Policy Blog

Labour Party Conference 2026

I spent three days at Labour Party Conference in Liverpool this week on behalf of the British Brands Group, taking the opportunity to engage with politicians, policymakers and industry on issues ranging from packaging regulation and the cost of living to competition and the role of brands in delivering value for consumers.

The big speeches inevitably dominate the headlines from party conference, and this year questions of economic growth, living standards, housing, public services and the cost of living were never far from the main stage.

But, for organisations like the British Brands Group, much of the real value of conference happens away from the conference floor. It is in the dozens of fringe meetings taking place across Liverpool that more nuanced areas of policy are explored, assumptions can be tested and the practical consequences of policy can be discussed with the people shaping it. And there was plenty for brands to talk about.

Packaging, circularity and the cumulative cost of regulation

Packaging was a recurring theme across the fringe programme, with several sessions exploring the introduction of the Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) for drinks containers. It was great to see several BBG members represented on panels and leading this conversation. Brands have an important role to play in making DRS work and in driving greater circularity across the consumer packaged goods sector, and there was a real sense of industry wanting to get on with delivering the scheme successfully.

But I also used these discussions to raise an issue which we increasingly hear from BBG members: policymakers need to look at the cumulative burden of packaging regulation, rather than considering each individual policy in isolation. DRS is arriving alongside Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), spiralling costs within the Packaging Recovery Note (PRN) system, the Plastic Packaging Tax and a wider range of regulatory requirements. Each intervention has its own rationale and objectives, but businesses experience their combined cost – and ultimately those costs have to be absorbed somewhere within the supply chain.

That matters when another of the dominant conversations at conference was the cost of living. I attended several fringe discussions looking specifically at the pressures on household budgets and what can realistically be done to ease them. Given the geopolitical environment in which the UK economy is operating, there are clearly no silver bullets, and many of the pressures affecting food, energy, commodities and supply chains originate far beyond Westminster. But that makes it even more important that government looks carefully at the costs it can influence.

I used these discussions to make the case that simplifying packaging compliance, reducing unnecessary complexity and ensuring the different regimes work coherently together could provide some incremental relief from the costs facing brands and retailers. Individually, those savings might not transform household finances, but collectively, reducing unnecessary costs throughout the grocery supply chain can help relieve some of the pressure which ultimately finds its way to consumers at the supermarket till.

Competition, copycats and consumer prices

Our conversations about the cost of living also gave me an opportunity to challenge another piece of conventional wisdom: that supermarket products which closely imitate established brands necessarily benefit consumers because they provide “the same thing, but cheaper”. There is another possibility which I think deserves much greater examination.

Brands spend considerable amounts of time and money building distinctive identities and consumer recognition. When a value-engineered product adopts packaging that closely resembles an established brand, it can potentially benefit from some of the associations and expectations that the brand has created. So rather than simply asking whether a copycat product is cheaper than the branded product it resembles, perhaps we should also ask whether the retailer is able to charge more for that value-engineered product than it otherwise could because of its association with the brand it copies.

I was encouraged that this challenge to the conventional wisdom was received with openness and genuine curiosity by delegates in the room. It prompted an interesting discussion about whether we have been looking at the relationship between copycats, competition and consumer prices in quite the right way. But curiosity is only a starting point. If we are to take this argument further with policymakers, evidence will be critical. We need to understand whether the effect exists, how significant it is and what it means for consumers. Developing that evidence base will therefore be an important next step for the BBG.

Taking the brands perspective to policymakers

Away from the larger fringe events, I was also pleased to have a one-to-one meeting with Chris Bloore MP, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Packaging. We had a really constructive discussion about EPR and the experience of branded businesses as the regime develops. It is good to have an advocate in Westminster who genuinely grasps both sides of this debate: the excellent intentions behind EPR and the ambition to create a more circular economy, but also the significant and ongoing burden its implementation places on industry.

Those two things do not have to be in conflict. Good regulation should achieve ambitious environmental outcomes while being efficient, predictable and proportionate for the businesses expected to deliver them. That becomes particularly important when EPR is viewed alongside DRS, PRNs, the Plastic Packaging Tax and the wider regulatory landscape.

Three days at party conference means a lot of fringe meetings, conversations and miles walked between Liverpool venues, but it is also a valuable opportunity to get beyond the headlines and into the detail of policy. My message throughout the conference was a relatively simple one: brands are ready to play their part in delivering greater circularity, supporting growth and providing consumers with choice, quality and innovation, but policymakers need to consider the cumulative effect of regulation as well as the merits of each individual measure.

When the Government is looking for ways to support growth and ease pressure on household budgets, making regulation simpler, more coherent and less costly is a good place to look. These are conversations the British Brands Group will continue to take forward in Westminster.

Tom Reynolds, Out-going CEO