Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): I welcome Mark McGregor, head of the trade and Windsor framework branch in the Department for the Economy; Roy Kennedy, a grade 7 in the vehicle policy branch in the Department for Infrastructure; and Connor Murray, a deputy principal in the vehicle policy branch in the Department for Infrastructure. Gentlemen, I ask you to brief the Committee. Mark, are you going first?

Mr Mark McGregor (Department for the Economy): Thank you, Chair, and good morning, everybody. I will lead on the evidence on behalf of the two Departments before handing over to my DFI colleagues. The Committee sent questions to the Department. You have not received responses to them in writing today. Final sign-off was needed from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), and that had not come through by yesterday evening. I will give the Committee the answers orally today and submit them in writing after the meeting, once we have that final approval from DESNZ.

The published EU Commission proposal, COM/2026/565, would amend the existing EU regulations on energy labelling and tyre labelling. I will cover the proposal as a whole, including the main energy- and tyre-labelling changes, responsibilities and the current assessment of possible impacts on Northern Ireland. I will then hand over to my DFI colleagues for them to comment on the separate vehicle-type approval interface before answering the questions that were received in writing.

The proposal would amend regulation (EU) 2017/1369, which is on energy labelling, and regulation (EU) 2020/740, which is on tyre labelling. Its overall purpose is to simplify, digitalise and strengthen compliance within the existing regimes. It does not create new product categories or change the central objective of enabling consumers to compare product performance and efficiency before purchase. For energy-labelled products, the proposal would remove the general requirement for a printed label to accompany every individual unit, while retaining the requirement that the label be visible before purchase. Product information sheets would become fully electronic through use of the European Product Registry for Energy Labelling (EPREL). The proposal would clarify obligations for installers and other intermediaries; strengthen accountability for non-EU manufacturers and authorised representatives; improve links between EPREL and future digital product passports; and simplify the transition to rescaled labels by allowing products bearing the previous label to continue being marketed and sold for up to 12 months after the rescaling date.

The tyre strand is separate and should be explained in its own right. The existing tyre label gives standardised information on a tyre's rolling resistance, or fuel efficiency, wet grip, external rolling noise and, where relevant, snow and ice performance. The proposal would retain that purpose and the existing broad product scope. It is aimed mainly at how the information is displayed, recorded and enforced. Where they sell or hire tyres as part of their commercial activity, tyre fitters would expressly be brought within the relevant distributor obligations. Relevant label and product information would therefore need to be provided before a customer purchases a tyre. Distributors would have more flexibility over how tyre information is displayed, including having simplified information or nested displays in cases in which showing the full label is impractical. The consumer must retain access to the required label information.

The link between tyre labelling and EPREL would be strengthened, paper product information sheets would no longer be required, and information needed for clear tyre identification and use of tyre data would be added to the registry. The existing obligation on vehicle suppliers and distributors to display tyre-labelling information at the point of sale of a new vehicle would be removed. The rationale recorded in the supporting analysis is that the end user cannot normally choose what tyre is fitted to a vehicle. Tyre suppliers would face updated EPREL and evidence requirements. Suppliers would have to place clear supporting evidence for the performance declared on the tyre label in the compliance section of EPREL, including test reports, where the declared rolling resistance, wet grip or noise performance is better than the documented family worst-case scenario. DFI colleagues will comment separately on the relationship with vehicle tyre-type approval. The Commission would also receive broader delegated powers to update the principal tyre-label parameters, which include fuel efficiency, wet grip and noise, in response to technological or market developments.

Policy responsibility for enforcement for both strands sits with the UK Government. The UK Government's explanatory memorandum expressly states:

DESNZ leads on energy labelling policy, while the Department for Transport (DfT) leads on tyre labelling policy. In their explanatory memorandum, the UK Government state that they expect the tyre changes to lower the overall administrative burden, particularly for vehicle suppliers and distributors, while noting that some tyre fitters may enter scope for the first time. More generally, the explanatory memorandum identifies possible "additional complexity for businesses" serving GB and EU or Northern Ireland markets but assesses the impacts as being limited and largely transitional.

DFE sought stakeholder views through a call for comment on nibusinessinfo.co.uk, which was supported by Invest NI. No responses had been received to the call for comment by the time that the Department's assessment was finalised. The departmental review did not identify Northern Ireland-specific participation or impacts in the Commission impact assessment. The absence of responses is not positive evidence that no impact will arise. Rather, it means that the direct Northern Ireland evidence base is limited. Based on the evidence that is currently available, it is a modernisation enforcement proposal, rather than a fundamental change to energy or tyre policy. DFE has not identified evidence at this stage that either application or non-application would create a significant and persistent impact specific to the everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland. The assessment remains provisional, because the EU negotiations continue. The detailed enforcement position is not final. Direct Northern Ireland stakeholder evidence is limited at present.

I will now hand over to DFI colleagues to comment on the vehicle-type approval interface before addressing the Committee's written questions.

Mr Roy Kennedy (Department for Infrastructure): Chair, DFI's interest in COM 2026/565 is limited to the type approval of tyres. The proposal would amend regulation 2020/740 on tyre labelling, which is a reserved matter under DfT. As per the submitted proposed replacement regulation (PRR) form, we have engaged with DfT, which has confirmed that the regulation does not change the type approval process or the standards used in the labelling of tyres.

Mr McGregor: Chair, I will now address the Committee's questions, of which there are quite a number. The answers have been supplied by DESNZ. As I mentioned, we will send them to the Committee in writing following the meeting.

The Committee's first question is:

The UK Government response is that, at present, the UK does not have detailed numbers on individual types of products moving from GB to NI that would be affected. We understand, however, that the product groups that are in scope include cooking products such as domestic ovens and range hoods; cleaning and drying products such as dishwashers, washing machines, washer-dryers and tumble dryers; refrigeration products such as fridges and freezers, commercial refrigerators and professional refrigerated storage cabinets; heating, cooling and ventilation products such as air conditioners, comfort fans, local space heaters, ventilation units, solid fuel boilers, space heaters and water heaters; and electronic products such as electronic displays, smartphones, tablets and light sources. The proposal would not substantively change the scope of existing energy- and tyre-labelling frameworks. Its effects would arise mainly through changes made to administration, digitalisation and enforcement of the frameworks.

Your second question is:

The UK Government response is that they continue to engage with stakeholders on the EU's omnibus legislative proposal to simplify and digitalise energy and tyre labelling. On 18 August 2026, the Department for the Economy, the Department for Infrastructure, working together with DESNZ, launched a call for comment to gather evidence on the potential impacts of the proposals on Northern Ireland. No business concerns were raised through that exercise. The UK Government will continue to engage with businesses on the issues. They will continue to engage on the proposed regulation, on its impacts on GB and NI markets and on any additional administrative or operational costs arising from separate requirements. So far, interest from stakeholders has been limited.

Your third question is:

The UK Government response is that the proposal is not expected to introduce significant divergence in the substantive energy-labelling requirements applying to products. The principal impacts are likely to arise from administrative, digital and enforcement differences. Implementation of the additional flexibilities envisaged by the EU proposal in Northern Ireland, such as the extension of labelling rescaling to 12 months and the removal of the requirement to supply a physical label, is likely to result in administrative savings to businesses selling from GB to NI. Products placed on the GB market, however, may continue to require a printed label and, potentially paper product information, although businesses supplying Northern Ireland could make greater use of digital provision. That means that businesses supplying both markets may need to maintain separate packaging, document and fulfillment processes. That is not likely to have any significant impacts on the movement of products from GB to NI, given the resulting overall greater flexibility of Northern Ireland requirements.

GB manufacturers supplying Northern Ireland may also need to comply with strengthened authorised representative and EPREL requirements. Those differences would increase the administrative burden associated with supplying Northern Ireland and could influence product availability at the margins, particularly where suppliers have a very small Northern Ireland market share. Most changes are not, however, expected at present to create tangible barriers to GB to NI trade.

Your fourth question is:

The UK Government response is that, by non-application, the status quo would continue in Northern Ireland. Businesses would not benefit from the proposal's administrative simplifications, including greater flexibility over the format in which labels accompany products; fully electronic product information sheets; and the extended period for selling products carrying non-rescaled labels. Non-application of those proposals would likely affect the movement of products from EU to Northern Ireland, thus reducing their availability in Northern Ireland. Non-application would reduce potential administrative divergence between GB and NI where GB retained its existing requirements. That would ensure the use of common packaging, document and fulfilment processes across the NI and UK markets, meaning that obligations on installers across GB and Northern Ireland would remain the same.

Your fifth question is:

The UK Government response is that applying the proposal would preserve the existing policy objective of enabling consumers and end users to make informed purchasing decisions. Consumers would continue to have access to the necessary product information, although it could increasingly be supplied digitally. The proposal would not establish a fully digital-only label regime, and printed labels would remain available on request. The extended rescaling period might also reduce disruption to the supply and sale of products during transitions between label scales. Increased reliance on digital information could, however, affect consumers who are less able or willing to access information electronically, although the continued requirement to supply printed labels on request is intended to mitigate that.

Available evidence does not currently allow the UK Government to quantify any effect on prices or product availability, but it is expected to be negligible to none. No responses were received from consumers or consumer organisations during the call for comment on the proposals in Northern Ireland.

Your sixth question is:

The UK Government response is that the revised rescaling arrangements are expected to be a positive overall for relevant businesses. Under the proposal, products carrying a non-rescaled label may continue to be marketed and sold for 12 months following rescaling, instead of the current four months. That would allow for additional flexibility for businesses operating across both GB and NI markets, providing more time to prepare the new label. That should give suppliers and dealers more time to manage existing stock, update labels and adjust sales arrangements. It might also reduce the risk of disruption and temporary divergence during rescaling exercises. The extension of the rescaling period, however, means that different label formats would be allowed to be present simultaneously on the market for longer.

Your seventh question is:

The UK Government response is that any short-term disruption is most likely to arise from business and enforcement authorities familiarising themselves with the clarified requirements and updating their compliance processes. For GB manufacturers supplying Northern Ireland, that might include checking or revising authorised representative mandates, ensuring that signed mandates are uploaded to EPREL, establishing processes for notifying changes and ensuring cooperation with market surveillance authorities. Installers who are newly affected by the clarification may need to update invitations to purchase so that the relevant energy label and product information is provided.

Your eighth question is:

The UK Government response is that the proposal includes a revised transition period for rescaling of energy labels. Products bearing the non-rescaled label may continue to be marketed and sold for 12 months following rescaling. The UK Government's initial assessment is that that would be beneficial, as it would give suppliers and dealers more time to align their arrangements and manage existing stock. The initial assessment does not identify a separate general implementation period governing all the provisions, including the new authorised representative and installer obligations. The adequacy of the implementation arrangements for those measures would therefore need to be considered once the final text and application dates are known.

Your ninth question is:

The UK Government response is that they do not currently have evidence on the number of tyre fitters who would fall within scope for the first time. Where tyre fitters offer relevant products for sale, hire or hire purchase as part of their commercial activity, the proposal could require them to include the relevant label in invitations to purchase and to make the applicable product information available. The principal impacts are therefore expected to involve familiarisation, updating sales or marketing materials and ensuring that the relevant information is provided before purchase. Further engagement with the tyre sector would be required by the UK Government to establish the number of businesses affected and the scale of costs.

Your tenth question is:

The UK Government response is that the European Commission estimates that the packaging measures could save businesses and market surveillance authorities across the EU up to €125 million annually over the next 10 years. That, however, is an EU-wide estimate and cannot be used to determine the savings that would accrue specifically to businesses selling into Northern Ireland. Potential savings would arise from removing the default requirement for a printed label to accompany each unit, moving product information sheets fully online, avoiding duplicate registration between EPREL and the future EU digital product passport system, and simplifying rescaling transitions. The UK Government do not currently have sufficient evidence on savings for individual traders to determine whether they would affect prices or product availability in Northern Ireland. Any effect, however, any effect is likely to depend on an individual business's operational model, market share and whether it supplies both GB and NI.

Your eleventh question is:

The UK Government response is that the proposal would establish a duty for non-EU authorised representatives (ARs) to cooperate with market surveillance authorities and require that a signed copy of the ARs' mandate be added to the EPREL database as a condition for registering products and that any changes in the scope of that mandate be notified to the market surveillance authorities. For UK exporters and manufacturers, that is not completely new, but the duties would become clearer and more enforceable. They would be legally required to include certain information in a mandate that is provided to ARs and visible to EU market surveillance authorities. The cost reductions for other elements of the proposal are likely to outweigh the increase in burdens.

Your twelfth and final question is:

The UK Government response is that, on 18 August this year, the Department for the Economy and the Department for Infrastructure, working together with DESNZ, launched a call for comment on the EU's omnibus legislative proposal to simplify energy and tyre labelling. The call for comment targeted businesses operating or established in Northern Ireland. DESNZ officials have undertaken initial engagement with over 10 selected stakeholders, including major retailers and business representative organisations, through DESNZ's existing forums and channels. Engagement undertaken so far has not presented evidence of significant risk to or concerns about NI businesses or businesses selling from GB to NI or vice versa. Further engagement should seek views from NI-based businesses and GB-based businesses supplying products into Northern Ireland. That will be important for establishing the scale of GB-NI trade affected, the practical consequences of separate administrative requirements and the likely balance between cost savings and additional compliance burdens.

That completes the answers to the questions that the Committee submitted in writing to us. I am happy to take any additional questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): Thank you, Mark, for that quite detailed presentation. You highlighted a range of areas. Members really appreciate the detail that you provided in answer to each of the questions, so thank you. I will now bring in members.

Mr Brooks: I know that I spoke during the session in which legal advice was provided, but that was more to do with some of the contrasts. Some of my questions have been covered in your answers, such as those about the tyre fitters possibly coming within scope and about the additional complexities. At this stage, there is probably enough there to warrant monitoring. You have provided answers on some of the issues, so I do not think that there is any point in my asking further questions on them. I realise why you have come today.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): Do any other members have questions for the departmental officials?

Mr Martin: I find it hard to take in all that information, Mark. That is just to do with how I learn, but anyway.

One of the early questions that we raised was about the scope and how the regulation would apply to products coming from GB into Northern Ireland or from the EU into Northern Ireland. I started to write down the names of the products but just ended up writing "Massive list" on my piece of paper, because the list is extensive. It would apply to everything from smartphones to washing machines. The scope is therefore not in question.

I do not need you to read the answer to question 1 again.

In question 1, it is stated:

Would a direct cost be involved? The tenor of some of what you said is that, yes, there probably would be a cost but that it would be offset. It would certainly be offset for EU suppliers, and I get that. Towards the end of your presentation, you cited a figure for the general cost saving to the EU as a result of the reconfiguration. My question is this: would there be a cost saving, or would there be additional costs, particularly for GB businesses selling into Northern Ireland? That may be a clear enough question for you.

Mr McGregor: That was touched on in the answers that DESNZ supplied. It said that it needs to do a bit more work in that area. I can take that question away, and we will respond to you in writing.

Mr Martin: That is fine. Thank you, Mark.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): I welcome your ongoing engagement with the Committee. You put out a call for comment on 18 August, and you mentioned that you have had one-to-one engagement with 10 companies. I do not know whether you mentioned the number of companies with which you will engage. We may monitor any further engagement. Will engagement with companies be a rolling process, or will it be —?

Mr McGregor: The policy area falls to DESNZ, so it carried out the engagement. We undertook the call for comment, because of questions that the Committee asks routinely on the views of Northern Ireland stakeholders. That was a proactive act on our part. The focused engagement will continue through DESNZ. I will need to ask it how it intends to take it forward and then respond to you in writing.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): That would be useful, particularly if there is to any one-to-one engagement with companies in the North. That is fine.

You mentioned the top 10 companies, which are larger companies. Will you ask as well about smaller businesses that may operate here? It would be useful to have that mix of engagement.

Mr McGregor: Yes, we can indeed.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): Thank you, Connor, Roy and Mark, for your presentation.

Following the presentation, do members wish to monitor proposed regulation COM/2026/565 as it progresses through the EU legislative system?