Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD):...The Government, however, have
introduced this new concept, which means, for example, that the
UK’s biggest food and drink export, Whisky could now be open to a
great problem because a decision made by one country, Scotland,
could act against the interests of farmers in England who provide
products to serve that. It is the barley question, which the
Minister has referred to and on which I have asked questions
before. As the noble Lord, Lord True, indicated, in...Request free trial
(LD):...The Government, however, have
introduced this new concept, which means, for example, that the
UK’s biggest food and drink export, Whisky could now be open to a
great problem because a decision made by one country, Scotland,
could act against the interests of farmers in
England who provide products to serve that. It is the barley
question, which the Minister has referred to and on which I have
asked questions before. As the noble Lord, , indicated, in summing up the debate on the previous group
on Monday and correcting the noble Lord, , that is an area
that will be covered by a legislative framework...
(LD):...As usual, my noble friend Lord Purvis came up with
a series of important questions, including Scotch
whisky-based ones. He came up with the revelation
that there is a complete and absolute internal contradiction in the
Bill. The Government brought forward an amendment that causes the
following to happen: if England decided to set up its own approval
system and started approving active chemicals banned in the EU,
Scotland could refuse them. Conversely, Scotland could presumably
go further than the EU ban and ban substances which England
approved. That is the Government’s position, based on an amendment
they brought to the Commons. However, he Minister has said that we
must stop this happening, and that the Bill will do that. Something
is not right, and the Minister needs to explain what is
wrong...
(Con):...I turn to the stand part debate on Clause 7,
which sets out the test for direct discrimination. Direct
discrimination is where a requirement applies explicitly
differently to local goods and goods from elsewhere in the UK and
that difference results in disadvantage for the goods from
elsewhere. This means, for example, that a Scottish regulator
cannot impose additional licensing requirements for Welsh goods
unless it does the same for Scottish goods. As another example,
take a scenario where Scotland regulated that only Scottish
Whisky could be sold in pubs;
this would be directly discriminatory against the very fine
Penderyn Whisky produced in Wales, as they
would have a clear disadvantage against similar goods on the
Scottish market—I see that meets with approval...
(LD):...I know that the Minister has been assailed with
examples. He has had chlorinated chicken, Whisky all sorts of things—he
even brought in hypothetical biscuits. I will give him an example
that is the other way round. It is of where the devolved
authorities could do things to England. England, very wisely, has
banned the household burning of coal. Wales and Scotland have not.
If I lived in Herefordshire all the time, I could nip over the
border to Harry Tuffins, which is just the other side of Offa’s
Dyke, buy a bag of coal, take it home and burn it on my fire in
Leominster...
(LD): My
Lords, the Minister will no doubt be pleased to hear that I will
not ask questions about Whisky even though, after
nine hours on this Bench, it seems to be at the forefront of my
mind right now. I do not know why but a nice glass of
Whisky would be rather welcome...
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
|
