|
Scotch Whisky (Protected Geographical Indicator)
A debate on motion
S2M-2650, in the name of Mr Andrew Arbuckle, on protected geographical
indicator status for Scottish whisky.
The Deputy
Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion
S2M-2650, in the name of Mr Andrew Arbuckle, on protected geographical
indicator status for Scottish whisky. The debate will be concluded without
any question being put.
Motion
debated:
That the Parliament believes that EU Protected Geographical Indicator (PGI)
status for Scotch whisky would provide a further selling point for the end
product; welcomes the fact that this would require the use of Scottish-only
grain in the manufacture of Scotch whisky; believes that the industry should
apply for PGI status to help ensure the long-term sustainability of Scottish
cereal growing, and considers that any such application should be supported
by the Scottish Executive.
The
Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning (Allan Wilson):
I join colleagues in congratulating Andrew Arbuckle on securing the debate.
I understand that he is relatively new to the chamber, but in the six years
or so that I have been here, I cannot recall a motion that has met with such
universal opposition. That is borne out of a belief that supporting the
motion would do harm to an industry whose worth to the economy and
employment in Scotland cannot be overstated, as Jim Mather, Jackie Baillie,
Murdo Fraser and others said.
The motion calls for the industry to seek protected geographical indication
status, which would require the use of Scottish-only grain in the
manufacture of Scotch whisky. I know that the Scotch Whisky Association has
already explained to Andrew Arbuckle — he referred to it himself — the legal
position and the consequences of pursuing PGI status and using Scottish-only
grain, but perhaps, as other members have done, we should reiterate some of
the negative consequences of going down such a route.
Before I do so, let me make one thing clear: Scotch whisky already has
extensive legal protection. Indeed, the Scotch Whisky Association, one of
the UK's most successful trade associations, employs a team of lawyers whose
sole remit is to protect Scotch whisky at European and international level.
I know that MSPs have been issued with the SWA brief, so I will comment only
under headings. Scotch whisky is already protected because, as Murdo Fraser
and others said, spirit drinks have a higher level of protection under
regulations than other foodstuffs.
Scotch whisky has been recognised as a protected geographical designation in
European Union law for more than 15 years. PGI status for Scotch would not
be legally competent and indeed would dilute existing protection.
Like Murdo Fraser, as someone who can declare a personal interest in the
product, I would not want the product or its status to be diluted in any
way.
I met the Scotch Whisky Association a few weeks ago to hear about the
different issues affecting the Scotch whisky industry. During our meeting,
one of the main messages that came across from Gavin Hewitt, the
association's chief executive, was how much of a top priority the legal
protection of Scotch whisky is for the association and its members. Indeed,
I have referred to the association's already considerable success in
achieving legal protection for Scotch whisky around the globe. That is
something that the Parliament should applaud, and we should refrain from
doing anything that might affect that work.
Like other members, I fully appreciate and commend the intent of Andrew
Arbuckle's proposal. I can see how a new requirement that only Scottish
cereals should be used in the production of Scotch whisky might appear at
least superficially attractive, as Jackie Baillie said. It might appear to
provide potential benefits to the arable sector, and I can see exactly where
Andrew Arbuckle is coming from, but such a requirement could be damaging, as
other members have said. I believe that it would place industry
sustainability at the mercy of the Scottish weather — I think we can all
agree how unpredictable that is and, goodness knows, climate change will not
assist in any way.
There is another issue, and it is not about the weather but about quality.
The agricultural community should take heed. In order to maintain Scotch
whisky's enviable position as a leading global quality product, the industry
has exacting standards for all cereals that it uses. The Scotch whisky
industry is on record as saying that it will source as much of the grain as
possible from Scotland, but it cannot and should not be required to source
grain irrespective of its quality. In good and average harvest conditions,
there is little difficulty in sourcing a substantial proportion of the grain
that the industry needs from Scottish producers, as Andrew Arbuckle will
know. I am informed that some £90 million is spent each year by Scotch
whisky producers on Scottish cereals, with more than 90 per cent of barley
requirements being sourced in Scotland.
Mr Arbuckle: First
of all, let me pick up on the statement that I have gained universal
opposition. With fewer than 10 members here, "universal" is overstating it.
The minister mentioned the wet weather. Most of the contributions on wet
weather have come from west-coast politicians. I invite them to come over to
the arable east, where it does not rain and we have never, ever had a crop
failure. I ask the minister to tell me of a year when the Scottish barley
crop failed.
Allan Wilson:
Andrew Arbuckle himself said that he is not a seer, and I am not a seer. I
referred to a hypothetical situation, as other members did. The questions
should be asked of Andrew Arbuckle, who proposed the motion, rather than of
me. It has to be said that, speaking as a west-coast politician, I would not
want to put all my eggs in the Scottish weather basket, with all due respect
to the mysterious east. I am sure that the member would agree that in poor
harvest years there could be problems with the quantity — he might dispute
that — and quality of Scottish grain. To secure the consistent level of
production that would be required, the Scotch whisky industry would be
forced to source grain from elsewhere.
Also, as Jackie Baillie said, we must remember that not only barley is used
in Scotch whisky. Other cereals are used in blended whisky, which accounts
for 90 per cent of all global sales.
I believe — and I support the industry on this point—that producers must
retain the flexibility to source enough raw materials of the right quality
to meet the market demand. To put a ban on the use of non-Scottish cereals,
which is what Andrew Arbuckle is asking for, would risk the sustainability
of the industry. Everyone knows the contribution that the industry makes to
the Scottish economy and to creating employment, and I know that he would
not dispute that. Without being unkind, I think that his proposal would give
the industry's competitors — of which there are many — an unfair advantage
in the marketplace. We have already heard references to the French brandy
industry.
The Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament, across all parties, have
always worked closely with the Scotch whisky industry. My comment on the
motion's unpopularity related not only to the fact that not many members are
present for the debate but to the cross-party consensus against Andrew
Arbuckle's proposal that I think exists.
We will continue to work with the industry and listen to its concerns, even
on issues that are, as Murdo Fraser said, reserved to the United Kingdom
Government, such as stamps. Indeed, we stood up for the Scotch whisky
industry in that context and were influential. We did so because of the
industry's importance to the economy and employment in Scotland.
Jim Mather raised a number of important issues. As further evidence of their
importance, I confirm that when I met the SWA recently, I did so in part to
discuss a review of the whisky framework document, "A Toast to the Future:
working together for Scotch Whisky". With the SWA, we will launch a new
framework document in the next few months, which will pick up the points
that were made about marketing, support, international competition and other
such matters. That approach will help to provide a better path forward for
the industry and to protect its important contribution to the economy and
employment. Unfortunately, the proposal in Andrew Arbuckle's motion would
not do that.
To read
the official report,
Click Here
|
