Draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025

Robin Swann Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 General Committees

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I rise to oppose these regulations, not because I am against improving energy efficiency, but because in our opinion they represent yet another example of unfair and unnecessary regulation being imposed on Northern Ireland. Although the Government have insisted that these measures are vital, it is noticeable that they are choosing to consult on similar regulations that will be implemented across the rest of the United Kingdom, while simply imposing them in Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister: why is it acceptable to consult in one part of the United Kingdom, but not the other?

The Minister referenced some items that the regulations would cover. These regulations will cover air conditioning units, comfort fans, computers, domestic ovens, hobs—there is a catch-all phrase for all electrical and electronic household and office equipment. They will also cover electric motors, electronic displays, dishwashers, tumble dryers, washing machines, light sources, fridges, smartphones, mobile phones, space-saving heaters, vacuum cleaners, water pumps and welders. These regulations have an impact on everyday life and everyday items in Northern Ireland specifically—they will only affect Northern Ireland. The items listed are parts of everyday life for each of us and each of our constituents. I therefore ask Committee members: why, in recognition of the implementation of these regulations, are my constituents of less importance or less worth than those of a Welsh, Scottish or Cornish MP? Why do we have to accept a differential or disruption on supply of these goods being forced on the people of Northern Ireland? Why does Northern Ireland continue to be treated as an afterthought when it comes to regulation?

This instrument, as drafted, follows a pattern we have seen before: Northern Ireland being forced to align with EU-derived rules, while the rest of the United Kingdom retains the flexibility to shape its own policies. The Minister said it was likely that manufacturers would follow the EU standard. I question whether a Government should really draft and implement regulations based on the likelihood of something happening by an outside body that they seek to have no control over.

This is not just an administrative issue; it has consequences. Businesses in Northern Ireland will face additional costs and compliance burdens compared with their counterparts across Great Britain, which may ultimately avoid them or get a say in shaping how the regulations are enforced. That places Northern Ireland and its consumers at a competitive disadvantage, creating yet another barrier to economic growth at a time when we should be supporting, not stifling, investment—something that we had been told, by both this Government and the previous one, would not happen under the Windsor framework. While the goal of improving energy efficiency is commendable, imposing a rigid one-size-fits-all approach does not guarantee real progress. Indeed, it risks increasing costs for manufacturers and consumers, while delivering minimal environmental benefits.

Have we assessed whether the regulations will genuinely reduce energy consumption in a meaningful way, or are we simply enforcing them for the sake of regulatory conformity? There was no consultation for Northern Ireland, no consultation with trade bodies, with consumer rights organisations or with families, who might, when their tumble dryer broke down, have looked for a cheaper or second-hand model, but now will have to buy the one that meets EU standards. Why should a constituent in South Antrim have less access to different products than someone in Southampton?

On consultation, the explanatory memorandum simply says that the bodies were not consulted because of previous consultation outcomes. Why were trade or consumer bodies not consulted in Northern Ireland? Was it because the Government did not want to hear their concerns, or let other hon. Members on this Committee know what they had to say? Or did they simply assume that they would not raise any objections, as they did last time?

Beyond the economic and environmental concerns, there is a broader constitutional issue at play. The Government speak of Northern Ireland as an integral part of this United Kingdom, yet time and again we see it subjected to different rules, dictated by external frameworks. That raises a fundamental question: are we truly committed to regulatory consistency across the UK, or is Northern Ireland to be permanently treated as a special case?

For those reasons, I urge the Committee to reject the regulations. If consultation is appropriate for Great Britain, it should be appropriate for Northern Ireland as well, as part of the United Kingdom. I believe that anything less is unacceptable, and I urge Members to oppose the measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me say to the hon. Member that we have absolutely looked at the regulations. As the UK Government, we believe that they are good for consumers. In fact, the ambition that has been set by the regulations is one that we wish to mirror ourselves. We will consult on these standards, not because the EU is telling us to but because we think that it is the right thing for UK businesses and consumers.

The vast majority of manufacturers who sell not only in the GB market but in the EU market are already making the transition, because that market is much bigger. They are already driving up product standards. That is good for businesses, and we want to support and encourage that.

I hear the arguments and the caution about not being dictated to by the EU, but please hear me when I say that we think it is right that we drive up standards for our consumers. We would want to do this. The EU has done it, but we would want to do it in our own right. That is why we have tabled this SI and it is why we are also planning to consult on improved standards.

[Robin Swann]

I thank the Minister for giving way. My opening comment was not about being opposed to the cost or energy savings that the regulations will bring about, but why is it right for them to be enforced in Northern Ireland now? Setting aside the Windsor framework and its implications, as a UK Minister, why does she feel it is right and proper that the rest of the UK is consulted and gets to engage, and that people get to have their say? Or is the Minister really saying to this House, “When the time comes, we will tell you that because it is the right thing to do, we are doing it?” The consultation that she is talking about, mentioned in paragraph 7.2, as well as her explanation of it, are actually fictitious, too, because it sounds to me as though this Government are going to do it anyway, while the Opposition sit on their hands.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are trying to work within the Windsor framework. We are not here to litigate that. It sets out a set of protocols and procedures that we are working under. EU rules have come forward, and it is right that we make sure that we create the legal framework so that these measures apply in Northern Ireland. Critically, irrespective of all that, the basics of what is proposed are good for consumers. They are about improving the efficiency and design of products. In the case of smartphones, it is about improving some of the protections that are available to consumers. The hon. Gentleman and other Members should want that, and we as a Government do want that, irrespective of whether or not we want to litigate the Windsor framework.

We are introducing the SI because we believe it is the right thing to do. We believe it is important that we improve and drive up standards. We will consult on the proposition because we think it is good. Based on the engagement we have had, manufacturers are supportive of the direction of travel. As they want to sell in the EU single market, that sets the default for industry. In that spirit, we propose the SI today and I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.