Draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026
House of Commons · General Committees · 30 Jun 2026 · 47 speeches · Official Report
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chair: Christine Jardine
† Arthur, Dr Scott (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
† Baldwin, Dame Harriett (West Worcestershire) (Con)
† Barron, Lee (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
Cooper, Daisy (St Albans) (LD)
† Curtis, Chris (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
† Davies-Jones, Alex (Pontypridd) (Lab)
† Dearden, Kate (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade)
† Duncan-Jordan, Neil (Poole) (Lab)
† Ferguson, Mark (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
† Griffiths, Alison (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
† Malthouse, Kit (North West Hampshire) (Con)
† Mullane, Margaret (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
† Murray, Katrina (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
† Nichols, Charlotte (Warrington North) (Lab)
† Olney, Sarah (Richmond Park) (LD)
† Paul, Rebecca (Reigate) (Con)
† Sandher, Dr Jeevun (Loughborough) (Lab)
Jim Davey, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(2):
Allister, Jim (North Antrim) (TUV)
Lockhart, Carla (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Wilson, Sammy (East Antrim) (DUP)
Third Delegated Legislation Committee
Tuesday 30 June 2026
[Christine Jardine in the Chair ]
Draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. This statutory instrument was laid before the House on 1 June 2026. I will begin by setting out the background. The instrument concerns machinery, which includes a wide range of workplace and consumer products such as cranes, excavators, leaf blowers and lawn mowers. The current framework for machinery safety is, like many other product regulations, based on EU rules that were assimilated into UK law following our departure from the European Union. The current EU directive and our UK regulations were first introduced in 2006 and 2008, respectively. Members will appreciate that machinery has adapted and advanced significantly in that time. As such, it is important that we review our legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose and accounts for potential risks from new and emerging technologies, as well as changes in supply chains and how they operate. I will now explain in more detail how the instrument meets its purpose. It has two functions: first, it ensures that updated EU machinery legislation can be fully enforced in Northern Ireland, as required under the Windsor framework; and secondly, it amends domestic legislation so that machinery that meets the updated EU requirements can continue to be placed on the market in...
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. As we heard from the Minister, the instrument makes two principal changes. First, it provides for the enforcement in Northern Ireland of the EU machinery regulation, including in respect of powers for regulators, offences, penalties and mechanisms for co-operation with EU authorities. Secondly, it amends the Great Britain regime by extending the recognition of CE marking beyond January next year. The Government argue that the changes will avoid a regulatory cliff edge and support trade. Although there are merits to continuity, the instrument also raises several serious concerns. First, there is no impact assessment. The explanatory memorandum focuses narrowly on the cost of enforcement, not the cost of the underlying regulation once enforced. That is a significant omission. It is impossible for the Committee to judge whether the measures will have a material effect on trade, as is required, without understanding the real costs imposed on Northern Ireland businesses. Secondly, what assessment has the Minister made of the comparative cost burden? Will the measure increase costs for Northern Ireland businesses relative to those in Great Britain, and if so, to what extent? How many businesses are expected to be impacted? Does the Minister believe that the £16.6 million UK internal market package will be sufficient to meet the costs? Thirdly, the instrument clearly deepens regulatory divergence within the...
I am grateful to be called, Ms Jardine. I do not want to detain the Committee too long, but I have some points of clarification for the Minister. First, will the Minister confirm that the regulations concern the enforcement of machinery standards that flow into Northern Ireland by dint of the Windsor framework without any parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever in the UK, and that Northern Ireland will be forced to comply with the regulations without having any say in them whatsoever? On that note, did the UK Government have any beneficial influence over the EU production of the regulations, or will we just get what we are given? The Minister will understand that one doubt about the Windsor framework arrangement with Northern Ireland was the democratic deficit-the fact that we would be rule takers rather than rule makers-and this instrument looks like an example of that, so it would be great if the Minister could confirm that that is the case. Secondly, will there now be much reverse engineering of wider GB machinery safety regulations to conform with what has been handed down to Northern Ireland? We obviously want to maintain the free flow of goods across the whole of the United Kingdom but, as I read it, in order for that to happen and for the convenience of business, UK businesses as a whole will have to conform to that which has been handed down to Northern Ireland by the EU. If we have had no say in that, it would be helpful to have the Minister’s assessment of whether the...
I am deeply concerned that the regulations will further entrench Northern Ireland’s competitive disadvantage in comparison with GB. Why should machinery entering Northern Ireland from the EU be saddled with even more red tape, while GB is free of such regulations? This is about fairness. If a transaction is straightforward in Birmingham or Glasgow, it should be straightforward in Banbridge or Belfast. Businesses in Upper Bann are constantly expected to navigate complex rules, despite having no meaningful democratic say over them. Our businesses are already weighed down by the bureaucracy of the Windsor framework, which has always been a constitutional compromise. Put simply, it is good for the EU but bad for Northern Ireland. This time last year, the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland warned that, shockingly, more than one third of businesses it surveyed had stopped trading with GB altogether. The compliance burdens had already become too great to bear. The new regulations only add insult to injury and cause further problems. On paper, the statutory instrument is supposed to avoid “a regulatory cliff edge where products meeting the new EU requirements will not be accepted in GB without the Government changing its machinery legislation.” In reality, the new measures may force GB suppliers to conclude that serving Northern Ireland is just too much hassle. In truth, the paperwork is not worth the profit. Machinery dealers, manufacturers and contractors depend on...
This piece of legislation may seem innocuous, but it is yet another example of the wedges being driven between one part of the United Kingdom and another part of the United Kingdom-wedges not just in regulations, but in their practical effect. First, leaving aside the constitutional impact of the legislation, let us just look at the explanatory memorandum, which tells us: “This SI amends the 2008 Regulations, clarifying that their territorial extent is limited to GB”. Why? To allow “EU Regulation to function effectively in NI.” That is the purpose of this legislation. It removes Northern Ireland from what was UK-wide regulation, which will now be limited only to part of the United Kingdom, to facilitate the functioning of EU regulations in Northern Ireland. Those EU regulations will not have been debated in a Committee like this, nor will they have been discussed with Northern Ireland representatives. There will not even have been consultation with Northern Ireland when the regulations were being formed, as we cannot in any way feed into regulations that apply to the single market even though we remain a part of it. Leaving aside the practical effect of the instrument, that is the first important point that we all ought to note. Regardless of our views on Brexit or the EU, as UK parliamentarians, we ought to ask ourselves whether we should accept and vote for this kind of legislation Secondly, it disturbs me that the Government, as the explanatory memorandum makes quite...
I know the right hon. Gentleman is passionate about this subject, but can he be clear about his concerns about the detail of the regulations and what difference they will actually make to businesses? People are speaking in very general terms, but can he be specific about the detail of the legislation and what difference it will actually make? What would the right hon. Gentleman have the Government negotiate, if they could?
The standards applied to machinery made in Northern Ireland will be different from those applied in other parts of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member asks about the detail, but very often we do not know the cost until we actually have to apply the different standards. For example, in Northern Ireland we export a lot of agricultural machinery, and if the standards imposed by the EU require more work, more materials and more safety devices than those applied in the rest of the United Kingdom, there will be a cost. We do not know until we actually see the standards applied and compare them with the rest of the United Kingdom. Because we export a lot of that machinery to GB, businesses could be at a competitive disadvantage due to the cost of enforcement. There is also the cost on councils.
To be honest, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West makes a good point. Presumably, he will vote in favour of enforcing the underlying regulations, but none of us know whether they are any good. In fact, we have had no say over whether they are any good-we just have to take them as handed down. I asked the Minister earlier whether the UK, knowing that we have to accept them, whether we like it or not, has had any influence on trying to ensure that they actually do what they are supposed to do. To a certain extent, both sides of the House are blindly voting on the regulations, because we have had no hand in putting them together.
Not only have we not had a hand in putting them together, but we have not even done an impact assessment, and we have not done an impact assessment because that is out of scope, as this is part of the Windsor framework. Of course, there is also the cost on local councils in Northern Ireland of implementing the regulations. I do not know what that will be, and I suspect that none of the councils have even been consulted on what additional staff will be required or what costs it will impose on them. When we pass a piece of legislation, we should at least ask these questions. First, does it make one part of the United Kingdom different from another? It does, and the explanatory notes show that that is the case. Secondly, is it necessary? Given that the only necessity highlighted in the explanatory note is that we do not want to upset relations with the EU, I am not so sure that that is a justifiable reason for passing the legislation. Lastly, if we are passing legislation, surely we should know what impact it will have, and we do not know what impact this will have. For all those reasons I say to Members that before we carelessly vote in favour of this change, let us at least consider those points.
The regulations are the latest example of the humiliation of this proclaimed sovereign United Kingdom Parliament in adopting laws that it did not make and laws it cannot change-laws that are made in a foreign jurisdiction. We have already seen that in multiple examples. We have had it in the vehicle type regulations, under which people cannot now buy a new car in Northern Ireland made to GB-type regulations and must buy one made to EU-type regulations at an extra expense of £4,000; we have had it with tumble dryers-there are certain types of tumble dryers that can no longer be bought in Northern Ireland; and now we are to have it in respect of machinery. Who would have thought that the EU single market was so fragile that the composition of a leaf blower coming into Northern Ireland placed it in jeopardy? It really is ridiculous beyond belief. The fundamental constitutional and democratic point is that in this Committee this afternoon, parliamentarians are being invited to nod through laws that they did not make, did not write and cannot change to enforce the EU regulation that is coming in in January, and to enforce it in a part of this United Kingdom in respect of which this is supposed to be the sovereign Parliament. What an insult to all of us as parliamentarians to belong to a proclaimed sovereign Parliament to have to pass laws that we did not make and cannot change. That is the very essence of what is before us. The Government, as has already been referred to, have...
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their consideration of the draft regulations and their contributions to the debate. They raised a significant number of issues that I will pick up on in my response. First, on our product regulation legislation, since getting into Government we have legislated for the flexibility to ensure that product regulation, now and in future, is tailored to the needs of the UK. There will be some instances where we will take our own approach and some instances where we will want to take a similar approach to the EU. However, we have done that, and will continue to do that, on a case-by-case basis, where it is absolutely in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers and in our national interests. The arrangements under the Windsor framework are a settled and important part of UK law, agreed by Parliament to protect the UK internal market. We have made the sovereign decision that is right for the whole of the UK to improve safety and modernise in particular machinery legislation, which we are discussing today, to reduce duplicative and costly burdens on businesses and ensure that there is no friction with the UK internal market. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, our approach is supported by the overwhelming majority of stakeholders. This SI does not implement EU law in Great Britain; it does, however, continue CE recognition in Great Britain so that products that meet the new EU requirements can be placed on the GB market. That is not a...
I am finding it hard to understand how the Minister can claim that there will be no impact on businesses in Northern Ireland. To give a practical example, many production lines nowadays have built-in AI safety monitoring systems. At the moment, companies in manufacturing have to certify that AI against a national standard, and they can self-certify. As I understand it, the EU regulations around AI and cyber-security would mean moving to a notified body certification system. If I had a production line, I would have to go out and find a recognised body to come in and independently certify the software behind the safety system in my manufacturing line as compliant. That has to be an extra cost-how can going from self-certification to external certification by an outside body not have a significant impact? As far as I can see, these regulations are riddled with those kinds of changes, which must impose a significant cumulative burden.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly raises AI and cyber-security as part of our considerations. That is why it is so important that we keep up to date with technological developments and the impact on machinery. The EU’s machinery regulations, as he says, include provisions on software and AI to ensure that those new technologies do not affect the safe functioning of machinery. We are also working with the EU to ensure that the changes in Northern Ireland are compatible with wider product safety and regulatory reforms, including cross-cutting legislation on AI and cyber-security. Overall, we expect the instrument to benefit Northern Ireland. We have extensively engaged with stakeholders in Northern Ireland, and SMEs in particular have indicated that it significantly helps in terms of resources-that is from our direct engagement with those businesses and the feedback we have received. It is a key consideration for businesses that they will be able to continue to benefit from dual access to both EU and UK markets. As we work towards introducing similar measures in Great Britain, continuing CE recognition and ensuring that the same machinery products can be placed on the market across the whole of the UK without unnecessary duplication of testing and administrative process will be absolutely vital. The shadow Minister asked about the numbers of businesses involved. We estimate that around 230 businesses in Northern Ireland and 5,380 in Great Britain are in scope of the machinery...
Will the Minister address my question about what impact, if any, there is on GB-Northern Ireland sales?
The Chair
I am terribly sorry, but the Minister had already sat down. Question put.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026.
Committee rose.