Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these regulations. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for allowing us to have this important, if short, debate this evening through tabling her regret amendment.

I read the debate on 30 June about these regulations in the House of Commons with interest. I have also listened carefully to the contributions to this short debate this evening. As usual in these debates, the majority of concerns expressed about these regulations are not so much about the content of the regulations themselves but are constitutional and include concerns about trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and the impact on Northern Ireland businesses.

These regulations in themselves are not particularly controversial. As the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, have said, they update the safety standards of machinery under the EU directive of 2006 and the UK’s subsequent regulations from 2008. In the intervening nearly 20 years, machinery has changed quite significantly, and I am sure that nobody is disputing that the regulations themselves needed to be updated. These regulations are quite technical and, in the House of Commons, the Minister for Business and Trade estimated that they will impact 230 businesses in Northern Ireland and approximately 5,380 businesses in Great Britain.

The concerns expressed this evening by noble Lords are about the fact that Northern Ireland is being treated differently to the rest of the UK as a result of the Windsor Framework. There are also very real concerns, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has said, about how to scrutinise these regulations as we align with the European Union on these matters but have lost our democratic voice in the European Parliament and our representation in the Council of Ministers.

I would like to make three points in my remaining time. The first is about the impact that these regulations will have on businesses throughout the UK, in particular on Northern Ireland businesses. I should note that it is welcome that there was extensive consultation with businesses. However, the Minister in the House of Commons acknowledged that there had been a “de minimis assessment” and not a full impact assessment, because the regulations were deemed

“to have a low impact per business from their introduction”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 30/6/26; col. 12.]

Does the Minister not accept, however, that given there is no real opportunity for Parliament to have a direct say on this secondary legislation, it would be preferable to have a full impact assessment of their implementation?

My second point is about the continued regulatory divergence that stems from these regulations. From these Benches we broadly welcome the upgrading of safety standards, but the measures being introduced to Great Britain, although they extend the recognition of CE marking beyond next January, are not the same as the EU standards being introduced in Northern Ireland. The Minister in the House of Commons indicated that the intention was to introduce measures in Great Britain similar to those being introduced in Northern Ireland, but she did not say when she expected this to happen. Like other noble Lords, I would be grateful if, in his concluding remarks, the Minister could indicate a rough timescale for when he expects this to happen. Does he agree that it would be advisable to minimise the amount of time when the wider UK internal market is working on different and parallel systems?

Thirdly and finally, does the Minister agree that the current policy of a gradual move towards dynamic alignment with the EU on an ad hoc and case-by-case basis results in both economic and political uncertainty for businesses? Clearly, with the arrival of Prime Minister Burnham in No. 10 today—the fifth Prime Minister in four years—the Minister this evening will not be in a position to know for sure what the new Government’s position will be towards the European Union. However, I am sure he will agree that businesses want and need certainty so that they can prepare and plan.

I am sure I will now lose the will of the House with my final comment, but the Liberal Democrat policy of joining the EU single market would provide certainty and clarity. I do not expect the Minister to comment, but I note that joining the single market would also result in removing regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is clearly of great concern to many in Northern Ireland as well as British businesses that trade and do business with Northern Ireland.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (Revocation and Sunset Disapplication) Regulations 2023

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, are your Lordships not being given a quite impossible task today? I have made a rough count, and in Part 2 of Schedule 2 there are 56 Council decisions or regulations that are sought to be revoked. The Minister describes it in general terms, saying they are to be revoked because they are redundant, obsolete or inoperable, but we do not know the reasons behind these revocations; we have not had the opportunity properly to examine whether we agree that they should take place.

I will ask the Minister one simple question, referring to Part 1 of Schedule 2. The first measure to be revoked in its entirety is the Alcoholic Liquor (Amendment of Units of Measurement) Order 1992. The restriction on the use of alcohol seems to be something of importance. Will the Minister kindly tell us precisely why that particular legislation is sought to be revoked?

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations. I agree with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee when it said in its short report that these regulations are an “eclectic” list of items to be reinstated and revoked. As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, just said, it includes all sorts of things, including alcohol regulations. It covers a variety of departments, including the Northern Ireland Office; as the Minister said, it is deeply to be regretted that the Northern Ireland Civil Service, rather than a functioning Executive, had to make the decision to reinstate the three pieces of legislation relevant to Northern Ireland.

I also agree with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that the Explanatory Memorandum is insufficiently detailed, stating merely, as it does, that the laws in question are either redundant or no longer effective. It is to be welcomed that, as the Minister said, there is now a direct link in the Explanatory Memorandum to the more detailed analysis, but it is important that these things are clear and easily accessible to the public, as well as to parliamentarians in this House and the other place.

The Government promised consultation and expert input on REUL reforms. Can the Minister update us on how departments are taking that commitment forward, including in the regulations we are looking at? The Minister will know that there are particular concerns regarding lack of consultation and progress on nutrient pollution and air quality. Can he update us on possible timescales and consultation processes for these two areas? Can he also say how the Government intend to approach assessing and mitigating the risks of changes to case law, which is so important for environmental protection?

My final comment is perhaps more for your Lordships’ House than for the Minister, but this secondary legislation from the original Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act is a very good example of where there should be post-legislative scrutiny within the usual framework for carrying out a PLS inquiry. There are important lessons to be learned for the future about the provision of effective parliamentary scrutiny and consultation with experts, which did not happen in the case of the original Act in the haste to get Brexit done and to get it on the statute book.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the overview and explanation of this statutory instrument. In this first use of the powers in the retained EU law Act, the tidying-up exercise involves the exercise of the Section 1 power to disapply the sunset and the Section 14 power to revoke 93 pieces of retained EU law that no longer have any legal effect for whatever reason.

First, on the use of the Section 1 power, the Government have identified four pieces of legislation that never should have been included in the revocation schedule. This is extremely concerning. These instruments —two concerning the use of copper, one concerning merchant shipping regulations and one providing the legal vires to inform Northern Ireland and Gibraltar counterparts of the outcome of roadworthiness inspections —may not be the most significant pieces of legislation we have but they each play an important legal role.

Without the cross-party efforts of the House in improving the Act, these instruments would almost certainly have been lost at the end of the year, given that the further analysis required to spot these errors would have needed to take place on thousands, not hundreds, of instruments. Do the Government now accept that their initial unnecessarily reckless approach, borne out of internal party politics, was undoubtedly the wrong one?

Schedule 1 to the Act contained 587 instruments to be revoked at the end of 2023, to the extent specified there. I am sure the Government were 100% confident in this list when it was first drafted. We are now much closer to the end of the year and its looming deadline. Does the Minister seriously expect us to believe that now he really is confident that the revocation of the instruments on that list will not have any legal impact? Is the analysis that found the four errors I mentioned still ongoing or has it concluded?

The instrument also retains three pieces of legislation for Northern Ireland only relating to information provision and promotion measures concerning agricultural products. This again sounds somewhat minor, but their revocation would have represented a policy change, which would require agreement by Ministers in a non-functioning Executive. I am sure the whole House can see the constitutional risk, so is there any risk that proceeding as we are now will lead to such a situation? I assume that the Northern Ireland Civil Service will be examining this legislation continuously until and probably after it is revoked. If the Minister could share what he has been told by it on this matter, it would be very much appreciated.

Equipment and Protective Systems Intended for Use in Potentially Explosive Atmospheres Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017 (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very detailed explanation of these regulations. I have three questions—or requests for clarification—for him; some aspects have already been covered but I will none the less press ahead with them.

First, paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that the Health and Safety Executive Northern Ireland previously had responsibility for

“informing the Commission and other member States … where there are non-conformity products that may be on the EU market”,

but that this responsibility will now be passed to the Secretary of State. Why was this change considered necessary and why is the Secretary of State considered the most appropriate person to carry out that function?

My second question has to a large degree been covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. I wanted to ask why there was no public consultation on these measures, not least with the businesses in Northern Ireland that are directly affected by these changes.

The Minister has largely already covered my third question, which is about an information campaign. Given that these regulations will introduce sanctions for non-use or improper use, it is extremely important that businesses affected by this are aware of the new rules. He said that there will be a website, if I heard him correctly. Are there also plans for a more proactive approach to reach out to companies that will be directly affected—companies exporting to Northern Ireland as well as businesses in Northern Ireland that will be directly impacted?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the full explanation, which is very much appreciated, and those in the Room for their questions. A few things have been covered that I was going to pick up, and I do not have a great deal more to add. As the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, mentioned, I was intrigued by the arrangements of the health and safety aspects, particularly the responsibilities for the Secretary of State. I look forward to the answers on that. There are some interesting questions to answer around the consultation. With all these matters, some reassurance is needed on the changes around resources, how they will be managed and, particularly, how they will be monitored. I am sure that the Minister will pick up on the impact assessment in his closing remarks. The only other aspect is around whether there will be any impact on the way that implementation in Great Britain continues and whether this will have any particular impact on that: would there be any digression from the situation arising in Northern Ireland? With those comments, I look forward, with interest, to the Minister’s summing up.