Before we start, ladies and gentlemen may remove their jackets in this heat.

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026.

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. The draft order and the draft code of practice were laid before the House on 22 June 2026. The statutory instrument and the guidance that we are debating relate to statutory trade union ballots under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The instrument also corrects a minor error in unfair dismissal legislation in section 105 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to reflect changes made under the Employment Rights Act 2025.

At present, the law requires almost all statutory trade union ballots to be conducted solely by post. That approach has not kept pace with the way in which people live, work and participate in democratic processes. It makes holding a ballot unduly expensive and time-consuming, and it can act as an unnecessary barrier to democratic participation in a union. The statutory instrument addresses that directly. It will bring trade union balloting into line with modern secure voting practices that are already widely used in other contexts, including by political parties and listed companies. In so doing, it will deliver on a Government manifesto commitment to supporting greater participation in the democratic processes that shape working life.

The practical changes we are making are long overdue. They are about enabling trade union members to take part in union decisions in more accessible and convenient ways, while maintaining the high standards of fairness, secrecy and security that are set out in existing legislation. The statutory instrument will introduce three additional methods of voting, alongside post.

First, electronic voting will allow members to cast their votes online, using secure access credentials. That will be permitted only where a union member has provided a personal email or telephone number to their union.

Secondly, hybrid voting—in which members receive voting materials by post, but may choose to return their vote either by post or electronically—will enable workers to choose how they cast their vote, without requiring any voter to use online options if they would prefer not to.

Thirdly, in workplace voting, which is for industrial action ballots only, voting can take place in person, under the supervision of an independent scrutineer, at an appropriately secured location in the workplace. Importantly, the statutory instrument will expand the range of voting methods that can be used, but postal voting will remain an option for unions to use.

The Government are committed to bringing forward electronic and workplace balloting quickly, securely and in a way that works properly in practice. That is why we are taking a phased approach to delivery. In phase 1, the new methods will be made available across all statutory trade union ballots, with the exception of statutory recognition and derecognition ballots. In phase 2, we will extend the electronic and hybrid voting options in 2027 to recognition and derecognition ballots.

Alongside that, we will continue to work closely with key stakeholders to support implementation and oversee how those voting methods are operating in practice. As part of that, in the coming months we intend to launch a senior oversight board comprised of unions, businesses, scrutineers and cyber-security experts, who will share feedback on the operation of electronic balloting. By allowing those additional methods, unions will be able to reach their members in ways that are more convenient and inclusive for those members to participate, including members who may benefit from greater flexibility and accessibility in how they engage with ballots and their union democracy.

Alongside the draft order, we have laid a draft statutory code of practice on electronic and workplace ballots. The code will provide detailed, practical guidance on how electronic and workplace balloting should be conducted in practice, ensuring that those methods are used in a way that is secure, fair and accessible. The code will give clarity to unions, independent scrutineers and employers, and will support a consistent approach across ballots.

I turn now to the question of security and safeguards, which will be of interest to the Committee, to provide reassurance to Members that the security of the ballot process sits at the heart of this legislation. Modernisation must go hand in hand with maintaining confidence. That is why strong safeguards underpin our approach and are built into each of the balloting methods that we are providing for. Section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004—the enabling power under which we are making the changes—already sets clear standards. Any permitted method of voting must enable a ballot to meet those standards—namely, that those entitled to vote have the opportunity to do so, that votes are cast in secret, and that the risk of unfairness or malpractice is minimised.

The draft order and the draft code also set out detailed requirements covering the operation of electronic and workplace balloting. Those include independent oversight by scrutineers, clear requirements on ballot security, and measures to ensure the reliability and integrity of the voting systems used. For electronic and hybrid balloting, that includes requirements relating to the protection of voter information, the security of voting systems and detailed audit and monitoring arrangements, alongside mandatory independent cyber-security certification that must be held by scrutineers before they can provide those methods.

Similarly, clear requirements are built into the workplace option. Workplace voting is designed to operate in a limited and controlled way. It will be available only for industrial action ballots, reflecting the fact that those relate to workplace matters rather than to internal union processes. Workplace voting can be used only if the union and the employer agree and set out the terms of the voting in advance of any ballot. Where it is used, it must be independently supervised and conducted in line with detailed requirements, to ensure that the process remains secure and free of interference.

The statutory instrument is essential to bringing trade union ballots into the 21st century, and will ensure that workers are provided with accessible and straightforward processes to participate in the democracy of their union. It will remove the costly and bureaucratic requirement that forces all ballots to be held by post, thereby allowing the way in which unions ballot finally to reflect the technological progress of modern life, while holding firmly to the core principles of fairness, accessibility and security that have always underpinned them. This reform is measured, proportionate and long overdue.

This legislation sets out clear safeguards and technical standards to ensure the integrity and confidence of the ballot process, while making it meaningfully easier and more convenient for working people to take part in the decisions that affect them. I therefore commend the statutory instrument and the accompanying draft code of practice to the Committee. I trust that Members will support them.

It is a great pleasure to serve on this Committee and, as always, to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I thank her for the explanation that she offered of the Government’s intentions with the draft order.

It is important to make it clear from the outset that secondary legislation is always a balancing act. In this case, the balance is between modernising participation and trade union democracy, and ensuring that the safeguards protecting the integrity, security and fairness of statutory ballots keep pace with the methods used to conduct them. Those aims are not mutually exclusive, and it is our job to ensure that we get them right. To that end—this will be no surprise—I have a set of questions for the Minister, and I hope that she will be able to provide some answers.

First, parts 1 and 2 of the draft order will, for the first time, permit electronic, hybrid and workplace voting for statutory trade union ballots, as the Minister said. Paragraph 5.14 of the Minister’s explanatory memorandum explains the Government’s reasoning against the pilot for electronic balloting, but I could not see any equivalent justification for workplace balloting, which, as the impact assessment contained in the memorandum confirms, has not been costed. Will the Minister explain why workplace voting, an entirely new voting method, will be introduced by the draft order without a pilot or costed evidence?

Secondly, the Government confirm on page 2 that the trade union itself will be the responsible person determining which voting method or methods are used for its own statutory ballots. Will the Minister explain why the trade union has been designated the responsible person for its own ballots, rather than, for example, an independent scrutineer? How does she seek, under the proposed set-up, to avoid a conflict between the union’s interest in the ballot outcome and its judgment on the practicality and security of the method used?

Thirdly, paragraph 9.9 of the explanatory memorandum refers to a requirement for scrutineers’ electronic systems to be independently audited and certified. Will the Minister clarify which body is responsible for enforcing that standard and what happens if a system is found to be compromised or fails that certification process? Paragraph 9.2 gives an estimated annual savings range from

“£2.0 million to £8.2 million, depending on the level of take-up”,

which is confirmed in paragraph 9.3 as unknown. Why such a massive range from £2 million to £8 million, and why is there not a clearer estimate of the likely take-up of the new methods? As I said, the Government have said in their documentation that it is unknown. Paragraph 10.3 confirms that

“A statutory review clause is included in the instrument.”

When will that review take place, and what criteria will be used to judge whether the new voting methods have operated safely and fairly?

Finally, law firm Morgan Lewis has warned that this statutory instrument

“may reduce the scope for successful challenges based solely on procedural irregularities.”

What is the Minister’s reaction to that statement? Do the Government accept that the measures will narrow employers’ practical routes to challenge a ballot’s validity?

Overall, the draft order forms part of the wider Employment Rights Act 2025, which, as we in the official Opposition have consistently said, has damaged jobs and opportunity across our country. My party’s long-standing and long-held policy is therefore to oppose any parts of the legislation that we believe hand unions sweeping powers. As I have highlighted, real questions remain about the process used to bring this statutory instrument forward. For those clear reasons, we will vote against the measures.

I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks and questions.

The draft order addresses a simple issue: the current requirement to conduct statutory trade union ballots solely by post has not kept pace with how people engage today, and balloting has become an overly burdensome and expensive process. That is why the range of options I outlined—online, hybrid and workplace balloting—which the shadow Minister alluded to, are necessary. The requirement to conduct ballots by post was born out of the legitimate need to guarantee secrecy and protection from union, third-party or employer interference, but those principles will not be reduced by this statutory instrument; they will, in fact, be improved upon in many cases.

On the shadow Minister’s point about the chosen methods, electronic balloting has been a well-established option for businesses and political parties—including his own party—for many years. The Government will deliver modern and secure electronic workplace balloting, as we made clear in our manifesto and our wider Make Work Pay agenda. We are pleased to have progressed in that work and to have laid this legislation—it is a shame that the Opposition cannot support it. We have engaged with stakeholders, worked with experts and consulted on the draft code of practice to develop our approach to delivering the balloting methods for statutory union ballots. We are confident that our approach reduces bureaucracy and enables the increased participation of union members, while ensuring high security standards.

The shadow Minister reflected more widely on the varied options in the legislation and asked in particular about the review. We will, of course, keep him updated as we proceed with the wider scrutiny board and as the legislation comes into force. That is important, because we want to ensure that every measure in our Make Work Pay initiative and in the Employment Rights Act works in practice in workplaces across the country, particularly for trade unions.

That leads me to the shadow Minister’s second point, on the responsible person and the independent scrutineer. As he said, the responsible person will decide which voting method, or combination of methods, will be used to conduct a statutory ballot. When determining the method or combination of methods to be used for a ballot, the responsible person must apply the criteria and consider the factors specified in the legislation and the code of practice. Of course, if the union is acting on that ballot, it is best placed to decide what the combination of methods must be. That is why the responsible person is the trade union calling the ballot.

We are making the necessary legislation under section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. Under that section, a new method may be permitted only if the Secretary of State considers that a ballot conducted by that method could meet the required standard. A method meets that standard

“if it is such that…those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so…votes cast are secret…the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.”

The Minister has sought to address my question about the responsible person, but can she see the logic that I am trying to deploy? Why can a trade union be designated a responsible person, but an independent scrutineer cannot? Does she see how that opens up questions about the independence of the process, and did she think consider an independent scrutineer to avoid that criticism?

I was just getting to the powers that we are using for the statutory instrument. Trade unions will be required to be the responsible person because they are best placed to consider the factors and criteria before choosing the ballot method.

We have gone through the range of options that will be available. As I mentioned, the choice must include postal voting, even though that is not a new method. As I have mentioned, we have included in the legislation a presumption to reduce the factors and criteria to be considered for postal voting, to reflect the fact that it is a long-established method with which members will already be familiar and that trade unions know how best to approach it.

However, the responsible person must not be aware of

“any reason why it would not be possible to satisfy the requirements of the relevant legislation which relate to the means of voting which are to be used in the ballot or election.”

That has been made clear to trade unions, which will have been designated the responsible person, alongside the range of other options that they must consider. That communicates clearly to trade unions their roles and responsibilities as the responsible person. As the shadow Minister knows, the responsibilities of independent scrutineers will continue in their role under the legislation.

Independent scrutineers, which the shadow Minister asked about, are either named in or meet the requirements of the Trade Union Ballots and Elections (Independent Scrutineer Qualifications) Order 1993, which sets out clear requirements on who can be a scrutineer. The organisations named in that order have been independently conducting statutory ballots for many years, and we are confident in their independence. In the coming months, we will progress work on updating that order to expand the list of named permitted scrutineers. If he is interested, we will be happy to keep him updated on that particular work strand.

The shadow Minister asked about the impact assessment of the introduction of electronic balloting. The primary impacts include up to £70 million of net present social value. The introduction of new balloting methods for statutory trade union ballots simply brings them in line with modern voting practices used regularly by many other organisations, including political parties and private companies, as I said. Requiring them to pilot those balloting methods would unnecessarily restrict their ability to effectively engage with their members and ensure that their views are properly reflected.

We have no reliable evidence suggesting that electronic balloting will increase the frequency of participation. That is why a review will be important to our understanding of how the range of available balloting methods work out in different workplaces and trade unions. The range in savings estimates varies as it will depends on the uptake of the different balloting methods. As electronic ballots will require the use of personal email addresses or mobile numbers, unions will need to gather that information from their members before they commence.

The draft order details operational, audit and reporting requirements on electronic voting methods well beyond those required for postal voting, to ensure the security of the ballot and retain the confidence of the public in electronic voting. We have developed those clear, secure and proportionate approaches to enable statutory ballots to be conducted via means other than post. The draft order has been carefully considered, through engagement with stakeholders, to ensure that their legitimate concerns about security and interference are managed while ensuring that accessibility, democracy and ease of use remain central to the balloting process. The draft order requires stringent processes to be followed for the conduct of electronic balloting, to ensure that the integrity of the ballot remains unquestionable.

As I have mentioned, this change is long overdue. I am pleased we are the Government to finally introduce legislation to modernise these processes. I believe I have answered all the questions, and I look forward to the Committee’s support for the draft order and the associated draft code of practice.

Question put.

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

It is great to see a fellow Edinburgher in the Chair, Ms Jardine. [Interruption.] I will not divide the Committee on the pronunciation of “Jardine”.

The draft regulations are required in order to amend the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations 2023 by updating the international mobile roaming wholesale rates that they set. Wholesale rates are those that mobile operators charge other mobile operators, as opposed to retail customers. The amendments will give effect in domestic law to a November 2025 decision of the EEA EFTA-UK free trade agreement joint committee, the governing body of the agreement, on which each party has a seat. I note, however, that one EEA EFTA member, Liechtenstein, has opted out of the international mobile roaming provisions in the free trade agreement.

The amendments to the international mobile roaming wholesale rates are being made to ensure that they continue to reflect current international benchmarks, which reflect market conditions. This is consistent with and necessary under the terms of the free trade agreement.

Let me provide some background for the Committee. In 2021, the UK and the EEA EFTA signed a free trade agreement. Its core terms included provisions on industrial goods, digital trade, services and investment and, of course, fisheries and agriculture. Under digital trade, in a telecoms chapter, it contained provisions on international mobile roaming. These provisions set a wholesale cap, which limits what mobile operators can charge each other. In 2023, the UK introduced the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations to implement these provisions in UK legislation. The draft regulations will amend those regulations.

As per the free trade agreement, the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations covered wholesale charges only. The free trade agreement contains a review clause, under which the wholesale rates should be reviewed by all affected parties every two years

“with a view to determining whether those rates are still appropriate”.

The UK is one of the affected parties, along with Norway and Iceland.

The rate set under the agreement has now diverged from the “relevant international benchmarks” that the agreement states should be considered. The benchmark relevant to EEA EFTA-UK is the European Union-set international mobile roaming wholesale rate, called the Euro rate. EEA EFTA adheres to the Euro rate as part of its access to the EU single market. The UK adhered to the Euro rate until 2021, with the end of the Brexit transition period at the end of 2020. The EU benchmark is based on the principle that the wholesale cap must be high enough to allow operators fully to recover reasonably incurred costs involved in building, maintaining and operating their networks. This principle, based on market conditions, is supported by the United Kingdom.

In 2025, Norway, supported by Iceland, requested a move to reflect the Euro rate. The reason was that the wholesale cap in the UK-EEA EFTA agreement should reflect international benchmarks and current market conditions. Ministers agreed to proceed with legislation for these new rates to demonstrate the UK’s willingness to align with the provisions of the free trade agreement. In November 2025, the governing body of the agreement, the UK-EEA EFTA joint committee, made Decision No. 1/2025, which agreed that the wholesale rates should be changed. The draft regulations will amend the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations 2023 to give effect in domestic law to the commitments that the UK has made to the joint committee.

I should start asking questions, to see whether people are still keeping up with all this. I think I am.

The draft regulations are strictly about amending the wholesale rate set out in the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations. It is a very technical amendment. However, I believe that it would be helpful to conclude by setting the context for the wholesale cap in the free trade agreement.

What reassurance do we have that these savings will be passed on to customers, rather than just going towards the companies’ bottom line?

That is an incredibly good question. That is why we are making the draft regulations, because the wholesale rates, or the Euro rates, are much lower than the rates currently in operation. For example, a voice call, which is €0.032, will go down to €0.019; an SMS, which is €0.01, will go down to €0.003; and data, which is €2.50 per gigabyte, will go down to €1.30 per gigabyte. The Euro rate is €1 per gigabyte. One would hope that if wholesale prices are being lowered, the savings will be passed on to consumers, as I am sure the Committee agrees they should be. Although the hon. Gentleman’s question was not strictly about the draft regulations, it was a great question to which I am delighted to have the answer.

The Minister talks about the price reductions for the three countries. By my maths, that is a 70% reduction in the price of sending SMS texts, which is incredibly welcome, although I am not sure who sends those any more. Is he working on similar agreements with other countries not covered by the changes that we are making today?

That is a good question. Actually, yes. This is purely about the EEA EFTA-UK agreement countries, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, although Liechtenstein is outside it at the moment because of its relationship with the European Union. On the prices, we are looking to align with the Euro rate, which the European Union uses, so the answer to my hon. Friend’s question, by default of the technicalities of the measure, is yes.

I can confirm that surcharge-free roaming has not been delivered for all UK travellers to Norway and Iceland. Mobile network operators EE and Three continue to surcharge their customers roaming in Norway and Iceland, so they should be passing that on. It is welcome that Vodafone removed the surcharges as a result of the change, and VMO2 did not reintroduce roaming charges to the EU and EEA EFTA post Brexit—post the transition period, in any case.

The Government have continued to review options for delivering surcharge-free roaming for UK travellers to Norway and Iceland, in line with the aspirations of the free trade agreement. I fully agree with hon. Members that if there are wholesale rate savings, companies that have not yet taken off surcharging for Norway and Iceland should do so. I stress that the draft regulations are strictly about amending the wholesale rates contained in the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations and fulfilling the commitments that the UK made under the international treaty. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I have three questions about this statutory instrument. The first is a request for clarity from the Minister, because I was a bit confused by some of his comments about the caps that are being updated by this SI. On my reading of the explanatory memorandum, the reciprocal arrangements with caps of EEA operators in Norway were already below the proposed caps, in fact quite substantially so: about 50% on voice, between 33% and 66% on SMS, and between 50% on data. That demonstrates to me the success of the free market.

The impact assessment says very clearly that the impact of this SI is zero, given that the market has already found a solution. Will the Minister clarify that a bit further in case I have read that wrong? Will he celebrate the impact of the free market? Will he also update the House on the work that is being done to reduce barriers to other roaming charges, particularly in jurisdictions such as Canada, the US and Mexico, which are of particular interest to many of our citizens at this moment in time?

I see that the agreement was made in November 2025. Why has it taken seven months to bring this SI to us? Is that indicative of the performance of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology in turning around SIs? Finally, given that the impact assessment says that this SI has no impact, can the Minister tell us the cost of drawing it up and putting it in front of us today?

The shadow Minister is correct that we should be doing things at a greater pace, but I disagree with him about the value of the wholesale rates. The voice call rate is already higher. As I said to the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill, it is going from €0.032 to €0.019, and SMS is going from €0.01 to €0.003. That is a reduction. Data is going from €2.50 to €1.30 per gigabyte, and then €1 on the Euro rate. That is about formalising in the SI what was in the EEA EFTA agreement to reflect the wholesale prices at these international benchmarks. The international benchmark used by EFTA in this agreement is the Euro rate, which is the rate that will come into effect for the wholesale charges. I hope that that answers the shadow Minister’s question.

The reason that there is no impact on consumers is that this measure does not directly affect consumers at this moment in time. As I say, some mobile operators have already reduced their surcharges regardless. In fact, VMO2 did not reintroduce any roaming surcharges at all to EEA EFTA countries post the Brexit transition period. Operators EE and Three continue to surcharge their customers roaming in Norway and Iceland, and Vodafone removed its surcharges as a result of the agreement, so this instrument will have no impact on consumer prices, because it is a wholesale issue, not a consumer issue.

On the time and the cost that it has taken to get here, I may have to come back to the shadow Minister. The cost of bringing this SI to the House is the cost of doing parliamentary democracy. It is a price worth paying for the hon. Gentleman to have his voice heard.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. The Liberal Democrats support this SI. This is about working with EEA and EFTA, and it is a reminder of the benefits to consumers when we work together with our European partners, whether that is working on our phone bills or on defence. Does the Minister agree, in relation to the Liberal Democrats’ proposals for a new growth and defence partnership with the EU, looking at the single market and a new customs union, that this is a strong reminder that working together would make us richer, safer and stronger?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I was recently in Iceland and have just been reviewing the text messages I received there. I am a customer of EE, which the Minister mentioned; I was told that I could enjoy up to 14 gigabytes of data abroad this month, in line with its fair usage policy. I take the Minister’s point that this is about wholesale charges, but as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made clear, the consumer experience is already ahead of the wholesale cost in many ways. Although this change is incredibly welcome, I do not think that it will necessarily have a transformative effect on consumers, who have already experienced many of the benefits that the Minister talked about.

I wonder whether this SI is indicative of a broader ambition to do more on roaming charges, and not just with EEA EFTA countries. I would like to hear a little more, if possible, about the Liechtenstein challenge, and about whether this approach may represent a model for wider expansion across the European Union.

Let me start by answering the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. It will depend on which package he is on, of course. I have a worldwide roaming package, which means that I take my package with me wherever I go, but that is the package that I purchased; it is not necessarily open to everyone who has a mobile phone.

On the challenge with Canada, Mexico and the US, there will be many fans over there at the moment—maybe not many Scotland fans, but a lot of England fans. Some will be racking up huge bills, while some will not; it will depend on which package they are on. That is why I am very clear that this is about wholesale prices and implementing the provisions in the agreement, not about the charges to the consumer. That explains my answer to the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill about the consequences and whether we should be passing the savings on. The answer to that is, of course, yes, but they do not need to be passed on to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, because he has a package already and is paying in other ways to cover these kinds of issue.

I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, that this Government’s manifesto was perfectly clear about what we want to achieve with the EU. The current Prime Minister has been very clear about resetting the relationship with the European Union. The EU-UK summit agreement from last May is coming into effect; that is deepening our relationship in a whole host of ways, from defence to trade in goods, digital and things like EU touring, which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport looks after closely. That will be renewed every year; there is a summit every year now, deepening that relationship even further.

The direction of travel from this Government is very clearly to get closer to our allies in the European Union. The Prime Minister has led the charge on defence spending through NATO and with our European partners, and that has been recognised, particularly by the NATO Secretary-General. There is no doubt at all that we are deepening that relationship, because it is right for our economy, it is right for our people and it is right for issues like this.

Question put and agreed to.

Given the heatwave that we are experiencing, I am happy to give blanket dispensation on the jacket rule, so Members can take them off if they so wish.

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. The order was laid before the House on 4 June. It will establish a centrally led urban development corporation in greater Cambridge, pursuant to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which provides that the Secretary of State may designate an urban development area only when they are of the opinion that it is expedient and in the national interest, and following a public consultation.

As the Committee will be aware, the economic growth of Cambridge over recent years has been a phenomenal success. It now has arguably the most intensive and innovative science and technology cluster in the world, with more than 5,000 knowledge-intensive firms based in and around the city, employing tens of thousands of skilled workers and generating in excess of £18 billion in annual turnover. However, the supply-side constraints that are evident across the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, from infrastructure deficiencies to housing affordability, are particularly acute in greater Cambridge. Its continued position as a world-leading centre of innovation, its ability to make an even greater contribution to the UK economy, and the quality of life experienced by its existing residents are all dependent on removing those constraints.

Local institutions and leaders have worked hard to support the rapid growth of greater Cambridge over recent years. Over the past two years, the Government have intervened alongside local authorities and the greater Cambridge shared planning service to address pressing constraints such as water scarcity. Such action has helped to unlock more than 9,000 homes, 500,000 square feet of commercial space, and a new cancer research hospital.

It is widely accepted, however, that delivering development at the scale and pace necessary to realise the full potential of greater Cambridge is beyond the capacity and powers of existing institutions. It was for that reason that, between 4 February and 1 April this year, we consulted on proposals to establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation—a centrally led urban development corporation with the legislative powers, focus and resources to unlock the area’s full potential. I once again thank all the organisations and individuals who took the time to engage with the process.

The prevailing theme among responses was that infrastructure delivery in greater Cambridge has been slow and piecemeal, or has failed to keep pace with historical population and employment growth, and that that was having a detrimental impact on residents’ quality of life, constraining the region’s ability to scale its globally significant innovation economy, and reducing business and investor confidence. Individuals and organisations widely reported that greater Cambridge has lacked a strategic, co-ordinated and long-term approach to the rapid delivery of primary infrastructure. Complex governance, fragmented decision making and uncertain long-term funding were identified as obstacles to delivering at the scale and pace required.

While fully acknowledging the strong local efforts that have been made and the excellent performance of the greater Cambridge shared planning service, the consultation confirmed the Government’s belief that the scale and complexity of the development challenges faced by greater Cambridge required a bold and long-term approach, and a genuine step change in how infrastructure is planned, co-ordinated and delivered; and that the establishment of a centrally led development corporation, combining responsiveness to local priorities with national leadership and influence, would be the most effective way to unlock nationally significant growth at the pace and scale required.

The development corporation established by the order will unleash ambitious and high-quality sustainable growth in greater Cambridge to the benefit of its existing communities and the country as a whole. Once established, the corporation’s boundary will align with the current combined administrative areas of Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council. This broad development area will underpin the corporation’s ability to deliver its objectives and make effective use of its powers, enabling the scale of growth necessary to deliver on both local and national interests.

The Minister is always very generous with his time. He has just explained the boundaries of the development corporation. Cambridge is going through local government reorganisation. How will that affect the order and the boundaries that he has just described?

That is a very good question. In short, although I am more than happy to expand on this response, the development corporation’s boundary does not pre-empt or prejudice the outcome of the recent consultation on local government reorganisation. The Government would, of course, consider, through due process, any changes to the development area that are deemed necessary as a result of any local government reorganisation but, as I say, that does not pre-empt or prejudice what we are taking through by dint of this order.

The Government have worked hard to sustain a constructive relationship with local leaders and key partners. We want the development corporation to be a joint national and local endeavour that combines local insight and input from local democratically elected representatives with national leadership powers and investment. As such, the democratically elected leaders of Cambridge city council, South Cambridgeshire district council and Cambridgeshire county council, as well as the democratically elected Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, will be invited to join the board. The Government also recognise that input from residents and communities will be integral to the success of the development corporation. That is why it will be asked to create exemplary engagement structures to enable broader community participation, including from residents, community representatives, and town and parish councillors.

The order will establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation as an independent corporate entity, allowing it to be granted infrastructure, financial and land assembly powers in due course. The powers and functions order, which my officials are preparing for consideration later this year, will equip the development corporation with planning powers, including the ability to determine planning applications above a minimum threshold of 250 homes, and non-residential applications above 5,000 square metres. Our intention is that the development corporation will eventually take on plan-making powers. However, we believe the optimal way to kick-start growth in the plan-led system is to take a phased approach. As such, the development corporation will exercise plan-making powers only once the draft local plan has been adopted. The Government are clear that adoption of the draft local plan should not limit or delay future ambition for growth and, subject to its adoption, successor plans will be expected to build positively on the draft local plan’s foundations to support continued growth.

The development corporation will also be granted development management powers for strategic sites within its boundary. Only applications for sites of strategic importance will be determined by the development corporation. The vast majority of planning applications will continue to be determined by the greater Cambridge shared planning service. The Government recognise and accept that almost all strategic residential developments will be of over 1,000 houses, flats, or houses and flats. However, to account for the possibility of residential development prejudicing the delivery of sites of strategic importance, residential thresholds will be set at a minimum of 250 houses, flats, or houses and flats. Any application that is determined by the development corporation will still be considered against national and local policy, and subject to public consultation as normal. That combination of powers will provide the development corporation with the tools, certainty and investment needed for sustainable infrastructure-first growth. The model will form an exemplar for integrated powers and funding, and set the standard for housing development elsewhere in the country.

The order will establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation as an entity accountable to the Secretary of State and set out the geographical boundary in which it may operate. The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation will focus on the delivery of strategic, nationally significant growth within its boundary. It will work collaboratively with local authorities both within and bordering its development area, as well as with transport bodies and utility providers, to unlock development opportunities and boost economic growth.

I extend my sincere thanks to local leaders and their officers in greater Cambridge for their hard work and ongoing constructive collaboration in pursuit of our shared objective of supporting ambitious and high-quality sustainable growth in Cambridge and its environs. I also thank Peter Freeman for his continued leadership of the Cambridge Growth Company and commend the CGC for everything it has done to date to help to facilitate the delivery of new homes, infrastructure, and commercial and laboratory space. I hope that hon. Members agree on the value of establishing the development corporation. I commend the order to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am sure that Members will be pleased to know that, because the Opposition agree with the principle underlying the statutory instrument, we will not seek to divide the Committee.

The Minister has brought his usual clarity to introducing the order. Although I am sure that there are many questions that could be hotly debated, because there is always discussion about whether measures have the correct boundaries and powers, I would simply like to ask him a few questions that my colleagues have raised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne touched on the impact of local government reorganisation on the proposed development corporation. One issue is that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 envisages that new mayors will take on many of these development powers. Given that a decision on local government reorganisation structures in greater Cambridge and many other areas is likely to be imminent, what thinking has there been about how the powers of the corporation will be transferred to the new mayoral or combined authority once it comes into being, if at all? The Minister might have already decided that that is not going to happen, but it would be helpful if he clarified how that will work.

As the instrument establishes a new development corporation that transfers planning powers that currently sit with two district-level authorities, how does that sit alongside the amended planning regulations that the Minister set out to a Delegated Legislation Committee last week, and on which a deferred Division took place earlier today? In particular, what impact will the changed numbers and the changed responsibility for members have, given that the instrument will aggregate planning responsibilities that are covered by legislation on political balance in each of the constituent authorities? How will that democratic capacity be carried through so that the new authority reflects that legislative requirement?

How will the new planning authority that the instrument brings into being handle accumulated section 106 balances? As greater Cambridge is a very economically vibrant part of the world, a significant number of housing, economic development and transport projects are already in train. Many of those involve existing legal agreements that determine if a section 106 or community infrastructure levy contribution will be paid. Some of that will be paid at commencement, and some at milestones during those projects. Given that there will be residents’ expectations about what those contributions will fund, how will the process operate?

Excellent as he is, the Minister is not the Minister responsible for local government reorganisation. A brief glance at the map reminds us that greater Cambridge sits at the boundary with numerous authorities, including Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Essex and Suffolk, that either envisage or have recently gone through a process of local government reorganisation. A good many politicians, including some involved in that, hold the view that the boundaries of the zone will need to be larger if the process is to achieve its potential, particularly given the zone’s location in the Oxford-Cambridge arc. Will the Minister set out his thinking on the future of the zone? How can we provide a sense of certainty to those who have that concern, and to investors who may be wondering about the contribution to the development of new transport links that would attract their business to invest in this location? What is the timeline for that?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I would like to be clear at the outset that the diagnosis behind the idea of the corporation is one that I and many in the area broadly share. Cambridge’s growth is constrained by water supply, wastewater capacity, and transport and energy infrastructure. They are real problems with real consequences, and not just for the current residents that I and others in the area represent, but for future residents. Nobody disputes that.

However, the Lib Dems cannot support establishing a corporation whose purpose remains undefined at the point at which we are being asked to approve it. This order does one thing: it creates the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation in name. The powers and functions order, which will determine what it actually does, including any planning powers, comes later in the autumn. We are being asked to vote on an institution before we know what it will be for. That is not just a procedural quibble; it goes to the heart of whether development corporations actually work.

The historical cases that genuinely justify optimism—London Docklands and the Olympic Delivery Authority are really good examples of development corporations working—succeeded because they had a clearly defined task, a timeline and a funding commitment to match that ambition. That clarity is what gave them the authority and legitimacy that made the democratic trade-off arguable, at the very least, and worthwhile for those who agreed.

When I asked the Minister recently at departmental questions what infrastructure the corporation would have responsibility for delivering, and by when, he replied that further details would be set out in due course. I do not highlight that as a criticism of him; he has been very constructive in his engagement with my area, and I really appreciate that. In fact, I think one of his first acts as a Minister was to give me a call on the Sunday night after the election to tell me about an intervention in Northstowe in my constituency. However, his answer to my question was telling. We are establishing what will be the largest urban development corporation of its type, covering an area almost double that of all 17 previous urban development corporations combined, and the specific infrastructure it will deliver has not yet even been outlined, never mind detailed.

The powers and functions order will also bring forward planning powers for which I find it difficult to see the justification. In the medium term, the corporation is expected to take over determination of planning applications above 250 dwellings, as the Minister said, and in time it will replace the local plan process entirely. I heard what the Minister had to say, but I would argue that 250 dwellings is not a strategic site; it is a medium-sized development. The greater Cambridge area already has planning permission for 37,000 homes that have not yet been built. The evidence is clear that planning is not the barrier at that level. Water, sewerage and transport—those are the barriers, and none of them is fixed by changing who determines a 250-home planning application.

I am also concerned about the boundary. We have had some discussion about that already. Lord Lansley has tabled a regret motion in the Lords specifically on this point, arguing that the geographic scope should correspond to the functional economic geography of the Cambridge economy and that any planning powers should be focused on very large new sites rather than applications on the 250 scale. I share both his concerns. The functional economic geography of Cambridge extends well beyond Cambridge city and South Cambridgeshire district, as the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough independent economic review established back in 2018. The boundary drawn here does not follow the task; it follows two administrative areas.

If the Government intend to proceed with planning powers in the autumn, as I am sure they do, will the Minister make four specific commitments? First, will he publish a clear, evidenced rationale for why removing local plan-making powers is necessary—something that I do not think has yet been provided? Secondly—I think he said this in his opening remarks, so this is more for clarification—will he commit that those powers will not be transferred until the existing draft greater Cambridge local plan has been adopted? That work has been years in development and is already at an advanced stage. Thirdly, will he guarantee that any decision to activate those powers will be accompanied by published reasons and an opportunity for further representations before it takes effect? Fourthly, can he confirm that the powers and functions order will be subject to the same affirmative procedure as the order we are considering today, giving Parliament a proper opportunity to scrutinise the planning powers before they come into force, rather than having them take effect without oversight?

I will be voting against the order today, not because I oppose growth in Cambridge or the principle of strategic intervention where it is justified—I hope the Minister appreciates that I try to engage constructively with him on growth and infrastructure in my constituency; there are lots of brilliant opportunities there and it is a great part of the country to grow—but because establishing a body of this scale and duration, at 25 years, with this level of democratic cost before the purpose has been defined is the wrong way to proceed. I hope that at the very least the Government come back with a powers and functions order that sets out what the corporation will actually build, where and by when, and a clear, evidenced rationale for why planning powers are necessary to deliver it.

That was a long list of perfectly reasonable and fair questions, which I will seek to answer in turn. If I miss any, hon. Members are more than welcome to intervene on me.

I will begin with the questions from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. The order establishes, as a corporate body, a centrally led urban development corporation, not a mayoral development corporation. The sitting Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough will have representation, with a seat on the board, but the mayor and his area will not be controlling this development corporation; it is very different from the mayoral development corporation model. I think the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough has designs on a mayoral development corporation for Peterborough, but that would be a delivery vehicle very different from the one we are establishing here. The mayor will, however, have representation on the board along with other local authority leaders.

The shadow Minister asked me about the planning committee modernisation statutory instrument that we voted on today. That will apply to local authority committees in the ways we discussed when we considered that instrument in Committee. As I said in my opening remarks, we expect the vast majority of planning applications still to be determined by the greater Cambridge shared planning service. I will come on to why we have taken the development management powers we propose to in the functions order that will follow in the months to come, and why we have chosen the 250-home threshold, but planning committees are a local planning authority designation. The development corporation, as an entity and delivery vehicle in itself, will take particular development management powers to determine specific sites, which I will come on to in a moment. The same goes for conditions that would be associated with a planning permission.

We think those development management powers are important to accelerate strategic growth in an integrated and co-ordinated way. The decision to grant development management powers to the development corporation for strategic sites reflects the need to balance local and national planning merits to facilitate nationally significant growth in the area. I bring us back to the objective of the development corporation to facilitate nationally significant growth, which local leaders—they have made great efforts over recent years—are quite clear that they are not able to do. When it comes to some very serious constraints—the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire mentioned water scarcity—local leaders have not been able on their own to remove some of these barriers. That is what the development corporation is for.

Development management powers will be granted for sites of strategic importance. We will define what “strategic importance” means at a later date, but as a proxy for a definition of strategic sites, the development corporation will use the minimum thresholds that we outlined in the Government response to the consultation on 3 June. We gave a flavour in the consultation of the type of sites we have in mind. I think we listed seven sites, which are major sites already identified in the local plan. I hope that gives the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire a sense of the type of strategic sites that we are talking about.

We need the threshold because the development corporation can delegate decision making to the greater Cambridge shared planning service, but that service is unable to reverse-delegate the determination of planning applications to the development corporation. As such, we judge that if the threshold for residential development were set at a level higher than 250 homes, the development corporation would be unable to exercise development management powers for any application that fell below that threshold, even if the application could prejudice the delivery of a strategic site.

That is the central objective of the 250-home threshold. We do need the development corporation to have the ability to move in and determine an application on a site that might impact the delivery of a strategic site. As I said to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and the Committee, we will come back and define a “strategic site” in more detail as we take forward the functions order later this year. To reassure him, that functions order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure; we will have a chance to debate and vote on it in the House. [Official Report, 8 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 422.] (Correction.)

The shadow Minister raised a point about boundaries. Again, this is all outlined in the 3 June Government response to the consultation: 42% of respondents to the consultation agreed with our proposed boundaries—the Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council administrative areas—23% felt they were too small, and 33% felt they were too wide. We recognise that there is a wide range of views about what the precise boundaries should be, but we judge that the boundaries as consulted on are a broad development area that will allow and underpin the development corporation’s ability to deliver its objectives and make effective use of its powers, enabling the scale of growth that is necessary to deliver on both local and national interests.

As set out in the consultation, the proposed boundary encompasses the land required to support strategic infrastructure, providing a sufficiently broad geography to maximise funding opportunities and enable land value capture to support social and environmental projects. Aligning the boundaries with those of Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council will simplify the governance arrangements in this area—that has been a real source of challenge over recent years—and enable the development corporation to support the delivery of the draft local plan.

I am glad that the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire mentioned the draft local plan. We are working very closely with the shared planning service and democratically elected local leaders. We want to see that draft plan adopted. On the Secretary of State’s powers as they apply to the development corporation and its ability to take planning powers in the future, we do want it to have those powers; we think that is absolutely necessary to set out a spatial plan for the years to come. This development corporation will exist for at least 25 years, perhaps longer, but we want to see that local plan in place in the first instance, and the Government are doing what we can to support that process and help the authority get the plan in place.

On local government reorganisation, to add briefly to what I said in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Broxbourne, proposals for reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough were received in November 2025 and recently went out to consultation. As I said, the development corporation’s boundary, established by this order, does not pre-empt or prejudice the outcome of LGR in that regard.

I push back quite strongly on the challenge from the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire that we have not outlined in any way the objectives of the development corporation. If he reads the Government response to the consultation, published on 3 June, he will see exhaustive explanations of why we think the development corporation is necessary and the sort of capacity, powers and ability it can leverage in on private finance, land assembly and all these matters to meet the shared objectives for the area. We will build on that with the functions order—we will detail precisely how the planning powers and the development management powers will come through—but to assure him, the development corporation will have powers to directly plan, fund and deliver essential infrastructure to support regeneration, including utilities such as water. Targets for the development corporation’s objectives will be set across the development corporation’s corporate plan, framework document and development plan, and in individual business plans for all projects. We will have a chance to scrutinise those documents, among others.

I hope that I have responded to all the points raised by hon. Members. I think this is a fairly straightforward and simple instrument, which establishes the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation as a legal body and sets the geographical boundaries in which that development corporation will operate. I commend the order to the Committee.

Question put.

Before we start, just a quick domestic. If we open the windows, the heat will probably get worse, and the doors have to be closed, so please feel free to divest yourselves of clothing within reason.

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Batteries (Placing on the Market) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I have immediately availed myself of your generous offer to take some clothes off; it is always a good way to start the afternoon. If anyone has had the scampi and chips in the Members’ Tea Room, that will keep us powering through.

These draft regulations were laid before the House on 4 June. In 2023, the European Union replaced its 2006 batteries directive with a new batteries regulation, which introduced updated “placing on the market” requirements for batteries, including design, information and labelling specifications. The EU regulation achieves several objectives. By introducing new requirements relating to carbon footprint, performance, durability and recycled content, and by updating the requirements for the removability and replaceability of batteries from containing devices, it addresses the environmental and safety performance of batteries.

The EU regulation introduces specific safety requirements for stationary battery energy storage systems and updates information requirements, including on batteries’ state of health and expected lifetime. The EU regulation introduces a digital battery passport and supply chain due diligence policies for larger businesses that are placing batteries on the market. Previous requirements relating to the restriction of certain substances in batteries are also carried forward. The EU regulation introduces conformity assessments with the CE mark to demonstrate compliance with the requirements that I have just listed.

Those changes reflect the rapid growth in sectors such as electric vehicles—including cars, vans and e-bikes—portable electronics and energy storage, alongside the increasing volume and complexity of batteries now in circulation. Those requirements apply directly in Northern Ireland, as they do in EU member states. They phase in over time, meaning that some requirements are already in force, and others are due to come into force on future dates specified by the EU regulation.

I am listening very carefully, and this is about assuring the battery manufacturing process. Is it just these draft regulations or is research being done into thermal runaway and how toxic fallout from the vapourisation of heavy metals can fall on to farmland? A big concern in my constituency is that thermal runaway in battery storage at solar sites could poison land through the vapourisation of heavy metals. Is there any research into that safety concern?

I am not aware of any research, but there is work going on through our circular economy strategy, which we have co-designed with industry. As part of that, we have looked at transport and waste electricals, and I am certain that there are transport experts in those working groups. We have to get to a circular economy, not just for batteries but for tyres, which also have a habit of miraculously catching fire after being collected. We need to consider that as part of our circular economy work, but I am happy to take a note and write further to the right hon. Gentleman on that. It is mostly a matter for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but as I said, the complexity and location of batteries are changing, and we do not want to end up with contaminants and pollutants.

I thank the Minister for that answer. That is something I have been pushing on. It is an important aspect of battery storage in a rural constituency, so I very much accept her offer to write to me with any information she may have.

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

Will the Minister give way?

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.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the Minister for outlining the draft regulations to the Committee. Among other things, they establish the offences and penalties regime for breaches of “placing on the market” obligations under the EU batteries regulation. That regulation has applied in Northern Ireland since February 2024, under the terms of the Windsor framework. The two-year gap between the regulation taking effect and the arrival of the enforcement regime was flagged by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It leads to a question: why have the current Government not brought this instrument forward sooner?

In addition, can the Minister clarify how the EU regulation has been enforced in the interim, in the absence of a functioning offences and penalties regime? Furthermore, what assessment have the Government made of businesses that have continued operating under the previous rules throughout this period? Can the Minister confirm whether the Government’s impact assessment accounted for those businesses specifically, or only for those transitioning from this point forward?

I also note the concerns expressed by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) regarding the effect of the rules on the UK internal market and on the competitiveness of Northern Ireland-based businesses. I am sure that the Committee would like to hear the Minister respond directly to some of those concerns. Specifically, can she confirm that supply chains will not be disrupted, that Northern Ireland-based businesses will not be placed at a competitive disadvantage relative to their English counterparts, and that the draft instrument will not impose additional costs on them?

Once more a Committee—and therefore this Parliament—has been asked to approve a regulation that has the effect of departing Northern Ireland from the UK legal framework governing the subject matter. Let us be clear: this Committee is being asked to nod through a regulation imposing a law that no parliamentarian in this United Kingdom made, scrutinised or had any hand in drafting. This Committee is being asked to nod through the imposition of a foreign rule—made by the European Parliament, not this Parliament—and to nod it through so that it is enforced with criminal sanction in a part of the United Kingdom, of which this is meant to be the sovereign Parliament that makes the laws and decides the criminal penalties. But no, we are here obeisantly to nod through a regulation to enforce foreign law on a part of the United Kingdom.

The narrative is quite clear: the 2006 EU regulation historically applied to all parts of the United Kingdom. After Brexit, however, when the EU amended the regulation in 2023, it ceased to apply to GB, where it has been revoked. But a part of this United Kingdom, namely Northern Ireland, is to continue to be subjected to foreign-made, unfiltered, unchecked law made by the EU. And the consequence is that my consumers in Northern Ireland can now only use and be supplied with batteries that meet that foreign diktat.

Of course, the EU is infamous for micromanaging everyone’s economy if it can. We can now only use, import and deploy batteries made not to United Kingdom standards. In fact, batteries made to United Kingdom standards will become illegal in a part of this United Kingdom, to the extent that a criminal sanction of imprisonment could be imposed for using a battery that meets UK standards. How absurd is it that in a part of this United Kingdom we are going to impose penalties on anyone daring to use a battery produced to UK standards? I am very disappointed that the primary concern of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, is why it took so long to enforce foreign jurisdiction on a part of the United Kingdom. That is a quite shocking observation.

When my consumers buy an e-bike, an electric car or a simple battery, the Government say they cannot buy one that meets United Kingdom standards. That is what we are doing here. I ask each Member whether they would do that to their constituents. Just think about that. Would members of this Committee impose on their constituents a foreign-drafted, designed and implemented law that means they cannot buy batteries made to the standard of their own country? That is the question.

Does the hon. and learned Member agree that we will be aligning ourselves with this regulation? We will consult on aligning with it in the autumn. I understand that these regulations will make batteries safer and easier to recycle. In the long term, we need to do this anyway.

I certainly recognise that, once again, Northern Ireland is being used in the reset as a cover to realign the whole United Kingdom with the EU. That, of course, is the gameplan of this Government, and this is but a small example of how they are going to deploy it. They hide behind Northern Ireland and say, “Oh, well, we are doing it in this part of the United Kingdom, so we will all simply align ourselves to laws we do not make—laws we cannot change. We will impose upon the whole United Kingdom the disenfranchisement we have already imposed upon Northern Ireland, which cannot make laws on this because it is subject to foreign jurisdiction. We are now going to say to the whole United Kingdom, ‘You do the same. You subject yourself to a similar disenfranchisement of your own electorate so that they do not elect the people who make the laws that govern them.’” That will be the ultimate outcome.

On the laws governing the type and use of batteries, which is one of a vast number of areas where this is going to happen, the Government will say, “You, the electorate, are not worthy of electing people to make those laws. No, we are going to be colony-like, subjecting you to laws that someone else makes.” The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth might think that is a good way forward, but I certainly do not.

I remind the Government that section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is very clear. It requires that in developing any regulations, these draft regulations included, the Government should have special regard to

“the need to maintain Northern Ireland’s integral place in the…internal market”.

They are not maintaining an integral place if they are applying different rules—foreign rules—to a part of the United Kingdom. Section 46 also states

“the need to respect Northern Ireland’s place as part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom; and…the need to facilitate the free flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with the aim of…streamlining trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.

That is the very opposite of what these draft regulations will do. They will impede trade so that a battery cannot be bought from Great Britain. Another aim in section 46 is

“maintaining and strengthening the integrity and smooth operation of the internal market”.

Therefore, even under the statutory test of section 46 of the Internal Market Act, these regulations fail, and they fail lamentably.

I ask every self-respecting Member of this House simply to apply the test they would apply if this was being done to their constituents. They know that they would not do this to their constituents, so why do it to mine?

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.

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?

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.

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—

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

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.

Will the Minister give way?

Let me tell the hon. and learned Gentleman a little about what Northern Ireland thinks. I am going to make my point, and then I hope we can get into a much longer debate.

Translink in Northern Ireland bans e-batteries, e-bikes and e-scooters from its networks because of the risk of fire. Antrim and Newtownabbey borough council has a “Buy Safe, Be Safe” campaign because of the risks of electric batteries. Waste management organisations all the way across Northern Ireland, including Newtownards, have all made complaints about the proliferating risk of batteries, battery waste and illegal batteries.

I want to talk about a couple of my constituents, Karlo Bogdan and Natasha Johnson-Mall. Karlo was 24 and Natasha was 27 when they died in a fire caused by an unsafe e-battery in my Coventry East constituency. That is not an uncommon occurrence because lithium battery fires spread incredibly quickly, and those two hard-working young people, lost their lives unnecessarily in part because these regulations and protections—which we are bringing in, yes, first in Northern Ireland, but later in our own country—were not in place to protect them from the dodgy salespeople and resellers on Amazon and all the dumping that has happened as a result of the great Brexit deal. I am very happy to give way if the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to come back on any of that.

May I first correct the Minister? I am not a DUP Member, and I am surprised she does not know that. Secondly, she is also wrong to say that we are debating the merits of this law, as we are not. This already is the law in Northern Ireland, courtesy not of this House but of the EU through sections 7 and 8 of the 2020 Act. It already is the law, so all we are discussing now is how far we are going to penalise people if they breach this foreign law. We are not discussing its merits. If the Government wanted to tackle unsafe batteries, they should have done so across the whole United Kingdom, and they have not—they are hiding behind Northern Ireland.

Let me begin by apologising to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I understand that he is a member of Traditional Unionist Voice. I did know that, but I forgot it in the heat. We are in the process of doing exactly what he is exhorting us to do, which is to make sure that we have a complete internal market across the United Kingdom while also protecting Northern Ireland’s unique protected status under the Windsor framework.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that it is a model. Brexit has not delivered the freedoms it was supposed to deliver. In the end, the e-bikes, e-cars and e-batteries we buy are not made in Great Britain; most are made by Bosch in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, the regulation applies in Northern Ireland, and there is what I would consider a halo effect because most people placing batteries on the market are abiding by it. What we are doing today is beginning a clampdown on rogue merchants who may be competing unfairly and whose products may not meet that new European standard.

I wanted to put my constituents’ deaths on the record, because while we talk about the abstract principles and ideals of subsidiarity and sovereignty, sovereignty was not able to save their lives. My mission is to save lives, not least the lives of waste transfer station staff—the most invisible and neglected sector in our country—who are dealing with batteries on a weekly basis, especially in temperatures such as those we are enduring at the moment.

On interim enforcement, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest asked—it is not on me to defend him from attacks by other Members, but I have some sympathy, because it is a totally reasonable question to ask. The Office for Product Safety and Standards tried to enforce the pre-2023 EU battery regulation on a UK-wide basis, including in Northern Ireland, but of course it does not apply here. The OPSS is not set up as the enforcement authority until this mechanism goes through, so it cannot enforce it. That is the simple answer, and it is why we are here today.

On why we did not introduce the regulations sooner, we brought forward the legislation to support “placing on the market” requirements as soon as was reasonably practicable, taking into account the need for stakeholder engagement. We have consulted stakeholders and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke mentioned, we wrote to all the trade associations and got one reply back.

Most businesses are already doing this because they are placing products on the European Union market, and this is just stuff we are doing. The right hon. Member for East Antrim says the cost is £30,000, but that is the total cost across all those businesses, not for one. It is the cost of a couple of hours of someone’s time to familiarise themselves with the new regulations. It is not the cost for each business, so my understanding is that it does not affect small and medium-sized enterprises in that way—I gently correct him on that.

We engaged with stakeholders, we appointed a market surveillance authority and we did quite a lot of complex policy work on what this means for our existing regulation. We will do a wider review of the existing battery producer responsibility regulations. We hope to bring that in on a GB and UK-wide basis.

On the figure of £35,017, that is across all affected businesses. Another question was, how does this affect the UK internal market? In a limited way—the majority of batteries are manufactured to meet Northern Ireland and EU standards already, whether they are physically placed on the market in Europe, Northern Ireland or GB. That is the halo effect I was talking about—they have raised their standards, and we are passive beneficiaries. Batteries meeting Northern Ireland requirements can be placed on the GB market, so there is no border down the Irish sea, which was of great concern to everyone here. This autumn, we will consult on an aligned regime across the whole UK that is consistent and will provide a unified regulatory framework across the UK and the EU.

The draft regulations do not introduce new policy, nor does it impose any significant new regulatory burdens on businesses. Without them, we would have rules but no means to uphold them, which is the point made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest. That is not an acceptable position to be in, so the instrument provides clarity, certainty and, crucially, enforceability. It equips the enforcement authorities with the powers they need to make sure that batteries placed on the NI market meet required standards.

On the divergence questions, the reality is that most of these batteries are standardised right across the EU. As I said, this is not the end; we are consulting on an aligned regime, but this is the essential first step to ensure that existing “placing on the market” requirements are properly enforced and support compliance with our Windsor framework obligations while broader work continues.

This is a very low-cost and proportionate measure. It did not require an impact assessment, because it was way under the de minimis requirement of a £10 million extra burden on businesses. It does not change the underlying requirements that businesses must meet and it imposes nominal familiarisation costs, so compliant businesses will not see any change in their day-to-day operations.

To come back to the issue of battery safety, we already have some of the strongest consumer product safety protections in the world, requiring that only safe products, including batteries, are placed on the market. These draft regulations help to ensure that unsafe batteries are identified and removed from the market by more effectively enabling enforcement of safety, labelling and performance requirements. Through our Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025, we retain the ability to go further, if needed, to strengthen protections for consumers throughout the UK.

As I said, we are not complacent, and those two young people who lost their lives in Coventry are very much front and centre of my mind. We recognise the real risks to life and limb posed by faulty or non-compliant products. That is why we are taking action across the board with regulators and industry to understand and address the causes of battery-related fires. It does not matter how small the battery is, whether it is a tiny battery in a hearing aid or a vape battery, it must go back to a battery WEEE—waste electrical and electronic equipment—provider. Every store that sells a vape, including the regular high street supermarkets, has a vape take-back scheme.

Batteries, when compressed and baled, become incredibly heated and really dangerous. We could end up taking out our municipal recycling facilities in extremely dangerous and complex fires if we do not dispose of batteries properly, so we have already acted to reduce one major source of battery-related fire risk by banning the use of single-use vapes in 2025, and by supporting their collection and recycling through a dedicated WEEE category. Before we introduced that category, vapes were classed as toys. That is what was done—they were classed as toys under the regulations, which is absolutely incredible.

The early signs are encouraging, because 8 million vapes were sold in 2023-24, but the figures for ’24-25 show that it has already gone down to 6 million, which is accounted for by the regulations coming into effect in June ’25—so that is only a half-year reduction. I am therefore optimistic that sales will come down even lower from that 8 million.[Official Report 13 July 2026, Vol. 789, C. 10WC.] (Correction).

We are working with industry and standards bodies to improve the safety of e-bike and personal electric vehicles through the development of a new publicly available specification. DEFRA has strengthened its capability by bringing in specialist expertise from industry to help ensure that the work to tackle these risks is informed by real-world experience and, crucially, technical knowledge. The draft instrument supports environmental protection, ensuring standards on hazardous substances are upheld—to go back to the question of the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold about batteries, hazardous substances and forever chemicals.

These measures have been developed across Governments and with industry, and concerns have simply not been raised by stakeholders. I hear the comments and concerns of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and the right hon. Member for East Antrim, but this is a practical, proportionate and necessary instrument. It will ensure that the law operates as intended and that our obligations are met as Members who were sent to this place to protect the life and limb of the people we represent, while facilitating consumer, business and environmental protection and our obligations under the Windsor framework.

I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Batteries (Placing on the Market) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026.