progress on that.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to support the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown. Surprisingly, I find myself in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, who made a number of very fair points. Incidentally, it would be good to see her back on the Front Bench eventually; she is much missed on the Front Bench. However, I think the noble Baroness has slightly rose-tinted spectacles in respect of the negotiations, of which I was a small part during the early part of the Northern Ireland protocol. It was never a binary choice between a hard border and nothing else. There were always the options, which were ignored by the May, Sunak and Johnson Governments, of technical solutions that Lars Karlsson, among others, pioneered in the Middle East, Norway and Sweden. I will perhaps pre-empt the perennial comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, about how terrible Brexit is; in respect of Northern Ireland, there were always choices which were not pursued. However, we are where we are. In applying EU law, the Windsor Framework relegates Northern Ireland’s citizens to second-class, violates territorial integrity and erodes UK sovereignty. Notwithstanding that this is a technical enforcement instrument, brought about because of the need to avoid legal jeopardy and litigation risk, I believe we are failing in our duty because we are not even fulfilling the traditional parliamentary role of scrutiny and oversight; incidentally, and ironically, nor are the European Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly, because this is generated from the European Commission. The European Parliament is not a parliament we would necessarily recognise in the traditional sense; it is in fact a body subject to huge amounts of lobbying by business in the interests of the countries of the European Union. In effect, we are an appointment body for the market surveillance authority, which is the Office for Product Safety and Standards. That is our role in this sovereign Parliament and it is quite shameful, in my opinion. We are not even looking at the efficacy of the policy—the technical details on carbon footprint, standards, recycling, labelling, the battery passport and CE marking. We are of course diverging from the 2008 regulations affecting Great Britain. This point was made in the committee in the other place: we may have warm words—as they say, warm words butter no parsnips—that Section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 has not been offended, but it has. We are clearly not abiding by that and by the territorial integrity and importance of the UK-wide, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland single market. This goes to the point made earlier by one of the noble Lords from the DUP. We are talking here about criminal liabilities, not an overdue library book. We are talking about people potentially being the subject of criminal sanction and going to prison. That is not being debated in our sovereign Parliament, or indeed in the devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland, and I think that is a serious issue that should concern everyone, irrespective of their party. I challenge the Minister to talk about that issue, because these regulations are rules set by a body that no one voted for and cannot be removed. I have three quick questions for the Minister. Will she give us more details on the GB-wide consultation? What are the likely producer responsibility requirements that will arise following that? Will she perhaps undertake to review the operation of the regulations, as between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in respect of competitive advantage? Finally, if the noble Lord chooses to test the opinion of the House, he will have my strong support.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord McCrea. Although a casual observer might think we are simply debating technical standards for consumer electronics or even industrial machinery, anyone with an eye for the integrity of our United Kingdom knows that we are doing something far more insidious and very dangerous. We are watching the further decoupling of Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom. Let us be completely clear about what this statutory instrument does. It does not create laws designed by British lawmakers to serve British citizens. Instead, it seeks to establish an enforcement and criminal penalties regime within our borders to police an EU batteries regulation that applies directly under the Windsor Framework. It is an absolute travesty of our democracy that laws are being imposed on a part of the United Kingdom without a single vote being cast or a single shred of scrutiny being offered to any parliamentarian elected by the people of Northern Ireland. We are instructing our own domestic courts and enforcement bodies to punish British citizens for failing to comply with rules manufactured in Brussels. How can we honestly stand in this Chamber and claim that the union is secure when a consumer or business owner in Belfast is legally barred from placing on the market a product that is perfectly lawful in the rest of the United Kingdom? These regulations divide our internal market and create a regulatory border down the Irish Sea for everyday goods. We were promised that the Windsor Framework would protect the internal market, yet here we are in 2026 rubber-stamping an instrument that proves the exact opposite. This is a classic and deeply troubling case of democratic default. Not a single Member of this House or any elected representative in Northern Ireland had the opportunity to scrutinise, debate or vote on the underlying EU regulations. We must not simply roll over and accept the rubber-stamping of foreign laws wrapped in criminal penalties while the economic foundations of the union are being eroded away. I urge Members to oppose these regulations.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Before the Recess we had tumble dryers, last week we had seed potatoes and this week we have batteries. I support the process. I think it is right that every Member of this House should have the right to seek a proper debate on all the statutory instruments that come before us, whether they affect Northern Ireland or are more general. It is important and, to an extent, we are making up for the problems faced by the Commons in giving adequate consideration to all the matters that come before them. So I support the process and welcome the opportunity to debate these issues. As the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, said, there are always choices. The point we need to emphasise is that in the UK we have made a choice. Some people do not like the choice we have made and they have every right to protest about it, but it is the choice that has been made. There is a certain irony in the fact that those who are most vociferous in calling for Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom are objecting to a decision made by the United Kingdom. You have to take the obligations that come with your objectives, and this is what we have. I remind noble Lords of the point I made last week: the people of Northern Ireland voted against Brexit. So, when people come forward to complain about the outcome, those who promoted Brexit should accept responsibility for where we have ended up. Given the land border, there were bound to be problems. Clearly, whoever negotiated the arrangements did not do a good job. That is why the framework was being discussed yesterday in Grand Committee. As my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick said, “it is important that the challenges and impediments presented by the Windsor Framework are ironed out ”.—[ Official Report , 14/9/26; col. GC 347.] So there is an acceptance, even by those who support the Windsor Framework—as my noble friend declared she does—that it should be sorted out, following up the work of my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen. In my last few seconds, I turn to batteries. Batteries are made in China and some are made in Belgium. The idea that we as a country can determine the nature of the batteries that are used in this country is an illustration of the falsity of the claim of taking back control. We are part of an international system, and the reason why we do not have control over the form of batteries sold in this country is that we left the European Union, where the decisions are being made. We have no power over the batteries in this country because they are not made in this country; they are made elsewhere. The wish to ignore the reality of an interconnected world is, at heart, the cause of the problems here.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the regret amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea. One must acknowledge that there is a slight Groundhog Day feel to this debate—the third in three weeks—and that the points we have made this evening have already been made many times on the previous two occasions. However, they are justified and no less important for their repetition. Indeed, the tone of these debates has changed a little, week on week, as we have reflected on the situation we are facing. It is right that we keep these great matters of principle at the forefront of our minds; they bear repetition. The great Lady Thatcher, when she was accused of saying the same old thing, said, “Of course I am. The truth always is the same old thing”. That is true of this debate as well. In some ways, the Minister made it easier for us tonight. I do not know whether, on the previous two occasions, she grew weary of trying to say that there was nothing to see here and that we should not worry about it, because, in her opening statement, she was quite open about the fact that there is no discretion on this and that the regulations have already been in force for two years. We are talking about supplementary enforcement arrangements for regulations that are already being enforced. There is no choice around the legal requirement to impose these new laws, because they are already in place. As has already been noted, there is a legal requirement to enforce laws on criminal offences that have been made elsewhere and on which nobody in this country has had any say. As I said last week, there is an element of performative lawmaking and discussion in this, where there is no discretion. If that is not a lack of autonomy, I do not know what is. I use that word because, as the Minister may remember, last week I quoted her as saying in our first debate: “We retain complete autonomy to make our own regulatory decisions ”.—[ Official Report , 2/9/26; col. 201.] She was referring to Northern Ireland. I questioned whether, in the light of the regulations we were discussing, that statement could stand up. I do not think she responded to that last week; perhaps she could take the time tonight to explain how she justifies that statement when we are discussing regulations over which we have had no choice. The Minister was also honest about her intention to replicate in Great Britain this legislation that is already in place in Northern Ireland. It would be better if, at some point, the Government admitted that it is their policy to replicate in Great Britian, where they can, laws that are already in place in Northern Ireland as part of a bridge, no doubt, eventually to the single market for goods. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, for her comments. They may not have been entirely fair, and I would not agree with everything she said, but the tone was good. We should be able to have pragmatic and calm discussions on this, while not forgetting the important points of principle involved: democracy, discussion and proper lawmaking. In my final few seconds, I will pick up the point of dual market access. That is not a good term. Northern Ireland is a member of another market for goods—that is the situation. It is a market in which Northern Ireland has no say. It has attenuated access to GB, but the real problem is that Great Britain has very limited access to Northern Ireland. That is the real underlying problem of the Windsor Framework, and until we deal with that problem we are going to be coming back to discuss this for years to come.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward these regulations and being present to hear the concerns of noble Lords; I look forward to her response. Once again, I found the arguments of the noble Lords from Northern Ireland and my noble friends on the constitutional difficulties of these regulations to be compelling. I will begin by addressing the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown. I repeat the sentiments of what I said last week: the Windsor Framework was an improvement on the Northern Ireland protocol, but that is not to say it has no flaws or that my party is not willing to improve it further, as we all must. The noble Lord, and other noble Lords and my noble friends, are right: we cannot let the integrity of the union, and Northern Ireland’s place in it, be quietly undermined through secondary legislation—secondary legislation that seems quite straightforward, innocuous and trivial, and appears not to change much, but collectively begins to lever Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. I welcome the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, whom I also miss on the Front Bench. I think she is the first Labour person opposite who I have heard say that the Windsor Framework needs a bit of tweaking. I think she suggested that it needed quite a bit of tweaking. I and my noble friends would probably like it to be tweaked a lot more than she would, but she has taken a very good stance, and I agree that it can be done quietly and by speaking quite softly. These regulations fully implement the EU’s regulations on batteries and replace the previous 2006 batteries directive to improve battery safety and environmental performance. We understand that the Government received a limited number of responses to their engagement and so concluded that stakeholders are content with these regulations. That may be the case, but can the Minister say what assessment they have made of the impact on the UK’s internal market more widely, as well as on the competitiveness of Northern Ireland businesses specifically within our internal market? The Minister in the other place—and the Minister here—said that the Government “will consult on an aligned regime across the whole UK that is consistent and will provide a unified regulatory framework across the UK and the EU ”.—[ Official Report , Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 8/7/26; col. 12.] Does that form part of the Government’s wider aims for dynamic alignment, and what is the basis for alignment in this specific regulatory area? I agree with my noble friend Lord Frost: when the Government consult on this, I think we all know what the outcome will be—that the UK must adopt similar legislation to that in Northern Ireland and adopt the EU regulation. In that case, let us cut out the comedy of doing a long consultation and get on with it. If we are going to align UK battery policy with Northern Ireland battery policy and EU battery policy, let us do it quickly so that we do not have any lacuna and the industry can crack on with it. I say that not because I want to be aligned with EU policy but because, if the Government are going to do it, then, whatever they do, they should do it quickly. Important points have been raised by all the noble Lords from Northern Ireland, as well as by my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
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.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I express my thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Redwood, Lord Elliott, Lord Jackson, Lord Frost and Lord Blencathra, and also my noble friends Lord Browne and Lord Hay for their support. There have, however, been two dissenting voices. I deeply appreciate where the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, is coming from, but she acknowledged that there are additional burdens on industry through this. How many more additional burdens can industry in Northern Ireland take and be told that it must accept? There is a one-way traffic in concessions; whenever Europe asks for something, the Government surrender to its demands. I also remind her that there are many disadvantages to so-called dual-market access. For example, businesses importing steel into Northern Ireland are now paying up to 50% tariffs on categories 4 and 7 steel, because the EU tariff quotas have already been exhausted. There are problems there. I gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, that the decision on leaving the European Union was not on what part was going to leave. It was a question for the United Kingdom as a whole. We were asked whether the United Kingdom should leave, not whether Northern Ireland or Scotland should. While there is different treatment for Northern Ireland, it is interesting that there is no different treatment for Scotland. It is demanding special treatment, but there is no such thing coming its way. I listened very carefully to what the Minister has said. I thank her for the gracious manner in which she has dealt with this regret amendment, but I have to say to her and to the Government that that response will not do. On one level, introducing the same laws that the EU has imposed on one part of the United Kingdom in the other would remove the problem of divergence, but it would allow the EU to shame the whole United Kingdom through its strategy of divide and rule.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, the time allotted for this debate has now elapsed and the noble Lord must either press his amendment or seek leave to withdraw it.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
I do not wish to press this regret amendment.
Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.
Motion agreed.
House adjourned at 7.59 pm.
Source: UK Parliament Hansard API. Debate ID: 5408147.