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

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

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.

Nature’s Rights Bill [HL]

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. The strength of feeling we have heard reflects a deep and widely shared concern for the state of our natural world. It also reflects the seriousness with which this House approaches questions of environmental protection, governance and accountability. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for bringing forward the Bill and for her long-standing commitment to the protection and restoration of nature. Whatever our differences on the legislative route, there is no doubt about the sincerity, intellectual rigour and energy that she and those supporting the drafting of the Bill have brought to this issue and these proposals.

As the noble Lord, Lord Frost, mentioned, we have heard some very thoughtful contributions on the philosophical and ethical foundations of recognising nature’s intrinsic worth. We have heard reflections on international examples, on local initiatives and on the growing public desire for stronger action to protect the environment. These are important perspectives, and the Government recognise the legitimacy of the concerns that underpin them. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, recognised the Government’s commitment to this when she referenced our manifesto and our environmental commitments specifically.

However, as many noble Lords have also made clear, the question before us is not whether we value nature, nor whether we must act urgently to protect and restore it. The question is whether the mechanism proposed in this Bill—recognising nature as a legal subject with enforceable rights—is the correct approach within the UK’s constitutional and legal framework. The Government’s position is that it is not.

We already have in place a comprehensive, outcomes-focused and legally binding framework for environmental protection through the Environment Act 2021 and the Environmental Improvement Plan 2025. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that this Government are not rowing back on any of our commitments. These provide long-term statutory targets, strengthened duties on public authorities and independent oversight through the Office for Environmental Protection. Importantly, they require government to act, report and be held to account. Taken together, these measures will help us to restore nature, improve environmental quality, create a circular economy, protect environmental security and improve people’s access to nature.

The Environmental Improvement Plan 2025 ensures that nature’s recovery is a key priority, fundamental to the Government’s approach to economic growth. This Government are committed to delivering for nature, taking action to meet our Environment Act targets and to restore and protect our natural world. This is not a system that lacks ambition or enforceability; it is one of the most robust environmental governance frameworks in the world, which sets out our goals and targets, how we will achieve them and who is responsible for delivery, and it is designed to integrate environmental considerations across government, regulators and local authorities.

Achieving our environmental ambitions requires collective action from individuals, communities and organisations across all sectors, as referenced to by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic. We have sought views and advice from civil society, business, landowners and managers, and local government in developing the Environmental Improvement Plan 2025, and we will work in partnership to achieve its goals and targets. We are also already strengthening nature recovery across government land by publishing a first-of-its-kind Government Estate Nature Plan, which improves co-ordination, evidence and delivery within our existing legal framework. This demonstrates that we can work together to accelerate nature recovery without creating new legal rights or legal personality for nature.

Introducing a parallel and overlapping rights-based system, as the Bill proposes, would create significant risks. It could duplicate or conflict with existing statutory duties. It could generate uncertainty for regulators, land managers, businesses and communities, and it could divert resources away from delivery and into litigation, procedural complexity and institutional restructuring.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, talked in particular about the impact on Wales and the challenges facing Wales. It is important to stress to noble Lords that the Bill has UK-wide ambition, but still preserves the devolved competence, which enables devolved Governments to make decisions around implementation.

We have also heard today about the serious legal and constitutional implications of recognising nature as a legal entity. Such a step, through the Bill’s proposed integrated rights framework, would require a fundamental reworking of long=established principles of administrative, property and planning law. It would introduce new enforcement bodies, including a nature guardianship council and nature rights tribunal, without clarity on how these would interact with existing regulators and courts. It could lead to a proliferation of claims brought on behalf of ecosystems or species. It is important to consider the whole system in the round, as demonstrated through our recently published land use framework, including considering wider, democratically determined priorities such as housing, infrastructure and economic development, and to utilise existing tools to assess their impacts on nature.

International examples of nature being recognised as a legal subject were cited in her introduction by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and they are important to consider. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, we need to be aware of alternative approaches. However, evidence and outcomes are mixed, and the interaction with relevant domestic legal systems and frameworks is complex. While I acknowledge that “rights of nature” is a concept that is legally recognised in some countries, the UK’s consistent position in international negotiations, alongside many other countries, has been to focus on environmental outcomes, such as halting biodiversity loss, restoring ecosystems and reducing pollution, rather than debating legal constructs whose practical implications remain uncertain.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, spent some time talking about the fact that there has been a marked rise in international and domestic litigation drawing on existing human rights, such as the right to life and the right to private and family life, and linking these to adverse environmental conditions. The Council of Europe has been particularly active on the issue in recent years and has been scoping a possible new instrument on this right, which could create a new right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, alongside other human rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. So, I would like to clarify that the UK is open in principle to exploring a new instrument to enshrine the right. However, there is not yet consensus among member states on the type of instrument—whether it should be binding, for example—or the content, nature and scope of the right.

None of what we have just discussed diminishes the urgency of the challenge. The Government are clear-eyed about the pressures on nature. It underpins our security, prosperity and resilience, and understanding the threats we face from biodiversity loss is crucial to meeting them head-on. We are acting through the environmental improvement plan to restore habitats, improve water and air quality, strengthen resilience and invest significantly in nature recovery. This is a statutory, science-based and accountable framework, and it is the right one for our legal system.

Before closing, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, for her energy and determination on the need to bring in a close season for brown hares. I am sure we will hear from her again on this issue.

Finally, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing the Bill forward and for stimulating an important and thoughtful debate. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said, legislation must be workable, coherent and compatible with the UK’s legal framework. For these reasons, while we share the ambition that motivates the Bill, the Government cannot support it. We will continue to focus on delivering the environmental improvement plan. We want to meet our legally binding targets, so that we can ensure that nature in this country is protected, restored and valued for generations to come. I commend the House for the quality of today’s debate.

Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant and Animal Health) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2024

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my farming and land management interests as set out in the register. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for introducing this Motion and for raising the key issues for people living in Northern Ireland. I also thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate with such passion and energy and who have candidly shared their deep frustrations.

From the outset, I would like to confirm my personal commitment and that of my noble friends on this side of the House: we are all dedicated unionists. We also remain strongly supportive of the importance of implementing the Windsor Framework agreement, securing the application of British standards for goods which move to and stay in Northern Ireland, and ensuring that the same goods are available for consumers in all parts of the UK. It upholds Northern Ireland’s access to the rest of the UK internal market and safeguards Northern Ireland’s privileged access to the EU single market, which has been a clear demand from businesses in order to protect livelihoods.

Following the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, earlier in this debate, I too hope that the Minister can restate the Government’s manifesto commitment:

“Labour is committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and protecting the UK internal market”.


I also ask the Minister to confirm that this instrument is consistent with the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, published in January 2024. In line with the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and that we have heard today from my noble friend Lady Lawlor and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, I would also like to press the Minister to explain to the House the extent of the consultation undertaken. What is the nature of the parties that have been consulted? How many have been consulted and on what questions? Is it possible to publish the anonymised consultee responses? Has the policy been adjusted or impacted by any of that consultation to arrive at the position we see it in today? If so, whose responses carried the most weight?

In addition, how would the Minister respond to concerns expressed by many noble Lords that this instrument appears to be intent on aligning with EU law and thus has constitutional significance? As is the custom in this House, we on these Benches will not be supporting the fatal Motion on an instrument such as this, but I hope the Minister will listen carefully to noble Lords’ concerns.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for introducing this Motion and allowing us to have such a detailed debate on this issue. I also thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, some with a great deal of passion and energy. I know this is a subject close to many noble Lords’ hearts.

I draw noble Lords’ attention back to the very positive impact that this legislation will have on the union of the UK and on businesses and citizens right across our country. This statutory instrument will enable a broader group of goods originating from the rest of the world to move via the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme from GB to Northern Ireland. This enhances the existing measures in the Windsor Framework, which have already significantly reduced the requirements associated with the original Northern Ireland protocol. The list of eligible goods, which already includes products such as tomatoes, cauliflowers and New Zealand lamb, was designed in collaboration with industry stakeholders across the UK. Recently, I had a constructive and helpful discussion on the Windsor Framework with the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group when I went to Belfast in August.

The Government will keep under review the movement of products from the rest of the world. We need to ensure that we can reflect and respond to industry feedback. My officials meet with businesses on a regular basis to discuss these matters and to support them in implementing the Windsor Framework, which I confirm to the noble Lord we are committed to delivering. This legislation delivers on a key commitment of the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, which was published earlier this year and which the noble Lord also inquired about. As colleagues know, that provided the basis for the return of the Northern Ireland Executive.

In addition to expanding eligibility for goods from the rest of the world to use the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, the Government are committed to supporting businesses in moving agri-food goods into Northern Ireland. To that end, since 30 September, the new tariff rate quota solution enables traders to take advantage of UK tariff quotas of over 13,000 tonnes of lamb, beef and poultry every year. As set out in our manifesto, this Government have been clear in their objective to secure improved arrangements for agri-food trade with the EU via a veterinary or SPS agreement. We are clear that we want to continue to simplify this process, as far as possible, to support the UK’s thriving agri-food trade.