Draft Batteries (Placing on the Market) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 General Committees

[Mary Creagh]

I will undertake to do that. If I cannot do it myself, I will pass it on to my DESNZ colleagues.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mary Creagh]

I will make a little progress, if I may. The changes will apply directly in Northern Ireland and will phase in over time. They apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework. As an EU regulation, the obligations within it apply directly, without the need for transposition. The draft instrument, in a reserved policy area, is the domestic legislation required to enable effective enforcement of these obligations in Northern Ireland.

Implementing the measures helps Northern Ireland to maintain its dual market access. It does so by establishing a proportionate enforcement, offences and penalties regime in Northern Ireland for the EU regulation. Offences are put in one of three penalty groups: summary-only offences, such as those subject to a fine, which can be unlimited; either-way offences; or imprisonment for up to 12 months and/or an unlimited fine for the most serious indictable-only offences. Offences include failure to keep appropriate due-diligence documentation; failure of a supplier of battery cells and modules to provide documentation to manufacturers; and failure by an importer to comply with certain battery safety-related obligations. Those fall into penalty groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

The Office for Product Safety and Standards enforces the existing “placing on the market” requirement across the UK and will act as the market surveillance and enforcement authority for “placing on the market” matters set out in this draft instrument in Northern Ireland. The SI also includes supplementary measures arising from the EU regulation, relating to conformity assessment. That includes a requirement for the NI indication to accompany the CE mark in certain circumstances, making the Secretary of State the designated authority for notified bodies and putting in place an appeals process for decisions made by notified bodies.

The draft SI also consequentially amends the Batteries and Accumulators (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2008 by revoking them in respect of Northern Ireland, so that they now apply only in Great Britain. To be clear, the instrument does not introduce new policy objectives or regulatory standards beyond those arising from the EU batteries regulation. The batteries regulation required the penalty regime to be in place by 18 August 2025. Further parts of the EU regulation remain to be implemented in Northern Ireland, after that 18 August 2025 date. They include changes to waste and to extended producer responsibility requirements. Those matters are not covered here.

I will now respond to the submission noted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee regarding the impact on the UK internal market and the costs arising from the draft instrument. The UK has had an integrated UK-wide approach to batteries and waste batteries for many years. Let me be clear that we will take any steps necessary to continue to meet the Government’s commitment to protect the UK’s internal market. That is why we will consult in the autumn on an aligned regime in Great Britain that is consistent with the EU’s 2023 batteries regulation. The consultation will be UK-wide and conducted with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland and with the other devolved Governments as a four-nation approach. Such an approach will avoid duplicative administrative burdens and provide a unified framework across the UK and EU for batteries. Crucially, it will also deliver against our environmental objectives.

Battery manufacturing is a highly sophisticated global sector, and major manufacturers are already adjusting to the new standards. A unified approach is what businesses are asking for, so the autumn consultation will seek views not only on the application of the “placing on the market” regulations in Great Britain, but on the outstanding waste and producer responsibility provisions. We believe that pursuing this approach provides the best outcome for the UK.

I welcome the collaborative approach taken in the development of this draft SI, which has drawn constructively on expertise in industry and the relevant Departments. The provisions set out on enforcement in this SI meaningfully strengthen the application of the EU batteries regulation in Northern Ireland, where it has been law since its publication in 2023. By improving compliance in key areas such as battery safety, hazardous substances and environmental performance, I expect positive environmental and human outcomes through the reduced risk of unsafe or environmentally harmful batteries being placed on the market.

I am also reassured by the de minimis assessment undertaken in respect of this draft instrument. Given that the associated costs are minimal, and that the draft instrument introduces no contentious or disproportionate impacts, the approach is both reasonable and appropriate. I am satisfied that the instrument falls within the scope of the parent Act and represents an appropriate use of those powers. For that reason, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

A lot of my points have already been made by my colleague, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. Once again, we have regulations going through this House that drive a wedge between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

The law for batteries already applies, and these regulations will simply make sure that it is possible to enforce that law. The law, as has been pointed out, covers a wide range of businesses that sell to Northern Ireland. The Minister made mention of cars, vans and e-bikes, but if we look at the assessment prepared for this, the law covers much more than that. It covers businesses that manufacture: computers; consumer electronics; watches and clocks; motors, generators and transformers; electric lighting equipment; domestic appliances; electrical equipment; motor vehicles; repair of electrical equipment; motor vehicle parts; waste and scrap—the list goes on. In Northern Ireland, the law covers 776 businesses. In the rest of the United Kingdom, it covers 26,268 businesses.

Although the Minister said that the cost will be very little, the fact is that businesses will have to think, “Do we have certificates of conformity? Have we fulfilled all the regulations? Have we scrutinised all the parts we bring in, and are we sure that they have all the markings required?” Under the batteries regulation, it is not just what the products contain but how they are labelled that has to be considered. Even inadvertently, businesses may find themselves in a situation where they are breaking the law. The costs are not de minimis. It is estimated that the initial set-up costs will be £35,000 per business—maybe the Minister will confirm that—and the annual running costs over a 10-year period will amount to £33,820. What impact will that have on internal trade?

As the Minister said, the set-up costs may not be expensive for large motor manufacturers selling high-value battery cars. However, for small businesses, it will be yet another reason not to bother supplying to Northern Ireland, because the costs of doing so will be outweighed by the revenue—Northern Ireland may only be 1% or 2% of the market of many small businesses. If additional costs are imposed, including the paperwork and so on, it does not make sense to supply to Northern Ireland. That has already happened. The fact that many transport companies are now taking container-loads of goods to England and bringing empty containers back, adding to transport costs, is a direct result of the drip-feed of EU laws applying to Northern Ireland but not to the rest of the United Kingdom. They make it not worth while to comply with regulations in order to supply to Northern Ireland. Businesses simply say, “Well, we are not supplying any more.”

The Minister has tried to make the case that the EU regulation will make batteries safer and more environmentally friendly. If that is true, does it mean that because of the delay in regulations being changed in the rest of the United Kingdom, people in the rest of the United Kingdom are using batteries that are less safe and less environmentally friendly? It seems from her speech that her answer is that businesses want uniformity, and eventually the Government will seek uniformity.

If we are going to have different laws from the EU, there must be good reasons for that. If we are going to have the same laws as the EU, they at least ought to be properly debated here so that we can make a decision. Do we want to use the freedoms that being out of the EU grants us, or do we simply want to slavishly implement EU regulations in the United Kingdom without any discussion or debate? That is certainly what is happening in Northern Ireland. I have pointed out that it means that Northern Ireland businesses now need to be doubly sure of the decisions that they make and the supply chains that they use, and very often they find that they are placed at a disadvantage.

If I were to say, “Northern Ireland has been used as a guinea pig, and EU laws have been introduced without any debate or discussion as to whether they are desirable and will improve the situation or whether they will have an adverse impact on the economy”, some members of this Committee would say, “If Northern Ireland is used as the foot in the door, that is well and good because we want to have the great reset that gets us back as close to the EU as possible.” There are others, especially on the Opposition Benches, who have made it clear that Brexit gives us freedoms and that we should use those freedoms.

There should be a warning in what the Minister has said today. These regulations will be the first step to having these regulations in place across the United Kingdom. I want to have uniformity of law across the United Kingdom, and as someone who fought to leave the EU, I want that uniformity to be based on discussions that elected representatives in the United Kingdom have and the decisions that they make. I do not advocate that we resolve the problem of having two different sets of laws—one that applies in Northern Ireland but not in the rest of the United Kingdom—simply by going down the same undemocratic route as we in Northern Ireland have experienced.

In light of the injustice of different laws applying in Northern Ireland, severe sanctions are now being imposed on those who either inadvertently or indirectly break the law, and there will be costs that affect businesses in Northern Ireland and distract people from selling in Northern Ireland. I do not have a vote in this Committee, so I say this to those who do: vote against the regulations.

[Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)]

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman wants to make a political point about the Windsor framework, but does he accept that wide consultation was carried out by the Government in Northern Ireland ahead of these regulations? The explanatory memorandum in front of him shows that out of 182 stakeholders, only one replied to the consultation. That seems to me to show that there is not wide concern about this piece of legislation. Does he accept that?

[Sammy Wilson]

I was elected to this Parliament, and the concern I have expressed is my concern as a parliamentarian. On the consultations, let us not forget that people are not fully aware of the impact of proposals until after it has all happened.

My main concern, which all Members should share, is that we are elected to this place to make laws, and this is where the laws should be made; they should not be made elsewhere. We are not discussing the making of the law in this Committee; we are only discussing its enforcement, because the law has already been made. It was automatically applied in Northern Ireland. We are now discussing how we make sure that that law, which was made elsewhere, is imposed in Northern Ireland, how we penalise people in Northern Ireland who break the law—either directly or indirectly, advertently or inadvertently—how we impose penalties on those people, who imposes the penalties and who carries out the inspections to ensure that the penalties can be imposed. Let us be under no illusions: we are not discussing the merits of the law. It has already been introduced in Northern Ireland, and it was introduced by another lawmaking body, not this House.

[Mary Creagh]

What a peach of a debate! On the one hand, the Conservative party gave us gentle encouragement and asked questions about how the policy has been enforced in the interim. Once again, I was questioned about the previous Government’s inaction and inability to take any steps to bring in this law before they left office. On the other hand, two parliamentarians from the Democratic Unionist party reopened the debates on Brexit—

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the Minister give way? She has just insulted my colleague.

[Mary Creagh]

No, I will not give way; I am replying to the debate.

They reopened the debates on Brexit, which detained this House from 2016 until I left in 2019 and much beyond. When the former leader of the Conservatives said that we should “Get Brexit done” in 2019, little did he know that Brexit would never be done. This issue is the perfect example of why Brexit will never be done and of the difficulties it brought to this Parliament and Northern Ireland, with its unique protected status under the Windsor framework. It demonstrates the difficulties and the bureaucracy faced by every single business and householder trying to do the right thing and stay safe.

We have had a long and abstract debate about laws and who votes for them. This Committee is our chance to scrutinise the law—I feel scrutinised—and our chance to vote. We will vote later.