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

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord Frost

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost]

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

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

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.

[Lord Frost (Non-Afl)]

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.