Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): I welcome Elaine McCrory, who is head of the supply train transition branch, Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs; and Samantha Stewart, who is head of food security, beef, pig and sheep policy, Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. You are very welcome, ladies. I invite you to brief the Committee when you are ready. Thank you.

Ms Elaine McCrory (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Chair, thank you for the opportunity to brief the Committee on regulation (EU) 2026/1739, formerly COM (2024) 577. The purpose of the briefing is to support the Committee's consideration of whether the final, published act differs significantly from the previous text and whether it would have a significant and lasting impact specific to everyday life in Northern Ireland.

Members will be aware that the original proposal was considered by the Committee through previous briefings and impact assessments. Since then, the proposal has completed the EU legislative process, was signed on 8 July and was published in the 'Official Journal' on 29 July 2026. DAERA's assessment is that the final regulation is broadly consistent with the compromise text previously considered by the Committee, with no material change to the expected impacts for Northern Ireland. The regulation is a broad EU package aimed at strengthening the position of farmers in the agri-food supply chain. However, under the Windsor framework, most of the wider provisions do not apply in Northern Ireland. The practical relevance for Northern Ireland is limited to amendments to regulation (EU) 1308/2013, which is listed in annex 2 of the Windsor framework.

There are three main areas of relevance. The first is country-of-origin labelling. The regulation refers to the place of farming and/or origin but does not itself introduce a new, immediate labelling obligation for poultry meat or spreadable fats. Any future detailed requirements will need to be considered separately if and when they are brought forward. Secondly, optional reserved terms, such as "fair", "equitable" and "short supply chain", would apply only when such terms are used voluntarily. The aim is to ensure that those terms are meaningful and not misleading. Application is deferred for two years to allow businesses time to adapt and to allow the EU Commission to carry out further work through implementing and delegated acts. At this stage, DAERA is not aware of significant current use of that type of term by Northern Ireland businesses. Thirdly, we have meat terms and meat-related names. Thirty-one terms, including "beef", "pork", "lamb", "steak" and "bacon", will be reserved for products that meet the new legal definitions of "meat" or "meat products". These rules are most likely to affect vegetarian or vegan meat replacement products, although there remains some uncertainty around products such as meat-flavoured snacks. DEFRA is seeking clarification on the scope from the EU Commission.

The final regulation includes more generous transitional arrangements than the compromise text. The meat term rules will not apply immediately, and there is an additional three-year sell-through period for stocks already lawfully produced and placed on the market before the date of application of this regulation. The Commission may also adopt delegated acts to allow exemptions where there is established long-term use of meat-related designations and no likely consumer confusion. DAERA does not collect or hold data on the number of Northern Ireland businesses producing vegan or vegetarian foods, meat-flavoured snack products or cell culture products. Based on the information that is currently available, any compliance costs are likely to be limited and manageable through normal packaging and labelling update cycles.

Officials also note that key agri-food marketing standards are expected to fall within the scope of the proposed UK/EU sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement. If included as anticipated, this will reduce the potential for regulatory divergence between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Ireland, although the scope and timing of that agreement remains subject to negotiation.

Chair, in conclusion, DAERA's view is that the final act is largely consistent with the text already considered by the Committee and that the relevant provisions are unlikely to have a significant or persistent impact on everyday life in Northern Ireland. However, if a UK/EU SPS agreement is concluded and marketing standards are included, non-application in Northern Ireland could create future frictions for NI-produced goods moving to the EU and GB after implementation. Thanks, Chair, for the opportunity to brief the Committee. I welcome any questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): Thank you, Elaine.

Mr Buckley: Just a short question to begin with. I recognise that there is a difficult balance between what is devolved and what is reserved in relation to some of this. You mentioned at the end of your briefing that was supplied to us:

That has just been provided to us, so obviously it has not happened yet.

Ms McCrory: No, that has not happened as yet. To date, we have focused on engaging with other government representatives. We have had fairly regular engagement with DEFRA on this. We have also been engaging with the Food Standards Agency (FSA), Invest NI and our colleagues in the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE), which, as you know, is part of DAERA, to try to gauge the numbers of people likely to be impacted by this. Our difficulty is that, at the moment —. I will start with the easy bit: when it comes to the cell culture products, as far as we are aware —

Mr Buckley: We are not aware of any in Northern Ireland, sure we are not?

Ms McCrory: — there are none authorised for market in the UK. That could change in future years, as this is an area where there is an opportunity for businesses to grow.

When it comes to Invest NI, the problem has been that it has a particular focus on businesses that export, and therefore it does not have comprehensive details on the types of food businesses that would be affected. We have asked the FSA about its understanding of the number of food businesses, rather than agricultural ones, that will be affected by this, and, again, it does not have that information to hand.

As indicated in the assessment of impact, our next steps will be to reach out to stakeholders on this. We will do that first of all through the agricultural policy stakeholder group, because it contains farming representatives, the Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association and the NI Meat Exporters Association.

Mr Buckley: I could ask you many questions about the labelling and the terms "fair" and "equitable", but we are at the stage where we have to make a decision. You have answered the question, because the engagement that you will be doing will be pivotal to how I view this going forward. I have nothing further to ask. When the engagement has taken place, we will be in a better, more informed position on that.

Mr Brooks: My questions were on similar lines. It is frustrating that the consultation that the we need is scheduled to take place after we meet to consider something. That comment is not aimed at you; it is a situation that we face quite often. Our Departments at large — I am not having a go at DAERA; this is just what happens to be before us today — are going to have to establish mechanisms, even get a sample. You talked about the relevant groups that you were going to speak to that had some of those stakeholders. Understanding that, if there are hundreds or thousands of a particular type of stakeholder, such as small businesses or farmers or whoever they are, it will be resource intensive and hard for you to harvest the data. However, there has to be some attempt to get a sample of thought there, with the understanding that it is not going to be comprehensive, but some of the businesses are going to be very similar and similarly minded. If one has a concern, the others will have a concern. It is frustrating for us because we then have to make a decision, even at this stage when it is just a decision on whether to have an inquiry, without that kind of information. It seems like it should not be a huge task to get some form of opinion gathered. I just make that point generally. It applies to DAERA, but not only DAERA.

Further to Jonny's point on the terms "fair" and "equitable", I would rather hear from those who are likely to be directly impacted, but where is that likely to have an impact? There was some discussion in the closed session, without going into detail, on whether those changes would be significantly different. My point was that, if the changes are significant enough for the legislation to refer to them and want to put parameters around their use, they are probably significant enough for the sector to be considered for discussion at the Committee. How relevant are the changes to Northern Ireland? Which aspects of the sector might they apply to?

Ms McCrory: We are not aware of any company producing goods in Northern Ireland that uses the optional reserved terms "fair", "equitable" and "short supply chain". We are aware of international issues, such as fair trade, that use those terms.

Mr Brooks: The short supply chain seems to be becoming a much bigger thing, with supermarkets promoting the fact that there is only a small number of ingredients in a product or that a product has only travelled so far and so on. Is that something that is becoming more relevant?

Ms McCrory: I suspect that that is why the EU is legislating on this. Across the board, there is a move towards referring to "short supply chains". I am speculating that that is why the EU decided to regulate on these terms and put clearer conditions on their use. We will probably see more detail coming through in the implementing and delegated acts, which will give us a better feel for the impact and how we might enforce this.

Mr Brooks: There is a lack of information. If it is the will of the Committee, I would prefer to have a further look at this through an inquiry. If we get to that stage, and given our own very short timelines, any effort that can be made to get stakeholder and sectoral opinion on some of those things would be very useful for the next presentation, even if it is only a sample.

Dr Aiken: Thanks very much. There are a couple of things. One question that I have been asked is about "facon" and the rest of it in the likes of Sainsbury's and Marks and Spencer. There are other supermarket chains, as we say in the finest tradition. "This is not bacon", Plant Kitchen No Pork Streaky Bacon and those kinds of things. They are currently covered by the NI retail movement scheme in some respects, are they not?

Ms McCrory: Yes.

Dr Aiken: Delving through all the bits and pieces, I see that the explanatory memorandum states that, in future:

Does that mean that not only will they have to put "Not for EU consumption" on the package, but they will also have to say, "This is not bacon" or whatever it happens to be? Will they have to completely relabel it?

Ms McCrory: At this stage, in advance of the delegating and implementing acts, it is difficult to know exactly what they will have to do, but it looks like they will not be able to use those designations for something that is not a product derived from meat.

Dr Aiken: Sainsbury's and M&S will have to take everything that implies that a product is vegetarian bacon or sausages or whatever off the terminology?

Ms McCrory: I do not think sausages are in it. Sausages are not listed.

Dr Aiken: Sausages and burgers are different, but bacon —.

Ms McCrory: Bacon is one of the listed terms.

Dr Aiken: A whole lot of chicken stuff would come under it as well.

Ms McCrory: Chicken as well.

Dr Aiken: That would be quite a substantial change and divergence from the rest of the UK market.

Ms McCrory: As I said earlier, under the SPS agreement, marketing standards apart from wine are likely to be included in any agreement that is reached. Negotiations are ongoing, but in that event, and if agreement is reached, the same standards will be applied in GB.

Dr Aiken: That is the interesting bit. All the explanatory memorandums that came through seemed to imply that the SPS agreement would come in July. We were being told that everything would be sorted out in July, but here we are in August, and there is no SPS agreement and no provision for an SPS agreement between the UK and the EU to be timetabled in the autumn, looking at all the programmes and the rest of it. How much consideration has been given to the impact of this being based on an SPS agreement that none of us has seen and that is not in place? I hope that it comes in — I really do — but, at the moment, we are talking an awful lot about provisions that are likely to be in an SPS agreement that nobody has seen, and we are way past the month in which it was supposed to be implemented.

Dr Samantha Stewart (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): DEFRA is working very much to plan how it is going to comply with this. That is the direction of travel. I completely appreciate that, until it is signed and sealed, we do not know the details.

Dr Aiken: Have you seen a draft of it?

Dr Stewart: No, but, if the SPS agreement is not agreed, DEFRA can move under the retail movement scheme.

Dr Aiken: OK. Thanks.

Ms McCrory: The implementation period is very generous. There is a long time for businesses to comply —

Dr Aiken: Hopefully.

Ms McCrory: — and for the agreement to be in place.

Mr Martin: Thank you for your evidence today. I am reading through some of it. One paragraph says:

It goes on to list some aspects of that:

could be affected. I am thinking of Tayto chicken crisps: could they be affected? That will be close to Jonny's heart, because they are manufactured in Armagh. Could they be affected by this?

Ms McCrory: Potentially, yes. It is not clear from the regulation. It just refers to other:

or words to that effect.

Mr Martin: That is fine, Elaine.

Ms McCrory: That is why we need clarification from the Commission on what is and is not in scope. DEFRA is pursuing that clarification.

Mr Martin: Your answer is very helpful and illustrates my point. It is not fair to land it all on you, because you got only so much information. It goes to my point that some of this stuff is just —. We do not have enough information here to make a really good judgement on this. The information is not there.

I will pick up one other thing:

that picks up on your point —

My point is that there is so much that we simply do not know when it comes to its impact on Northern Ireland, especially that Northern Ireland/GB aspect. I am concerned that it will have a significant impact on provision in Northern Ireland.

Thank you for that, Elaine. It is very good and probably pulls out the point that I was hoping to make.

The Chairperson (Ms Ferguson): No other member has any questions, so, on behalf of the Committee, I thank Elaine and Samantha for their presentation this morning.