Draft Marking of Retail Good Regulations 2025

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Jim Allister

Monday 23rd June 2025 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, for his support and for raising some important questions. Of course, we want to minimise costs to business, and we made the decision to introduce a targeted power, as opposed to a mandatory requirement for all goods, to prevent some of those costs. As we set out in the impact assessment, the indicative cost to business of applying “not for EU” labelling to a subset of product lines is significantly less and will vary depending on the product. Moreover, the non-monetised benefits, particularly safeguarding food security in Northern Ireland, will be a crucial part of maintaining a strong economy.

The shadow Minister asked how many businesses are likely to seek extensions, but I think that that will only become apparent over time. He also asked about costs to local authorities; given that the statutory instrument is a contingency power, enforcement costs will only be incurred should the powers in the SI be activated. Any enforcement activity would be undertaken by the local authority as part of existing food labelling checks to minimise the burden.

I listened closely to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and, as I so often do, I found a lot in his comments to agree with. I very much look forward to our discussions with Lord Curry in due course.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, very importantly, provided a voice from Northern Ireland in this debate. He asked why we are not triggering article 16, but that would happen only in the event of a massive distortion to trade. A decision to activate article 16 would be contrary to Northern Ireland having stable arrangements for trade now and in future, and that is what we anticipate will happen.

[Jim Allister]

That is news to me. I do not have article 16 in front of me, but I do not believe that it says “massive distortion”. However, what article 1 of the Windsor framework does say is that the EU will respect the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. Where is the respect for the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom in the EU insisting that we have its “not for EU” labelling? Where is the respect there?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The respect is that we now have a good agreement with our friends in the European Union. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to recognise the advantages that we are gaining from that, both for Great Britain and for Northern Ireland. Triggering article 16 would disregard the benefits that the Windsor framework offers and that businesses rely on, including those that are taking advantage of Northern Ireland’s unique access to the United Kingdom and EU markets.

We will keep this legislation under review. The statutory review clause requires the Secretary of State to conduct the first review after two years, rather than the customary five, and that will allow for scrutiny of the policy in the context of the proposed SPS agreement. Once completed, the SPS agreement will facilitate the smooth flow of agrifood and plants from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, protecting the UK’s internal market, reducing costs to businesses and improving consumer choice. As I have noted, we expect the requirement to label goods as “not for EU” to diminish significantly as a result of the agreement, which may in turn reduce the need for the power conferred by these regulations.

We must meet our existing international obligations to reach that point. We must continue to fully implement the Windsor framework in good faith, while ensuring Northern Irish consumers are protected. That is why this legislation is essential in supporting this Government’s renewed partnership with the EU, which will deliver a broader range of benefits for people and businesses in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom.

I conclude by returning to the primary purpose of this legislation: to provide a safeguard against reduced product availability and to maintain consumer choice in Northern Ireland. This Government are committed to delivering on the commitments made in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper for the people of Northern Ireland. The draft regulations will demonstrate that commitment by ensuring that the Government are able to act decisively if required.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025.

Draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Jim Allister

Monday 23rd June 2025 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, for his support and for raising some important questions. Of course, we want to minimise costs to business, and we made the decision to introduce a targeted power, as opposed to a mandatory requirement for all goods, to prevent some of those costs. As we set out in the impact assessment, the indicative cost to business of applying “not for EU” labelling to a subset of product lines is significantly less and will vary depending on the product. Moreover, the non-monetised benefits, particularly safeguarding food security in Northern Ireland, will be a crucial part of maintaining a strong economy.

The shadow Minister asked how many businesses are likely to seek extensions, but I think that that will only become apparent over time. He also asked about costs to local authorities; given that the statutory instrument is a contingency power, enforcement costs will only be incurred should the powers in the SI be activated. Any enforcement activity would be undertaken by the local authority as part of existing food labelling checks to minimise the burden.

I listened closely to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and, as I so often do, I found a lot in his comments to agree with. I very much look forward to our discussions with Lord Curry in due course.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, very importantly, provided a voice from Northern Ireland in this debate. He asked why we are not triggering article 16, but that would happen only in the event of a massive distortion to trade. A decision to activate article 16 would be contrary to Northern Ireland having stable arrangements for trade now and in future, and that is what we anticipate will happen.

[Jim Allister]

That is news to me. I do not have article 16 in front of me, but I do not believe that it says “massive distortion”. However, what article 1 of the Windsor framework does say is that the EU will respect the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. Where is the respect for the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom in the EU insisting that we have its “not for EU” labelling? Where is the respect there?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The respect is that we now have a good agreement with our friends in the European Union. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to recognise the advantages that we are gaining from that, both for Great Britain and for Northern Ireland. Triggering article 16 would disregard the benefits that the Windsor framework offers and that businesses rely on, including those that are taking advantage of Northern Ireland’s unique access to the United Kingdom and EU markets.

We will keep this legislation under review. The statutory review clause requires the Secretary of State to conduct the first review after two years, rather than the customary five, and that will allow for scrutiny of the policy in the context of the proposed SPS agreement. Once completed, the SPS agreement will facilitate the smooth flow of agrifood and plants from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, protecting the UK’s internal market, reducing costs to businesses and improving consumer choice. As I have noted, we expect the requirement to label goods as “not for EU” to diminish significantly as a result of the agreement, which may in turn reduce the need for the power conferred by these regulations.

We must meet our existing international obligations to reach that point. We must continue to fully implement the Windsor framework in good faith, while ensuring Northern Irish consumers are protected. That is why this legislation is essential in supporting this Government’s renewed partnership with the EU, which will deliver a broader range of benefits for people and businesses in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom.

I conclude by returning to the primary purpose of this legislation: to provide a safeguard against reduced product availability and to maintain consumer choice in Northern Ireland. This Government are committed to delivering on the commitments made in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper for the people of Northern Ireland. The draft regulations will demonstrate that commitment by ensuring that the Government are able to act decisively if required.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Jim Allister

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman and I spoke frequently when he was in his previous role and I was in opposition, and he knows of what he speaks. We have strong measures in place. We strengthened them a few months ago, and I am confident that they are at the right level at the moment. Of course, there is always a case for further investment, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will support any measures that we bring forward.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Does the Minister accept that the reason why he cannot provide national protection for Northern Ireland is that this House has surrendered the right to make such regulations? They cannot even be made in Stormont, because only a foreign Parliament is now entitled to make them. Therefore, we in Northern Ireland do not have the same protections for our farmers and their livelihoods that are afforded elsewhere. The ban is restricted to products coming from the affected areas in Germany. Given that context, will we see the absurdity that we have seen in response to bluetongue, whereby cattle and livestock from mainland Europe can transit through GB to Northern Ireland and, indeed, anywhere in the island of Ireland, despite the ban? Is that same loophole going to apply in this case?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for continuing our dialogue on this issue. I do not recognise that loophole, and I can assure him that Northern Ireland will be fully protected, because that is what we are determined to do.

Draft Official Controls (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Jim Allister

Wednesday 8th January 2025 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for the contributions made by Members and for the support of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, whose positive response I welcome. This is important work, and a sensible approach is being taken.

I also hear the points made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. I reassure him that essentially what we propose in the draft regulations is absolutely consistent with all the commitments already set out in the Windsor framework, including continuing to guarantee that qualifying Northern Ireland goods will have unfettered access to the Great British market.

[Jim Allister]

How can there be unfettered access from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, as is assured in the words of the Windsor framework, if, at the same time, regulation 14 provides for checks on goods coming into Great Britain, which must include goods coming from Northern Ireland? How can there be unfettered access if goods are subject to checks?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for the points made by the hon. and learned Member. He will appreciate that we are trying to resolve a complicated set of circumstances and make them work. These measures are a genuine attempt to make the system work for everybody’s benefit. I appreciate the complex issues that he raises, but I do not believe that these measures make any substantial difference to them.

The draft regulations remove the reliance on temporary measures, implementing a responsive, risk-based imports approach to protect the United Kingdom from emerging pests and diseases while supporting businesses with processes that are as simple and effective as possible. I commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.