Health: Duties on Food and Drink

Debate between Lord Rennard and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 6th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

We have made the changes in the juice rules that I mentioned and have had a number of representations, including perhaps from the noble Baroness, about white cider in the context of the Budget. I would add only that the UK cider industry is an important part of the rural economy and uses almost half the apples produced in this country.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, the Sheffield Alcohol Research Group has suggested that a 50p minimum unit pricing for alcohol, together with the duty escalator, could prevent around 700 deaths a year from alcohol-related causes. Would it not therefore be in the interests of the country, the NHS and the Treasury to introduce such policies?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

We have already banned sales in England and Wales below duty and VAT, but the minimum unit pricing introduced in Scotland is subject to an appeal in the Scottish courts. While that is continuing, the introduction of unit pricing in England and Wales has to remain under review.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Rennard and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, as I said, I have listened to the debate and we will all reflect further—as we do when we have important debates of this type—but I would like to conclude on this Motion.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

Can the Minister tell us why these impact assessments could not have been published yesterday so that we could have considered them when considering this Motion?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I promised in a meeting that they would be published before Committee stage and I have delivered on that promise. I have arranged for them to be published tomorrow, which will give plenty of time before Committee starts on 8 February. I look forward to discussing them with noble Lords across the House.

In conclusion, this Bill seeks to modernise the relationship between trade unions and their members and to redress the balance between the rights of trade unions and the rights of the general public, whose lives, as I have said before, are often disrupted by strikes. Clauses 10 and 11 embrace the good democratic values of choice, transparency and responsibility. I look forward to full scrutiny of the Bill in this House.

This Bill is a package of measures and it is disappointing that the party opposite has chosen to misinterpret our intentions. As I have demonstrated, Clauses 10 and 11 are quite distinct from the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life mentioned in the Motion and relating to party-political funding. We would merely be adding confusion if we established a Select Committee.

Our reforms in the Bill look at how trade union members choose to contribute to trade union political funds. We are not looking at how trade unions fund political parties. Opt-ins and opt-outs for trade union political funds have always been a matter for trade union legislation. Party funding and its regulation have always been a matter for party funding legislation. Party funding is rightly outside the scope of the Bill and I call on the House to reject the Motion.