Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

21:20

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 4 March be approved.

Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, this instrument, which was laid before the House on 4 March 2025, forms an important part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that energy-related products are sustainable and efficient by enabling new regulations to be enforced as they apply in Northern Ireland. Ecodesign policies aim to reduce the environmental impact of energy-related products by reducing their energy consumption and use of material resources, reducing carbon emissions and saving businesses and consumers money on their energy bills. Energy labelling regulations help better inform consumers and encourage them to purchase more efficient products.

Following our departure from the European Union, Great Britain assimilated its regulatory regime for energy-related products standards into domestic law, which we may in future amend. Noble Lords will also be aware of the agreement reached by the UK and EU regarding the Windsor Framework, which helps to ensure the flow of trade within the UK internal market by removing trade burdens and safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the union. It allows Northern Ireland to maintain dual market access by continuing to apply EU rules with respect to the regulation of energy-related products. We see it as a necessary element of the commitment to keep the enforcement legislation for Northern Ireland up to date.

This statutory instrument is therefore required to enable market surveillance authorities properly to enforce the latest EU rules which apply in Northern Ireland, ensuring legal consistency and fulfilling the UK’s international obligations. The instrument will update both the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products Regulations 2010 and the Energy Information Regulations 2011 with respect to Northern Ireland. These updates will ensure that the specific Northern Ireland tables in the 2010 and 2011 regulations accurately reflect the latest product-specific ecodesign and energy labelling measures and enable these measures to be enforced by the relevant market surveillance authorities.

Seven new EU product regulations will apply in Northern Ireland. The ecodesign regulations include: smartphones, mobile phones, cordless phones and slate tablets, which will be regulated for the first time; fans driven by motors with an electric input power between 125 watts and 500 kilowatts; household tumble dryers; and local space heaters. The energy labelling regulations cover household tumble dryers. The ecodesign regulations seek to improve the energy efficiency of all products, while new energy labelling regulations reflect new labelling standards.

Repairability and recyclability of products has been included for the first time under EU ecodesign, and certain energy labelling regulations, to ensure further sustainability and benefit consumers. The statutory instrument will extend the current ambulatory references to EU measures in the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products Regulations 2010 and the Energy Information Regulations 2011 for Northern Ireland. This will ensure that these schedules continue to reflect the most up-to-date versions of these EU ecodesign or energy labelling measures in force, whether amended or replaced, while minimising the need for further updates to the enforcement regulations.

The requirements updated by this instrument will not restrict manufacturers’ ability to sell into the EU or Northern Ireland, unless they are not willing to meet the EU’s regulations. The EU’s higher standards are likely to become the industry default, and we can assume that manufacturers are likely to choose to meet those standards. If this is the case, the measures will have no impact on traders who abide by the relevant standards.

Since in Great Britain we will look to achieve higher product efficiency, it is very likely that Great Britian will seek to attain similar standards. As such, we will consult as soon as possible on the merits of mirroring the new EU regulations, with the first of these, on tumble dryers, expected to be launched shortly. Our intention is to apply the measures on a UK-wide basis to maintain the smooth functioning of the UK’s internal market and because we share similar goals on product energy efficiency. Our consultations will be on the appropriate means to achieve this aim.

I acknowledge that we are currently on a journey, reflecting on the benefits and processes of such regulations. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for their initial scrutiny of this statutory instrument. This included their reflections on how these types of instruments should be handled. I reiterate our commitment to continue to publish Explanatory Memorandums on EU regulations, consistent with our commitments to Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I recognise that issues relating to Northern Ireland and protecting its continued status as an integral part of the United Kingdom’s internal market are important to Members of this House, just as they are to the Government. We take these matters seriously, and we are determined to act in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland and in line with the international agreements that reflect the status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. I commend these regulations to the House.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

[Baroness Hoey]

At end insert “but this House regrets that the draft Regulations treat Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the United Kingdom and have been introduced without consultation.”

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, before I speak to my regret amendment, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Secretary of State for Defence and the Defence Minister in this House for their very welcome decision to judicially review the decision of coroner Justice Humphreys, who ruled that soldiers who killed the IRA terrorists in Clonoe in 1992 should face trial. This has been widely welcomed by members of His Majesty’s Armed Forces and all decent, law-abiding people in Northern Ireland.

Turning to these regulations, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of why they are needed. It is a change to have him here, giving the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, a night off from dealing with Northern Ireland statutory instruments. He will not be surprised to hear that I disagree with some of the points he made.

We have had many regret amendments on statutory instruments, and they are a very important way of getting such issues on the record, even if there is not much chance of stopping these statutory instruments. These regulations really will hit home with people going about their day-to-day lives. They affect electrical household goods, household tumble dryers, smartphones, mobile phones and numerous other goods in everyday use. There are two central difficulties with the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025. The first is democratic, and the second pertains to the division of the United Kingdom.

In the first instance, the standards set by this legislation have been drafted by a body of which we are not a part—the European Union—and which the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave in the biggest every manifestation of democracy in our history. I remind noble Lords that people in Northern Ireland had the exact same ballot paper as the rest of the United Kingdom. Yes, like Scotland, there was a majority in Northern Ireland to remain, but it was a United Kingdom vote which all political parties had promised to honour, whatever the outcome.

We voted to leave the EU in part because, even when we were represented in it, there was a democratic deficit in the way it worked. The way the EU does politics is entirely alien to our tradition, arising from the fact that the power of legislative initiative in the EU rests not with democratically elected politicians, as in our tradition, but with the unelected European Commission.

So now, for Northern Ireland citizens, the power of legislative initiative rests not only with an unelected body but with a foreign unelected body—what might be called a double whammy. We did not vote to leave the EU so that we would have no control over our laws in one part of our own country. The European Union has made absolutely no attempt to consult people and businesses in Northern Ireland on these changes, and now our own Government are rushing through the powers to enforce them, again without even the tiniest bit of consultation. They then have the cheek to suggest that this is not a problem.

21:30

Their Explanatory Memorandum, at paragraph 7.1, states:

“There was no legal duty to undertake a consultation. As this instrument does not make any substantive policy changes, no consultations were undertaken”.

Can the Minister define for me what is meant by “substantive”? That they have no answer is demonstrated very eloquently by the following paragraph 7.2:

“However, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will consult as soon as practicable on the merits of applying equivalent measures in Great Britain, and will conclude these consultations no later than by March 2026”.

The Government readily acknowledge, in paragraph 7.2, that UK citizens not subject to these regulations should, unlike the people of Northern Ireland, be afforded the principle of consultation, completely invalidating the attempted suggestion in paragraph 7.1 that consulting the people of Northern Ireland is not necessary. Can the Minister acknowledge that the Government, by doing this, are authenticating the sadly—I am afraid to say—widely held belief that UK citizens in Northern Ireland are treated as second-class? If it is imperative for GB citizens to have consultation before introducing legislation, surely citizens of another part of the same country must have that same principle applied. If that is not being seen as second-class, I really do not know what would be.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

Can the noble Baroness share her views on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s assessment of this? When Mr Allister from another place raised the issue of consultation, the Minister there gave a very off-handed response; the Minister actually did not come to the committee until after it had commented on it. That adds to the sense that the Government are saying, “For Northern Ireland, we’re going to impose it—that’s the way it is. But for the rest of the country, we’re going to have a consultation”.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble Baroness. She is absolutely right: this is par for the course when it comes to anything to do with Northern Ireland. It is always treated as something that can be waved through. Of course, what they have said this time is that, in relation to the Windsor Framework, what the EU says has to be followed. The letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero Minister in the other place—in response, as the noble Baroness said, to Jim Allister, the MP for North Antrim—was even more dogmatic. It said:

“We have assessed the impact of this regulation on Northern Ireland and have found its impact on businesses and consumers to be minimal”.


Where is that assessment? Where have they done that? Earlier, I asked the Minister here to define “substantive”, but can he now define “minimal”? What does that word mean in that letter from the Minister in the other place? The businesses dealing with all these products certainly do not find this minimal, given the bureaucracy and the worry they now have around complying with this law.

Surely His Majesty’s Government are supposed to stand up equally for the interests of all their citizens, but here they are bowing down, once again, to the EU, without any sign that, even if they have to do this because of the law of the Windsor Framework, they are actually not happy about it and they wish they did not have to do this. As we look around the world today, there is no other developed western country that has agreed, in the face of pressure from a group of 27 foreign countries—including one that aspires to annex the part of the United Kingdom that we are talking about, Northern Ireland—to subject a portion of its citizens to this almost neocolonial situation.

The anger arises on two bases from this. The first is the substantive effect of the removal of the rights of equal citizenship that we have enjoyed for over a century. The second is what I would describe as hurt arising from our being rendered, as I said, second-class compared to the rest of the country on account of the fact that, while our rights to consultation can be dismissed as not important, the rights of other UK citizens must be defended.

Another difficulty arising from paragraph 7.2 relates to the fact that it demonstrates how the mistreatment of Northern Ireland is creating pressures, not for this mistreatment to end, which would be great, but for attempts to be made to limit the destructive effects of divergence with the rest of the country. This is a huge issue, because it demonstrates how the failure to try to deliver Brexit for Northern Ireland is actually undermining Brexit for the whole of the United Kingdom, aligning Great Britain—drip, drip, drip—with Northern Ireland and thus the European Union. This demonstrates how, rather than respecting the biggest democratic vote, we are undermining and destroying Brexit freedoms for the whole United Kingdom and, I believe, greatly weakening the integrity of our political system and a belief in that referendum result.

Of course, we know that the European Union stated that the price of Brexit for the United Kingdom would be Northern Ireland, and I am afraid that weak leadership was shown by the former Prime Minister, now the noble Baroness, Lady May, who started this whole process by almost kowtowing to the European Union in the way that we started to discuss Brexit.

It is striking that, when challenged on these matters by the already mentioned honourable Member for North Antrim, Jim Allister, the Government made no attempt whatever to defend themselves. They simply acknowledged what the Explanatory Memorandum failed to acknowledge: namely, that there had been and would be no consultation in Northern Ireland because the laws from the EU apply to us automatically. Just let that sink in, because I genuinely believe that many noble Lords in this House, Members of Parliament and very many members of the public just do not realise that Northern Ireland has been left in the EU for so many areas of law.

Once again, the Minister in the other place was blunt:

“There is no requirement to consult on this legislation. These regulations apply automatically in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Windsor Framework and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act”.


There was not a single sentence of regret, or a statement that the Government understood the outrageous nature of what the protocol had done to their own citizens in Northern Ireland, or perhaps a commitment to work to withdraw from that agreement with the EU. But no: nothing. Just a simple acceptance: the EU says; we must accept. Put bluntly, our citizenship has been traded away to get a trade and co-operation agreement for GB, despite it violating the cross-community consent principle of the Belfast agreement.

The Minister also plainly stated the Government’s intention to undermine the Brexit gains of Great Britain by consulting on the introduction of the EU Commission’s legislation in GB:

“We will therefore consult on the introduction of aligning regulations in the rest of the UK as soon as possible”.


That was in March, but in February I got a letter from the Minister for Energy Consumers telling me about this statutory instrument and saying at the end of it, on GB:

“We will consult as soon as practically possible on the merits of alignment with new EU regulations and will align where it makes sense to do so. GB may not align unless in the interests of consumers, businesses, and our wider policy goals”.


So can the Minister say what has happened since that letter in February from the Minister saying that they would align only where it made sense to do so, and that they would be taking into account the interests of consumers and businesses, and the Government’s statement, which said very clearly that they would want to align as soon as possible? So there has been a change, and is it part of the Government’s reset policies which we keep hearing about?

On the difference in respect to Northern Ireland, it was said that the EU regulations automatically apply under the terms, and we know that. This idea that, if we in Northern Ireland have EU laws and GB then aligns with them in order to bring Northern Ireland and Great Britain into alignment, that somehow changes things, is deeply flawed.

The application of the same laws to GB will not save the integrity of the UK’s internal market for goods. This has already been lost for most purposes by the imposition of the international SPS and customs border, which cannot be crossed either on the so-called red or green lanes without an export number, customs and SPS paperwork and checks. Even if we align, all that still goes on. Alignment with the rest of GB does not change the fundamental issue of over 300 areas of law in Northern Ireland continuing to be imposed on citizens by a foreign entity, with no say in those laws for the people of Northern Ireland.

I have a few questions that could have been dealt with earlier had this legislation been developed in line with the norms of respect for citizenship and had there been more time for consultation—indeed, had there been any consultation. One of the distinctive things about Northern Ireland, as my colleagues here from Northern Ireland know, is that a significant proportion of people locate their tumble dryers in garages or outhouses. Not surprisingly, this was not taken into account in the development of the legislation. I am not sure how much the Minister knows about tumble dryers, but there is now real concern because unlike condenser and vented tumble dryers, which work at any temperature, the new heat pump tumble dryers work only at ambient temperatures. Below 5 degrees centigrade, they do not work at all. From 5 degrees up to ambient temperatures, they work, but very inefficiently, and will waste far more energy than condenser and vented tumble dryers. To save energy, many people in Northern Ireland with these new tumble dryers will be spending more on energy. Has any consideration been given to this by the Government?

Can the Minister confirm that it will be illegal for a shop in Northern Ireland to bring in new condenser or vented tumble dryers after 1 July, while it will still be quite legal for similar shops in England, Wales and Scotland? As he may know, there is much toing and froing between Scotland and Northern Ireland. Many people from Northern Ireland who have relatives in Scotland go over on the boat for holidays there. After July, can a member of the public who is perhaps in Scotland for a holiday in their car buy a tumble dryer there and bring it back to their home that few miles across the water? Will they be arrested for having a non-EU-regulated tumble dryer or hairdryer or any of the other goods affected by this regulation if they bring them in from Great Britain? Will shops holding the various utilities mentioned in these regulations be able to continue selling after that date? There is huge confusion among small businesses and how this is being rushed through is not helpful. Those are just a small number of questions that this statutory instrument raises. I appreciate that if the Minister cannot answer them directly, he will write.

This SI should be opposed as wrong in principle and wrong in practice. It is another way of making another hole in the unity of the United Kingdom. I beg to move my amendment.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for introducing these regulations and explaining the purpose of them and some of the detail behind them. I also thank him for the meeting that he facilitated and chaired with us in which we were able to look at the matters in a little more detail. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for the regret amendment that she has tabled, because it has enabled, once again, a full and better examination of the details of legislation applying to Northern Ireland.

21:45

We should not have to debate matters of detail on these kinds of issues on the Floor of this House, but I am afraid it is necessary because the way in which Northern Ireland is now governed in 300 areas covering vast swathes of our economy means there is no input for any politician or representative from Northern Ireland into the formulation of legislation any more. Indeed, when it is published, I would recommend that noble Lords look at the evidence given today to your Lordships’ Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and on which I have the privilege to serve, about the frustration felt by businesses, consumers and trade organisations at the lack of input at an early stage into legislation, at legislation being imposed at very short notice, at the lack of ability even to consult their own members about the details of legislation and at the fact that there is so much confusion out there.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, mentioned, it is the level of confusion. Some £650 million has been spent in the last four years on the Trader Support Service and the Movement Assistance Scheme—£650 million, at a time when we are told that there is no money for anything. That £650 million would buy an awful lot of nurses, hospitals and teachers in Northern Ireland, but it is spent instead on officials trying to process customs forms.

I also urge noble Lords to look at the evidence given to the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee just two weeks ago, on 12 March, by a range of trade bodies—do not take our word for it, do not take the noble Baroness’s word for it, do not dismiss it, listen to what they are saying. They are saying that lorries are being turned back. Marks & Spencer is saying that it is spending millions on filling in forms. Millions of pounds are being spent on all this nonsense—it is totally unnecessary. It is a disgrace, quite frankly.

That is why we need to take the opportunity on the Floor of this House in Parliament—we cannot raise it anywhere else—to highlight what is going on within our own country and to try to bring some measure of comfort to people who are suffering as a result of the trade restrictions and barriers that at least some people are willing to understand the issue and to ventilate their concerns. There are some people in this House and in the other place who would prefer that we just do not talk about these things—“Go away. Don’t keep raising it”—but I am afraid that is not what the people who sent Members to the other place or the people with whom we live and reside alongside in all communities want us to do. They want us to raise these issues and to find solutions for them if we can.

This legislation is about allowing the competent authorities here in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland to enforce legislation that has been formulated and applied by a foreign political entity to part of the United Kingdom. The scope of these regulations is pretty wide, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has gone into considerable detail about what they cover—everything from heaters to smartphones to tumble dryers, and so forth.

Again, I look forward to the Minister being able to answer some of these questions, but if he is not able to do it tonight on the Floor of the House, perhaps he could write to us. I was asked to seek answers to a number of questions. With these regulations in place, is it possible that retailers selling any of these items in Northern Ireland—I am not talking about stuff moving from Great Britain into Northern Ireland—could receive a knock on the door or a telephone call from an inspector or other compliance officer seeking proof that their goods meet EU standards? Is it possible that they could be prevented from selling or trading them if they do not meet the relevant standards, even if they meet British standards?

Again, this question was asked but, despite the £650 million spent on the Trader Support Service and others, people just cannot get the answers. They are told to go from one department to another and to seek legal advice. It all costs money—public and private money. Is there the possibility of people being visited in their own homes, or their offices—remember that this is about office equipment as well—and asked to prove that a range of items complies with EU legislation? If that is regarded as somewhat fanciful—“Oh, come on, this wouldn’t happen”—what is the point of the regulations?

The regulations are about giving powers to people to ensure that there is compliance, so what is the point of these powers if not to force people into revealing whether they are complying? What are the consequences if they do not? Perhaps the Minister could give us a definite answer tonight, so that consumers and businesspeople in Northern Ireland can know what the facts actually are, instead of having to scrabble around all the time trying to find out for themselves the answers to these difficult questions.

As has been said, we are told that the changes are pretty minor. In our meeting, as the Minister will recall, we were told that we would have access to some impact assessments that were previously carried out. I would be grateful if he would ensure that those actually arrive with us. I am sorry that they are not here tonight, in advance of this debate.

Again on the issue of the rest of the United Kingdom, the noble Lord said that it might at some point align and that there would be a consultation on that. The noble Baroness referenced this, but the question is: what happens in the meantime? If the rest of the United Kingdom comes into line with EU regulations, whether you think that is a good idea or not, there is going to be a gap. There will be a considerable time in which there is no alignment.

While consideration is being given to aligning the rest of the United Kingdom and consultation has been carried out—a concession not afforded to anyone in Northern Ireland—what are the problems that will arise? Even if we end up in a situation of alignment at some point in the future, there is no guarantee that it will be across every aspect of the contents of these regulations in any case, because the noble Lord—I listened very carefully—talked about starting with tumble dryers. When will there be consultations on the other products and when will those products be aligned in relation to the matters contained in the regulations?

On a wider point about alignment, I will say this: there is an idea around that all our problems in Northern Ireland will be solved by just aligning the rest of the UK with EU legislation. The idea is that it will get rid of the problems in Northern Ireland, but of course it will not. It will be applied piecemeal, in some areas and not others. Since this Government came in, we have already seen them renege on a commitment to introduce UK-wide “Not for EU” labelling. That was supposed to be given as a means of ensuring that Great Britain aligned with Northern Ireland, to ensure there would be no question of companies saying “Well, we can’t afford just to do these labels for Northern Ireland alone. We’re going to make it UK-wide”. That was reneged on, so there is absolutely no confidence in Northern Ireland that there will be any kind of alignment right across the board when it comes to the best interests of GB industry and trade, and all the rest of it. It is understandable that the Government may take that view because come under considerable pressure. Some of these groups are very strong and hold an enormous amount of economic clout.

There is no comfort in saying, “Oh, well, in some areas we may align”. Of course, in four or five years’ time, there may or may not be a change of Government, who knows? There may not be, but there may be. A new Government might say, “You see all that alignment stuff? We’re doing away with all of that”. Then we are back at square one. So I am afraid to say that we need better answers in relation to the wider issue than simply saying that we are going to align the rest of the United Kingdom with EU laws for the benefit of Northern Ireland. It may help in some areas, but it will not be the solution.

I regret the fact that there has been no consultation carried out—I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I note that there is no requirement to consult in this legislation. Yeah, there may be no requirement, but it is a pretty poor situation when we have laws applying specifically to Northern Ireland, and only Northern Ireland, with no consultation whatever. I hope the Minister will agree to give a commitment tonight that this sort of approach will not be replicated in the future, that we will give proper consultation and that people will be asked what they think and what ideas they may input.

The other significant thing to note is that the SI is proposing to extend existing provisions in UK domestic law, which currently automatically cross-refer to relevant updates of EU law where it affects Northern Ireland. The effect of the extension would be that, in future, the legislation always automatically reflects the most up-to-date EU rules on product-specific ecodesign and energy labelling. That removes the need for further secondary legislation to implement updates in UK law when the EU rules are replaced in a way that affects Northern Ireland. That is effectively dynamic alignment of Northern Ireland law. Do not be under any illusion that it is anything else. It is the dynamic alignment of British law in Northern Ireland as we go along, because there will not be any need to bring in statutory instruments or UK legislation if this goes through. I do not think that is a good way of proceeding.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee looked at the matter, as has been said, in its 20th report, published on 20 March. It suggested that, in order to publicise future changes, if the Government do proceed down this slide, there should be a parliamentary Statement made to both Houses. The Minister has made pledges in relation to Explanatory Memorandums: will he give a pledge tonight that there will be, as the committee recommended, a parliamentary Statement made in both Houses when changes are made, since we will not have a chance even to debate the matter and there will be no further legislation, because we have dynamic alignment? Again, this is despite the talk of some people who told us that after Safeguarding the Union and all, we had nothing to worry about and that we should keep quiet.

It is also significant to note the department’s reply to the committee when it was asked whether it would retain the ability not to implement future EU law changes. It responded by saying effectively, and I paraphrase, “Well, we could always remove the piece of legislation”. It went on to say, and here I quote from the committee, that

“any future decision not to enforce”

EU laws

“may be inconsistent with our obligations under the Windsor Framework Agreement”.

That is a pretty clear statement. Basically, the Government’s position is that we are subject to EU law in this area and, whether it is good or bad, whatever the effect, we intend to follow it.

The Government, again, keep repeating—the Minister said it tonight—that they are committed to the integrity of the UK internal market, yet at every turn we have these types of regulations, some even more draconian and more worrying, that undermine that statement and cause diversion of trade, trade friction and real economic problems for many traders and consumers in Northern Ireland, and also restrict choice. So I have every respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for introducing this regret amendment. Obviously, if she did press it to a vote, we would support her in that, but I hope that the Minister will have heard our concerns, will reflect on them and will take them on board seriously.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his statement tonight and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for introducing her amendment. I say in passing that her speech on a regret Motion in this place has been part of a significant rethink of policy arising out of the Clonoe judgment. The decision by the Government and the Ministry of Defence to have a judicial review in that case owes a lot to a wide public argument, but it also owes something to the noble Baroness’s important speech on that subject. It is a welcome decision by the Government and the Ministry of Defence to have a judicial review.

22:00

On the key issues that we face tonight, I have some sympathy for the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. I do not accept his view that we face a world where dynamic alignment is now back on the cards simply because the Windsor Framework no longer applies on this subject. The Windsor Framework, which this Government have fully backed, states quite clearly:

“Inherent in this new way forward is the prospect of significant divergence between the two distinct economies on the island of Ireland—from food and drink to plants and pets, building on the existing differences in every area of economic and political life such as services, migration, currency and taxation”.

I think that it is an overstatement to talk about dynamic alignment still being on the cards. This Government have supported the Windsor Framework, which clearly and firmly moves away from that prospect.

There is also a way of talking about the Windsor Framework and Safeguarding the Union that does not really recognise what has been achieved under both. I have just given an important example of what the Windsor Framework has achieved. I will take another dramatic example, one of great importance to the DUP in its last election manifesto: the decision that there should be no drugs available under the National Health Service in the rest of the United Kingdom that were not available in Northern Ireland. There is total equality of treatment in that respect. Again, this is a change.

The fact that these things existed at all is an indication that the EU sometimes loses the run of itself. You sometimes look at some of these regulations and say, “Where’s the brain in the brontosaurus?” The hope has to be that, with the changed relationships between the EU and the United Kingdom and the fact that, frankly, the United Kingdom is a lot more important to the countries of the EU than it seemed to be several months ago, there will be some scope for more flexibility than the EU has tended to show throughout this whole crisis.

I also remind noble Lords about paragraph 34 of Safeguarding the Union on the defence industries in Northern Ireland, which says that the UK Government will be committed to developing fully the expertise that exists in this area. In the past few months, we have seen dramatic proof from this Government of that promise fully to exploit the defence industry in Northern Ireland.

I mention these things because there is a way of talking about Northern Ireland as though there is dynamic alignment with the Irish Republic and the UK Government are not fulfilling any of the commitments made under either Safeguarding the Union or the Windsor Framework. That way of talking is quite clearly not right. It is a complicated process. The Windsor Framework is a historic compromise. To be blunt, Northern Ireland looks both ways in its allegiance. We simply have to accept that. We cannot talk all the time as if there is just one unionist community in Northern Ireland. We have to take into account that a significant number of people in Northern Ireland would prefer to remain in the European Union. All these things remain brutal political facts that cannot be ignored.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, talked a lot about paragraph 7 in the Explanatory Memorandum, and everything she said about it is completely correct. Paragraph 9 of the impact assessment says that the Government believe that there will be no significant impact on individuals or businesses from these new regulations. That may or may not be right, and I have listened with respect to the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, suggest that it may not be. However, previous regret amendments have been accompanied by explanatory memoranda. They have also claimed that there would be a significant effect, and that the Government’s assessment is that there would be no significant impact. I recall no significant impact, and the proof of this pudding will be in the eating, but we have been here before. If there is a significant impact, I have yet to hear of it. I have heard what businesses in Northern Ireland are saying. What has always surprised me is the degree to which they supported even the original protocol, let alone the changes in the Windsor Framework.

I asked the Minister about the UFU, and my understanding is that, on the last regret amendment that we had, it supported the what the Government were doing. So, we need to be careful when we say that we reject the terms of the Explanatory Memorandum.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

I am listening to the noble Lord with interest. I do not know if he has read the evidence given to the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee on 12 March, or indeed more recent evidence to the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House. I urge him to read that, because it sets out the problems in excruciating detail. It is not a question of hypotheses or guesses; this is hard evidence of what is happening on the ground. People are deeply upset and concerned, and losing money.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for that information. I have not heard today’s evidence—although I did watch last week’s evidence to the Select Committee—and I am therefore in the dark. I will simply say that it is essential to accept that we are dealing with a very messy historic compromise. It does not help that there is a tendency on the part of those who are unhappy with the messiness of that compromise to discuss the working out of the Windsor Framework and safeguarding of the union without dealing with the obvious, palpable benefits to a narrowly defined unionist community in Northern Ireland. That is the problem. The consequence is that the people of Northern Ireland still have a sense of pessimism about their future, because there is no answer. Everybody knows that the Windsor Framework passed in this House and the House of Commons by a majority of several hundred, and that if there were another vote like the that on the Windsor Framework—under which, essentially, these regulations exist—there would be an even larger majority. There is no help.

People say that this is terrible and there is not political answer to it. My argument is that it is better and more accurate to describe exactly what is happening under the Windsor Framework and the strengthening of the union, and not just to list the frustrations, of which, I accept, there are many. It is better to have a balanced approach to the meaning of these two documents and their impact in Northern Ireland.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, will he reflect on the fact that things could move along better if there were more genuine openness on consultation? He knows the democratic deficit that exists, hence your Lordships’ Select Committee inquiry. That is the difficulty: the consultation issue is key, and yet it has not been acknowledged in the other place. I hope that it is acknowledged in this House.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

I accept completely the point made by the noble Baroness.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I have high regard and respect for the noble Lord, Lord Bew. I am always interested in listening to what he has to say on subjects such as this. I do not take lightly what he says, but I detect a sense of—although perhaps this not how he meant it—“If you see something that is not right, just turn your head and look the other way, and it will be all right”. It will not be all right. This House and the other place need soon to learn that it will not be all right when we have been removed and we have 300 areas of law which we cannot do anything about. If anyone thinks that that is acceptable in this wonderful, modern and democratic age in which we all live, then frankly, they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Lots of things are written down but they have been trumped by legislation. This evening, I do not so much blame the Minister. He has inherited a lot of bad things, but sometimes, you are better disowning some inheritances, and saying, “I’d prefer not to have that, thank you very much”. I have always found him to be courteous and respectful, and I thank him, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has, for facilitating a meeting quite recently which gave us an opportunity to look at things just a wee bit closer. He did not push back from that, and I hope he continues to do that in the future.

I support the regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. As the noble Baroness has explained to the House, there are two principal problems with the regulations before us today. The first pertains to undermining the citizenship of the people of Northern Ireland, such that this legislation applies to them automatically. It derives from the EU Commission, from which we are alienated twice: first, on account of it being unelected by anyone; and, secondly, on account of the fact that it is also foreign and thus effectively colonial. I have used that word in the past in debates and I know I got a frosty response, but I still think that it has to be said.

When challenged by the honourable Member for North Antrim, as has been raised not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, the Minister in the other place replied saying:

“There is no requirement to consult … These regulations apply automatically in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Windsor Framework and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”.


So, it does not matter what the people of Northern Ireland have to say—we are being treated as a colony now and not as a democratic place to live. Rather than providing an answer addressing the assault on the integrity of UK citizenship in Northern Ireland, the Minister’s response only served to set out a problem; it did not go for a solution.

The second problem pertains to the effective undermining of the citizenship of the people of the rest of the United Kingdom, as they are effectively encouraged—albeit with the covering dignity of the consultation which we are now denied—to surrender the freedoms afforded by Brexit to develop our law, and instead to become a rule taker from Brussels, like Northern Ireland. In short, the dead hand of Brussels still has its unwelcome grip on the region of the United Kingdom in which I live.

There may be some who would be tempted to say that in this, we are having our revenge, that we are showing those who thought that they could sacrifice Northern Ireland in order to get Brexit done for Great Britain that this is not possible. However, people who think like this do not understand unionism at all; they have no concept of it at all. The essence of unionism is that we are not just concerned about the well-being of the part of the United Kingdom from which we come; the essence of unionism is about recognising that we are more than the sum of our parts and that the well-being of each part is tied up in the well-being of every other part. It is the inherently relational nature of unionism that should make it, and not nationalism, the winning creed of our time.

So, no, I am very troubled about the prospect of Great Britain losing the benefits of Brexit, just as I have been very distressed by the undermining of the union by means of denying Brexit to Northern Ireland. Let me be very clear: to those who might stand in your Lordships’ House today or on another occasion and say that this is the cost of Brexit, I remind them that we did not get Brexit. I want your Lordships’ House today to take note of that.

I believe not only that we should benefit from Brexit but that the whole United Kingdom should do so, and that nothing should place that in jeopardy in any part of our country. The question on the ballot paper was, “Should the United Kingdom leave the European Union?”. It was not, “Should the United Kingdom break up and parts of it leave and parts of it stay?” Over 17 million people, in the biggest manifestation of democracy in the history of our islands, said yes. We are often told that Northern Ireland voted to remain. Well, so did Scotland and so did London. But we are never told that, for whatever reason. Maybe one day we will be.

22:15

What possible justification might the Minister deploy to justify the truncation of United Kingdom citizenship in Northern Ireland and the creation of the two-tier citizenship to which these regulations testify? That is, the full citizenship of the UK citizen in GB who can stand for election to make all the laws to which they are subject, and the partial citizenship of UK citizens in Northern Ireland who are now worthy of the right to stand for election to make only some of the laws to which they are subject. There are two potential responses, but the difficulty is that, as we study them, we find that they turn from being defences of the Government’s position into a further indictment of it. One possible line of defence is that, while it would normally be indefensible that anyone should be encouraged to give up their citizenship to subject themselves to legislators who are not accountable to them, it is justified in this particular case because of 10 December: this is the proposition that the Government asked the MLAs to support.

I want to deal with one point that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, raised. He said that Northern Ireland looks in two different directions and that we cannot continue—I did not know we were continuing, but anyway—as if it were one solid block or just orientated towards the United Kingdom. I understand that, but why is it that unionism’s voice is not important any more, or not as important as, for instance, nationalism? Let us suppose for a moment that what has been done to those of us who cherish our citizenship of the UK had been done in reverse. Not for a single, solitary second would the Government, past or present, have implemented it. They would have said “We have to take the views of all the people of Northern Ireland”. I refer again to what the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said. “No consultation. The idea is, just ram it down their throats. They’ll get to like it and, if they don’t like it, tough—just swallow hard and you’ll get rid of your impediment”. That will happen once too often. Let us be very clear tonight that that will not suffice for a remedy that is so urgently needed.

It is quite wrong to say that the business community is not overexercised about all this. Why do you say that when, in fact, we are getting different messages from that very community? Back at the time of the Jubilee, I thought that it would be a nice thing to buy a tree and plant it. I got on to one of the suppliers in GB, who asked “Where are you phoning from?” I said, “I’m phoning from the United Kingdom”. “Oh yes, but what part?” I said, “Northern Ireland”. “Oh, no, sorry, we can’t supply Northern Ireland. First of all, we daren’t do it, because some of the roots might have a bit of soil on them and that would be a dreadful thing. Secondly, we can’t do it because it would not be profitable to do it. There is too much red tape and too many forms to fill in”.

I was talking to a trader some time back. He had arrived in Northern Ireland with about £30,000-worth of goods, but his lorry was within an inch of being impounded because there was a simple, small document that was not clear. He said, “I went on my hands and knees and begged for that load to get through because it was so vital to my business”. Those are things that are happening, but that seems to be okay—or maybe it seems that we are exaggerating.

My noble friend Lord Dodds outlined very clearly the evidence that the committee he is a member of listens to, and I know he has commended it to the noble Lord, Lord Bew. I am sure if the noble Lord has given a commitment to read it then he will do so, and I hope he might then find that what he is trying to articulate tonight is not absolutely accurate.

I plead with the Government. They have to consult. They have to treat people with respect. I take your Lordships’ minds back to what I said earlier: I do not think the Minister is that type of person. I watched him when he was in opposition and I have corresponded with him on issues. I have always found him to be a person who listens and tries to see if there is a way through. I urge the Government: please listen to what we are saying. Please do not treat the people of Northern Ireland as second-class citizens or as if some are now surplus to requirements, and as if the only voice that you have to listen to in Northern Ireland is that of militant republicanism and nationalism. I could say a whole lot more, but I will stop there.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for introducing this SI. I will concentrate most of my remarks on the details of the SI before us rather than the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.

Before I do that, I turn to the reasons for the regret amendment. Once again, the strength of feeling on these matters is clear to see, as shown by the speakers on various sides of the House. We on these Benches supported the Windsor Framework as a means of moving on from the stalemate following Brexit, but it is far from perfect and there clearly remain real and legitimate concerns about the lack of parliamentary oversight on these matters and the impact that Brexit itself and the Windsor Framework are having on businesses in Northern Ireland.

It is strange that the Government chose not to consult Northern Ireland on this SI. Given its political sensitivity, it would surely always be better to have consulted. I note that there is no legal duty to hold the consultation as the instrument does not make any substantial changes, but I view consultation with Northern Irish authorities as a different class of consultation and more a matter of common courtesy.

I note that the full impact assessment has not been produced. The Explanatory Memorandum says that the changes brought in

“are expected to have no significant direct or no significant indirect, impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”.

As part of the reset in our relationship with the EU, I hope the Government will review the oversight mechanisms for how they consult the relevant sectors in Northern Ireland. I would welcome a response from the Minister on this point.

I turn to the tabling of the amendment. I must say, although it is absolutely the noble Baroness’s right to table her amendment, that it is hard to see, in my mind at least, that this SI justifies it. Everything that she may wish to say in the main Chamber could have been spoken just as clearly in the Prince’s Chamber at a more convenient time for everyone involved.

The SI itself will ensure that the latest EU rules on product-specific ecodesign and energy labelling automatically apply to Northern Ireland and can be enforced there, as required by the Windsor Framework. The new rules are updating previous Northern Ireland regulations from 2010 and 2011. The new regulations seek to ensure that household and some office items, such as tumble dryers, have a standby mode, and that for other items, such as mobile phones or tablet computers, consumers can acquire some spare parts.

The Government rightly argue that these regulations will bring benefits to Northern Ireland’s residents as they will save money on reduced electricity usage and be able to repair mobile devices if they break, saving the need to buy again from new. If the Department for Energy and Net Zero thinks that these regulations are good for energy efficiency for the people of Northern Ireland, while I welcome the fact that the Minister wants to bring the regulations to the whole of the UK, why can that not happen until March 2026? Is it possible to bring that forward? Clearly, if we could align these regulations across the whole of the UK and get these benefits for everybody, to my mind at least, that would be a good thing. There are staggered start dates for the regulations coming into force to replicate the staggered nature of the EU regulations themselves. The first will come in on 9 May 2025.

This statutory instrument has not been drawn to the special attention of the Houses by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. However, the SI was noted as an instrument of interest by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It points out that

“while manufacturers from Great Britain (GB) selling into NI or the EU will have to meet the EU’s new product standards, the Department says that “the majority” of the products covered by this instrument will also still be compliant with GB standards”.

The committee also notes that the impact of enacting this SI is that, further forward,

“the legislation always automatically reflects the most up to date EU rules on product-specific ecodesign and energy labelling, removing the need for further secondary legislation to implement updates in UK law when the EU rules are replaced in a way that affects NI”.

The committee recommends that

“it would be helpful to also publicise future changes through a Parliamentary Statement to both Houses”.

Will the Minister respond to this suggestion? In his opening remarks, I think he talked about memorandums of understanding; if could he just clarify that point for me, it would be appreciated.

I note the Minister’s points about being on a journey on these matters. In general, we welcome these measures for ecodesign and would like to see them implemented across the UK.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for introducing this SI, which seeks to update the existing ecodesign and energy labelling regulations for Northern Ireland in line with the Windsor Framework. These amendments ensure that Northern Ireland continues to adhere to EU rules on energy-related products, reflecting the requirements of the framework. While the Government’s intention behind this statutory instrument is understood, there are several aspects that warrant closer scrutiny and further clarification. I note the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, about the ramifications of these regulations on small businesses and consumers, as reiterated by other noble Lords in the House.

Before examining the impact and provisions of the current measures, we should consider the history behind them. The previous Conservative Government had a long-standing commitment to improving environmental standards while ensuring that businesses and consumers were given the tools necessary to thrive in an energy-efficient economy. When the ecodesign and energy labelling regulations 2021 were first introduced in this House, they focused on reducing carbon emissions through ensuring that products in the market met higher energy-efficiency standards. These regulations set minimum standards for products that consume energy, helping to lower energy bills for consumers and reduce the environmental impact across the economy.

In practice, products placed on the Northern Ireland market will remain subject to the EU energy-efficiency and labelling standards. These updates are designed to ensure that Northern Ireland’s product offerings continue to meet the high environmental and energy-efficiency standards set by the EU. These amendments to the ecodesign regulations seek to enhance energy efficiency by imposing stricter performance requirements on a wide variety of products, including household appliances, lighting products and electronics. Can the Minister provide further details on the specific impact these regulations will have on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises in Northern Ireland? How do the Government intend to ensure that businesses are not burdened by excessive compliance costs or administrative hurdles when adapting to these new requirements?

22:30

Moreover, the introduction of an energy labelling system is an important step towards empowering consumers by providing information on the energy efficiency of products. While this is a positive development, we must consider whether the required improvements in product efficiency result in higher upfront costs for the consumer. How will the Government ensure that these new labelling requirements do not inadvertently place an additional financial burden on consumers?

Finally, in terms of compliance, we must ensure that Northern Ireland businesses are adequately supported in meeting these requirements. How will market surveillance be co-ordinated between the UK and EU to ensure smooth implementation? While the intention behind this statutory instrument is clear—to align Northern Ireland’s regulations with the EU energy efficiency standards—there remain several key issues that warrant further attention. The potential impact on businesses and the affordability of these measures for consumers, especially those already struggling with energy costs, must not be overlooked.

It is crucial that we strike a balance between ambitious environmental goals and the economic realities faced by businesses and consumers. We must ensure that these regulations are not only effective in promoting energy efficiency but also fair and manageable for all affected parties. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response and clarification on these important concerns.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting debate on this statutory instrument for their contributions. I also note also the thanks from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, to my noble friend Lord Coaker and the Secretary of State for Defence in relation to the JR position, which I am sure is much appreciated by them.

Obviously, I have listened with great care to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Morrow, in relation to the Windsor Framework and the interrelationship with the EU. I also listened with care to the input of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and his assessment of the framework. As he said, despite the frustrations it has also brought achievements.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was very supportive of the Windsor Framework, but suggested there were some issues that needed consideration. We will look with great interest at the outcome of the independent review by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the work of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned evidence that has recently been given to that committee.

On the issue of our response, consultation and the Select Committee’s recommendation on how we should handle such instruments in the future, we are committed to publishing further changes through parliamentary Statements to both Houses. I recognise that issues relating to Northern Ireland and protecting its status as an integral part of the United Kingdom’s internal market are important to the Members of the House, as they are to me and to the Government.

I said in opening that we are on a journey. We will very much reflect on the comments that have been made by noble Lords in the debate. We are very much committed to the Windsor Framework, but we want to make sure that it operates as effectively as possible. I do not ignore the comments of noble Lords who are not in favour of the Windsor Framework, but there is no doubt that we need to look at the way it operates and see where there can be improvements. I hope noble Lords will not think that I am rejecting the tenor of the remarks made about seeking to improve the way we do these things. My department is committed to doing that.

The ecodesign and energy labelling laws will update the pre-existing enforcement regime in accordance with what was agreed in the Windsor Framework. If we do not update regulations with respect to Northern Ireland, market surveillance authorities would not be able to enforce the law and we would then risk breaching our obligations under the Windsor Framework. We think that consumer products, ecodesign and energy labelling go hand-in-hand with providing consumers with valuable information, enabling them to make an informed choice and eventually driving the market towards more energy-efficient products.

I have listened to the comments about consumer information and awareness. I will take that back to the department in relation to making sure that as much information as possible about the implications of these regulations is made available to members of the public in Northern Ireland. Of course I take that point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, raised an important point on consultation. The issue here is that, under the terms of the Windsor Framework, Northern Ireland remains aligned with EU single market rules for certain goods and maintains access to this market. As such, these new regulations automatically apply in Northern Ireland under Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Of course, the substantive changes being discussed were adopted by the EU in 2023 and April and July 2024.

The fact is that we are fulfilling our obligations by making sure that we can then legally enforce regulations as they apply in Northern Ireland. We are committed to the UK internal market and we wish to support Northern Ireland’s place in it. I repeat: the work of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, which will examine how to strengthen the role of Northern Ireland in the Windsor Framework, clearly has very important work to do, and we will study its outcome very carefully. As a department and a Government, we would obviously wish to support the new committee in carrying out its functions. As I have said, the independent review from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, will also be of great interest.

I understand what noble Lords have said about consultation. I should say that the Government did carry out extensive assessment of these delegated EU Acts as they came forward over the past couple of years. Obviously, much of that work was done by the former Government, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, suggested. Notwithstanding the Windsor Framework and disagreement about it, we believe that Northern Ireland consumers are likely to benefit from the changes being introduced in terms of lower operational costs. The new smartphone regulations are an area where there is no current equivalent regulation already in place in Great Britain, but the regulation promises potential benefits for both consumers and businesses. Obviously, that is the point of us looking at the benefits of adopting similar regulations in Great Britain.

On the impact on Northern Ireland, which the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Bloomfield, in particular referred to, the previous Government published Explanatory Memoranda on these regulations when they were adopted by the EU between 2023 and 2024. An Explanatory Memorandum was prepared but not published due to the timing of the general election and then the dissolution of the scrutiny committees. But more detailed internal department analysis in relation to tumble dryers has indicated that consumers in Northern Ireland would benefit from lower operational costs and improved repairability. We will set out the detail of the benefits for all UK consumers in mirroring tumble dryer regulations for Great Britain. We will shortly publish an impact assessment, alongside a forthcoming consultation, to mirror tumble drying standards for Great Britain. We will commit to consulting as soon as possible on mirroring the rest of the regulations in GB. Through this, we will be in a stronger position to evaluate impacts.

On the specific detail on tumble dryers, I am not sure I can answer all the questions that the noble Baroness raised, but we are aware that the EU’s regulation is a significant change from that in Great Britain. Only tumble dryers featuring the most efficient heat pump technology, which also makes them more economical in terms of running costs, will be allowed on the EU market. The EU’s regulation estimates saving €1 billion in user expenses by 2030 and a reduction of 10 terawatts of electricity by 2030. We are looking to consult on similar savings in Great Britain.

I am assured that, if the noble Baroness is planning a shopping trip to Scotland, she would not be arrested for buying a tumble dryer in Great Britain and bringing it back to Northern Ireland. I hope that reassures her.

On whether businesses operating in Northern Ireland will have to follow EU standards, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked, yes, of course there is a consequence from these regulations applying in Northern Ireland. This SI is about providing the relevant market surveillance bodies with the means to do that in accordance with the Windsor Framework.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned extended ambulatory references. The current legislation already includes ambulatory references to automatically cover when EU measures are amended. The instrument extends this to cover when the EU measures referred to are replaced. That ensures that the schedules continue to reflect the most up-to-date versions of the EU ecodesign or energy labelling measures in force, whether amended or replaced, while minimising the need for further updates to enforcement regulations. We will none the less continue to publish Explanatory Memoranda on new EU measures.

To come back again to consultation, during the creation of this statutory instrument, officials consulted counterparts in the Northern Ireland Executive and the relevant market surveillance authorities. Officials in the Northern Ireland Executive were also consulted on the creation of Explanatory Memoranda commissioned under the previous Government, so we are aware of the product-specific regulation covered by this SI—I think that it was mostly done by the previous Government. Let me be clear, too, that the SI is only about updating the Northern Ireland enforcement regime to reflect the new EU measures, which will automatically apply in Northern Ireland by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, asked about market surveillance. It will be done by the Office for Product Safety and Standards in Northern Ireland, as for the rest of the United Kingdom. I have heard the points made about alignment, but I have to say that these matters in relation to Great Britain will be considered on a case-by-case basis, which is how the Government are approaching them.

I suspect that I have not answered all the specific questions, and I shall look through Hansard and follow this up with letters to noble Lords, but I hope that I have shown that the Government are engaging with Northern Ireland in an appropriate way and that we will reflect on these processes in the light of this debate and the report of the Select Committee. We look with great interest at the work of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee and the independent review of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. I hope that noble Lords will feel that we are dealing with these matters, controversy and disagreement though there may be in relation to the Windsor Framework, as sensitively as possible. These measures will bring advantages to consumers in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

Did I correctly hear the Minister say that he committed to the Government making a parliamentary Statement at each point when legislation changed automatically? I am grateful to him for confirming my point on the automatic updating of UK domestic legislation without any further parliamentary procedure, but on the point of how it is notified, could he confirm that that is indeed the case?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, what I think I said was that, in line with the scrutiny committee’s recommendations, we will commit to publicising future changes through a parliamentary Statement to both Houses.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, first, I thank everyone who has taken part in what seems to have become a fairly regular late-night discussion of a statutory instrument that goes slightly wider than the specifics. I also want to say a genuine thank you to the Minister, because he has certainly made us feel that he has been listening and that he will take back some of the points that have been made, when perhaps sometimes, in the busy schedule of all Ministers and officials, they do not get the detail of what is causing so many problems. I genuinely hope that he has learned something —I do not mean that he does not know what he is talking about, but I hope that he has learned a little more tonight about some of the very strong feelings.

My crucial point is that I never seem able to get Ministers, Opposition Front-Benchers, and certainly not the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrats, to actually say that they want to see changes to the Windsor Framework. They keep saying—the noble Lord has said it again tonight—that they are committed to the Windsor Framework. Yet, time after time in this House, we hear of all the things that are wrong with the Windsor Framework and how it is not working.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, will be a strong supporter of the Windsor Framework, as he has since the beginning—until, perhaps, there have been changes in all sorts of ways. We cannot ignore the realities of what is happening to the principle of it. As we have more such SIs and more discussion of them, I hope that we will finally get the Government and Opposition to recognise that this is not sustainable and cannot go on. In any kind of discussions with the European Union, the Government must put first and foremost the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a unifying force—as something that needs to be unified.

I will quickly remind people of all the other little things to do with the Windsor Framework that are just so annoying. There is the pets issue—the idea that you have to deal with extra bureaucracy to take your pet on holiday to Northern Ireland. We could not ban the live exports of animals for slaughter in Northern Ireland, and we cannot even get a ministerial answer to how many have gone off to other awful parts of the world to be killed in very cruel situations. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked a question, and he got the answer back that it was a devolved matter, but it was not devolved when the law was brought in.

People are still finding it very difficult to get seeds to Northern Ireland. There are many other issues, such as parcels. Very soon, someone in England wanting to send a present to their relative in Northern Ireland will have to send the parcel from a post office as if they are sending it to a foreign country. That is going to cost the Post Office more, as well, so where will the costs go? Every month, every week, every day, there is something new. Noble Lords need to realise that this issue is not going to go away, and we will continue to come back on it. But I thank everybody once again, and I would like to withdraw my regret amendment.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Motion agreed.