Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

For Back-Bench contributions, the limit is three minutes. There is no gap and we are very tight for time, so if people stick within the three minutes, everybody will be grateful and we will be able to hear from the Minister later.

My Lords, this instrument extends to Northern Ireland only and is being brought through Westminster, working closely with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, or DAERA. The Government note the regret amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, which raises concerns about the implementation of EU-derived plant health and seed legislation in Northern Ireland without public consultation and about the broader implications of the Windsor Framework. This is a necessary measure to update Northern Ireland’s domestic legislation and plant health enforcement provisions, ensuring the continued protection of Northern Ireland’s biosecurity and fulfilment of our Windsor Framework obligations. As noble Lords will be aware, under the terms of the Windsor Framework, limited parts of European Union law falling under Annex 2 to the framework continue to apply in Northern Ireland. These include the movement of goods, agri-food standards, and animal and plant health. It is important to note that this instrument makes no changes to the Windsor Framework. The instrument will amend existing Northern Ireland plant health legislation, introducing changes to six Northern Ireland statutory rules. The instrument will also update Northern Ireland legislation in line with EU legislative changes which are directly applicable in Northern Ireland. The majority of these changes update obsolete and outdated references in respect of Northern Ireland, Great Britain and EU member states following the UK’s exit from the EU. I will now outline the changes being made by this instrument. Three of the pieces of marketing legislation being amended are: first, the Marketing of Vegetable Plant Material Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995; secondly, the Marketing of Ornamental Plant Propagating Material Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999; and thirdly, the Marketing of Fruit, Plant and Propagating Material Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017. These set out conditions relating to plant varieties, documentation requirements, and plant health and quality for an array of fruit, vegetables and propagating materials. They protect buyers and growers by outlining compulsory standards for products. Also being amended are the Forest Reproductive Material Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002, which implement rules for marketing forest seeds, plants and cuttings, ensuring that material is from approved sustainable sources and is identifiable from seed to the final user, protecting Northern Ireland’s biosecurity traders and growers. The fifth piece of legislation being amended is the Seed Potatoes Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016. As you will possibly be aware, seed potatoes are one of the notable good news stories resulting from the introduction of the Windsor Framework. The Windsor Framework permitted the movement of seed potatoes from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and their growing on, which had been prohibited during EU exit. The final piece of domestic legislation for Northern Ireland that this instrument will amend is the Plant Health (Official Controls and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020. This is a central piece in setting out the overarching rules and requirements for plant health. These amendments are primarily technical in nature to update references and terms that are related to Northern Ireland, the UK and the EU. The amendments will also update domestic legislation to include EU biosecurity legislative changes that are already applicable and implemented, including some relating to disease control. A number of the pests and diseases covered in these technical updates pose similar risks to us here in Great Britain, and controls have already been introduced in legislation here. This instrument ensures that similar control measures to protect against these pests and diseases that are already in place in Northern Ireland will be fully enforceable. The instrument moves beyond the existing ability of rejecting consignments and provides for full enforcement of non-compliance, including pursuing penalties and prosecution where necessary. While no formal public consultation was undertaken for the instrument, we have worked closely with stakeholders through webinars, publication of guidance, roundtables and the Horticultural Working Group as well as one-to-one meetings, particularly on the implementation of the Windsor Framework. From these ongoing stakeholder engagement mechanisms and the technical nature of this instrument, we determined that a consultation was not required. In conclusion, I emphasise that it is essential that the amendments in this instrument update the Northern Ireland statute book and enable effective compliance with plant health requirements to uphold our commitment to full and faithful implementation of the Windsor Framework. The instrument does not impede Northern Ireland’s constitutional position or grant any additional powers to the European Union, nor does it introduce any additional impositions for stakeholders. So, by approving it, we reaffirm our solid commitment to protect our agrifood, forestry and horticultural sectors and deliver on our international obligations. I beg to move. Amendment to the Motion

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations. Once again, we are debating regulations which may appear on the surface to be technical and limited in scope, but, as we know, such regulations raise issues of real constitutional and democratic significance and importance. No one here tonight is going to argue against high standards of plant health or biosecurity. Of course we need effective protection against pests and disease, and Northern Ireland farmers and growers deserve robust safeguards. The question is not whether we should have these high standards; it is who decides those standards and what they should be. In a democracy, the answer should be straightforward. The laws applying to citizens of the United Kingdom should be made by legislators people elect and can remove. Yet here we are passing regulations because, as the Explanatory Memorandum says, they are necessary to implement obligations arising under the Windsor Framework and to reflect EU legislation which continues to apply to Northern Ireland. Such legislation is not made here at Westminster, nor at Stormont by the Northern Ireland Assembly, yet UK businesses and UK citizens in Northern Ireland are required to obey it. Parliament is being asked to amend domestic law as a consequence of a regulatory regime imposed on part of the United Kingdom by the European Union. These regulations permit the authorities to enforce laws. That is what these regulations give: the power of enforcement. They do not actually set the laws people are having to abide by in Northern Ireland. That has already been decided. It has been decided by the European Union and imposed on Northern Ireland. So tonight, whatever noble Lords’ views are on the merits of the issues before us in these regulations, we cannot debate those. That has already been decided. We are debating the enforcement mechanisms. That is the constitutional reality that Ministers and others continually try to avoid with words such as “technical”, “pragmatic” and “necessary”. When you look at some of the wording of the regulations, you can see that these are not mere technical tidy-ups of wording, updating the statute book in some small way. I refer to some of the clauses in the regulations. New paragraph (4C) in the Forest Reproductive Material Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 states: “A reference to a member State is to be read as if Northern Ireland were a member State of the European Union”. New paragraph (1A) in the Plant Health (Official Controls and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020 says that “(a) any reference to a member State is to be read as if Northern Ireland were a member State of the European Union (b) any reference to the Union or Union territory”— that is, European Union territory— “is to be read so as to include Northern Ireland”. These are hardly technical changes. They are not small matters. Instead of removing the regulatory border within our country, government policy amounts to managing that border by accommodating the EU rules that created the need for it in the first place. It is an acceptance and entrenchment of the problem, not a solution to the problem. We hear much about protecting the Northern Ireland internal market, and we have heard it again tonight. In a genuine internal market, goods move freely from one part of the country to another without an international customs border—without the special schemes we have in Northern Ireland, with their crushing bureaucracy, enormous costs and compliance requirements that are having a chilling effect on companies doing business with Northern Ireland consumers and, in some cases, banning it altogether. The problem with the way in which the Windsor Framework is discussed by the Government and others who support it is that each individual regulation is presented as some small technical measure. Each individual change is said to be limited in scope and not burdensome; but, taken together as part of the Windsor Framework in their totality, they amount to something constitutionally enormous: the subjection of Northern Ireland to laws made by an authority outside the United Kingdom and the creation of barriers to trade between one part of our country and another. As the Minister has just tried to explain, the Government are not even bothering about public consultation any more. They say it is unnecessary. If legislation affecting England, Scotland or Wales were being amended because laws made by a foreign legislature continued automatically to apply in certain respects, would Ministers really regard consultation as an unnecessary formality? The absence of consultation is particularly striking because these regulations concern enforcement. The Government are not simply tidying up references in legislation. They are assuring that the requirements flowing from the EU regime can be effectively enforced in part of the United Kingdom. Surely that deserves proper scrutiny and engagement with those who will be affected in Northern Ireland. The absence of a full impact assessment is similarly concerning. A key assessment should be what the cumulative impact is of all these arrangements on trade within the United Kingdom. The reality is that the Windsor Framework, of which this is part, fundamentally alters Northern Ireland’s constitutional position without the cross-community consent that has been the foundation of political stability in Northern Ireland for decades. It is simply nonsense to say that the only choices are the present arrangements or some kind of hard border on the island of Ireland. That has been comprehensively debunked and shown to be false. The Government need to be working towards fundamental solutions to the problem, rather than continuing to legislate to administer the consequences of the protocol and to entrench it even further. For those reasons, I beg to move.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for securing this debate and ensuring that we have three whole minutes to discuss the dismemberment of the United Kingdom. I began by trying to find out what this was about by reading the Explanatory Memorandum. I want to make a complaint to those who write these things—if any of them are listening. It is completely opaque. It gives no indication of the actual consequences of what we are doing on real people and real lives, or on the constitution of this country. In future, I hope they write them more informatively. Following from that, if we were to reject this statutory instrument, what would happen? Would it mean that European laws no longer applied in Northern Ireland? No, they would still apply. They would probably not be enforced by the British Government. I do not know what would happen. Perhaps the European Union would send in officials to do the enforcement for us. We should find out what the actual consequences are of passing or not passing this legislation before we decide whether it should go ahead. Next, do these regulations actually fulfil the promises of the Windsor Framework, as it is so called? I looked up what the promises were. It was said, re plant health and so on: “Instead of full EU certification, all plants and seeds will move under the existing UK-wide plant passport scheme, in line with traders throughout the UK”, and: “Previously banned seed potatoes will once again be available from other parts of the UK while remaining prohibited in Ireland”. Is that the case? Is it exactly the same as in the rest of the UK or not? The honourable Member in the other place, Sammy Wilson, said that he finds it difficult to get seed potatoes in Northern Ireland, that consignments above 2 kilograms have to go through complex procedures, and that lots of producers and suppliers no longer get them from GB. Is that or is that not the case? Will these regulations alter that in any way? I share the disgust which the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned at the inclusion in this document of statements that Northern Ireland is to be treated as part of the EU. What that is saying, in effect, is that the constitutional relationship between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is to be the same as between Donbass and Luhansk, and the rest of Ukraine. Legally, they are part of Ukraine, but the laws are made by Russia. Here, legally, Northern Ireland is part of—

Order. I ask the noble Lord to bring his comments to an end.

I end on that sombre note.

My Lords, it is already apparent that this SI is connected to a wider ideological political debate. We learn from the text of this statutory instrument—we will come back to the text later—that it has virtually no impact, it is already operative in Northern Ireland, and so on. The Minister has said that seed potatoes are one area of great success for the Windsor Framework. I wish that Ministers would make more of those areas of success for the Windsor Framework because the most important thing that it does, for all its many defects, is that it returns to the fundamental negotiating point which led to the Good Friday agreement—that point being that the British Government were not committed in any way to developing an all-island economy, which they were committed to by some of the documents before the Windsor Framework was agreed with the European Union. That is the most important thing. On the current expansion and growth of Northern Ireland, I have recently seen figures which suggest that the Greater Belfast region is doing better than the Greater Manchester region, heaven forfend. That is linked to the fact that the UK as an economy still operates fundamentally as a viable internal single market. Having made that point, I just want to say one thing because the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has a point: there was no consultation on this document. Looking at the correspondence in and around our own Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, it is very difficult to get a handle on it. You leave with the feeling that because this is small beer and does not affect many people in a significant way, officials do not put the work into it. We should not be coming to this House and saying, “No consultation”. We should be coming to this House to hear an explanation of what the consultation said, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has a point there.

My Lords, another week and yet another regret amendment in respect of the Windsor Framework, this one regarding plant health seeds, seed potatoes and plant propagating material. I ask the simple question: what does this achieve? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bew, that this is more about the constitutional debate in Northern Ireland. Who benefits from these repetitive debates in the House of Lords? As someone who supports the Windsor Framework, and does not support the regret amendment, I say that we should be looking at areas of collaboration and co-operation with the wider business community on the benefits to be obtained from the Windsor Framework, and from the dual access to the UK internal market and the EU single market. That is what many businesses are saying to me and that is where the benefits lie. We must not forget that the Windsor Framework is a direct result of Brexit, which many of those who are opposed to the special arrangements for Northern Ireland supported. The bottom line is that we would have been better to remain within the EU. My personal hope is for that to come about over the next few years. Obviously, this SI is to ensure that EU legislation governing plant health, seeds, seed potatoes and plant propagating materials continues to operate effectively in Northern Ireland. It also includes full enforcement powers to ensure compliance with plant health requirements and biosecurity in Northern Ireland, and states that there is an ongoing programme of work to ensure that all regulations covered by the Windsor Framework are fully operable and enforceable in Northern Ireland. Obviously, this information should have been in the explanatory document, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee stated. Can my noble friend the Minister indicate why this did not happen? She may not have that information to hand this evening so perhaps she could write to me. Undoubtedly, the potato industry is significant to the agri-food industry in Northern Ireland. I have family involved in it and they do not talk about the inability to get seed potatoes or the regulations that they face. Their main concern centres on the weather conditions as a result of climate change, because they face wet springs and autumns, which make planting and harvesting extremely difficult. Undoubtedly, the Windsor Framework has presented administrative challenges. In conclusion, can my noble friend the Minister provide us, either tonight or in writing, with a copy in the Library, with an update on the full implementation of the report by my noble friend Lord Murphy, whose recommendations were accepted by the Government, and the ones from our committee as well? Can she also provide further details in relation to the SPS agreement?

This is no way to legislate for Northern Ireland. It is not right to annex part of our country to the European Union. At the time of the Windsor Framework, I and some colleagues in the Commons opposed it and pointed out that there were much easier ways of organising the trade and border arrangements between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The Government should go back to that work and understand that we do not have here a system of handling Northern Ireland’s law and trade which meets the requirements of the loyalist community, and maybe others in Northern Ireland as well. The Government should be ashamed of how undemocratic this process is. As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has rightly identified, there is no point in consulting all the people who are to be affected by regulations in these areas in Northern Ireland because the Government cannot change them—and the Government cannot be bothered to work out the impact costs, or even the impact benefits, of the regulations because they rightly understand that they are a spectator. They are not in charge of any of these things. Then we are told in the documents that there is going to be no review of how this works out. All the other examples that come to the Commons and the Lords from government for consideration go through a proper process. There is consultation with the people they are going to affect. Both Houses expect a proper assessment of costs and benefits. We expect a proper debate and if the Government have got it wrong, we expect them to go away and change or amend it. We certainly expect there to be a review after the process, so that we can see whether it has worked out in the way that the Government wanted. The fact that none of these things can happen on any of these SIs means that we are going to spend a lot of time, on SI after SI, complaining about the process, so I have this suggestion for the Government. They have embarked on negotiations for something they call the EU reset. So far, all I have seen is a list of things that the EU wants, with the Government indicating that they would like to give those away in order to purchase some greater friendship or influence. It is always very odd that they think you get influence by giving in to what the other party wants. That is not the way most people negotiate. Would it not be a good idea for the Government to put to the EU that this is doing damage to relations between communities in Northern Ireland and to the way in which they are governed; that it is undemocratic; and that we surely need a new settlement over how Northern Ireland legislation and trade are conducted? I very much recommend the mutual enforcement model, where we say that we will not send anything that is non-compliant from Northern Ireland to the EU and that we do not want to impose any new barriers on the Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland border—indeed, that we would dismantle all barriers between GB and Northern Ireland.

My Lords, it is a real pleasure to support my noble friend the Minister and oppose the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. I respect and have heard many times—as has everybody else present, I think—the constitutional concerns that have been raised, but it is right that we focus on the practical reality facing farmers, growers and businesses in Northern Ireland on these occasions. It is probably worth reminding the House that, under the Northern Ireland protocol, there were difficulties with the movement of seed potatoes into Northern Ireland, and that the Windsor Framework was negotiated by the previous Government to attempt to resolve some of these difficulties. I do not think that anybody would argue that we are in a perfect situation. There are issues and constitutional concerns, and there is a problem with concerns from the unionist community; that is absolutely understood and legitimate. What you do about that is an open question and something to which nobody, whatever noble Lords might imply in these sorts of debate, has a simple solution. Today’s measure is about allowing the movement of high-quality seed potatoes into a market, and it is necessary. The measure means that the appropriate agencies will have the powers they need to protect biosecurity—that is it. That is what this measure does, and that is why my noble friend is right to propose it to the House. On consultation, it is my observation that Defra in particular needs no encouragement to consult on any issue at any given time, but this instrument does not introduce a new policy or new burdens. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said about this. Sometimes, for other reasons, there is a need to engage the community in a very visible way. Perhaps that is a point worth reflecting on for the future, but, in the narrow sense of what would ordinarily trigger a consultation, this would not meet that threshold. It is a decision not to consult; no one was forced not to consult. By rejecting these regulations, we would not solve the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, or anybody else. This is an imperfect situation—we recognise that—but, tonight, for the benefit of businesses and growers in Northern Ireland, it is important that we pass these regulations to give the legal certainty and clarity that that important industry needs. Finally, at a time when free trade faces growing threats from protectionism and geopolitical instability in many areas of the world, securing a stable and frictionless internal market here is more important now than ever.

My Lords, we are in the second of what will be three discussions of statutory instruments on the Windsor Framework before we go into the Recess. One of the advantages of this rapid sequence of debates is that we can check the consistency of what is said in one debate, as compared to another. With that in mind, I note that the Minister, when winding up last week, said: “The noble Lord, Lord Frost, implied that the UK has ceded biosecurity responsibilities for Northern Ireland to the EU”. She went on to say: “We retain complete autonomy to make our own regulatory decisions ”.—[Official Report, 2/9/26; col. 201.] For a few reasons, I gently ask the Minister whether she entirely stands by that statement in the light of the discussion that we are having. First, as we have heard, the Explanatory Memorandum says that the EU amendments, as they are called, are “already operational in Northern Ireland”. Further, in discussion on this, Defra told the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that, if necessary, DAERA—the Northern Ireland equivalent— “could in practice have relied on the EU regulations as a basis for enforcement action”. One wonders what the point of this SI is, given the powers that are already in place. It certainly feels rather irrelevant. Secondly, in case this was not obvious enough, the Government are clear—as we have heard—that these amendments are required of us by the Windsor Framework. Again, the Explanatory Memorandum says: “The purpose of this Statutory Instrument is to ensure that relevant domestic legislation … operates in accordance with the Windsor Framework”. In other words, that is the justification, not the substantive purpose. Thirdly—again, as we have heard—if that were not enough, paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum washes its hands of it and says, “If you have concerns about any of this, go to Brussels and talk to them about it”. I wonder whether, when this great reset and the new SPS rules are in place, thus imposing this regime on the whole of the UK, that will also be the Government’s position; and whether farmers will be told to go to Brussels and beg if they do not like the new SPS reset arrangement. That seems the logical consequence of the position that is taken here. It could not be clearer that the British Government have no say at all in these matters; today’s legislation makes that abundantly clear. So I ask the Minister: in what sense does she think the Government have autonomy in these areas? I suggest to her that today’s discussion is disconnected from the real power relationships in Northern Ireland and is entirely performative. Therefore, the regret amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, is entirely justified.

My Lords, this is another statutory instrument to update EU law enforcement on plant health, seeds, seed potatoes and plant propagating material so that it operates effectively in Northern Ireland. It therefore aligns the operation of Northern Ireland’s agri-food sector with EU laws. The measures do not take account of the geographical, climatic and agricultural conditions of Northern Ireland, which are different from those of mainland Europe. The House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee concluded in its assessment of the SPS for GB that the “full adoption of EU rules in this area would risk embedding regulatory decisions that are inappropriate for GB production systems”. I ask the Minister: is it right that we should have statutory instruments to enforce regulatory decisions that may not suit the very different conditions in Northern Ireland? Worse, the regulations violate the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom and rupture our internal market. They mean divergent laws to govern the agri-food sectors under the Windsor Framework. That framework, as we know, accepted as permanent the EU’s power to regulate goods in Ireland, including the agri-food sector, whereas the settlement under the Northern Ireland protocol of the withdrawal agreement was recognised by the parties at the time as temporary, pending “best endeavours” to find a more lasting solution. As long as we have the current arrangements, Northern Ireland will thus be an economic vassal of Brussels, governed autocratically with laws made for the people but not by the people.