(1Â week, 5Â days ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is worth me saying that the rules and requirements to use the protected name for English whisky and its sub-categories, including the single malt, are determined by product specification. This document is produced by the applicant—in this case, the English Whisky Guild—and reflects traditions and practices of the English whisky sector. The English whisky product specification is compliant with all applicable UK legislation, and I am very happy to write to him on the specific points that the hon. Member raises.
My constituency produces the finest single malt Scotch whisky. From Isla, Jura, Campbeltown, Oban, Mull and Ardnamurchan, centuries of craft have gone into building that hard-earned reputation. This decision to allow lower production standards for English single malt whisky undermines that. Why have the Government allowed lower standards in England? What safeguards are they putting in place to protect the hard-earned reputation and integrity of Scotch malt whisky?
It is not a binary choice. We can support English whisky and Scotch whisky, and I stress that we are supporting the growth of the whisky industry. It is hugely important for this Government, and that is evident in the recent international work that we have undertaken—the India free trade agreement slashed tariff rates for UK whisky exports from 150% to 75%, and we have worked with the US as well. The Government have invested significantly in the whisky industry. With China, we are agreeing to cut tariffs on Scotch whisky from 10% to 5%, and we will continue to take action to support the Scottish industry.