Batteries (Placing on the Market) (Northern Ireland) Regulations

Lord Hay of Ballyore Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Lord Hay of Ballyore Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I support the regret amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds—hardly surprising, I suspect. The Government have a problem. These regulations mean one of two things, and neither will be easy for them to explain.

We have been assured by the Government that the Irish Sea border goes only one way—so goods can move freely without engaging a border if they move from Northern Ireland to GB. In this context, the intent is clearly that Northern Ireland-qualifying goods should be able to move freely without encountering a border, as if they were moving from Wales or Scotland to England. But there is a problem: how do they differentiate lorries carrying just Northern Ireland-qualifying goods from lorries carrying goods that are not Northern Ireland-qualifying or carrying a mixture of both? If they do so by means of random border checks to confirm that a lorry is carrying just Northern Ireland-qualifying goods, all lorries must potentially be stopped and checked, including lorries carrying just Northern Ireland-qualifying goods. If that is what the Government propose, they are proposing to move away from the Windsor Framework reassurance that there will be free movement without a border for Northern Ireland-qualifying goods moving from NI to GB.

Lest the Government seek to come back at this point and say, “Don’t worry—we will randomly stop only some lorries”, I gently remind the Minister that randomly stopping lorries is how borders work. Borders are not affected by a regime stopping all lorries because, if they were, everything would grind to a halt. So, if their intent is to randomly stop lorries—some of which will end up being shown to contain just Northern Ireland-qualifying goods—their purpose will plainly be to move beyond the Windsor Framework and introduce a border for goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB.

The sensible way to deal with this would be for the Government to require, by law, anyone bringing goods that are not Northern Ireland-qualifying across from Northern Ireland to GB to pre-notify and submit all the paperwork electronically before departure, and for the Government then to randomly require some of these lorries to attend an SPS facility for checks. In deciding to not randomly stop all lorries at the border but to depend on deploying a legal requirement, together with serious criminal sanctions, for anyone evading, the requirement to have the SPS facility actually on the border would be removed. It could be some miles from the border. No lorries would be stopped at the border, and only those randomly stopped would attend the SPS facility. This would mean, first, that lorries carrying just Northern Ireland-qualifying goods could move freely from Northern Ireland to GB, like lorries moving from England to Wales and Scotland to England, so that the internal market would be respected.

Secondly, it would mean that the border would be enforced in relation to non-Northern Ireland qualifying goods away from the border. This arrangement poses a huge question. If this sensible solution would work for goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB across the Irish Sea border then there is no justification for not having a similar soft border across the island of Ireland, along the international border.

Moreover, this question hits us with real force. If a soft border is effective, it makes the imposition of a hard border for goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland monstrous; its implications are the disfranchisement of 1.9 million people in 300 areas of law and the disrespecting of the territorial integrity of the UK in violation of international law. How could we have settled for an arrangement that disfranchises 1.9 million of our own people in 300 areas of law and then sought to justify this betrayal on the basis of an account of international law that does not stand up to scrutiny? In order for it to be a valid treaty, there is a requirement that it must respect the territorial integrity of the parties, which the Windsor Framework patently fails to do in making provision for the division of the United Kingdom into two by an international customs and SPS border.

It is impossible to reflect upon these matters without having regard to the beginning of the Second Reading debate on the European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill in another place, last Friday. This Bill provides a framework for a considerably more robust border than in this case, courtesy of its deployment of mutual enforcement. This compounds the ethical question facing the Government through these regulations to an even greater extent. I was appalled to read that a Member in another place responded to the suggestion that mutual enforcement provoked such a question of trust by reading—well done to him—from a scene from Shakespeare’s “Henry VI, Part 3”,

“For trust not him that hath once broken faith”,


as if trust was something that the UK Government owe only to foreigners. Their highest level of obligation is to their own, and it is in relation to their own that there is scope for the greatest measure of broken faith.

No one is talking about simply walking away from the EU without a conversation. The point simply needs to be made that, in a context where there are actually two ways of managing the border—one that involves disfranchising 1.9 million people in 300 areas of law and disrespecting the territorial integrity of the UK—there is a need for discussion between the UK Government and the EU, and the incoming Trump Administration, about finding a new solution to this very serious and vexed problem.

[Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, who has provided an excellent analysis of the issues facing businesses in Northern Ireland. Since the outset of the United Kingdom’s negotiations with the European Union, there has always been the potential for significant economic damage to be inflicted on one part of this United Kingdom and on the constitutional future of Northern Ireland in the union.

The root cause of the problems, with the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor Framework arrangements, is the continued enforcement of EU laws in Northern Ireland. It has been repeated in this House several times, and we will continue to repeat it, that in more than 300 areas Northern Ireland is subject to laws made not at Stormont or Westminster but by a foreign Parliament, which public representatives here in Westminster and in Stormont have no say over. Let us just get on with it and suck it up, they say, but we are not going to do that.

Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023

Lord Hay of Ballyore Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Grand Committee

I am glad of the opportunity to debate these matters. I urge the Government to take on board the criticism of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and bring these matters for debate so that we can explore myth versus fact, law versus politics. Then we will have a proper understanding of what really is at stake for Northern Ireland.

[Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my colleagues, my noble friends Lord Morrow and Lord Dodds, in this debate.

One way in which the constitutional importance of the Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations before us today is evidenced is in the decision to describe the alternative standards that are, in some cases, to be enforced in Northern Ireland as GB standards rather than UK standards. If that is so, and standards are to be applied across the whole of the United Kingdom that currently operate only in GB, and which would have been applied to the UK as a whole had we left without a deal that sought to dismember our body politic, they become UK standards, not GB standards.

Why then does the Explanatory Memorandum on these enforcement regulations not designate them as UK standards? Instead, it states that the purpose of the regulations is to:

“Ensure that appropriate enforcement powers are in place for retail agri-food goods moved from GB to NI under the Northern Ireland Retail Movement Scheme, which meet GB public health and marketing standards … catch documentation”—


as the Minister has already quoted—

“requirements for certain species of fish, and organics standards (referred to as ‘relevant GB standards’) and are placed on the NI market”.

Given that the EU jealously guards its default right to press for its full pound of flesh against the default full border set out in Article 14 of EU Regulation 2023/1231 to which the Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023 are wholly submitted and without which they become entirely meaningless, the EU regulations need to remain in place, at least in some ways. They are not removed, just made non-binding for the duration of the EU’s pleasure. In that sense, the EU plainly does not want the standards to be made to sound entirely natural and thus properly permanent, so they are categorised as GB standards because it implies that even when governance standards are UK-wide, they are still somewhat foreign if they apply in Northern Ireland.

Moreover, this arrangement is also helpful to the Government as they seek to address the challenge of the border control posts under construction between now and July 2025. If the standards were described as UK standards, the use of border control posts for 10% to 5% identity checks and other risk-based checks would be like using border control posts within any part of this United Kingdom. By contrast, defining the relevant standards as GB standards makes the deployment of border control posts seem less controversial because it will enable the Government to claim that these border control posts should not be understood as border control posts in any normal sense as their purpose is actually to give effect to rather than undermine our sovereignty by simply imposing standards that arise from within the United Kingdom Government within the borders of the United Kingdom.

The Government may feel that this presentational approach is to their advantage as they seek to bow to EU demands to disrespect the territorial integrity of this United Kingdom. However, it is also to their disadvantage in creating a new impression that brings two difficult and embarrassing questions into focus.

The Explanatory Memorandum to these Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations is clear that the purpose of the application of GB standards is for protecting the biosecurity of the people of Northern Ireland. Specifically, it states:

“Part 3 of this instrument ensures that appropriate enforcement powers are also available in NI to protect NI consumers in cases where retail agri-food goods, moving from GB to NI under the Northern Ireland Retail Movement Scheme and placed on the NI market, do not comply with the relevant GB standards”.


The first difficult question arises from the fact that this suggested commitment to the biosecurity of the people of Northern Ireland is that it necessarily creates the basis for biosecurity within Great Britain because it implies that even while the goods have either been created in Great Britain or have come into Great Britain, we cannot be confident that they are to Great Britain standards. In making this assertion, the Government are admitting that the UK is failing its citizens living in Great Britain in a most basic way with respect to their biosecurity. That must be of huge concern to anyone living in Great Britain and to all the Members of this Committee and House who represent GB constituencies.