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

Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to partake in this debate. I thank the Minister for the detail he has provided. I do not necessarily blame just the current Government for this issue because it goes back much further than that. We have to accept that there were very poor negotiations after Brexit that led to the protocol and the Windsor Framework. Who have been the fall people? The Northern Ireland businesses have been the main fall people, which is extremely unfortunate. We need to try to resolve the outworkings of the protocol and Windsor Framework.

That decision has had significant consequences for many businesses so far, and this will be another one. I am sure that most businesses in Northern Ireland never thought that, after Brexit, we would be debating excavators, cranes and leaf blowers—let alone tumble dryers. For goodness’ sake: this is way beyond what any of us expected in Northern Ireland and what we expected to see as a reasonable relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom.

In Northern Ireland, our businesses have been the fall people for all of this. So, how are we going to resolve it? This is not going to resolve it, because there is no assessment of the financial impact to the people of Northern Ireland and its businesses. Even though this Government have not been to blame for those negotiations, my issue is that I have not seen anything from them either that has tried to resolve the issues. As my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has indicated, I would like to see them coming forward with better, more proactive solutions that are going to help this.

I have already mentioned the cost burden on Northern Ireland businesses, which has been highlighted. The Minister indicated the £16.6 million UK internal market package. But will that be sufficient for these costs? Does that include the cost of this particular regulation? Will it include the cost of the regulations that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has indicated we are going to have lots more of coming forward? We have to talk to the people on the ground—they are the important ones—and those people have found it extremely difficult to find their way through this bureaucratic burden.

I do not know how that is going to be helped and assisted and what the proactive steps are. The Minister indicated that the Government are taking proactive steps to ensure that the industry is supported and complying with the new requirements. What I want to know is: what are these proactive steps? We hear so often that they are taking steps and measures. I would like some detail on that, so the businesses know exactly where they stand and what they need to do—because they do not know. For the next four months, businesses are going to be looking around to see how they can actually comply with the regulations.

The one other issue that I am really keen to find out is: what are the differences in the requirements between Northern Ireland and Great Britain? What are the requirements in that health and safety aspect in Northern Ireland that will be different to GB? I would have assumed that GB probably may even have a higher regulation than the European Union, or at least something similar, in health and safety standards. So, what actually are the additional aspects that are required? Unless those businesses are given that clear guidance and practical assistance, this is just going to be another burden.

This is increasing the internal divergence between GB and Northern Ireland, which is not only a constitutional issue but is hampering businesses and the economy. We are suffering in the economy in Northern Ireland because of it. We have to be honest: a lot of—or at least some of—our trade is with the Republic of Ireland. I do not deny that, but we need a more straightforward process to retain that trade with GB as well, which we cannot ignore, because that is still our biggest market. Let us be able to do that trade with the Republic of Ireland but also with GB as well, because if we stop that GB trade, that will have a significant economic disadvantage for our businesses in Northern Ireland.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 8th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, my Amendment 45 arises from an exchange in the other place last week with the Minister, Sir Chris Bryant. Members will be aware that Northern Ireland’s situation is different in so far as, for goods, it is covered by the Windsor Framework. Therefore, EU quotas on steel obviously apply. The issue is that we have the preposterous situation of having quotas of steel flowing from one part of the United Kingdom to the other. These two regimes are clashing.

The Minister in the other place indicated that HMRC is

“taking steps to confirm the arrangements with industry”.

Bearing in mind that this was happening with about 36 hours’ notice, it was a huge challenge for businesses and so on to get their heads around it. He went on to say:

“The Government will continue to provide guidance and support to traders moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland through the trader support service”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/26; col. 764.]


That is another example of why we do not have a free internal market within the United Kingdom. Can the Minister confirm whether both these matters have taken place: has HMRC taken the steps to confirm arrangements with industry, and is the Trader Support Service providing that guidance? It was not available last week, which is why I tabled this amendment.

The other issue arising is speciality steels, because of the United Kingdom’s current limited ability to produce them and because some firms which intend to produce them are not actually doing so. I will give the Minister an example of our concerns. If a European company has a branch in our jurisdiction in Northern Ireland—for instance, Harland & Wolff—and has access under its quota arrangements to speciality steel for, say, the defence sector, which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, mentioned and which is a particular issue in my mind, and it bids for defence work that will require a significant amount of speciality steels, those steels may not be able to be sourced within the United Kingdom. Our anxiety, therefore, is that competitiveness, price and other things could create difficulties.

I fully understand the rationale for having quotas, because there is huge surplus capacity throughout the rest of the world. We understand that that has to be managed but, given that we cannot necessarily get the steels from within the United Kingdom, can the Minister give an assurance that those steels will be available, that the quotas are adequate—whatever we say about having them in the first place—and that there is sufficient headroom to ensure that companies’ competitiveness will not be significantly damaged by the unavailability of those products within the United Kingdom?

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Empey and will speak to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in Amendment 15, which unfortunately does not cover the specific circumstances of Northern Ireland. I support Amendment 15, but my noble friend’s amendment goes further to, I hope, give protection to Northern Ireland.

The UK introduced a new steel trade measure on 1 July—

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I have a point of information. The Bill has nothing to do with steel tariffs. We have had several Statements on steel tariffs in your Lordships’ House, to which I do not think the noble Lord spoke. I am happy to debate the effect of nationalisation on the Northern Irish market and to dispute that issue. However, the issue of tariffs is not covered in this legislation.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

I recognise the noble Lord’s point about the tariffs, but the issue is that we need some protection, and my noble friend Lord Empey believes the only way to have that protection is through this amendment. There is no other mechanism for protection. We have had Statements and I have asked Written Questions, but the answers we have had are unsatisfactory. Why is it not reasonable to table an amendment to this legislation that could assist the processors and manufacturers in Northern Ireland?

Maybe the Minister will find another way of doing this. If he can then that would be extremely helpful to us, but we want to raise the issue and it is not beyond our reasoned power to do so. At the moment, there is no other way of doing that except through this legislation.

The tariffs are extremely important. We now have dual tariffs. We have not only EU tariffs, because we are part of the EU economic base, but UK tariffs. This is important in Northern Ireland, and we and our processors, fabricators and manufacturers will have to deal with it. It is unfair for the noble Lord to indicate that it is unreasonable for us to table this amendment—

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am just confused, because the wording of Amendment 45 from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, asks for an impact assessment on the likely effects on Northern Ireland, and the wording of paragraph (b) of my proposed new clause in Amendment 15 asks for an impact assessment of the effects on the United Kingdom, which, of course, includes Northern Ireland. I wonder what Amendment 45 brings in addition that is not covered by Amendment 15. Thereafter, I will shut up.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, but will he not agree that we are in a different situation in Northern Ireland from that in GB? We are under a double tariff. We are under a tariff from not only the European Union but the United Kingdom, which does not impact on those processors, fabricators and manufacturers in GB. So why is it not reasonable to ask for a special impact assessment for Northern Ireland? I think that is quite reasonable. I am surprised that the noble Lord has indicated that he does not want that. Surely, if he wants transparency and a reasonable outcome to this, it is only reasonable that we would have that impact assessment for Northern Ireland. I am happy to give way to the noble Lord if he wants to argue and demonstrate why that is not reasonable. If you are a Northern Ireland fabricator, like I have in my area in Northern Ireland, you will possibly have a double tariff now: one from the European Union and one from the United Kingdom. That is totally unfair and totally different—

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I think we have given the noble Lord a fair hearing. I ask him to bring his comments swiftly to a close so that we can get on with the business in hand today.

US Tariffs on EU Goods

Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are seeking to strengthen and reset the relationship between the EU and the UK. Taking forward our manifesto commitments on that relationship will carry tangible benefits for businesses in Northern Ireland and the UK. The Government are committed to abiding by commitments in international agreements, including working to the Windsor Framework in good faith. That will include new negotiations going forward.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I hear the Minister say that there will be a reset of relationships between the UK and the EU but, if that happens, it may mean that those extra tariffs from the US will impact more on the United Kingdom as a whole. At some stage, the UK Government might have to choose between being closer to the USA and closer to the EU. Which is it?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we will always ensure that we protect the interests of all UK businesses, including those in Northern Ireland.