Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

20:35

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 June be approved.

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).

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

My Lords, this instrument will help ensure the security of food supply to Northern Ireland and maintain consumer choice for the people of Northern Ireland. The purpose of this legislation is to deliver the UK Government’s long-standing public commitment to safeguard the supply of retail goods into Northern Ireland and protect the UK internal market, by providing for a contingency power to introduce “not for EU” labelling in Great Britain if required. It upholds commitments made under the Windsor Framework, reiterated in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, both of which commanded broad support across this House. It facilitates the movement of goods throughout the UK while also protecting the biosecurity of the island of Ireland.

I begin by setting out the background to this policy. The Windsor Framework, which replaced the original Northern Ireland protocol, was agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union in February 2023. A key component of the Windsor Framework is the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, which simplifies the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. It removes the costly certification and controls that were necessary under the original Northern Ireland protocol and allows for goods to be moved on the basis of UK food safety standards. To benefit from these arrangements, business operators must label retail goods in scope of the scheme “not for EU”, and these labelling requirements have been introduced in phases, with the final tranche of products coming into scope on 1 July—tomorrow. From this date, a much larger group of retail goods will need to be labelled to be eligible to be moved via the scheme from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

Given the size of the retail market in Northern Ireland, which is approximately 3% of the entire UK market, certain businesses may decide that the cost of labelling their goods only to move them to Northern Ireland is too great. They may choose not to label, leading to product removal from the Northern Ireland market, known as delisting, if an alternate route to market is not available. This would negatively impact Northern Ireland citizens, since they would not have access to the same range and availability of food goods as the rest of the UK that they rightfully deserve. We do not believe that this is an acceptable outcome.

This brings me to the purpose of the regulations before us. The instrument provides a contingency power by which the Environment Secretary can issue a notice to require that a certain product be marked “not for EU” in order to be sold in Great Britain. Before doing so, the Secretary of State will consider a range of evidence. This includes intelligence from stakeholders and market monitoring data, the latter of which will highlight patterns in the distribution of retail goods throughout the UK internal market and highlight anomalies and changes as they arise.

By extending the labelling requirement for certain products to the much larger GB market, we will take away the incentive for businesses to remove products from Northern Ireland. It will use the size of the whole UK market as an economic incentive to label their goods. This ensures continued product availability and consumer choice in Northern Ireland and upholds the commitments we made in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper.

In recognition of the fact that food labelling is a devolved matter, the Secretary of State will consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers before making a determination. He may also engage the Independent Monitoring Panel, established through the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, for its views.

The timing of this instrument is critical. With the final phase of labelling requirements under the scheme commencing on 1 July, we must make this legislation now in order to provide a credible and timely mechanism to deter product delisting and to have the ability to act should a serious effect on availability look likely.

I will now set out the fundamental elements of these regulations. After making a determination that the supply of a specific retail good will be or is likely to be seriously adversely affected as a result of the “Not for EU” labelling requirement, the Secretary of State must issue a marking notice. This will specify which goods must be labelled in GB and from which date. The notice must also be published in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes, as well as a Written Statement setting out the rationale. We will support compliance by promoting and explaining the new requirement to businesses through various fora.

The new labelling obligation falls on the relevant business operator who first places the goods on the market in Great Britain. This is typically the manufacturer responsible for producing the product, who will have the greatest ability to affect its packaging. There will be exemptions that will apply to qualifying Northern Ireland goods, food for special medical purposes and small companies, which is in line with this Government's commitment to support growth. These regulations will also support our relationship with the European Union.

We and the EU, through our common understanding that was published on 19 May following the UK-EU summit, have confirmed that we will jointly take forward a range of measures as part of our reset in relations, including a UK-EU SPS agreement. Once finalised, this will remove a broad and wide-ranging set of SPS and agri-food requirements for goods and plants moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We also expect that this may remove the need for businesses to label the majority of their goods as “Not for EU” when moving them into Northern Ireland.

However, achieving such benefits relies on the UK being a reliable partner that delivers on its existing commitments. To that end, we are clear that we must implement the arrangements for the Windsor Framework in a full and faithful way, even where our ambition is that those arrangements may not be needed in the future. Therefore, this SI is vital to maximise compliance with labelling requirements in the meantime, meeting the expectations of the EU and also encouraging the movement of goods into Northern Ireland.

To conclude, our approach to this statutory instrument is a pragmatic and proportionate response to a genuine risk. This legislation will help protect consumer choice in Northern Ireland. It will support the continued flow of goods throughout the United Kingdom. It delivers on our commitments under the Windsor Framework agreement and, most importantly, safeguards Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for laying out the regulations in detail. She will not be surprised that she has not convinced me. I hope that the short debate that we have tonight—even though there is not much interest on the Labour Back Benches or even the Conservative Back Benches—will get down in Hansard and people might read why many of us will be opposing these regulations.

One of the critical problems arising from the Northern Ireland protocol was the way in which—apart from the democratic aspect of disenfranchising people in 300 areas of law—it threatened Northern Ireland’s supply chain. This was said by many people, including noble Lords in this House, from the beginning. The Windsor Framework was supposed to fix that, but the regulations before us today come with Explanatory Notes that recognise that the Windsor Framework green lane “Not for EU” labour provisions, which come into effect tomorrow—in just a few hours’ time—threaten Northern Ireland’s supply chain.

Paragraph 5.11 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“A much greater range of products will be brought into scope of labelling requirements in July 2025, increasing the potential risk of product delisting. Therefore, the government requires a means of intervention to manage this risk and deter businesses from delisting products by providing a credible threat of enforcement”.


That all sounds very good. The chief executive officer of Marks & Spencer has described the labelling as “madness”. This madness is particularly pronounced in Northern Ireland, which those of us who live there can appreciate much better than those living in Great Britain.

The rationale for the application of “Not for EU” labels was to help protect the integrity of the EU single market, preventing goods produced in Great Britain crossing the border into the Republic of Ireland, the EU territory. The problem is, however, that these labels, which generate huge costs to the UK economy both in terms of packaging and threatening our supply chains, are completely useless.

20:45

GB goods tend to be cheaper than comparable goods in the Republic of Ireland, so there is a long-standing tendency for people from the Republic of Ireland to do their shopping over the border in Northern Ireland. Placing “Not for EU” labels on GB goods merely serves to highlight the fact that these are goods that it is perfectly legal for those from the Republic of Ireland—in the European Union—to buy, and they are likely to be cheaper than comparable goods back home because they have been produced in an economy that benefits from the supply chain economies of scale arising from being part of an economy of nearly 70 million, rather than 5 million.

The feeble regulations before us today—and I really do think they are feeble—seek to address the threat to Northern Ireland’s supply chain. They do so not by calling out the central injustice arising from the attempt by the European Union to disturb the integrity of a sovereign state in violation of international law by means of cutting it into two, through the imposition of a customs and international SPS border, and not by pointing out the central absurdity that the provision of “Not for EU” labels makes zero contribution to protecting the integrity of the EU single market and instead involves the UK having to engage in an act of national of self-harm by embracing needless additional packaging costs in relation to Northern Ireland that threaten our own supply chains. They do it by seeking to accommodate and make space for this injustice and absurdity.

The regulations fail for four reasons. The Government’s Explanatory Notes openly acknowledge that these regulations do not pretend to address the presenting problem simply by preventing supply chain breakdown. We are supposed to welcome them because they will provide a means of trying to fix supply chain breakdown after it has taken place. Paragraph 6.5 says that the legislation

“enables the Secretary of State to take swift action to prevent or reverse product delisting from the Northern Ireland market”.

Quite how these regulations will enable the Government to prevent supply chain breakdown, when they need to demonstrate a problem that merits mandating “Not for EU” labels, is completely unclear. Even if such a means existed, the critical point is that the Government are saying that at least part of their purpose is to try to reverse supply chain breakdown after it has happened.

Let us think about that. UK citizens in Northern Ireland, who have already been told we must make do with being disfranchised in all those areas of law, are now being told we must also make do with regular supply chain breakdowns. We are supposed to be satisfied with a government promise that they will try to reverse it. I respectfully suggest that any other self-respecting country in the world would not bow down to the demands of other countries when doing so has the effect of not only agreeing to the partial disfranchisement of its citizens but causing them to live with supply chain breakdowns. Whatever happened to the talk that came from so many people about Northern Ireland’s privileged position as a result of the Irish Sea border? The privilege, perhaps, of having to live with the constant threat of supply chain breakdown is a privilege we can do without, and to which no part of the United Kingdom should be subject.

Secondly, the mechanisms proposed by these regulations are highly dubious, involving government in trying to micromanage the flow of goods, and come straight out of some kind of failed command economy playbook. The legislation smacks of desperation and looks more like the Government trying to cover their back in relation to their legal obligations to have special regard to Northern Ireland’s place in the UK customs territory, as Section 46(1)(b) of the UK Internal Market Act 2020 says.

Thirdly, the solution fails before it starts and makes no attempt to address supply chain breakdown from GB firms employing up to 49 people. This is a big deal, because consumers depend on being able to access smaller companies as well as larger ones to enjoy diversity and choice. Often it is the smaller companies that meet the niche markets, and it would seem that that is not going to matter—there will be no consumer choice in Northern Ireland.

Fourthly, these regulations fail because they continue to pretend that “not for EU” labelling requirements provide a useful function which is worth accommodating, when they do nothing more than impose needless packaging costs on GB companies, threatening the Northern Ireland supply chain. If you visit supermarkets on the Northern Ireland side of the border, you will find their car parks contain a significant number of cars from the Republic that take home with them lots of “not for EU” labelled goods because there is no law against their purchase and they are, on average, as I said, cheaper than comparable Republic of Ireland goods.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the regulations before us today concerns the manner in which the Government sought to defend them in another place when they were debated there last Monday. The honourable Member for North Antrim, Jim Allister, pointed out that there were many reasons to think that the regulations before us today, depending as they do on the failed methodologies of command economies, would fail, so that the trade diversion that the Government themselves admit in the relevant Explanatory Notes constitutes a clear and present danger would likely take place without any effective countervailing action.

Jim Allister further pointed out that this would constitute a major problem for the Government because it would result in more trade diversion and the violation of the Northern Ireland protocol’s own safeguards set out in Article 16:

“If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures”.

In this provision, both parties at that time agreed that serious economic, societal and environmental difficulties which are liable to persist provide grounds for the treaty derogation mechanism to be initiated, as does trade diversion. This means that the Windsor Framework was devised in terms that recognised there were difficulties with trade diversion, as being inconsistent with the continuation of the agreement, certainly in its current form.

When asked about trade diversion and Article 16, the Minister in the other place responded in terms which I think are really quite astonishing. I wonder whether our Minister will respond in the same terms—I imagine she will. He dismissed the concern, stating that the Government would intervene

“only in the event of a massive distortion to trade”.—[Official Report, Commons, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 23/6/25; col. 10.]

That completely abandons Article 16—there is no mention of massive distortion to trade. Clearly, a decision was taken not to raise the threshold of the protection around trade diversion that there is around the other three protections in this way. So it stands uniquely as a protection against trade diversion per se. It is certainly not limited to massive trade diversion.

It seems that the Government are now cherry-picking the parts of the Windsor Framework that they like and rejecting those that they do not. They are quite happy to dismiss those parts that would enable them to protect their own citizens from the challenge of supply chain breakdown. I really doubt whether they would treat UK citizens in England in this manner.

I have got to the stage where I feel that the Government have such a large majority, and it was the previous Government who actually implemented all these issues, and no one is prepared to accept that they made a mistake, that it was wrong, that there were other ways. There was mutual enforcement—all sorts of things could have been done rather than just listening to the Republic of Ireland and the European Union wittering on about a hard border. Now the Government have this very large majority of votes in another place but have completely lost any sense of moral authority that they once might have employed over this particular issue.

I hope that the Minister, even though she is bound by government policy, will begin to recognise that every time there is an SI that is something to do with Northern Ireland, we are not just spending all this time staying late—because it is always the last business— just for fun. We are doing it because it actually matters to people in Northern Ireland. It is making a difference, there is trade diversion, and the Government should be acting.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I also thank the Minister for the meeting she facilitated on this issue, which gave us an opportunity to discuss some of the details.

It is welcome that we are having this debate on a government Motion. If it were not a government Motion, I am sure that ways would have been found to bring it to the Chamber in any case. This is a significant SI in relation to the Windsor Framework. We have previously had a number of debates on these issues, and no doubt we will have many more until the Windsor Framework is comprehensively dealt with. The number of these SIs does not diminish or lessen the offence and damage to the union, to democracy and to the Northern Ireland economy that they inflict, and it does not diminish our desire and wish to oppose them. We will go on opposing them for as long as necessary.

As has been mentioned, tomorrow sees the further hardening of the Irish Sea border. We have seen parcels directives implemented. We now see the “not for EU” labelling regulations coming into force right across a large range of goods. Far from the Irish Sea border having disappeared—as some told us, a year or two ago, that it would—or having been diminished or lessened in any way, it is in fact hardening.

I detect that there is a growing sense of complacency around this issue, not just in this Parliament but, sadly, right across the political sphere. There is a sense of people thinking, “Well, let’s not talk about it too loudly. Let’s not point out some of the issues and difficulties”. There is a detachment from reality, where politicians—particularly those in government and their supporters—are putting forward a certain version of reality. In contrast, as the FSB pointed out in its recent report, the reality on the ground for traders and businesses is very different. We are in an inherently unstable political situation.

A week or two ago, the Select Committee on which I sit travelled to Newry and Belfast. We took evidence, some of which was startling on the potential danger to the Assembly’s stability and on the continuing tensions around the Windsor Framework. The evidence suggested that it is a nationalist solution to the problem, not a cross-community one and certainly not a unionist one. In a previous debate, we were told that we cannot have a unionist solution, because those days are gone. Well, we are looking for a cross-community solution; we are not looking for a nationalist or a unionist solution.

The fact of the matter is that, unless there is violence on the streets of Northern Ireland—God forbid that there should be at any time; there is never any excuse for violence or people taking the law into their own hands—or unless there is a threat to the stability of the Assembly and the institutions, nobody takes a blind bit of notice. But the day is coming when the Assembly will get more and more unstable because of the growing effects of the protocol. When that happens, people will ask, “How on earth did that happen?” as many politicians here and in the rest of the UK turn a blind eye.

Here at the last minute, on 30 June, with the new Irish Sea border-hardening regulations coming into place, the Government have chosen to bring forward these regulations. “Not for EU” labels are to be applied across a much greater range of goods, including fruit, vegetables, fish, composites and chilled foods, when they were previously applied only to meat and dairy. Of course, the Government have known about this matter since 30 September 2024, when they announced that they were not going ahead with UK-wide labelling, and they have known about the need that the EU imposes for “not for EU” labels for Northern Ireland. So why have they waited until now? Why do we have this last-minute decision to get these regulations through on 30 June?

The regulations in front of us represent a breach of the commitment in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper 1021. In paragraphs 117 and 118 of this Command Paper the clear commitment of the Government was to introduce UK-wide, “not for EU” labelling, pointing out why it was necessary to avoid disruption of trade between the rest of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. In the debate that took place at that time, when the Labour Party was still in opposition, Hilary Benn committed that it would support the provisions of the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper. So why have the Government reneged on that commitment?

21:00

I am condemning the Government for reneging but, of course, the Conservative Party, when in office, had this commitment in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper but then delayed implementing it. It went out to consultation. We knew then—I said it at the time and was derided by others, including within the unionist community—that the Conservative Government were not going to do it; they were putting it off because their industry friends were lobbying them and would not let them do it. And so it proved, but this Government actually formally reneged on it.

This commitment, along with other commitments in Safeguarding the Union, was used to sell to the unionist people and to the Democratic Unionist Party the necessity of backing this deal to get back to Stormont. That is the reality. But now that we are back it has been reneged on. Some of us expressed the fear at the time that that might happen. We were not successful in our insistence, which is deeply regrettable now, that all these things should be implemented first: do not take the UK Government, Conservative or Labour, at their word, because in Northern Ireland politics we have been let down so often; make sure we have implementation first. But no; it could not wait, unfortunately.

This is not only a breach of the commitment in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper; it is ineffective in what it does and what it purports to achieve. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said, people come up from the south all the time and buy their goods, fruit and veg, and meat and dairy products in Northern Ireland’s supermarkets and carry them back down south and there is not a word about it. The EU knows this; the UK Government know it; everybody knows it. What is the point of the labels in any case?

In fact, it is so ludicrous that Asda, a major grocery firm, has to apply all these labels—at pain of being penalised with hefty fines if it does not—and it does not even have supermarkets in the Irish Republic. It can sell only in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, and yet it is forced to have all this labelling, regulation, and compliance checks, with lorries being turned back—as we heard in our evidence at Stormont from one of its representatives—even though it cannot sell outside Northern Ireland. People may come up from the south, but Asda does not actively sell in the Republic.

Then we have the pointless nature of these regulations. We have had the 19 May summit and the agreement working towards an SPS agreement. We will wait and see what the detail of that is. One thing we have learned over the years is not to take at face value what might be agreed or not or generalities but to wait to see what the EU legislation says—not the UK Government spin or Command Papers or Explanatory Notes—because, remember, that is the only thing that counts. EU legislation is the law of the land in Northern Ireland across all these areas, so all the rest of it is spin and propaganda. When we see the EU text then we will know what the reality is.

We were told that the effect of the agreement, if it comes, will be that we can do away with all this “not for EU” labelling. But the Government are saying that that will be only for many goods—I think the Minister tonight said the “majority” of goods. It will be interesting to see how many will not be included. Will we have a situation where there will still be “not for EU” labelling for some goods but not for others? You can imagine companies trying to grapple with the complexity. They have just been told it is for all dairy, meat, fruit, veg and chilled products; then, in a year’s time, they might be told to forget about all that as it will be for only certain items. Perhaps the Minister when she sums up could clarify what she meant by the “majority” of goods in that case.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has done a job of work in relation to these regulations. It has highlighted the costs to business—in some cases hundreds of millions of pounds. It talked about the conditions whereby the Minister must issue a notice if it is to apply, but that is only if it can be proved that the delisting of goods being sent to Northern Ireland is the result only of the “not for EU” labelling requirement. I would be very interested to know how that will be worked out in the timescales that the Government say that they have set out. That will be a very tough examination, and I am sure there will be lots of loopholes.

Then there is the time issue. Businesses have warned about the uncertainty of sudden demand to have “not for EU” labels across the UK, and yet others in Northern Ireland have expressed concern that it will take so long that the diversion and delisting will have already taken place and people will not reinstate the trade. The exemption for small businesses undermines the whole scheme, because many small businesses are involved in trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The committee pointed out that there was a consultation on the original scheme, but, as I mentioned, the original scheme was UK-wide; it was not just for Northern Ireland. It would have been incumbent on the Government to carry out a proper consultation.

As I mentioned, the Federation of Small Businesses produced a report just this month. I recommend that every noble Lord and noble Baroness takes time to read it, because it injects a dose of reality into what we are talking about when it comes to the Windsor Framework. We have set out many times our constitutional and democratic objections to the Windsor Framework, but this strikes a dagger through the heart of the trade and economic arguments for the Windsor Framework. Noble Lords should read and digest that report. I hope that Government Ministers will respond to the FSB and come back to it with clear answers about the many issues of concern that its businesses are facing, particularly on things such as trader support services, where hundreds of millions of pounds have been wasted. Businesses in Northern Ireland report, in overwhelming numbers, that they have no trust in trader support services, that they have been given contradictory advice, and that they cannot get that advice in writing—it is a joke, according to one of the businesses. The Government need to take these matters very seriously indeed.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, we need to think of the Minister’s welfare. I am quite sure that she probably needs counselling, coming to these debates. We see the array of people on the Benches beside me here and the degree of interest there is in this. But that should not undermine the significance of what we are discussing.

We have been talking about the labels. Labels cost money; it costs money to change the production lines. That can end up only with an increase to the customer who is buying the goods—nobody else is going to pay it. Look at the amount of money that has been put into this whole performance: £200 million to erect border inspection posts, and hundreds of millions of pounds on the trader scheme, and that is only going round the edges of it.

There needs to be some political reality about this. We are paying for the mistakes that were made in the run-up and subsequent to the referendum. Some people could see a mile away what was going to happen. Those in the other place who were so keen to “Get Brexit Done” did not give tuppence about Northern Ireland. We were just a nuisance, and they would fix it later. Well, they are still fixing it now, because who could have believed a decade ago that we would have border inspection posts in the Port of Belfast, the Port of Larne and the Port of Warrenpoint? It would be unbelievable, but it was entirely predictable because the United Kingdom conducted the worst statecraft negotiations with the European Union that I think have ever taken place in history. Before they even sat down at the table, they agreed what money they would pay. That is like saying, “I’m going to buy your house; I haven’t seen it, but I’ll pay you so much for it.” Who would do that? What responsible Government would do that? Then, of course, the Irish question was brought up and that was separated from trade and made a political commitment rather than being part of the major negotiations. It was awful stuff, and it was conducted, I believe, in a very sleekit way, with people talking out of both sides of their mouth at once.

That is how we got into this mess. It is nothing about what is happening today. The minutiae might be unexpected, but the principles are not unexpected. They were written on the wall. You could see them. I have to say to the Minister seriously: she must realise just how preposterous all this is. We have heard about the situation regarding supermarkets. Sainsbury’s are in the same boat, and it does not have any stores in the Republic—a big supermarket like that. People come across. If you look at the car parks in Strabane, in Enniskillen or in Newry, you see that they are thronged with people from the Republic. This has been going on for years, and they are taking their toxic baked beans back to County Louth to cause enormous damage. The ripples will flow right across the European Union, rattling the cages. It is all absolute and complete nonsense; it is costing a lot of money; and it is, potentially, leaving a serious political situation behind it.

We have bureaucracy colliding with common sense. I cannot believe that we cannot do better, but there is one interesting point. This phrase keeps coming up again and again: “full and faithful implementation” of the protocol and the Windsor Framework. It was in the Safeguarding the Union document, and it was repeated by the Secretary of State when he came to your Lordships’ Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee last week. The Minister just read it out.

The angle is this: because other Governments are deemed to have broken faith with the European Union, our Government—or Governments—are doing their best to show that they are the well-behaved boys in the class and we are going to do exactly what is involved in that, in hope that we will gain some concession at a later stage in the negotiations on the reset. Let us be fair, the reset is not going to have any impact on this whatever for at least a year. Even then, the small print will be the test as to whether there is any improvement.

I have asked the Minister in other debates, and I raised it again with Minister Thomas-Symonds in the committee last week, about the negotiations for the co-operation agreement which are to take place next year. What are we doing about that? Have we got a shopping list? Have we got solutions? Have we got ideas that we can put forward? We know that the European Union will want to narrow the scope of that negotiation, but it is an opportunity, it is in the agreement, and it should be worked on and incorporated in our negotiations with regard to the decisions flowing from 19 May.

We look at things such as the FSB report, which has been referred to, and Marks & Spencer; our committee has had numerous pieces of evidence in the last few weeks—some of it shocking even to those of us who are reasonably familiar with these things—because we have been engaging with people on the front line who are actually moving and trying to sell the goods. The other thing that came up at the committee’s visit to Newry, which we had not picked up on before, was fraud. It is being perpetrated with regard to some of these cross-border activities. I hope that we highlight that when we finalise the report, but we were not familiar with it before. A whole lot of significant things are going on out there.

21:15

I hope the Minister will confirm that she will talk to her colleagues about preparing a meaningful negotiation for the TCA next year and that, through the Joint Committee, she will understand that the preposterous proposals we have here will utterly fail. If the European Union is trying to protect its internal market, what will it do—stop people at the border and take their baked beans from them? People are buying them. It is such nonsense. You cannot possibly believe that this will have any economic benefit to anybody except the people who make the labels. We have to be realistic about these things.

I come back to the politics of this and what happened when the Assembly was restored last year. My party was never in favour of it being taken down in the first place. There was a really hard sell to tell people, “The border has gone. We have fixed it”, from Hillsborough Castle by the Secretary of State standing beside Sir Jeffrey Donaldson. The hard sell was to say, “We’ve got this, we’ve done this, et cetera”. We now know that it has proven to be a complete falsehood. Many of us knew it at the time. We have to be realistic and honest with people about what is achievable and what is not.

This Government are totally and completely committed to the full and faithful implementation of the Windsor Framework. They have repeated that, as their predecessor did, and they will not change their tack. The only way we can move things forward is to concentrate on the negotiations that will take place in the next 12 months, including the renegotiation of the TCA, and the negotiations of the so-called reset.

We need to inject some common sense and proportion into what is happening. The European Union has a perfect entitlement to protect its internal market—nobody can deny that—but there has to be proportionality. What we have here is utter nonsense. If people are bringing a second-hand tractor into Northern Ireland, we are back underneath the tractor looking for lumps of soil from Ayrshire. That is what we were doing at the very start of this and we are back doing it again. This is the sort of nonsense that we have to deal with. I hope the Minister will take those points on board.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I rise to express my strong opposition to the Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025, which I believe constitute a profound assault upon Northern Ireland, representing yet another indictment of EU imperialism tightening its grip around the neck of Northern Ireland.

When the then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, first unveiled the Windsor Framework in February 2023, he hailed it as a decisive breakthrough, going on to say that:

“Today’s agreement … delivers smooth flowing trade within the whole United Kingdom … Protects Northern Ireland’s place in our Union … And safeguards sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland … we have removed any sense of a border in the Irish Sea”.


If any pretence of a border in the Irish Sea had been removed, we would not be here debating these regulations; in fact, they encapsulate the opposite. Phase 3, the final phase of the Windsor Framework, with the retail movement regulations, represents a serious challenge for retail and businesses in Northern Ireland.

As others have mentioned, the Federation of Small Businesses, which is the foremost business campaigner and the UK’s biggest business organisation, released its report Windsor Framework Realities this month. Its findings are unmistakable and astounding. In the first instance, the report found that trade friction was immense, with 34% of those who experienced difficulties operating across the United Kingdom internal market reporting that they had ceased trade entirely with the other region—in this case Northern Ireland—rather than contend with the onerous Windsor Framework regulations.

Additionally, the report quashed any notion that the dual market access had brought a new-found economic prosperity to Northern Ireland. The notion that we are having the best of both worlds is at best fanciful, or, as I and others believe, utterly deceitful. I have no doubt that the usual suspects will tell us that we are so privileged to have the Windsor Framework and these regulations, but nothing could be further from the truth. The report quashed any notion that we would get this new prosperity. There is no compelling evidence to indicate that dual market access has served the region better than the unmitigated access to the UK internal market. To those who wish to inflate or exacerbate the apparent merits of dual market access, I draw attention to the fact that 99% of respondents to the FSB survey were small and medium-sized enterprise businesses that operate primarily within the UK internal market and cannot finance the prodigious requirements that are needed to gain the so-called benefits.

Most relevant to this debate, however, is the FSB’s assessment of “Operational disruptions and costs” from the Windsor Framework. It reports that

“One in three businesses … have already faced … disruptions”


as a result of the Windsor Framework, with an expectation of future disruptions from a similarly large segment. The unsatisfiable demands of the Windsor Framework impact not only businesses in Northern Ireland but those businesses based around the United Kingdom, many of which were former trading partners but have since been forced to withdraw from the region due to the impossibility of trading complexities. One business owner based in Scotland said that

“it’s no longer worth trading with NI which is awful and cuts out a lot of business and makes no sense as it's easier currently to trade with USA and Australia.”

The Government’s desire to appease the EU has gone so far that they are not content to cull the trade and business from GB to Northern Ireland, as they seek to enforce “Not for EU” labelling in Great Britain. Rather, this Government have accepted their new role as EU supplicants, content to impose upon the British people the demands and regulations of the EU empire.

Perhaps some noble Lords will have seen or heard last week’s BBC interview with the chief executive of Marks & Spencer. He described the phase 3 labelling as “bureaucratic madness”, stating that over 1,000 M&S products destined for Northern Ireland would require “Not for EU” labelling, and another 400 would need to go through additional checks in the red lane once they had arrived in Northern Ireland. This “Not for EU” legislation is concerning not simply because it was created by 27 EU member states but because it partitions the United Kingdom into two jurisdictions, Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and then claims governing authority over the former. That is a grotesque violation of our sovereignty as a nation and an insulting invalidation of British democracy.

Neither the Windsor Framework nor the “Not for EU” labelling regulation 2023/1231 remove the Irish Sea border; instead, they actively solidify and build upon it. Tonight’s debate is reviewing the final stage of that Windsor Framework “Not for EU” labelling, as the Government put before us the Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025. It is interesting that, in the case of these regulations, the Government have acknowledged the trading complexities that persist within Northern Ireland and, further to that, they appear to be fearful of how existing complexities may be engendered by the final stage of regulations on 1 July 2025—so much so that they insisted these regulations must be on the statue book by the end of this month, which is precisely why we are here this evening.

Yet it is not clear how these regulations will function properly. For these regulations to work in practice, the state would need to keep a constant watch over the flow of goods across countless product lines, stepping in to control and adjust those flows whenever it sees fit. This is the kind of top-down micromanagement that we might expect in some different economy but not here in the United Kingdom. We are a country that values free enterprise and trusts businesses to get on with the job. We do not need the Government to hover over every pallet and crate that is created within our own UK internal market. That notion is ludicrous.

Businesses rely on certainty. They need to be able to plan, invest and grow without constantly looking over their shoulders. Yet these regulations would embed economic uncertainty into our system. Empowering the Secretary of State to impose “Not for EU” labelling means that producers will be left wondering whether tomorrow they might wake up to find new labelling requirements suddenly forced upon them.

Even if the labels are applied, there is no guarantee that they will solve the problems that it is claimed they address. How exactly are businesses supposed to change packaging, reorganise supply chains and keep shelves stocked at the drop of a hat? In many cases, they simply will not be able to move fast enough, nor will they be able to finance such a radical transformation. In particular, the innumerable SMEs operated by small teams would struggle.

The Government know that the dire reality is that such an imposition would likely prompt the delisting of products and supply chain disruption. In fact, the proposals contained within these Marking of Retail Goods Regulations effectively accept that supply chain disruption in Northern Ireland will become a normal part of life. It is written in clear writing in the Government’s Explanatory Memorandum on the regulations, in which the condition for the Government helping to resolve supply chain breakdown is evidence that it has already happened.

I am convinced that the “Not for EU” labelling will be totally and wholly ineffective. In justifying this, noble Lords have said that they only have to look at the current arrangements with the Republic of Ireland. It is well known that consumers in the Republic of Ireland have historically travelled up to Northern Ireland and availed of the considerably cheaper prices and greater product diversity. While cheaper prices and product diversity may have declined under the Windsor Framework, it is still a fact that people living in the Republic of Ireland travel to Northern Ireland and purchase goods with “Not for EU” labelling on them, and return home to the Republic of Ireland without recourse or penalty. This, let alone the aforementioned arguments, should compound all other arguments for the inefficiency of the not-for-EU system.

21:30

I put on record to the House my opposition to these regulations and the oncoming economic hurdles that will arise following the implementation of phase 3 labelling on 1 July. It is clear that the Marking of Retail Goods Regulations as a small part of the Windsor Framework will not deliver the promise of removing the Irish Sea border; instead, they serve as yet another example of continued EU appeasement. HM Government, as though colonial administrators for the EU empire, carry out their duties unflinchingly to ensure that Northern Ireland is subjugated.

The regulations will not deliver smooth-flowing trade, protect Northern Ireland’s place in the union or guard the sovereignty of Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, remarked in this House on 9 June that

“the Windsor Framework is leading this Government and this country into deeper, more dangerous waters with every day that passes. It must … be removed”.—[Official Report, 9/6/25; col. 1171.]

I wonder whether the Government hear those words.

Those of us in Northern Ireland are insulted every time a new piece of legislation is imposed on us. We have already had stolen from us the power to legislate independently and have instead been made subject to over 700 EU laws in over 300 different legal areas. Our younger generation has been robbed of the democracy that many of us witnessed for years—one man, one vote—and instead they can vote for only some of the laws to which they are subject. Our businesses have been cut off from their largest trading partner and now, in spite of that, the Government have decided to accept this position and build upon it.

What is their solution? A trusted trader scheme that is very difficult to be accepted on to, and legislation such as the regulations before us which embed us further in the EU and stifle our businesses. The Windsor Framework has deprived Northern Ireland of democracy, broken the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and isolated Northern Ireland economically. That is the cold, harsh reality of the Windsor Framework. Its operation every day is an act of national self-harm and the Government urgently need to reconsider their approach and embrace mutual enforcement as the only viable solution. Depressingly, I am not filled with hope that this Government are actually listening.

It is ironic that we are debating these regulations on the same day that we debated the Chagos Islands deal—in my opinion, another sell-out of our sovereignty by the Prime Minister. It is clear to me that this Government care little for the sovereignty, economy and rights of the people of Northern Ireland or for those British Chagos Islanders who have lost out today.

It is most unfortunate that, exactly one day before we mark 109 years since the Battle of the Somme, we gather here to further discuss the dismantling of Northern Ireland’s sovereignty through the strengthening of the Windsor Framework. The men of the 36th (Ulster) Division gave so much for their king, their flag and their country on 1 July 1916. They fought in France with courage and valour, spurred on by their Ulster heritage. Kipling said:

“What answer from the North?

One Law, one Land, one Throne

If England drive us forth

We shall not fall alone”.

The stench of EU policies has offended the good people of Northern Ireland long enough. We have articulated to this Government and those who went before them our most earnest determination to resist the continued imposition of EU influence in this Province. That is why I oppose these regulations.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Minister in advance that I will be inflicting a little bit more pain on her. But where else would any of us prefer to be on a Monday night other than in here debating issues such as this?

These regulations appear to be a sticking plaster over the wounds inflicted on the internal market by both the protocol and the Windsor Framework—wounds self-inflicted by the Government. Taken at face value, and the way they are presented by the Government, they are an attempt to slightly ameliorate the level of disruption to trade. I said taken at face value, but a lot of us have come to realise that things cannot necessarily be taken at face value.

At the heart of this, as has been highlighted, the current arrangements and, indeed, those coming into place, purport to deal with what is, in effect, a fictitious issue, by imposing real harm. Frankly, the need to protect the EU single market, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lords, Lord Empey, Lord Dodds and Lord McCrea, creates a level of fiction. The reality is that it is unlikely that a special unit of the Garda Síochána will be set up to deal with the modern-day Irish Bonnie and Clydes who are smuggling their beef lasagne across the border to Dundalk, Clones or Donegal. So, we are not really dealing with a real issue of that nature.

On the flip side of the coin, as is highlighted by the FSB, the current arrangements are, in reality, leading to a very damaging impact on the internal market. Some 34% of firms surveyed have indicated that they have already diverged from trade. What is perhaps even more worrying is that, in the same survey, some 41% of firms looking ahead were more pessimistic and, indeed, quite worried about what is coming, and one of the major issues put forward is labelling.

With the best will in the world, noble Lords would anticipate these sorts of criticisms from these Benches and from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, opposite. But the FSB is not an ideological opponent of either the Government, the EU or the protocol; it is highlighting the very real concerns.

It is also the case that there are a number of flaws within this legislation. First, as has been indicated, the promise made by the previous Government, supported by the then Opposition, was that, if labelling were to happen, it would be done on a full UK-wide basis and everyone would be treated equally. Yet it is now clear that we are in the position that what is imposed in Northern Ireland will at best have some levels of exceptions where GB can be brought into it—it is not universal.

Secondly, on the circumstances in which government will intervene to compel this, there seems to be quite a lot of wiggle room within the regulations, to the extent that on taking their consultation and looking at various bodies, the Government could very easily come to the conclusion that particular circumstances were not convenient to impose any form of labelling beyond the shores of Northern Ireland.

Thirdly, and again it would be interesting if the Minister could respond to this point, the regulations talk about the impact of the removal of retail goods, or the threat of that, from Northern Ireland. But they do not specifically say whether that removal is simply by way of specific GB goods or more widely.

For example, if you take a consumer in Northern Ireland and they are getting fairly similar goods that are being produced in, say, the Irish Republic, the Czech Republic or France, that would seem, on the face of it, to satisfy the requirement that the Northern Ireland consumer is getting fairly similar goods, but that is creating a level of further divergence within the UK market. It is damaging GB firms. I would be interested in the Government’s interpretation of that.

Fourthly, within the regulations, there is a clear exemption for small firms in Great Britain that employ fewer than 50 people. As a consumer who has sometimes had difficulties in getting goods, it is not what is on supermarket shelves, as there are alternatives and we are not faced with great empty shelves, but it is often when you are trying to order something of which there is a very occasional supply to Northern Ireland from a small firm. That will not solve those particular problems.

Having highlighted the problems, we need to look, I suppose very briefly, at solutions. It is clear that we need more fundamental solutions than a sticking-plaster approach and that the long-term solution should be mutual enforcement, as has been highlighted. That would protect the EU single market and the UK internal market. In the short term, while we are awaiting that, the Government should outline what steps they are taking in terms of their engagement with the EU to fast-track solutions. We are told that because of the reset there is a much better relationship with Europe. What actions are the Government taking to roll back bureaucracy instead of putting forward regulations which extend labelling? What actions are being taken to reduce or remove the need for labelling?

For instance, a key part of the reset agreement has been the acceptance of an SPS deal in which there will be dynamic alignment and we will be put in a situation on food and SPS products in which there is no distinction between goods produced in any part of the United Kingdom and the rest of the EU. The logic of that would be that, whenever that is implemented, there would be no need for labelling on those goods. Yet we seem to be moving from a position in which currently there is no need for labelling on some goods; that is then going to be extended; and then, if the Government get their way, it is going to be removed again. That seems to be a logical nonsense. The reality is that, at the very least, the Government should be working with the EU to say, quite frankly, that it is an illogical pathway. At the very least, let us prevent any further extension of that.

If it is good enough for small firms in Great Britain not to require labelling because of the particular owner’s burden, and I can understand that, that similarly should be applied to the situation as regards Northern Ireland. We should see a blanket removal of labelling across the board. If there is good will with the EU and the Government are prepared to take those steps, if there is a lack of labels on small and medium-sized enterprises’ products from whatever part of the United Kingdom, that is not going to damage, even in theory, the EU single market. Those are the sorts of steps that the Government should be taking in the short term.

As with everything, they will be judged, and our experience of this is not good. We will see what is promised by the Government. We will see what is there directly in the legislation. The real test will be what happens in practice. To believe that this will be a significant step forward would be a triumph of hope over experience, and unfortunately to date in Northern Ireland we have had too much experience to generate a great deal of hope.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I first want to congratulate the Minister on her frankness and honesty; we do not always get that from Ministers or government. She has made it quite clear that they going to do Europe’s bidding. They will not be listening to what the politicians of Northern Ireland or anyone else says. It will be about what Europe says: they will be listening. The thought just shot through my brain that this is probably how colonies were treated. That seems to be exactly what the Government are lining us up for, if they have not already got us there. So, I say to the Minister: for your spectacular honesty, I commend you here this evening. I do not think that any of the other speakers have offered that, which was remiss of them, I might add.

21:45

In all that has been said here tonight, the one person who has put their finger on the issue, as he often does, is my noble friend Lord Dodds. My noble friend made it very clear: you do not take the Government at their word. It was “They do, and then we do” but, unfortunately, that tradition was departed from. Some at that time jumped headlong into it as others of us stood and said, “Hold on, stand back here a moment. The Government have no intention of doing what they say they are going to do”.

We had to learn that lesson bitterly in the past, even going back to the days of the Belfast agreement. Much was promised then, but we are still waiting for delivery, and the delivery van is not coming. I suspect that the Government have caught on to that: give them a bucketful of promises, put a lot of jam around their mouths but do not put any in—because that is the only stuff you can taste.

Having said that, there are a few other things that I want to say. As far as I am concerned, these regulations are of far greater constitutional significance than immediately meets the eye. For this reason, I am glad that they have been drawn to the special attention of the House’s Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

The regulations are of great importance, first, because of what they tell us about the Windsor Framework and, secondly, because of their effect. “Not for EU” labels did not feature in the Northern Ireland protocol definition of the Irish Sea border. If they did, then I want someone to point out to me where this was; but they did not, and I challenge anyone to tell us where it was. They featured only on the amended version of the protocol legislation in the Windsor Framework.

Let us remind ourselves of the course of events. The Minister has to some degree done that, but I hope that she will indulge me if I repeat some of it. The Northern Ireland protocol began to take effect from 1 January 2021. There were multiple calls for triggering Article 16. I asked the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who was sitting where the Minister is sitting tonight, whether the circumstances were now prevailing for Article 16 to be triggered. He turned to me and he said “Yes”—but nothing happened. I suspect it was not him standing in the way but others further up the chain who put a hand on his shoulder and said, “Step back”.

In July 2021, however, the UK Government published their Command Paper, Northern Ireland Protocol: the Way Forward. In this, they stated that the threshold had been reached for triggering Article 16 on multiple bases, but stopped short of doing so and instead appealed to the EU to remedy the several violations of Article 16 that made the continued operation of the protocol unsustainable.

In October, the EU responded with a series of so-called “norm papers”, which formed the basis of the changes that became the Windsor Framework in 2023. Central to the non-paper proposals was the idea of what the EU called an “express lane” but the UK Government came to call the “green lane”. We were told that these would all be disappearing—green lanes and red lanes would be only a bit of history. It was not so. In Safeguarding the Union, an attempt was then made to reconfigure green lane movements as movements narrowly within the so-called

“UK internal market system”,

implying that all such movements were made within the UK internal market and, thus, without crossing an international customs or SPS border.

In truth, however, this claim was deceitful on two bases. First, you can cross the Irish Sea border only through the so-called UK internal market system if you fill in a customs form and an international phytosanitary form. Yes, the forms were simplified and made a bit shorter, but they are still customs and international SPS forms that you do not need to move goods within an internal market—for example, between England and Wales or, indeed, between Scotland and Northern Ireland before 2021.

Secondly, the provision of shorter customs and SPS paperwork was, in any event, afforded only in return for taking on other compensating border frictions, cancelling out the benefits arising from the reduction of border frictions resulting from shorter customs and international SPS forms. These additional frictions include having to apply to join and maintain membership of a trusted trader scheme—something already mentioned tonight, and an expense to which people trading within GB are not subject—being legally liable if goods moved on the green lane end up in the Republic of Ireland, and having to submit to the requirement to place “not for EU” labels on certain food products made in GB and sold in Northern Ireland.

We have been shielded from the enormity of the border costs arising from “not for EU” label requirements so far on account of the fact that they have been introduced in three phases, and by far the most demanding phase has been left to last. It comes into force in a couple of hours—tomorrow. In this, we are confronted with the fact that the so-called green lane is no more green than the red lane—really? Neither provides a means of removing the border and creating a UK internal market system. All that the green lane—the so-called UK internal market system—presents us with is another means of crossing the international border that has been imposed on the UK, cutting us in two. It provides not less border friction but different border friction, and these regulations make this point very starkly, providing a wake-up call to anyone foolish enough to believe that the Windsor Framework constitutes anything other than an attempt to accommodate injustice.

The point is made very clearly by the Government in the Explanatory Memorandum for these regulations. Paragraph 5.11 says:

“A much greater range of products will be brought into scope of labelling requirements in July 2025, increasing the potential risk of product delisting. Therefore, the government requires a means of intervention to manage this risk and deter businesses from delisting products by providing a credible threat of enforcement. The timing of this instrument in line with the expansion of labelling requirements should help to protect consumers in Northern Ireland from this risk”.

In other words, the Government are telling us that, under the Windsor Framework, the Irish Sea border continues to threaten Northern Ireland’s supply chains as did the Northern Ireland protocol. The Northern Ireland protocol, before the Windsor Framework amendments were made, was unjust and unsustainable because, as has been said, it has disfranchised 1.9 million UK citizens in some 300 areas of law—that extrapolates into about 1,000 laws—and threatens Northern Ireland’s supply chains. However, these regulations and their Explanatory Notes demonstrate that the Windsor Framework still disfranchises 1.9 million UK citizens in 300 areas of law and threatens Northern Ireland’s supply chain.

Rather than addressing the present injustice and dealing with it, the Windsor Framework does no more than move the deckchairs around the “Titanic”. Rather then seeking to accommodate the injustice even further—the mission of the regulations before us today—we must now do the right thing and make it plain that no part of the UK should be subject to “not for EU” labelling requirements, by rejecting these regulations and their attempt to accommodate injustice and instead addressing the underlying injustice.

The truth is that the current delivery mechanism in the Windsor Framework is now failing to achieve the three legal objectives set out by Article 1 of the Windsor Framework. Article 1 defines in law the objectives to which the whole Windsor Framework must remain accountable. These are, first, respecting the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, which the operation of the current delivery mechanism disrespects by means of the EU claiming the right to make the laws for part of the UK and the right to disrupt its integrity, in violation of international law, by cutting the UK into two through the imposition of an international SPS and customs border.

The second is respecting the essential state functions of the UK, which the operation of the current delivery mechanism disrespects by taking from the UK its essential state functions in certain areas; for example, in relation to biosecurity.

The third is protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions, which the operation of the Windsor Framework is currently violating in relation to, first, the principle of consent from the people; secondly, cross-community consent within Stormont; and, thirdly, democracy. In this context, the only way forward is to reject all attempted accommodations with injustice that arise from seeking to cut the UK in two through regulations such as those before us today. It is to reject these regulations, using them to shine a spotlight on the underlying injustice, exposing the folly of seeking to accommodate rather than call out injustice, and to say instead, “Enough is enough”. No self-respecting country can sacrifice the citizenship of 1.9 million of its people in response to the demands of others, especially when an alternative means exists to rise to this challenge, in the form of mutual enforcement.

It may have been the case that in 2019, the EU decided against mutual enforcement and in favour of the Irish Sea border, but now the effect of this is resulting in an outcome that violates the legal objectives of the Windsor Framework on multiple bases. Finally, the UK Government must insist, on behalf of their disfranchised citizens, that the Irish Sea border is exchanged for mutual enforcement so that the operation of the Windsor Framework is brought back into alignment with its legal objectives.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

I have a couple of brief points. I had thought of making my speech extremely long, because if we got to midnight and this SI had not been implemented, it might not get implemented, but I do not think that that is the case. My theory went out of the way altogether, so I will make just a couple of brief points.

I know the Minister has to bring this to the House, but really the damage was done at an early stage, when the protocol and the Windsor Framework were brought into being, and there were poor negotiations at that stage. But I did note one comment that the Minister made, which was that this issue will support relationships with the European Union. What about relationships within the United Kingdom, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Those are failing drastically, failing so much that it is having a huge impact on small and medium-sized businesses on the ground.

We have heard a number of noble Lords mention the FSB Windsor Framework Realities report. The noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Dodds, and others raised that report and quoted some of it, so I am not going to do that, but what I am going to say is that the people who did that report went out on to the ground, spoke to businesses that were impacted and found that those are the hard realities impacting their businesses so significantly. That is why this is a very poor piece of regulation, and it is only adding to the impact on those individuals.

22:00

The recent EU-UK deal is just over a month old now. I thought it would have stopped the likes of this happening, but instead it is going ahead. Why could we not put this off until the implementation of that new EU-UK relationship? I have no idea, but maybe the Minister will help me out here.

I live in a border county of Fermanagh. In Enniskillen, there are a number of major supermarkets. Do you think this is going to stop people coming up from all the border counties to buy all those products that say, “not for EU”? Not a chance. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, highlighted that earlier. They are going to continue to buy them, probably because they are cheaper as well. The one impact is that it is going to stop trade between GB and Northern Ireland. We have already had a number of businesses say that they cannot access goods from GB companies simply because it is either too much trouble or too costly to do so.

Finally, I will make one plea: why can we not have practical common sense here? The one thing that I think would move above all else within this deal is if we had common sense. That would save a lot of businesses in both Northern Ireland and GB.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations, as well as for her continued tireless work in trying to find pragmatic solutions to these highly complex issues. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on his excellent assessment of why we are where we are. The rush to get a deal at any cost means we are now living through this; he and the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, were right in their assessment of that.

On a recent visit to Brussels with the European Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House, it was clear that our European partners are welcoming this more pragmatic approach to finding solutions, and the relief of the change of tone coming from this Government was palpable. Given the hour and the heat of the day, and the rather overexcessive air-conditioning in this Chamber, I shall endeavour to keep my remarks extremely brief.

I am sure that the noble Lords opposite will not be surprised that from these Benches we support at least the intent behind these regulations, which give the Government power to protect the UK internal market and should assist in ensuring consumer choice in Northern Ireland. It is important, as others have said, that there are not disincentives for GB businesses wanting to sell their goods to Northern Ireland, and that red tape and bureaucracy are kept to a minimum. It is therefore welcome that there is an exemption for smaller businesses.

In his concluding remarks on the debate on these regulations in the House of Commons, Minister Daniel Zeichner MP said that the Secretary of State will conduct the first review after two years, rather than the usual five, and it is contained in these regulations. The Minister in the House of Commons stated that this will

“allow for scrutiny of the policy in the context of the proposed SPS agreement”.—[Official Report, Commons, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 23/6/25; col. 10.]

This suggests that the Government are confident of having the SPS agreement in place well before that two-year review. Can the Minister in her concluding remarks confirm that this is the case, and can she give a rough estimate of the timing for the SPS agreement?

The Minister in the House of Commons also suggested that these regulations that we are debating this evening will be much less necessary once the SPS agreement is in place. Can the Minister say a little more about how, in practical terms, these regulations will fit in with the proposed SPS agreement?

Finally, following the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, can the Minister confirm that, in many ways, these regulations are a stopgap until the various agreements announced at the summit on 19 May are concluded?

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, being here tonight reminded me of some of those wonderful days in the House of Commons in the 1980s and 1990s, when we used to do Northern Ireland business on Wednesday, and it would go on until 10 pm, 11pm, one, two or three in the morning, before Tony Blair changed the hours and we could no longer do it—I was reminiscing about that tonight.

I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations, a statutory instrument that addresses a complex issue which is the result of the Windsor Framework. The regulations aim to safeguard the continuity of retail goods into Northern Ireland, enabling the Secretary the State to mandate “not for EU” labelling on certain goods sold in Great Britain, but only in response to clear evidence that the supply to Northern Ireland would otherwise be seriously disrupted. Noble Lords have challenged that.

Once again, I find myself having considerable sympathy with many of the points made by my noble friends from Northern Ireland, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, made a key point that we are now dealing with minutiae and some of the absurdity of these regulations which, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, said, are a kind of sticking plaster, but the real problem goes back to what was negotiated six or seven years ago, when the then Government caved in to the demands of Varadkar, and we ended up with the Northern Ireland protocol—now the Windsor Framework. The noble Lord described it as one of the worst agreements ever negotiated by any Government. He and his noble friends can say that; I, of course, could not possibly comment.

Given the comparatively small size of Northern Ireland’s retail market, we acknowledge the risk that businesses may consider delisting products rather than incurring added costs of compliance. In this context, the contingency power created by this instrument appears to be a proportionate tool, aimed at protecting supply chains and consumer choice in Northern Ireland. It would be utterly unacceptable that goods only for Northern Ireland were labelled, because they would then be delisted. It is slightly less absurd that we try to label them for the whole UK, or certainly for England, but I hope other countries as well. If they are labelled for everybody, there is less chance that we will delist them for Northern Ireland. That is one of the hoops we must go through now we are stuck with the Northern Ireland protocol, or the Windsor Framework.

We do not oppose these regulations, but I seek clarity from the Minister on a number of points, which are essential for ensuring that this policy is both proportionate and effective in practice. As an aside, was there not someone who had a big shed on the border, half in Northern Ireland and half in the Republic of Ireland, and the cattle used to move to and fro between them? Listening to noble Lords from Northern Ireland, I am surprised that someone has not opened a huge supermarket a few yards inside Northern Ireland and encouraged everyone to come up there for their shopping. That is not an official policy, but it seemed to me that it is bound to happen if goods in supermarkets in Northern Ireland are so much cheaper.

First, on the thresholds of evidence, can the Minister outline what specific types of evidence will be required to trigger a notice? Secondly, with regard to the impact on business, while we welcome the exemption for small businesses, what practical support—whether it is financial or advisory—will be offered to those just above the threshold to mitigate undue burdens, particularly for SMEs? It is all very well being exempt at 50, but if you have 51 or 60 employees, then you are caught by it and the burden could be astronomical.

Secondly, they have been quoted already, but I read the concerns raised by industry and they should be carefully considered. The chief executive of Marks & Spencer, Stuart Machin, described the current requirements of “not for EU” labelling as “bureaucratic madness”. He highlighted the potential for added costs, confusion for consumers and disruption to supply chains. He also said that more than 1,000 M&S products will now require labelling for Northern Ireland and a further 400 will be subject to red lane checks. Such feedback underlines the importance of ensuring that any new burdens placed on retailers—especially those operating across the UK’s internal market—are genuinely proportionate and that government support is made available where needed. I would be grateful if the Minister can tell me why Mr Machin has got it wrong.

Thirdly, on enforcement and consistency, given that enforcement will fall to local authorities across England, Wales and Scotland, what steps will be taken to ensure consistent interpretation and application of the rules across the devolved nations?

Fourthly, on public understanding, do the Government have plans for a co-ordinated public communications strategy to ensure that consumers both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland understand what the “not for EU” label signifies—that it does not reflect on the quality or safety of the goods in question—because that could be misconstrued?

Fifthly and finally, on future adaptability, as UK-EU trade dynamics continue to evolve, how will these regulations be reviewed—and, if necessary, revised—to reflect changes in market conditions or the operation of the Windsor Framework? Can the Minister confirm how soon Parliament will be updated following such a review?

As all noble Lords opposite and the noble Baroness have pointed out, while these regulations are technical in nature, they are far from trivial in effect. I understand the points made by noble Lords opposite, that, in their opinion, they affect the fundamental sovereignty of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. The issues they seek to address go to the heart of supply chain integrity, consumer protection and the delicate balance of the UK’s internal market.

We welcome continued dialogue on the implementation of these powers and look forward to the Minister’s reassurances on the points raised.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I think my feet have gone to sleep—it is very cold on the Front Bench.

I start by thanking all noble Lords who have contributed to this evening’s debate with such passion and energy. I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for considering my welfare so carefully.

Obviously, much of what has been said today goes wider than the scope of the debate’s title, as other wider concerns have been raised. I want to draw noble Lords’ attention back to the need for this legislation to protect the supply of retail goods to Northern Ireland. As I said earlier, the legislation delivers on a key commitment of the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper. As colleagues know, this is what provided the basis for the return of the Northern Ireland Executive. I will do my best to address the points raised by noble Lords. It is late; if I miss anything out, I will go to Hansard and respond further in writing.

The delisting of goods and the impact on business was a very strong theme. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, rightly expressed her concerns about the potential delisting of products into Northern Ireland and the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, talked about the impacts on business. Of course, I am aware of the comments that came recently from Marks & Spencer. I reassure noble Lords that the Government are engaging comprehensively with businesses right across the United Kingdom to understand their state of readiness for 1 July. I also take this opportunity to say that we very much recognise the efforts and commitment of businesses that serve Northern Ireland.

It is also our strong expectation that the long lead-in time to prepare for the phasing in through the announcement of these changes last October—although the legislation has not been with us until today—and the ongoing support being provided by government to adapt will deter businesses from removing goods from sale in Northern Ireland. However, in the event this appears likely, the Government will not hesitate to act by introducing labelling in Great Britain to prevent this.

The noble Lord, Lord Weir, asked whether the SI applied only to GB goods. To confirm, all products of that type need to be labelled to be placed on the market in GB, no matter their origin, whether they are made in GB or imported from elsewhere. This is to help ensure that Northern Ireland has the same range as the rest of the UK.

I also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that this is a power of last resort. My officials continue to work closely with businesses across the United Kingdom to encourage them to move their goods to Northern Ireland. Obviously, if the evidence proves that we need to take action, we will not hesitate to intervene.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, mentioned Article 16. We are concerned that triggering Article 16 would be contrary to Northern Ireland having stable arrangements for trade, both now and in future.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked about the impact of the policy on economic growth and inflation. The policy, as intended, is expected to have a negligible impact on economic growth and inflation. It has been specifically designed to minimise any negative impacts, such as price ranges or changes in availability, through the targeting of the legislation to balance achieving the policy objective with minimising economic impacts.

22:15

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, also suggested that we had reneged on our commitment in Safeguarding the Union. We have been clear that we will deliver on the commitments made in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper for the people of Northern Ireland. The statutory instrument will deliver on those commitments by ensuring that the Government can introduce “Not for EU” labelling where certain goods may be at risk of being removed from the Northern Ireland market. The policy diverges from the proposed approach set out in the Command Paper by empowering the Secretary of State to implement the GB labelling requirement as a contingency measure, where necessary, rather than on a mandatory basis. This is because we feel we need a more proportionate, evidence-driven approach to the issue of safeguarding the retail market in Northern Ireland.

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked about the timing of the SPS agreement, which a number of other noble Lords mentioned. We intend to start talks straight away and we want to remove barriers as soon as possible. It is a complex, technical legal matter—as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware—but our ambition is to have it done as soon as possible to realise the benefits. I cannot be any more specific than that.

On the SPS agreement, the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, suggested that the Government need a new approach. I suggest that the EU reset is, in fact, a new approach to moving forward in this area. Based on the scope of the SPS agreement currently proposed, we expect the requirement to label goods “Not for EU” to reduce significantly. To that end, the Secretary of State is statutorily obliged to review the efficacy of these regulations and any notices issued under them after two years, rather than the usual five, as noble Lords have noted.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said that I mentioned the “majority of goods”. What I said about the SPS agreement was that we expect that this may remove the need for businesses to label the majority of their goods as “Not for EU” when moving them into Northern Ireland. We therefore hope to remove as many of those as possible. I hope that that I have helped clarify that.

The noble Lord, Lord Elliot, asked why we are making businesses implement “Not for EU” labelling when we have confirmed that we will pursue the SPS agreement with the EU. Once the SPS agreement has been implemented, there will be opportunities to further smooth trade with the UK internal market system. As I said, we expect the number of goods to reduce significantly as a result of that agreement. However, to achieve those benefits, we have to be seen as a reliable partner on delivering on existing commitments to the EU. To that end, we are clear that we have to implement the arrangements for the Windsor Framework in a faithful way, even where our ambition is that we will not need those arrangements in future.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked why it has taken so long to lay the SI. Moving away from the original intent to legislate on a contingent basis has involved a lot of engagement with trade bodies and businesses, as well as complex drafting and policy changes. We have taken the time because we wanted to get it as right as we possibly could.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, asked about businesses passing on costs to consumers. I confirm again that this is a power of last resort that we will introduce only where the evidence deems it necessary to safeguard the supply of retail goods into Northern Ireland, to maintain consumer choice for the people of Northern Ireland and to protect the UK internal market.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, again mentioned the trade and co-operation agreement. I absolutely listened to what he said. It is probably best if I speak to my colleague in the Cabinet Office about this and pick it up with him.

The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, asked about the Government’s response to the FSB report, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Weir. I have listened to what has been said and will speak to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland because it will come under his remit.

The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, asked about different types of evidence that the Secretary of State would consider. We have established a robust marketing monitoring process which will draw from a range of quantitative and qualitative sources to guide decision-making. Primarily, this will be electronic point-of-sale data on retail goods, competent authority data on trade flows and intelligence provided by businesses involved in producing, moving and selling retail goods in Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, also asked why there is no timeframe for when “Not for EU” labelling will become a requirement in GB after a notice has been published and whether we will be able to act quickly to prevent delisting. There is no set period included in the SI for businesses to make the changes should labelling be required. This will be specified in the marking notice. This is because we recognise that how quickly labelling changes can be implemented will vary depending on the type of products. We will also work with business to understand what a reasonable timeframe would be on a case-by-case basis.

Finally, I come to some of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. He asked about the evidence looking to trigger the SI power. There is no numeric threshold within the SI and nor does it activate automatically. Instead, it allows a degree of subjectivity, noting that the right course of each project may vary, as I have just mentioned. The assessment of whether the supply is seriously adversely affected could include, but is not limited to, the volume of the product likely to be delisted, the availability of alternatives, how many supermarkets are affected and whether the product is essential for a certain group of people for health or cultural reasons. We would monitor the market in order to gain that evidence.

The noble Lord also asked about support for small businesses. Small businesses, as defined in the Companies Act 2006, are exempt from these regulations, although not from labelling requirements when moving goods to Northern Ireland. We have been doing a huge amount of work with small business in preparation for these regulations and others.

The noble Lord also asked about consistency of application of the rules by local authorities. Comprehensive guidance will be provided to local authorities ahead of any required enforcements. We will work with councils to ensure they have the necessary resources, including funding and training, to be able to undertake these responsibilities should a notice be issued.

On communications, the UK and European Union share similarly high standards for the production of food and drink. It is important to be aware of and understand that the “Not for EU” label does not denote a lower quality of goods than those produced in or for the EU. The label is a proportionate means of ensuring goods moved through the scheme are not sold onwards into the EU. We will make it clear that this is the case in any communications which we issue around the frameworks. We will, however, keep it under review and issue any further proactive communications if required.

I would like to conclude—

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her very comprehensive responses, but could she just say something about the issue raised by a number of us about the ridiculousness of protecting the EU’s internal market with the “Not for EU” labels? Hundreds of people are coming over every weekend buying “Not for EU” labelled goods in Northern Ireland and taking them into the Republic. It is a nonsense.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned, we are currently in discussions regarding an SPS agreement in order, I hope, to be able to remove many of the requirements, if discussions meet our ambitions. But the EU has made it quite clear that we are expected to meet our obligations under the Windsor Framework until the outcomes are known. At the moment, we do not know what those outcomes are and this falls under those obligations.

As I was saying, I would really like to say that I am committed to common sense whenever possible; I think a lot of people are. I find the regular meetings with our Northern Ireland colleagues extremely useful. Although I make it clear that we believe this instrument is making an important contribution to safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the union, which we are very deeply committed to as a Government, we need to continue to try to move together forward constructively. The EU reset is going to make big changes, and it is important that those of us who have an interest in Northern Ireland understand the implications for Northern Ireland and that we can work together as we move forward. I know we will never agree on everything, but that is an important—

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

The Minister mentioned the meetings she has had and intends to have with the Northern Ireland Peers. On the meetings that she has had, can she list issues where she has changed her mind, having listened to what the Northern Ireland Peers have said? I would like to hear that, and that would maybe encourage us a little.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I would say—it is the same with anyone I have meetings and discussions with—that I always listen, and listening to people has an impact on how you respond and how things are often pulled together or drafted. To make a list of where one has changed your mind is a different thing altogether.

Finally, I beg to move.

22:26

Division 2

Ayes: 17

Noes: 9

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)]

My Lords, as it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 56, I declare the Question not decided, and the debate thereon stands adjourned.

House adjourned at 10.38 pm.