Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant Health) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
House of Lords · Lords Chamber · 2 Sep 2026 · 25 speeches · Official Report
Motion to Regret
Moved by
That this House regrets that the Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant Health) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 involve the alignment of Great Britain with European Union law, which the Windsor Framework does not require. Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
My Lords, before we begin, as set out in Today’s List, I remind noble Lords that speeches should be limited to two minutes, with the exceptions of the mover and the Minister. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all noble Lords when I say that if everyone can stick to this advised speaking time, we will ensure that the Minister has adequate time to respond to all the points that are raised.
My Lords, I rise to speak as quickly as I can to my regret Motion on the Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant Health) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. Despite its title, this is at one level a very simple piece of legislation: it just adds two plant types to certain lists in assimilated EU law, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072. However, at another level, it raises some major issues of principle, and that is why it is right to debate it and perhaps even vote on it-who knows? I want to look at three areas in the short time available: first, the specifics of the legislation; secondly, its wider significance; and thirdly, how it relates to the wider EU reset. First, on the legislation, when HMG legislate on plant health, one normally assumes it is because they think that there is an issue to be dealt with, but this legislation does not actually deal with that at all. The Explanatory Note signed by the Minister says: “These regulations implement the Windsor Framework”. The Explanatory Memorandum says: “The purpose of this instrument is to bring Great Britain (GB) into alignment with European Union (EU) import requirements”, and says that it is “necessary” to keep certain goods available for the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme. It does not say anything at all, as far as I can see, about the substance of the matter, or any UK risk assessment on the products concerned. My first question to the Minister is: are we right to understand that this...
My Lords, first, it is entirely unacceptable that we have only two minutes to discuss this piece of legislation. Secondly, it is an outrage that the democratically elected Chamber has been given no opportunity at all to discuss it. Thirdly, it sets a dangerous precedent-or, rather, it perpetuates a dangerous habit-of using the Windsor Framework to extend to the rest of the UK the undemocratic subjugation of Northern Ireland to laws it has had no say in making. Fourthly, can the Minister confirm that, despite this measure aligning legislation in Great Britain with that of Northern Ireland, plants moving within the UK internal market between Northern Ireland and Great Britain will still face border controls and paperwork that they will not face when moving between England and Wales or Scotland and England? Fifthly, can the Minister confirm that there is no need for this measure, and still less for dynamic alignment with all EU SPS legislation, because we already have an SPS agreement covering ourselves and the EU? It is called the WTO SPS agreement, and it spells out in terms: “Members shall accept the sanitary or phytosanitary measures of other Members as equivalent, even if these measures differ from their own … if the … measures achieve the importing Member’s appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection”- which here is the case. Is the Minister even aware of that agreement? Sixthly, do the Government believe that the EU is exempt from any obligation to comply...
My Lords, although it is true, as has been acknowledged, that the impact of this SI will be slight to say the least, I accept that the Windsor Framework has been oversold. It was oversold by the Sunak Government and it has been oversold by this Government. But, then again, the Good Friday agreement was oversold by Tony Blair. The fact is that there is no possible better way forward for Northern Ireland in either case. The agreement exists. In both cases, these agreements were a result of a conflict and a historic compromise between profound forces both inside and outside Ireland. So the Windsor Framework is still a model of a way forward. One of the most important things about the Windsor Framework is the way it declares itself, on page 4, to be restoring the “balance” of the Good Friday agreement of 1998 in its three parts. This is very important. The work of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, on grace periods was, at the time, of tremendous importance for ensuring the stability of Northern Ireland. I recall it with admiration. But, that said, I disagree with what he has just said about the growing separation between Northern Ireland and Britain. The Windsor Framework says on page 5: “Inherent in this … way forward is the prospect of significant divergence between the two distinct economies on the island of Ireland … building on the existing differences in every area of economic … life such as services, migration, currency and taxation”. It might now have added defence; Harland &...
My Lords, perfectly obviously, this is dynamic alignment in practice. Turning to the minutiae, I look forward to the Minister’s pronunciation of the various micro-organisms dealt with in this SI, and I am sure she will rise to the occasion. There is a serious point, and I have asked her about this on a number of occasions. A review of the trade and co-operation agreement is due in 2026. What have we done on that? A whole apparatus has been created as a result of the Windsor Framework, but the amount of potential risk to the single market is so infinitesimal that it is barely measurable, in terms of the volume of goods that could cross the border. If people on the island were properly organised under our own legislation, you could spot a mile away anybody who was attempting to damage the European single market. That has never been the objective of the United Kingdom. We can prevent it. In fact, we can make it an offence for anybody in the United Kingdom to go out of their way to breach the rules of the European Union. It has a right to protect its single market, but we have a right to protect the United Kingdom. I just ask the Minister: what have the Government done and put on the table with regard to the review of the trade and co-operation agreement that is due this year?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington
I urge my noble friend the Minister to put pragmatism before some of the concerns that we have heard already this evening. There have been some rather purist ideas, I would say, from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, which he holds very dearly and consistently, and I respect him for that, but I think we have to remind ourselves that we are talking about tomatoes, ginger and peppers here, about some diseases and pests and avoiding their importation into the United Kingdom. Yes, the EU is the originator of these measures; that does not mean, in and of itself, that they are wrong or unnecessary. The benefit of passing these regulations is that we maintain the integrity of the UK single market. That is something that I would have thought would be of great concern to those who are interested in affairs in Northern Ireland. I note that the issues that were raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee were around the border within the UK and the desire, which I share, to maintain as frictionless trade as possible between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If we were to not pass these regulations, we would be making those concerns more sharply-it would be worse. There is, of course, an alternative, which would be dynamic alignment, it would be a full SPS agreement and it would perhaps be being a member of the customs union and the single market. Some of those things are easier to deliver than others, because they all have consequences, and some of them, I am sure, would be...
My Lords, these regulations were imposed without any discussion with parliamentarians in Northern Ireland, and I think this is totally unacceptable. Of course, the Government are now saying that this is better for the internal market, which is just not true, because it is based on a deceit. If imports are moving from GB to Northern Ireland, they must comply with customs paperwork. This is not a UK internal market system but a GB/EU/Northern Ireland international trade border. The Government are really misleading on this. Why can they not be honest? Why can they not say that, yes, the customs forms may be shorter, but an internal market for goods is not created by demands for shorter customs forms but by there being no requirement for such forms in the first place? The shorter forms are offered in return for businesses having to accept separate additional border frictions, including the costs of needing to acquire and maintain trusted trader status, to demonstrate that goods do not reach the EU and to carry “Not for EU” labels. None of these border frictions applies in an internal market. Will the Minister be honest and admit that if GB submits to EU law regarding imports under these regulations, what is on offer is not a movement from GB to Northern Ireland in the UK internal market but movement, as I said, through an alternative GB/EU/NI trade border system? This arrangement is unsustainable and it is unjust because, as has been said over and again in this House, it...
We need to renegotiate the Windsor Framework agreement, which is totally unacceptable. This Parliament needs to govern, and establish the laws for, Northern Ireland, and we need to integrate our internal market across from the mainland of Great Britain to Northern Ireland itself. There is every opportunity in the reset, because we read in the press that the Government have already made massive and unreasonable concessions to the EU, which seems to be getting every item on its wish list. We are giving away billions of pounds of fish for no good purpose. We are substituting our rather good Turing student scheme for a much dearer one which helps the EU more and our students less. We are probably going to concede on mobility of labour for people under 30, so that they will have much more benefit, with many more of them coming to us to take advantage of our jobs, markets and facilities. We are probably going to extend EU lawmaking rights over many more areas. The Government will undoubtedly end up paying the EU a lot more money, so, Government, wake up-the EU is taking you for fools. It needs to be the case that Britain demands other things. We could certainly put in a much better system to free the borders between Great Britain and Northern Ireland without putting new barriers on the border to the Republic of Ireland, under the mutual enforcement system that I and others have promoted in the past to previous Governments. We can certainly do much more to reduce the costs of...
My Lords, the people of Northern Ireland had the legislation we are debating today simply imposed upon them. They were not consulted in any way. Northern Ireland parliamentarians first became aware that we were subject to these laws only when regulations were published proposing to extend them to GB. This is wholly undemocratic, profoundly humiliating and completely unsustainable. More importantly, these regulations rest on the misleading premise that if GB submits to these laws, goods imported into GB can then move freely throughout the United Kingdom internal market for goods, including Northern Ireland, via the UK internal market system. The term “internal market” has an established meaning: the free movement of goods without encountering a customs or international SPS border. The clear implication of the term “UK internal market system” is therefore that goods imported into GB should move freely to Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, without encountering such borders. But goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland encounter a customs and international SPS border requiring customs paperwork, under EU regulation 2023/1128, and international SPS paperwork, under EU regulation 2023/1231. This is not a UK internal market system; it is a GB/EU/NI international trade border system. To describe it otherwise is to deliberately mislead the people of the United Kingdom. Some may point out that the customs and international SPS forms required under these regulations...
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
My Lords, we have had several debates over the last couple of years in relation to the Windsor Framework. They have all originated from those who are basically opposed to the Windsor Framework, which is a direct consequence of Brexit-for which they voted. That has caused economic and political instability in Northern Ireland. Instead, as my noble friend Lady Chapman said, we need not only a pragmatic approach but a collaborative one to be able to avail ourselves of the opportunities presented by access to both the UK internal market and the EU single market, which bring benefit and economic opportunity to all producers in Northern Ireland. Let us cast our minds back: what is the purpose of the Windsor Framework? It is to fix trade and political problems caused by the post-Brexit Northern Ireland protocol, by making it easier to move goods between Britain and Northern Ireland. Yes, there are challenges, but the report by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, which was accepted by the previous Secretary of State, indicated that a one-stop shop would be established. Can my noble friend the Minister provide an update on the one-stop shop, the SPS agreement and the UK-EU reset? Those are vital vehicles to bring us to a better place.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard
My Lords, I apologise to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Frost; I missed the first minute of his introduction. Since the introduction of the protocol and the Windsor Framework, we have witnessed-although many of us have not agreed with-a significant divergence of trade and goods movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We now appear to be witnessing Great Britain being required to accept those EU regulations. I notice that a number of those speaking this evening in your Lordships’ House are from Northern Ireland, but this has a significant impact on the people of Great Britain as well. Is this a situation of “back to the future”? As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has indicated, the detail of this particular legislation may be relatively minor, but today in the Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee we had a number of regulations for consideration. These ranged from electric vehicles to animal feed safety, cereal products, vegetables, nuts, fruits, honey, jellies, veterinary products and now the EUDR, the European deforestation regulations. How many more of these are we going to have to contemplate over the forthcoming years? It is the public and the businesses who are suffering in all this, administratively and financially. In Northern Ireland we know the significant negative impact this has had over the last number of years on businesses, particularly small businesses, as they try to bring in goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Larger businesses...
My Lords, this EU regulation banning the import of certain fresh food products into this country imposes EU laws on GB by negative statutory instrument. It anticipates the dynamic alignment for the whole agri-food sector proposed by the EU reset. As has already been pointed out here and in the other place, it does so under cover of the 2018 withdrawal agreement Act, which at the time was understood to be for Northern Ireland and not the whole of the UK. This set of regulations imposes EU law on the UK, with dynamic alignment with the EU on SPS policy. I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. It may be peppers or tomatoes, but perhaps it would be helpful for the House to know that more than half of the fresh foods that come to supermarket shelves are from rest of the world countries. It will perhaps have an impact on the cost of living; we will see about the competitive market and how this works. This dynamic alignment raises serious constitutional questions about an executive diktat to which noble Lords on both sides have referred. It is a matter of importance on which the whole country has voted. It voted twice, in the referendum and in 2019, to take back control of our lawmaking from the EU. In February 2026, the House of Commons Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs raised this and said there were concerns about Parliament’s role in scrutinising European legislation and the capacity within EU institutions to check that. I leave noble Lords...
My Lords, time does not permit me to reiterate or examine the constitutional issues that this SI raises. They have been dealt with by a number of other speakers. Nor can I comment on whether those constitutional concerns are in any way ameliorated in practice by the impact on the plant health trade. I have to confess that plant health is not something I know a great deal about; I suspect I may not be alone in the Chamber on that. In the Explanatory Memorandum for this SI, the Government themselves indicate that there was no consultation on the SI. It was felt to be not necessary, so it is hard to see how the Government can also say with confidence that this is of practical benefit. It is clear that while this SI would align the whole of the UK with the EU, it does not create any compensating removal of the internal border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It leaves in place, for retail movements, an export licence, customs declarations, SPS checks and identity checks. The Government may be able to claim that this is at a reduced level than it would otherwise have been, but the one thing they cannot do is claim that this creates an unfettered or frictionless border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. That creates a major problem for the future. As has been indicated, we are moving into further reset discussions. We wait to see what direction the new Prime Minister takes. I simply say that if we reach a point at which, at the end of those reset arrangements,...
My Lords, another day, another SI on the Windsor Framework on just a few products, the excuse being that if we do not do it, we will drag Northern Ireland further away from the rest of the United Kingdom. But the fault is in the Windsor Framework, which was designed-as it carefully was, originally in Chequers and then in the Northern Ireland protocol-to drag the UK back into the EU eventually. The next stop is the reset, with whole categories of products and sectors of the economy. But the only places the UK economy is growing right now are in those parts of the economy that are specifically not under EU law and diverge from it: the flat white tech economy, the City, precision breeding, gene editing. All these are growing precisely because we are not in the EU. Are we eventually going to give up those sectors too, and without any hope of growing the economy? Worse, are we going to continue to deny Northern Ireland the ability to participate fully in those sectors, which right now it cannot do? No-enough of these statutory instruments. The Windsor Framework must go. In the fullness of time, it will. We must all hope for that happy eventuality as we actually, properly, finally leave the EU.
My Lords, the Windsor Framework was not an inevitable product of Brexit, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, claimed-and as has been endlessly claimed. If anything, it was a product of the Benn Act. Or, I should say-to spare the familial honour of that good and worthy man, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate-it was a product of the 2017 election, which brought into another place a majority of people who made it clear and passed legislation to the effect that we would not leave other than on terms that were agreeable to the EU. They did not put it exactly those terms. They said, “We won’t allow a no-deal Brexit”. If you think about it, that is exactly the same thing. I can tell noble Lords, having been a Member of the European Parliament at the time, that nobody in Brussels suggested a different status for Northern Ireland until the second half of 2017, in response to this extraordinary weakness that they saw on our side. It is extraordinary that we have allowed the Windsor Framework to remain in place, unless we are deliberately wanting the chafing and uncomfortable aspects of it to drive us towards some kind of reintegration. Let us focus on what we can do to solve where we are. I hope this might appeal even to some of the noble Lords present who hanker after reunion. One way of solving all the issues that are supposed to be tackled by the Windsor Framework would be to allow EU regulations as an alternative system throughout the UK; to allow British companies to choose...
My Lords, in my two minutes I would like to make three brief points. First, I would like to deal with the regulations themselves. From these Benches, we support these short, technical regulations, which provide protection against external plant pests, particularly in tomatoes, peppers and ginger. We support greater alignment with the EU in general on these matters, which we believe will reduce friction to trade. Indeed, we would like to see the UK eventually rejoining the single market. However, as this debate has illustrated once again this evening, the issue is not so much about the substance of the regulations before us, but more about genuine concerns about democratic accountability and parliamentary oversight. Since we left the EU, we no longer have a voice in the European Parliament’s committees or other EU institutions when this type of highly technical but important regulation is discussed. We therefore have virtually no say or input into them. As we face an ever-greater number of these regulations stemming from dynamic alignment, it would be very helpful if the Minister could say whether the Government intend to publish a strategy for how Parliament will carry out its scrutiny role in future more effectively. Relying on regret Motions from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and others, does not amount to an acceptable strategy for parliamentary oversight. While I personally welcome the introduction of a time limit on these SI regret Motions,...
My Lords, I thank the Minister for being in her place to listen to the concerns of noble Lords. These regulations relate to the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, which was established under the Windsor Framework to allow goods to move from Great Britain to Northern Ireland more easily. It is central that we protect the integrity of our union. These regulations, however, seek to align our import requirements with those in the EU for goods originating from non-EU countries, specifically pest measures. When it comes to our import requirements, these should of course protect from plant pests, but it is not clear why our requirements must mirror future EU requirements, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for his Motion. A formal consultation and full impact assessment were deemed unnecessary, but can the Minister explain the evidence base behind this decision? Regarding NIRMS more widely, there is concern that businesses may not be able to meet the 19 October deadline for “Not for EU” labelling for bottles moving from GB to Northern Ireland. Can the Minister clarify whether she believes the sector has capacity and guarantee that this will not result in sudden commercial waste or widespread product delistings? Our regulations should be evidence-based, practical and pro-business, not ideological. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for introducing the Motion, and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate today. The purpose of the instrument is to facilitate the continued smooth movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland by achieving alignment with the European Union on its import controls. It is a small, technical change so that businesses can continue to benefit from the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme’s simplified arrangements. This instrument does not amend or extend the Windsor Framework in any way, nor does it introduce new policy. Its purpose is simply to update existing biosecurity requirements so that established trading arrangements can continue to operate effectively. It is a minor, pragmatic change that is intended to guard against pests and to protect the biosecurity of the island of Ireland. Without this legislation, these goods would no longer be eligible to move under the NIRM scheme. As a result, traders moving these goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland would lose access to the simplified processes, creating unnecessary costs and complexity for businesses. The Government remain committed to implementing the Windsor Framework because it supports trade, reduces unnecessary barriers and provides certainty for businesses. This instrument makes a modest but important contribution by ensuring that existing arrangements continue to operate effectively. Speeches may have been short, but a large...
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all those who have taken the trouble to speak this evening on this very important constitutional issue. I note that we have actually finished over five minutes early, even though quite a few speakers ran over the two minutes. In the future debates next week and the week after, which I am sure the Minister looks forward to with eager anticipation, perhaps we could consider a way of reflecting that in the speaking times. Despite the two minutes that most noble Lords had, I feel that a lot of important points that I, with the luxury of eight minutes, did not get to raise were nevertheless raised. We have had a good discussion that we can come back to. In the circumstances, I will not press this Motion to a vote. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion withdrawn.
My Lords, we are not due to return to the Bill Committee until 8.12 pm, and we are running five or six minutes ahead of that, so the House will now adjourn during pleasure until that point.
Sitting suspended.