Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant Health) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

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 legislation is entirely about compliance with EU requirements, or has Defra looked at the merits of what it is trying to do? If so, what is its view on the substance? What is the broader significance of this legislation? The significance, of course, is that it concedes wider points of political concern. We are all familiar with one element: the Windsor Framework stops the UK Government legislating in Northern Ireland in certain areas, giving the power to the EU instead. One consequence of that is growing separation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Without rehearsing all the history, there is a clear line to be drawn between the 2017 joint report, the 2019 agreement of the protocol —more or less under duress once this Parliament had closed off the option of leaving the EU without a deal—and all the problems that have since followed. As I have often said, the Johnson Government never wanted the protocol arrangements. We expected that they would be difficult to work in practice, and that the protocol itself would end up being removed or overridden. We sought to achieve this, first by negotiation, and then through the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. As we know, that fell, and so fell with it any effort to deal with the situation that it created. Now we have the Windsor Framework instead, and there is a crucial difference in this framework. In return for some arguable and minor improvements to the Irish Sea border, the Government are now committed to defending the protocol-like arrangements, instead of trying to remove them, and that makes a huge difference to the politics. For one thing, other actors come to see it as semi-permanent, and adapt to it; hence the trade diversion that we are already seeing. But, more than that, there is politics. Those in Northern Ireland who do not want the bond between Northern Ireland and Great Britain to be weakened still further are left without political support on matters that deal with the Windsor Framework. That is what we are seeing work out. This is not the only problem. The Windsor Framework may be about Northern Ireland, but it has big effects in Great Britain too. It creates an incentive to align. This SI and all those like it make clear that not only does the Windsor Framework abrogate the Government’s lawmaking capacity in Northern Ireland but it also means that, in practice, there is a huge incentive for GB to follow the EU in all the areas covered by the Windsor Framework. If we do not, we lose the benefits graciously granted to us in operating the border within our own country. That loss of national power is why legislation such as today’s is so significant. We have debated this many times already and will do so a couple of times yet, even before the Recess. A pattern builds up: the EU leads on something, we follow and Britain’s national independence is gradually watered down. If we do not want to follow, or if we want to change our own rules, Northern Ireland pays the price. All the incentives are for the Government to acquiesce in the EU’s political need and to comply for fear of benefits being removed. Today’s legislation may be on a relatively minor point, but some future foreseeable cases are not. Northern Ireland is about to be deprived of the benefits of Brazilian beef and much else under the EU’s so-called health ban on imports, and there is already pressure for GB to follow suit. Does the Minister foresee similar legislation in this area? If not, why must we align on peppers and ginger? Perhaps the Minister could explain what the Government’s plans are in this area and whether they take the same view as the EU on the substance of the matter. Similarly, looking a little more widely, on AI the Government are currently considering delaying a firm reaction to the EU’s insistence that the AI Act should apply in Northern Ireland. But some of it already does: Articles 103 to 107 and 109 already apply in Northern Ireland to vehicles, rail and other machinery. The digital omnibus law, just passed, will raise similar issues, and so, no doubt, will future legislation. If the Government’s overriding policy is the pursuit of alignment with the EU in areas covered by the Windsor Framework, they will end up aligning in GB too with some or all of the EU’s AI Act. Are the Government happy with that? If they are not and intend to resist, why can we not resist in other areas as well? I turn briefly to the Government’s so-called reset. Will anything in this change? No, it will get worse. At least now we have the theoretical choice on aligning in GB. In future, the reset and the eventual European partnership Bill will remove much of that choice in many areas. GB will have to comply with EU SPS rules, just as Northern Ireland must. This will not remove the awkwardness of days like this; it will make them worse, in fact, because Ministers will have to admit that this House has no choice in the matter. The fig leaf of parliamentary power will be entirely removed—not even in return for free-flowing trade because, after all, the customs border will remain in place. I really wonder whether the Government are content with this and happy that we are giving away the British birthright of freedom for a mess of EU pottage. This Heath Robinson set of arrangements cannot last. Either it will do what we always feared and its proponents always hoped—drag the whole country back into an EU alignment arrangement like the May Government’s ill-fated Brexit deal, with national independence in name only—or it will be seen as what it is: a monstrosity that is entirely incompatible with being a properly independent country. The Windsor Framework is leading this country into deeper and more dangerous waters with every day that passes. It must one day be removed and, one day, I hope it will be. I beg to move.

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 with international law, not just the WTO SPS agreement? Is not the EU’s insistence on maintaining a border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland contrary to the UN declaration on principles of international law, friendly relations and co-operation between states? That lays down: “Every State shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any other State or country”. I await the Minister’s reply.

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 & Wolff is now working on contracts for the Royal Navy. There is not a growing separation. We have a return, in a way, to what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, was engaged in negotiating in the last week of the Good Friday agreement: a practical model of north-south relations rather than one dominated by nationalist solutions of one sort or another—solutions that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, is quite right are to be found in the 2017 EU-UK agreement and in the withdrawal agreement. This is a significant modification, though it is imperfect. In the last debate, the Lord Privy Seal talked about the Prime Minister’s successful trip to Northern Ireland. She said it was clear that the Prime Minister saw Northern Ireland as part of the success he wanted for the UK as a whole. That is the spirit.

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?

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 opposed deeply by the noble Lord and others in this House. For now, this is an imperfect solution, it is a pragmatic solution, it is a fudge, but it is where we have arrived. Having gone through the trade agreement, the Northern Ireland protocol, all those debates, this is the solution that we have today. I favour closer alignment, but these regulations are needed, it is important that they are passed, in order to allow for as frictionless trade as possible, and I expect and hope that my noble friend will put pragmatism and the needs of producers first.

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 involves accommodating the desire of 27 other states to disrespect the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, in violation of international law, as was said by the noble Lord, and undermining our democracy. It is not sustainable. I just wish that His Majesty’s Government and the Minister would be honest about what this regulation actually does, in further dividing Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom.

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 Europe by going through, in the negotiations, how the residual financial liabilities are too excessive. Above all, we should reinstate the unity of the United Kingdom by regaining the right to make the laws, in this Parliament and in Northern Ireland, that apply to the people of Northern Ireland, and to reinstate our internal market throughout the whole UK.

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 are shorter than would otherwise be the case. That is true, but an internal market is not created by a border requiring shorter customs or SBS forms; it is created by there being no border and no requirement for any such forms. Moreover, these shorter forms come at the cost of additional border frictions, including for businesses. It is time for the Government to face up to reality. It is all very well multiplying words and fine statements, but that does not correct things, and I trust that this Government will find the courage to do what has to be done.

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.

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 have some flexibility in that they may be able to employ administrators, but small businesses are suffering greatly and they are the people most impacted.

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 with this: it is a constitutional issue of the first importance, and it is lawmaking by the backdoor.

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, we have full alignment on SPS with the EU while leaving in place an internal border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it is not the much-vaunted best of both worlds. We are leaving ourselves in the worst of all possible worlds.

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 whether they want British or EU regulations. It would be great. We would have some regulatory competition and perhaps some pressure on deregulation. This is not unprecedented. The coalition Government in New Zealand, for example, have recently changed the rules so that any pharmaceutical product approved by any serious country—the European Medicines Agency, our MHRA, the FDA in the United States—is automatically legal in New Zealand, which does not need to do its own regulatory system. If we were to do that, the rationale for the Windsor Framework would collapse and we would become more competitive. In fact, the only argument that I can see against it is that it would solve the problem and therefore remove one of the arguments for going back into the European Union, which I suspect is what motivates some of the people present today.

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, it is important to allow an adequate amount of time to ask the Minister questions or to seek clarification. Two minutes is very brief indeed in order to do this adequately. Finally, can the Minister give us an indication of when she expects to update the House on progress being made on negotiations on a wider SPS agreement?

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 number of questions have been asked. I have only 10 minutes to respond, so I will do my best to work my way through them and will write to answer any that I do not reach. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, asked about the purpose of the SI. I have just explained why we are doing it: through protecting the biosecurity of the island of Ireland, we are looking to maintain the flow of trade between GB and Northern Ireland. The provisions in the SI introduce additional pest-related import measures targeting a type of fruit fly for tomatoes and peppers from Taiwan and Israel, and a plant pathogen for ginger from rest-of-the-world countries. We need proof that consignments are free from these pests because, if we do not have it, as I said, people cannot access those markets. We need an additional declaration as part of the phytosanitary certificate that is specific to the pest. Keeping GB aligned with EU import controls will mean that the additional pest control measures will be checked for these goods on entry into GB, which will enable the goods to travel onwards to Northern Ireland using simplified certification. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, asked about the impacts of the SI. The impacts to industry are minimal but necessary. Over the course of a three-year period from 2023 to 2025, there were zero imported consignments of tomatoes, peppers and ginger from Taiwan. There were 226 consignments of peppers, one of aubergines and zero of ginger imported from Israel. The largest impact that this SI introduces will be to ginger imported from rest-of-the-world countries. Over the same three-year period, 3,671 consignments of ginger were imported. The total net direct cost of this SI across the whole of industry is estimated to be £10,000. This one-off cost is mainly based on familiarisation costs to businesses, ensuring they are up-to-date and compliant with the new technical guidance. However, as businesses will need to align with the necessary biosecurity-driven changes implemented by the EU anyway, any additional burdens or costs incurred by traders would not be as a direct result of these regulations. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked about labelling. Our priority is to make sure that businesses do not face unnecessary or disproportionate burdens. We expect the need for businesses to label goods “Not for EU” to diminish significantly as a result of the future arrangements under the SPS agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, made an important point about the impacts on businesses, which is one of the reasons I meet regularly with businesses and their representatives when I go to Northern Ireland, because we need to understand the impacts properly. The noble Lord, Lord Weir, said that the NIRM scheme does not secure unfettered trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, the Windsor Framework provides a stable legal foundation to facilitate the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, allowing everyday goods to move more easily from GB to Northern Ireland. It does so while protecting biosecurity on the island of Ireland, which has been treated as a single epidemiological unit for decades. It also safeguards Northern Ireland’s access to the EU single market. Pragmatism has been mentioned. I thank my noble friend Lady Chapman for her comments on the need for pragmatism. It is one of the reasons we do what we do. The noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Roborough, talked about consultation. No public consultation was undertaken on this SI because there was no statutory duty to do so. However, I reassure noble Lords that the Government engaged closely with industry when the NIRM scheme was originally established, including on the list of goods eligible to move under the scheme. This instrument makes limited updates to the existing requirements, so that goods already covered by the scheme can continue to benefit from its simplified arrangements. We will continue to engage closely with traders, to ensure that any future arrangements support smooth trade to Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, implied that the UK has ceded biosecurity responsibilities for Northern Ireland to the EU. We retain complete autonomy to make our own regulatory decisions, and we are committed to maintaining robust biosecurity protections across all parts of the UK. We continue to protect against many of the same significant disease and pest risks as our European neighbours. As noble Lords will be aware, and as I have said, the island of Ireland has been treated as an epidemiological unit for decades. We need to look at the practical realities of managing animal and plant health risks. Therefore, the island of Ireland would align on biosecurity matters, regardless of EU regulations or the Windsor Framework. The upcoming SPS agreement was mentioned by a number of noble Lords; the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, discussed regulatory influence. I recognise these concerns but do not agree that the arrangements would place us in the same position as when we were a member of the EU. As I said, we retain complete autonomy to make our own regulatory decisions. However, I remind the noble Lords that the matter before us today is this technical instrument. While broader discussions on the SPS agreement are important, they are separate from the measures contained specifically in this statutory instrument. This is designed to reduce paperwork and other barriers to trade, and to support farmers, food producers and exporters right across the UK. The Government believe that it is important to deliver those benefits for businesses and consumers and that this is firmly in the UK’s national interest. My noble friend Lady Ritchie and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked about the timings of the SPS agreement. I confirm that negotiations are at an advanced stage. Now that we have the new Prime Minister in place, we are looking at a date for the summit. The Windsor Framework was also mentioned a number of times. The SPS agreement is designed to remove the majority of regulatory barriers for agri-food products and to tackle the wider barriers relating to trade in organic products and key agri-food marketing standards. My noble friend Lady Ritchie referred to the fact that establishing a common SPS area with the EU means that most movements will be made without the need for the majority of certificates or other routine SPS border controls that are currently required for such movements. These same benefits would be extended to movements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said that the Windsor Framework must go. It is worth reminding ourselves of what it delivers. It is not perfect but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said, we do not have a better way forward. It provides a durable means of protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland, and maintaining the smooth functioning of trade within the UK. It preserves Northern Ireland’s unique access to both the UK internal market and the EU market for goods. The Government remain fully committed to delivering it. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, mentioned AI. The substantive provisions of the EU’s AI Act and the Cyber Resilience Act do not apply in Northern Ireland and would apply only following an agreement by the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, asked about the trade and co-operation agreement. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, at the meeting of the EU-UK Partnership Council on 2 February, the UK and the EU agreed that the review of the implementation had been largely completed via commitments undertaken at the 2025 UK-EU summit on the common understanding. Both sides are continuing to engage with stakeholders, and we will announce the conclusion of the review later this year. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked why Northern Ireland is still being treated differently. It is important to look at the biosecurity issues that I have talked about and the importance for trade. I am about to run out of time—I am very sorry—so I will have to wind up now. This is a pragmatic way we need in order to move forward. We need to ensure Northern Ireland and GB trade can continue in the smoothest way possible. This statutory instrument enables that.

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.

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.