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

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 Great Britain.

The SI will introduce mechanisms to allow the EU’s new machinery regulation to be enforced effectively in Northern Ireland. The EU has updated its machinery rules through a new regulation that will apply from 20 January 2027, when it will replace the existing directive. The SI will give full effect to the machinery regulation in Northern Ireland by establishing a robust enforcement framework. It designates enforcement bodies, including the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland and district councils, and makes it an offence to fail to comply with obligations under the regulation.

The instrument also provides for appropriate penalties, including fines and custodial sentences. This ensures that effective enforcement action can be taken where products are non compliant. I reassure Members that the Northern Ireland Department of Justice has confirmed that the measures will not have a detrimental impact on the criminal justice system. In the vast majority of cases, compliance should be achieved through engagement and support for businesses rather than recourse to criminal sanctions. However, it is essential that penalties are available in serious cases of non compliance.

The instrument also provides for the continued role of UK notified bodies in certifying machinery for the Northern Ireland market using the UKNI marking, a conformity marking that must be displayed alongside the CE marking when used for goods placed on the Northern Ireland market.

In Great Britain, the instrument continues CE recognition, allowing businesses to place on the GB market goods that meet certain updated EU requirements, avoiding costly duplicate conformity processes. It achieves that by amending legislation to ensure that machinery that meets the relevant requirements of the EU machinery regulation can still be placed on the GB market. The instrument also includes provisions relating to Northern Ireland qualifying goods, ensuring that products in free circulation in Northern Ireland continue to benefit from unfettered access to the GB market.

The EU’s machinery regulation aims to respond to new technological developments by introducing updated provisions that include clarified responsibilities across the supply chain, including clear importer and distributor obligations; provisions for digital documentation to reduce environmental impacts; and mandatory third party assessments for certain high risk products. The Government’s position is that those changes are beneficial, sensible and proportionate, and reflect how the machinery industry has developed since the previous regulations were introduced. As such, the Government will introduce a second SI in due course that will update legislation in Great Britain in line with requirements in Northern Ireland.

The approach we are taking will support economic growth by eliminating costly duplicative processes, reducing unnecessary burdens on businesses, and helping to maintain the UK’s competitiveness with other markets. It will also support commitments in our trade strategy to reset the UK’s relationship and facilitate easier trade with the EU. It will protect the UK internal market and the free flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while also improving trade with the EU and other partners.

My officials have carried out extensive stakeholder engagement regarding the future of machinery legislation in the UK. We ran a call for evidence last year and gathered verbal feedback through a series of roundtable events held across 10 locations and attended by more than 200 stakeholders. My officials engaged with businesses and trade associations across the UK and in key global markets. Stakeholders were supportive of modernising machinery safety requirements and continuing CE recognition, to reduce costs, support trade and maintain competitiveness.

We received several responses from businesses in Northern Ireland and held two roundtable events in Belfast. There was broad support among stakeholders for the measures being introduced, including those to modernise and strengthen safety requirements. Many Northern Ireland stakeholders also expressed support for continued CE recognition in Great Britain. They told us this would ensure a clear and consistent approach to machinery regulation across the whole of the UK internal market.

As the Committee is aware, we have already announced our approach in respect of introducing measures similar to those in place in the EU and Northern Ireland. Officials have also proactively engaged with the devolved Governments and enforcement authorities throughout the policy development and legislative process to discuss the upcoming changes and ensure they work for all parts of the UK. No significant issues have been raised with my officials, and we continue to engage regularly with stakeholders. It is clear from our engagement that this legislation is in the best interests of both industry and consumers across the UK, including in Northern Ireland.

The Government are taking proactive steps to ensure that industry is well supported in complying with the new requirements. The approach we are taking reflects the feedback we have received from stakeholders and is designed to work in the best interests of business as well as consumers. The changes have been widely viewed as a pragmatic solution to support competitiveness, particularly for small and medium sized enterprises and sectors with more limited resources. As machinery is a global sector, many businesses that manufacture and supply machinery have already begun preparing to meet the updated requirements to continue trading with Northern Ireland and the EU. Through our engagement with industry, officials have not identified significant adverse impacts arising from the instrument.

The Government remain fully committed to supporting businesses in Northern Ireland. In the most recent Budget, we announced a £16.6 million UK internal market package to help businesses to adapt to the evolving regulatory landscape. We will also provide clear and timely guidance to give businesses the support they need to comply with the requirements with confidence and certainty. I commend the draft instrument to the Committee.

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 United Kingdom. Northern Ireland will be subject to a new EU regulation, enforced through EU aligned structures, while Great Britain operates under a different framework. How does the Minister intend firms that trade across both markets, particularly small and medium sized businesses, to navigate that fragmentation?

Fourthly, the Government suggest that many businesses already align with EU standards. If that is the case, why has there been no full assessment of the administrative burden of operating dual systems?

More fundamentally, the regulations are politically and legally significant. They give practical effect, through enforcement, to legislation made outside the United Kingdom in a legislature in which the people of Northern Ireland are not represented. Whatever one’s views of the wider arrangements, that is not a trivial step and it deserves proper scrutiny.

Finally, the Government indicate that similar measures may in time be introduced in Great Britain. The Minister gave us a timetable, but can she clarify it so that businesses can understand the timetable they are working towards and whether the measures represent a long term policy of continued reliance on EU standards? The Committee should not be asked to proceed on the basis of incomplete analysis. I hope the Minister can provide clarity on costs, impacts and the Government’s longer term regulatory direction, because while we await clarity on those matters, we will oppose the regulations.

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 regulations are satisfactory for the whole of the United Kingdom or whether they increase the burden. I, too, was disappointed by the lack of any impact assessment in the explanatory memorandum to look into the wider domino effect on the whole of the United Kingdom. I would be grateful for the Minister’s view on that.

Thirdly, unless I have this wrong, it is implicit in the way the structure works that businesses in Northern Ireland will now have to comply with two labelling regimes. They will have the European CE labelling regime and a UKNI labelling regime. That is an added burden, particularly for smaller manufacturing businesses, yet we see no assessment of the impact in the explanatory memorandum. Has the Minister spoken to businesses about what dual labelling will represent? What inconvenience and cost will that put on small businesses?

Finally, as the Minister will know, the regulations include quite draconian penalties. What is the parliamentary accountability for the enforcement regime? We will be enforcing regulations that have been imposed on part of the United Kingdom without any democratic scrutiny. What will be the accountability mechanism for their operation and enforcement? I recognise that much of this comes out of the fact that we exited the European Union in a particular way, but it is, in microcosm, quite an interesting example of some of the conflicts that were highlighted to us during the Brexit process, which some of us attempted to solve.

My overall concern is that this change might be a crack in the door to required general UK alignment with EU regulations, which might not suit us overall and might put us at a disadvantage, not just for our internal market but for a wider market in the world more generally that looks to the British machinery manufacturing industry with some hope of buying quality goods.

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 GB supply chains.

Just a number of weeks ago, an article was written after the Balmoral show, the largest agricultural show in Northern Ireland, in which the company Grassmen highlighted just how disastrous the situation is, including the company’s problems bringing from GB to Northern Ireland a tractor that had been at another show. It is absolutely ludicrous and causes major problems for our businesses.

The new rules will cause more delay, more cost and more uncertainty. Competitiveness is being undermined and businesses are struggling to get the equipment they need. The issue is bigger than machinery: this is about sovereignty, democracy and economic common sense. Companies in Northern Ireland should be focused on growing their businesses, not fighting their way through an ever expanding maze of red tape.

A few points in the explanatory memorandum are quite telling, including paragraph 5.3, which says: “This SI applies to both workplace machinery and consumer products, including excavators, cranes, and leaf blowers.”

That lays bare the scope and extent of the SI, which will now impact not only workplace machinery but consumer products, even though we were always told that consumer products would be protected.

Paragraph 5.7 says: “The Government has also announced that similar measures to those taking effect in Northern Ireland will be introduced in Great Britain as soon as parliamentary time allows.”

When will that be? We have absolutely no idea. Meanwhile, the GB Northern Ireland mismatch will continue. Given that the Minister used the words “in due course”, there certainly does not seem to be any Government push to move on with the measures, which are not right in the first place. That shows the disdain for Northern Ireland and the impact of the regulations on us.

The last sentence of paragraph 5.9 of the explanatory memorandum says: “Under the Windsor Framework, the EU Regulation will apply directly to NI”, which again highlights that Northern Ireland is put at a disadvantage under the Windsor framework. The memorandum also talks about how the instrument will improve the “cliff edge” situation, but actually it only piles on more regulations, so it does not do what the Government claim. The SI is bad for business in Northern Ireland, so I ask the Government to engage with the businesses that are impacted by the situation, and to start to make the change that is needed by getting rid of the Windsor framework and putting Northern Ireland on a par with GB.

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 clear, are going down this route and implementing the legislation because: “Failure to do so would create regulatory uncertainty in NI and risk undermining the UK’s relationship with the EU.”

Once again, Northern Ireland appears to be being sacrificed on the altar of the great reset that the Government wish to have with the EU. They are saying, “Let’s not disturb them. Let’s not challenge them on any aspect of the Northern Ireland protocol or the Windsor framework. Even though there should apparently be a mechanism for raising concerns, let’s not raise them, because we might upset those relationships.”

Thirdly, the Minister has said that the regulations will not have any detrimental impact, yet the explanatory notes make it clear that no impact assessment has been done, because, as this comes under the Windsor framework and the protocol, doing so would be outside the scope of the Government. Even when we introduce regulations here, the arrangements we have with the EU mean that we cannot do an impact assessment. Such an assessment could have an impact in lots of different ways. For a start, we do not know the costs of the machinery safety regulations for businesses. All we are told is that, regardless of the costs, we now have a piece of legislation that indicates that we will enforce that legislation, and we will enforce it with very high penalties.

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 said it themselves. In order to produce their reset, they are going to bring in a statutory instrument to make the whole of the United Kingdom compliant with EU laws. Not satisfied with subjecting my part of the United Kingdom to a foreign jurisdiction making laws that we cannot change, they are now going to set the whole United Kingdom under identical laws made in a foreign place. I really do think it is time that we, as parliamentarians, woke up to what we are being asked to do.

I have one practical question for the Minister. Under the regulations, Northern Ireland’s goods will have to bear the European CE marking and the UKNI marking, and then they will be able to be sold into Great Britain. What about machinery made in Great Britain? How can it be sold into Northern Ireland? It will not bear the CE marking. Will it bear the UKNI marking? Have we created a situation in which we are going to cut the pipeline of supply from GB to Northern Ireland? I really would like the Minister to address this question: what is the effect of the regulations on the sale of machinery made in Great Britain to another part of the United Kingdom? I would like a very clear answer on that because, in significant measure, it goes to the heart of the matter. Please, Minister, answer that question.

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 new concept, but the continuation of current Government policy and the policy of prior Governments. The UK and the EU are strategic partners, and it is in our mutual interest to maintain trade flows and avoid trade friction, while responding to emerging technologies and maintaining a commitment to product safety and consumer protection. Mutual transparency and regular discussions are an indispensable part of that.

Informed by our engagement with industry, the Government have reviewed the changes introduced by the machinery regulation, and we believe that they are sensible and proportionate and will ensure that safer products are available to consumers and businesses alike. That is why we are continuing CE recognition and seeking to introduce similar measures in GB. As I have said before, we are prepared to align with EU regulation, but we will take a pragmatic, case by case approach, doing it where it clearly advances the national interests, supports long term growth, promotes consumer interests, attracts investment and supports jobs. Where that is not the case, we will take a different approach to deliver the best outcomes for businesses and consumers in the UK.

At the centre of any long term plans for the alignment between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we will maintain the integrity of the UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s rightful place within it. My officials engage with the Northern Ireland Government and enforcement authorities on a regular basis to discuss any issues or concerns they might have, and that close relationship will remain ongoing. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire mentioned Northern Ireland businesses and dual labelling, and I thank him for raising that. The answer is no: they can continue to CE mark only, and UKNI marking is optional if the conformity assessment is in the UK.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, and a number of Members on the Opposition Benches, mentioned the impact assessment for this SI. As she knows, a de minimis assessment has been prepared for the provisions of this instrument relating to continuing CE recognition in Great Britain. These measures are considered to have a low impact per business from their introduction, and that is additionally the case for the Northern Ireland aspects of this instrument. The measures resulting from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are out of scope of the assessment. The Windsor framework is already given effect in legislation through the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement Act) 2020, which adds provisions and powers to the 2018 Act.

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 legislation. She also referenced the £16.6 million of funding that I mentioned in my opening remarks. Funding was allocated in the Budget to deliver an enhanced “one stop shop” advice service for small businesses beyond what is available on gov.uk, along with the new funding for Intertrade UK, and that commitment will be delivered in the course of the next financial year. The project has moved into a phase of more active engagement, with robust interest from stakeholders. Formal co design workshops are ongoing to refine the service specification and ensure that the delivery model meets business needs.

I have briefly touched on the implementation of similar measures in Great Britain. My officials have already begun actively developing a further SI to modernise GB machinery regulation, which will ensure that the UK framework remains proportionate and aligned with the technological developments raised numerous times throughout this debate. Announcements about implementing similar measures have already been made, to provide businesses with the certainty that the shadow Minister also asked about.

The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire referenced enforcement and parliamentary scrutiny. The day to day enforcement of product safety legislation is largely local. For machinery in Northern Ireland, it would generally be undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland or by district councils, for workplace and consumer products respectively. However, the Secretary of State has enforcement powers under legislation, as the Office for Product Safety and Standards has an active enforcement role on behalf of the Secretary of State, particularly where issues are nationally significant, complex, novel, high risk or large scale. For example, the OPSS can intervene where a product risk affects consumers nationally or where co ordinated enforcement action is needed across multiple agencies. I hope the right hon. Gentleman understands that enforcement will remain as it is under the current regime and that nothing will change; I hope that reassures him and answers his question.

When it comes to parliamentary scrutiny of CE recognition under the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025, we have consulted with stakeholders, and Northern Ireland provisions are done as part of the Windsor framework, which I touched on right at the start of my remarks. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the parliamentary process uses the affirmative procedure.

To conclude, we are using the PRAM Act powers, as I have mentioned, for CE recognition, which requires consultation with stakeholders. UKNI marking will only be used by a UK notified body; otherwise, it will be a CE mark only. We have heard that from businesses in Northern Ireland through that stakeholder engagement, and that is what they have told us.

As explained previously, this draft instrument ensures the effective enforcement of the EU machinery regulation in Northern Ireland. It maintains access to the GB market for compliant products and supports high safety standards while minimising unnecessary burdens on business. This draft instrument also ensures our compliance with international law in relation to Northern Ireland’s continuing dual access. I am pleased to commend this draft instrument to the Committee.

Will the Minister address my question about what impact, if any, there is on GB Northern Ireland sales?

I am terribly sorry, but the Minister had already sat down.

Question put.

1|0|11|4|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly agreed to.||0|0

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.