Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee

Inquiry into Regulation (EU) 2025/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2025 on the safety of toys and repealing Directive 2009/48/EC

Download this report as a PDF (25 pages, 339KB)

Ordered by the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee to be published 22 January 2026.

Report: NIA 139/22-27 Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee

 

Contents

 

Purpose and Membership

Purpose

The Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee is a standing committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly established under Schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and Standing Order 59A of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The purpose of the Committee is to assist with the observation and implementation of Article 13(3a) and Article 13(4) of the Windsor Framework.

The functions of the Committee include:

(a) the examination and consideration of new EU acts and replacement EU acts;

(b) the conduct of inquiries and publication of reports in relation to replacement EU acts;

(c) engagement with businesses, civil society and others as appropriate in relation to replacement EU acts;

(d) engagement with the UK Government in relation to replacement EU acts;

(e) engagement with Ministers and Northern Ireland departments in relation to replacement EU acts;

(f) the collation and publication of evidence collected as part of its other activities; and

(g) dealing with other matters (including legislative proposals which may become new EU acts or replacement EU acts) which the Committee considers to be connected with its purpose or other functions.

A replacement EU act means an EU law which updates, by amending or replacing, any of the relevant[1] EU laws which already apply in Northern Ireland, as listed under Annex 2 of the Windsor Framework. Areas of EU law that apply in Northern Ireland include legislation on goods, animal and plant health rules, rules on agricultural production, VAT and excise on goods, and state aid rules.The EU’s Customs Code also applies to goods entering Northern Ireland.There is a procedure by which members of the Assembly may seek to prevent the application of a replacement EU act (an emergency brake mechanism known as the Stormont Brake).

A new EU act means a new EU law which falls within the scope of the Windsor Framework, but which neither amends nor replaces an EU act listed in the Annexes. The Northern Ireland Assembly has a role, by means of an “applicability motion”, in setting out its position on whether a new EU act should be added to the list of EU laws applicable in Northern Ireland.

 

Membership

The Committee has nine members, including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, and a quorum of five members. The membership of the Committee is as follows:

Ms Ciara Ferguson MLA (Chairperson)[2]

Mr David Brooks MLA (Deputy Chairperson)

Dr Steve Aiken OBE MLA

Mr Cathal Boylan MLA[3]

Mr Jonathan Buckley MLA[4]

Mr Declan Kearney MLA

Mr Peter Martin MLA[5]

Ms Kate Nicholl MLA [6]

Mr Eóin Tennyson MLA[7]

 

Introduction

1. This report sets out the conclusions of an inquiry by the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee (‘the Committee’) into a published replacement EU act: Regulation (EU) 2025/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2025 on the safety of toys and repealing Directive 2009/48/EC.

2. The Regulation is a replacement EU act because it repeals and replaces Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys, as listed in the Windsor Framework at Article 5(4), Annex 2, heading 17, indent 2.

3. The replacement EU act applies in Northern Ireland under Article 13(3) of the Windsor Framework but is subject to the mechanism set out in Article 13(3a) of the Windsor Framework. This mechanism provides for a replacement EU act, or relevant parts of a replacement EU act, not to apply in Northern Ireland if the United Kingdom Government (‘UK Government’) notifies the EU within two months of the act’s publication in the EU Official Journal.

4. The UK Government may only make this notification if it is satisfied that the conditions in Article 13(3a) of the Windsor Framework have been met and that the procedures set out in its Unilateral Declaration on the involvement of the institutions of the 1998 Agreement have been followed. These procedures provide, amongst other things, that 30 MLAs from at least two parties (and excluding the Speaker and Deputy Speakers) will need to notify the UK Government of their wish that the emergency brake mechanism should be applied.

5. If the UK Government is satisfied that the necessary conditions have been met, it will notify the EU in the Joint Committee. The EU law will not apply in Northern Ireland in its new form two weeks later. The older version of the EU law will still apply. The relevant law would then be discussed in the EU-UK Joint Committee under the process for new EU laws - Article 13(4). The UK Government must not agree (apart from in exceptional circumstances) to adopt the new law unless the Assembly has passed a motion with cross-community support, known as an applicability motion .

6. The replacement EU act in question - Regulation (EU) 2025/2509 - was published in the EU Official Journal on 12 December 2025. The UK Government formally notified the Committee of the act’s publication on 2 January 2026.

7. Under paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Committee must decide no later than five working days after the day on which it was notified of the replacement EU act whether it wishes to hold an inquiry. In reaching a decision, paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 6B requires the Committee to have regard to whether it appears likely that the replacement EU act:

  • significantly differs (in whole or in part) from the content or scope of the EU instrument which it amends or replaces; and
  • would have a significant impact specific to everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist.

8. The Committee may also have regard to any other matters it considers appropriate.

 

The Replacement EU Act

9. Regulation (EU) 2025/2509 repeals and replaces Directive 2009/48/EC (the “Toys Directive”). In doing so, it has two main objectives: a higher level of child protection, including from the most harmful substances; and fewer non-compliant and unsafe toys on the EU market.

10. To achieve these objectives, changes made by the Replacement EU Act include (but are not limited to):

  • Introducing further restrictions on the use of substances considered harmful as part of the manufacture of toys;
  • Creating a requirement for safety assessments on toys falling within the scope of the Radio Equipment Directive ( Directive 2014/53/EU ), The EU Cyber Resilience Act ( Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 ) or the EU AI Act ( Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 ), to take account of the particular vulnerabilities of children when assessing the potential harm the toy may present;
  • Establishing a digital product passport to replace existing paper-based compliance requirements;
  • Requiring online marketplaces to allow sellers to display the CE mark, safety warnings, and a link to the digital product passport; and
  • Placing new safety obligations on fulfilment service providers (companies responsible for storing, packaging, and dispatching toys).

 

The Committee’s Examination of the Proposed Replacement EU Act

11. At its meeting on 20 February 2025, the Committee considered proposed new and replacement EU acts which had started their legislative passage before the Committee was established.

12. The proposed EU act COM/2023/462 , which was later to become the replacement act which is the subject of this report, was identified by the Committee as an act that was likely to be notified as a published act in the coming months. In light of this, the Committee agreed to consider the proposed EU act.

13. The Committee considered matters relating to its examination of the proposed EU act, including its decision to consider the proposed act, at seven meetings. The Minutes of Proceedings can be found at Appendix A .

14. Following its decision to consider the proposed EU act, the Committee agreed to request an initial departmental assessment of impact, to consider whether it appeared likely that it would have a significant impact specific to everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist.

15. At its meeting on 13 March 2025, the Committee considered a response from the Executive Office (TEO) which stated that departments were unable to provide any information on this proposed EU act and indicated that responsibility for product safety in Northern Ireland sits with councils. The response from TEO can be found at Appendix B.

16. Having considered the response from TEO, the Committee agreed to seek the views of the UK Government, councils, and the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland on the likely impact of applying / not applying the proposed act. Further, the Committee agreed to request information on any engagement between the UK Government and councils in relation to the proposed act.

17. At its meeting on 10 April 2025, the Committee considered a response from the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland dated 2 April 2025, and a response from SOLACE NI on behalf of councils dated 7 April 2025. These responses can be found at Appendix B . Having considered the response from SOLACE NI, the Committee agreed to invite representatives to give oral evidence on the proposed EU act. The Committee also agreed to request written and oral legal advice on the proposed act, and to write to the First Minister and deputy First Minister to request that a solution be found to identify the most relevant department with which to engage on the proposed act.

18. SOLACE NI was invited to attend the Committee meeting on 1 May 2025 and, in line with the Committee’s agreed processes, was provided with a series of questions for answer during the meeting. At its meeting on 1 May 2025, the Committee considered a response to the questions from SOLACE NI. In its response, SOLACE NI stated that councils were unable to offer any additional insight, and were not best placed to advise the Committee on the potential impacts of the proposed act. SOLACE NI suggested that the questions be directed to the UK Government’s Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) and indicated that, if the Committee still wished to question representatives from councils, it would be preferable for the OPSS to attend. The response from SOLACE NI dated 18 April 2025, can be found at Appendix B .

19. At the same meeting, the Committee received legal advice and noted that the legal advice indicated that the proposed replacement EU act significantly differed, in whole, from the Toys Directive.

20. The Committee also considered a response from the UK Government dated 28 April 2025, the UK Government Explanatory Memorandum (EM) on the proposed EU act dated 9 November 2023, a relevant report published by the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, and correspondence published by the House of Lords European Affairs Sub-Committee on the Windsor Framework. The response from the UK Government, the EM, and the publications by Westminster scrutiny committees can be found at Appendix B.[8]

21. Further, the Committee agreed to take a number of actions when the provisionally agreed text of the proposed act became available: to ask SOLACE NI and Assembly Legal Services whether any changes had been made to the text that would alter their original assessments of the proposed act; to ask the UK Government to provide an updated assessment of the draft final text; and, to seek views from stakeholders identified by the Assembly’s Research and Information Service (RaISe) as being affected, or who would be affected, if the proposed replacement EU act was to apply in Northern Ireland – a list of the stakeholders identified by RaISe can be found at Appendix D.[9] The provisionally agreed text was made available on 11 June 2025 and the actions were undertaken.

22. At its meeting on 26 June 2025, the Committee considered a response from the First Minister and deputy First Minister, dated 4 June 2025, which indicated that there was no defined departmental owner for this proposed EU act. The response can be found at Appendix B . Having considered the response, the Committee agreed to write again to the First Minister and deputy First Minister to restate its position that it expects to be told by relevant departments whether or not a replacement act will have an impact as far as a Minister’s official responsibilities are concerned - regardless of whether the policy is reserved – and to ask for that information to be provided in this instance.[10] The Committee also agreed to request that OPSS officials respond to the questions previously sent to SOLACE NI and attend a Committee meeting to provide oral evidence.

23. At its meeting on 11 September 2025, the Committee considered updated legal advice in relation to the provisionally agreed text of the proposed EU act. This indicated that the previous advice still stood, and the proposed EU act significantly differed, in whole, from the Toys Directive. The Committee also considered a response from SOLACE NI dated 30 June 2025, which can be found at Appendix B.

24. At the same meeting, the Committee considered two email responses to its Citizen Space survey: the Health and Safety Executive, dated 17 June 2025, and the British Toy and Hobby Association, dated 3 September 2025. The responses can be found at Appendix D . The Committee agreed to share the responses with the UK Government.

25. At its meeting on 2 October 2025, the Committee considered a further response from the UK Government on the proposed EU act, dated 25 September 2025. The Committee also noted confirmation from Cabinet Office officials that the OPSS first sought views from TEO in relation to the proposal on 26 October 2023, with no issues raised in response. The UK Government’s response can be found at Appendix B .

26. The Committee agreed to write again to the First Minister and deputy First Minister reiterating that a response was expected urgently to its request for relevant departments to be identified for this act, and other acts dealing with product safety, and to ask what steps were taken - both when TEO was contacted in 2023 by the UK Government about the proposed act, and also since the Committee’s first request for an assessment of impact in February 2025 - to engage relevant departments and properly assess the impact of the proposed EU act in Northern Ireland (including by seeking views from departments on its impact on public health and the local economy).[11]

 

The Committee’s Decision on Whether to Hold an Inquiry

27 The Committee met on 8 January 2026 to decide whether or not to conduct an inquiry into the published EU act: Regulation (EU) 2025/2509 .

28. To assist it in reaching a decision, the Committee considered legal advice on whether it appeared likely that the replacement EU act differed significantly (in whole or in part) from the content or scope of the old Directive which it seeks to amend or replace. The Committee noted that the legal advice indicated that the published replacement act significantly differs, in whole, from the content or scope of the EU instrument which it replaces.

29. The Committee also considered whether it appeared likely that the replacement EU act would have a significant impact specific to everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist. To assist it in doing so, and in line with the Committee’s agreed processes, the Committee requested a departmental assessment of impact on the published act. No assessment of impact was provided. An emailed response from TEO, dated 7 January 2026, stated that there was no department placed to provide the Committee with an assessment of impact or evidence in relation to this published EU act. The response from TEO can be found at Appendix B.[12]

30. The Committee therefore considered whether it appeared likely that the replacement EU act would have a significant impact specific to everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist, by examining all the evidence gathered as part of its consideration of the proposed EU act and considering an updated EM from the UK Government on the published EU act dated 5 January 2026. All the evidence gathered as part of the Committee’s consideration of the proposed EU act, and the updated EM on the published EU act, can be found at Appendices B and D .

31. Having had regard to whether it appears likely that Regulation (EU) 2025/2509:

  • significantly differs (in whole or in part) from the content or scope of the EU instrument which it replaces; and
  • would have a significant impact specific to everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist,

the Committee decided to hold an inquiry into that act. This decision was published on the Committee’s webpage.

 

The Inquiry Process

32. In conducting an inquiry, paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, requires the Committee to “seek substantive discussion and engagement” with the UK Government, the relevant Northern Ireland Minister or department, and, to the extent that the Committee considers appropriate, representatives of businesses and civil society affected by the replacement EU act, or who would be affected, if the act was to apply in Northern Ireland. The Committee may also consider any matters it deems appropriate.

33. The Committee had to conclude its inquiry and publish a report setting out its conclusions no later than 15 working days before the end of the two-month scrutiny period. The scrutiny period started when the replacement EU act was published in the EU Official Journal on 12 December 2025 and therefore ends on 12 February 2026.

34. The Committee considered matters relating to its Inquiry, including making a decision on whether to conduct an inquiry, at three meetings. The Minutes of Proceedings can be found at Appendix A .

35. At its meeting on 8 January 2026, the Committee agreed to seek substantive discussion and engagement with the UK Government. It therefore wrote to the UK Government to seek its views on whether applying, or not applying, the replacement EU act would have an impact specific to everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist. In considering the matter of divergence, details of the position in England, Scotland and Wales were also requested. The Committee also requested that officials from the UK Government’s OPSS attend a meeting of the Committee on 15 January 2026, to give oral evidence on the replacement EU act. OPSS officials did not attend to give oral evidence. The UK Government’s response, dated 19 January 2026, can be found at  Appendix B .

36. At this meeting the Committee also agreed to seek substantive discussion and engagement with relevant Northern Ireland departments. Therefore, it requested that departmental officials from relevant departments attend the Committee meeting on 15 January 2026, to give oral evidence.

37. Further, the Committee agreed to seek substantive discussion and engagement with representatives of business and civil society. Key stakeholders were identified by RaISe, as being affected, or who would be affected, if the replacement EU act was to apply in Northern Ireland. The list of stakeholders identified by RaISe is at Appendix D . The Committee opted to use Citizen Space as a platform to facilitate this engagement.

 

38. A survey asking for views on the impact of the replacement EU act was launched on 9 January 2026 and closed on 18 January 2026. The survey, which was publicised widely, was also open for response by any other representatives of business and civil society as well as members of the public. Responses to the survey were received via email from the Health and Safety Executive and the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, both dated 14 January 2026. These responses can be found Appendix D .

39. TEO’s position remained that there was no department placed to provide the Committee with an assessment of impact or evidence in relation to the EU act.[13] Therefore, TEO officials attended the Committee meeting on 15 January 2026, to outline the efforts they had made to identify any relevant departments and to explain TEO’s internal procedures and processes relating to this matter. The Hansard of the oral evidence session can be found at Appendix C .

40. During the evidence session, TEO officials agreed to provide information on the number of UK-only toy suppliers/manufacturers which supply to Northern Ireland.[14] An emailed response from TEO, dated 19 January 2026, can be found at Appendix B.

41. As set out above, the Committee made considerable efforts to secure from Northern Ireland departments any sort of assessment of impact from them of whether the replacement EU act would have a significant impact specific to everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist. TEO was first informed of the proposal to make this replacement act three years ago. Yet, despite the amount of time available to consider the matter, and the fact that the replacement act affects, amongst others, the manufacturers of toys, the wholesalers and retailers of toys, and the consumers of toys, no department was willing or able to offer the Committee any meaningful assessment of the act’s potential impact. The Committee was grateful to TEO officials for attending and answering Members’ questions about why this should be the case. However, the Committee does not accept that it is either credible or acceptable that no department has felt it necessary to take a view on what the impact of this replacement act is likely to be. The Committee’s unhappiness and frustration with this failure is a matter of record. The Committee is clear that such failures should not happen again.

42. The Committee therefore agreed to follow up with the UK Government and TEO on a number of wider issues relating to: the resourcing of Northern Ireland departments to provide information on the impact of EU legislation to the Committee; engagement with the Committee by the UK Government and its agencies; and EU acts in relation to which TEO’s position is that no Northern Ireland Department is placed to provide the Committee with an assessment of impact.[15]

 

43. The Committee deliberated on the evidence received at its meeting on 22 January 2026. The evidence received is not rehearsed in this report; a complete picture of the written and oral evidence can be found in the Appendices.

 

44. At its meeting on 22 January 2026, the Committee agreed its Inquiry report and that it should be published.

 

The Committee’s Conclusions

45. In reaching its conclusions, the Committee has carefully considered the limited evidence provided to it. The Committee has focused in particular on the two conditions that must be satisfied if the Stormont Brake is to be pulled.

 

46. In relation to the legal question of whether the replacement EU act significantly differs, (in whole or in part) from the content or scope of the EU instrument which it replaces, the Committee noted the legal advice it commissioned on the act, and considered on 8 January 2026, which indicated that the replacement EU act significantly differs, in whole, from the content and scope of the EU instrument which it replaces.

47. Having considered its commissioned legal advice, the Committee concluded that the replacement EU act significantly differs, in whole, from the content or scope of the EU instrument which it replaces. 

 

48. In relation to the question of whether the replacement EU actwould have a significant impact specific to everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist, the Committee considered the evidence received from the UK Government, TEO, and the responses to its Citizen Space survey.

 

49. In considering this evidence, the Committee took the view that for an act to have a significant impact specific to everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist, that significant impact must be negative.

50. Having considered the evidence received from the UK Government, the Executive Office, and the responses to its Citizen Space survey, the Committee concluded that it was unable to reach a view on whether the replacement EU act would have a significant impact specific to everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist.

 

Next Steps

51. Having reached its conclusions, the Committee’s Inquiry report will be issued to all Members of the Legislative Assembly for further consideration.

 

52. The Committee will engage with the UK Government to reiterate its disappointment that OPSS officials did not provide oral evidence during the Inquiry, and to ask again that officials from all relevant UK Government departments and agencies engage directly with the Committee as and when necessary.

 

 

Links to Appendices

Appendix A: Minutes of Proceedings

View Minutes of Proceedings from evidence sessions related to the report:

 

Appendix B: Memoranda and Other Papers

View Memoranda and Other Papers considered by the Committee:

 

Consideration of the proposed EU act:

 

Consideration of the published EU act:

 

Appendix C: Minutes of Evidence

View Minutes of Evidence of Committee meetings related to the report:

 

Appendix D: Consultation Responses


View responses to the Committee’s consultation on the proposed EU act :

 

View responses to the Committee’s consultation on the published EU act :

 

You may re-use this publication (not including images or logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Northern Ireland Assembly Licence.

 

This Report can be made available in a range of formats including large print, Braille etc. For more information please contact:

Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee

Marie Austin, Committee Clerk

Northern Ireland Assembly

Parliament Buildings

Ballymiscaw

Stormont

Belfast BT4 3XX

 

Telephone: 028 90 520302

Email: windsorframework.committee@niassembly.gov.uk

Twitter: @NIA_Committee

 

Footnotes

[1] Relevant EU laws are those EU instruments referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 5(1) of the Windsor Framework, the first indent of heading 1 of Annex 2 to the Framework or headings 7 to 47 of Annex 2 to the Framework.

[2] Mrs Ciara Ferguson MLA replaced Mr Philip McGuigan MLA, as both Chairperson and a member of the Committee on 04/02/2025. Mr Philip McGuigan MLA previously replaced Mr Declan Kearney MLA as Chairperson of the Committee on 09/02/2024.

[3] Mr Cathal Boylan MLA replaced Ms Emma Sheerin MLA as a member of the Committee on 24/11/2025.

[4] Mr Jonathan Buckley MLA replaced Mr Stephen Dunne MLA as a member of the Committee on 16/09/2024. Mr Stephen Dunne MLA replaced Mr Jonathan Buckley MLA as a member of the Committee on 03/06/2024.

[5] Mr Peter Martin MLA replaced Ms Joanne Bunting MLA as a member of the Committee on 02/12/2024.

[6] Ms Kate Nicholl MLA replaced Ms Connie Egan MLA as a member of the Committee on 09/09/2024. Ms Connie Egan MLA replaced Mr Patrick Brown MLA as a member of the Committee on 20/05/2024.

[7] Mr Eóin Tennyson MLA replaced Ms Sorcha Eastwood MLA as a member of the Committee on 22/04/2024.

[8] The Committee agreed to write to Lord Murphy of Torfaen, as part of the Independent Review of the Windsor Framework, to highlight the issues it has experienced in seeking to scrutinise published and proposed EU acts which cover matters reserved to the UK Government (citing this replacement EU act as one such example). The letter, dated 6 May 2025, can be found at Appendix B .

[9] The Committee opted to use Citizen Space as a platform to facilitate this engagement but accepted responses via other means. The survey, which was publicised widely, was also open for response by any other representatives of business and civil society as well as members of the public. A link to the provisionally agreed text was included in the survey. The survey opened on 13 June 2025 and closed on 11 July 2025.

[10] The Committee’s letter to the First Minister and deputy First Minister dated 3 July 2025 – and a subsequent response to it (and other correspondence from the Committee) – dated 15 December 2025 can be found at Appendix B . The response from the First Minister and deputy First Minister is referenced in the Committee’s Decision on Whether to Hold an Inquiry section of this report.

[11] The Committee’s letter to the First Minister and deputy First Minister dated 3 October 2025 – and a subsequent response to it (and other correspondence from the Committee) – dated 15 December 2025 can be found at Appendix B . The response from the First Minister and deputy First Minister is referenced in the Committee’s Decision on Whether to Hold an Inquiry section of this report.

[12] The Committee also considered a response from the First Minister and deputy First Minister dated 15 December 2025, to its previous correspondence in relation to the proposed EU act. The response from the First Minister and deputy First Minister can be found at Appendix B.

[13] The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson met with TEO officials on 13 January 2026 to discuss the handling of notifications by departments and general considerations around reserved / excepted matters, including in relation to this replacement EU act. A note of the meeting can be found at Appendix B .

[14] The Committee also agreed to request confirmation from the UK Government of which body or department will undertake regional level engagement with affected businesses and complete regulatory impact assessments in relation to the replacement EU act. At the point of publication, no response had been received by the Committee. However, this request (and the UK Government’s response to earlier Committee correspondence, dated 19 January 2026) can be found at Appendix B. While any such confirmation would not – in and of itself – have informed the Committee’s conclusions on the likely impact of the replacement EU act (for the purposes of this report), any response received will be published separately in due course on the Committee webpage .

[15] As these requests do not relate directly to the terms of the Committee’s inquiry, they are not rehearsed or included as evidence within this report.