Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Official Controls (Plant Health) and Phytosanitary Conditions (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, from that point of view, I had not originally intended to speak, but I suspect I may be the last Back-Bench contributor. In the true spirit of equality, it may be useful if I can make a few comments in relation to that. I am sure that the Front Benchers do not really object to being detained too much by what I think is a matter of crucial constitutional significance.
As I said, I had not originally intended to speak in this debate, not least because I agree with the vast bulk of what has been said and contributed to this debate, but I want to touch on just three points that came up during the debate. First, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, is correct that, while this is a highly technical issue, it is one that speaks to much greater constitutional significance. As has been mentioned, this is symptomatic of a wider problem, and that has been the overall approach that has been taken over the last number of years. There have been a number of failures: a failure of planning, negotiation, detail and implementation. Nationally, we need to learn those lessons, particularly for the future.
Secondly, while it will come as no great surprise that I and my unionist colleagues on this Bench, from at least two parties, are not the greatest fans of the Northern Ireland protocol or the Windsor Framework, what is particularly concerning about this regulation is that it is actually worse than the protocol and the framework. As has been highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others, at the very least in Article 1, which is supposed to protect security and indeed national security on biosecurity, we are left with a situation where we have what I call “protocol plus”: we have a situation in which the requirements of the Government have been gold-plated. The supposed safeguards have been largely disregarded. If anything, what is in the protocol would provide greater protection than what is there today.
Thirdly and finally, as a number of speakers—relatively critically from noble Lord, Lord Frost, probably more benignly from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—have indicated, we can only really look at this debate in the context of the reset arrangements. There have been many promises made about that reset. Those of us in Northern Ireland will take a slight level of scepticism towards that. It is not what is promised that is important; it is what is delivered. It is not what is said; it is what is done.
To be fair to the Government, in terms of what they have promised, they have not suggested that the reset particularly solves some of the fundamental issues that are still there. We are still going to be left now. I await the Minister’s response in relation to this: that there will still be customs arrangements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Secondly, it is clear that it will not deal with the democratic deficit of the 300 areas of law. Thirdly, whatever arrangements are there in SPS, as I think was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, in one of his opening questions, it seems very apparent that that will not cover those goods outside of SPS on that basis.
In conclusion, let us for a moment take a much more rose-tinted approach to this and borrow from some of the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that this will be greatly easing and improving the situation. If that is the case, it is because it would treat the United Kingdom, albeit in a situation in which it is largely subservient to dynamic alignment with the EU, as being one unit on that basis. That seems to be the direction of travel of the skeletal agreement that has been produced in respect of SPS.
If that is the case, and if that is something that is going to lead to a much more halcyon future for the country as a whole, I have to say that this regulation before us takes us in a diametrically opposed position, because it very explicitly brings about a situation that, from a biosecurity point of view, creates fortress Great Britain at the expense of dividing us off entirely from Northern Ireland. So I say in conclusion that, if you are a true believer in and advocate for the reset arrangements, actually you would find yourself in agreement with the regret Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Frost. I do not want to detain the House any longer and I look forward to the response of the Front Benches.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, we support these regulations as a sensible step to protect our biosecurity and reduce costly and deeply damaging barriers to trade, but we see this as just one stage of a much bigger journey. As my noble friend Lady Suttie has said in previous debates of this nature, these regulations are a stopgap. The real prize is a full sanitary and phytosanitary SPS veterinary agreement with the EU—something both sides committed to at last month’s summit. That would mean that one day our aim would be to do away with most border checks on plant and animal products altogether.
Indeed, we welcome the Government’s recent decision to delay new checks on medium-risk fruit and vegetables, an approach that a lot of industry rightly calls common sense. The extension until January 2027 gives businesses some breathing space, but everyone knows this is temporary and that the Government expect that a new SPS agreement will make these stopgap measures unnecessary.
The May summit made clear the aim: a common sanitary and phytosanitary area with no time limit. That would mean most goods, plants, animals and their products could move between Great Britain and the EU without the current certificates and controls. It would cut costs, ease pressure on food prices and end routine border checks. The benefits would also extend to Northern Ireland, thanks to the Windsor Framework. There is sometimes a myth that such an agreement would make Britain a rule taker. In reality, if we want to export, we always have to meet our trading partners’ standards. This deal would mean genuinely unfettered access to the EU market and therefore far less trade friction—friction that has been so damaging, for example, to our farmers in recent years.
Farming groups such as the NFU and the Country Land and Business Association have raised concerns about the role of European courts and the need for flexibility, especially around issues such as precision breeding and pesticides. The proposed agreement suggests dynamic alignment with the EU rules, but also promises a say for the UK and an independent arbitration panel. I am looking forward to a few more answers on this and the need to be sure that any dispute process is genuinely fair and respects our own parliamentary procedures.
This agreement could bring real benefits: lower prices, less red tape and more secure food supply. But I echo some of the requests in previous debates with questions to the Minister, especially from these Benches, about a clear timetable for finalising the implementation of the SPS agreement. So far, our understanding is that no date has been set. We would also like to know whether there is any risk to animal health or biosecurity while we wait for the new agreement to come. Ongoing surveillance in that period is obviously vital, but we do feel that reassurance is needed.
On another point, the Explanatory Memorandum mentions debt recovery and collection costs for unpaid fees. Can the Minister tell us the total cost of unpaid fees, the average fee charged, and whether non-payment is a widespread issue? If she is unable to answer that this evening, perhaps she could undertake to write; we would be very grateful. Finally, can the Minister confirm that there are robust checks to prevent goods deliberately avoiding control posts, now and in the future?
With regard to the Motion to Regret, I note at paragraph 17 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 15th report the submission from Jim Allister MP and the Defra response with reference to the use in the four nations of the UK plant health provisional common framework and that, for example, measures against Popillia japonica are already in place in Northern Ireland, and the rest of Great Britain has been catching up. I therefore have been a little confused by some of the contributions I have heard this evening.
Given the benefits so ably described by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the very detailed and useful explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Bew, we will not be supporting the regret Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Frost. We want to see these regulations and the wider agreement deliver what matters to people: less bureaucracy, lower costs and a stronger partnership with our closest trading neighbours, and we would prefer that sooner rather than later. That is what is best for our businesses, our farmers and ultimately our consumers.