HL Deb 24 May 1988 vol 497 cc844-55

7.33 p.m.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

In another place the Bill was in the capable hands of my honourable friend Mr. Bill Walker, the Member of Parliament for Tayside. He was fortunate to draw a high place in the ballot and took the opportunity to respond to the long-standing and increasingly urgent need for legislation to strengthen the hand of the Scotch whisky industry. During its passage through Parliament so far the Bill has had all-party support and considerable help from the Government. It is also strongly backed by the Scotch whisky industry, its workforce and the trade unions. It is doubtless also backed by many other people who throughout the UK, and throughout the world, enjoy a dram of true Scotch whisky and wish to continue doing so.

At this point I must declare a modest consumer interest in that from time to time I greatly enjoy the odd dram myself. I must also declare a financial interest since the firm in which I am a partner grows, among other things, barley which is sold for malting. The widespread support for this Bill is not surprising. As your Lordships will be well aware, the Scotch whisky industry is of enormous importance to the economy of Scotland and the UK. It provides direct employment for some 15,000 people and indirect employment for many more. It produces exports worth over £1,000 million a year and it contributes £1,000 million a year in revenue to the exchequer. In Tayside alone, where I live and where my noble neighbour, Lord Mackie of Benshie—who I see is down to speak later in this debate—also lives, and where Mr. Bill Walker, the promoter of this Bill has his constituency, there are no fewer than 10 distilleries, and blending and bottling plants, and seven registered offices. Further north the industry is of even greater local significance. Added to all that, I need hardly say that Scotch whisky is quite simply an inseparable part of our heritage and culture. It makes many friends for Scotland, and that is certainly reflected in the growing Scottish and UK tourist industry.

The immediate need for legislation is brought about by the proposed European Community regulation. This will cover all the main spirit drinks: gin, brandy and rum, for example, and it will contain a definition of whisky. It now seems likely that that definition will be less stringent than the current UK definition as set out at the moment in the Finance Act 1969. The fear is that a less rigorous definition could make way for the production of lower quality whisky in Scotland and that this could be marketed, as, for example, "whisky—a product of Scotland". That would be confusing for consumers. It might greatly damage the quality image on which the reputation of Scotch whisky has been built. The need for clarification for that which is Scotch whisky and that which is not is now upon us, and that is what this Bill aims to achieve.

The broad aims of the Bill are three-fold: first, to ensure that all whisky produced in Scotland is true Scotch whisky; secondly, to prevent the sale in Great Britain of whisky purporting to be Scotch whisky but which in fact does not meet the definition of Scotch whisky; and, thirdly, to enable Ministers, if and when the time is right, to set a minimum alcoholic strength for Scotch whisky.

Because of the need to take account of that which is decided by the European Council in due course, the Bill is constructed as an enabling measure designed so that its various provisions can be brought into effect by Ministers as and when required by means of orders laid before Parliament. I should like to take your Lordships through the Bill because it is slightly unusual in structure and I think it would be easier if I were to do that.

Clause 1 is central in that it prohibits production in Scotland of whisky other than Scotch whisky and provides for sanctions. Your Lordships will note that the part of the Bill dealing with definitions of "whisky" and of "Scotch whisky" comes later in Clause 3. Clause 1(1) makes it unlawful to produce in Scotland, mature in Scotland or keep or use for blending in Scotland any whisky other than Scotch whisky. This would mean that all Scotch whisky would be known to have come from Scotland and other whisky would be known not to have come from Scotland.

Subsection (2) concerns the ability to enforce these prohibitions by civil action. If they are contravened, any producer of Scotch whisky or an association of producers, such as, for example, the Scotch Whisky Association, would be able to apply to the Court of Session for an interdict.

Subsection (3) of that clause makes any whisky produced in Scotland that is not Scotch whisky in contravention of subsection (1) liable to forfeiture, and the fourth subsection makes those parts of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 which relate to forfeiture apply to this Bill.

Clause 2 makes it unlawful to sell as Scotch whisky spirits which do not meet the definition of Scotch whisky. Clause 2 also allows Ministers to set by order a minimum alcoholic strength for Scotch whisky and, should the power be exercised, makes it unlawful to sell Scotch whisky at any lower strength. I should add here that the reason why the Bill does not stipulate a minimum alcoholic strength is that all interested parties will require to be consulted when the time comes before it is decided what is appropriate.

Clause 2(2) allows a Scotch whisky producer or association to apply to the High Court for an injunction in England or to the Court of Session for an interdict in Scotland to prevent people who are contravening the sales prohibition from continuing to do so.

In Clause 3, to which I referred previously, the first subsection contains definitions of various terms. Your Lordships will note that "Scotch whisky" is described as: such whisky (distilled and matured in Scotland) as conforms to a definition of Scotch whisky contained in an order made under this subsection". Once the order is made the new definition will replace the current definition which is that contained in the Finance Act 1969. It is intended that the new definition should relate much more closely than does the present one to the modern practice of the industry and that there should be full consultation with all interested parties before the definition is finalised and the order laid. The wording of the definition in Clause 3 is the anticipated Euro definition which is set out in the draft Community regulation. As the text of the regulation is not yet settled it is necessary to allow for an amended version. That is done in subsection (2).

Subsection (3) allows orders made by Ministers under Clauses 2 and 3 to make different provisions for different cases. For example, it may be necessary to define different production processes for malt and grain whisky separately. Subsection (4) states that orders under Clauses 2 and 3 are to be by statutory instrument, subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.

Subsection (5) means that the definition of Scotch whisky in Clause 3 will apply for all purposes of Customs and Excise. This is achieved by inserting it in the place of the old definition in Schedule 7 to the Finance Act 1969.

Clause 4 makes possible corresponding legislation for Northern Ireland. The subject being a transferred matter under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, it cannot be dealt with by way of an Act passed by the United Kingdom Parliament but by an Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The clause simply enables the corresponding legislation made by Order in Council to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. It is important to note that the Bill in no way affects the production of whisky in Northern Ireland.

In Clause 5 the second subsection states that most of the provisions of the Bill will come into force by means of a statutory instrument on a day or days appointed by Ministers. Only Clause 4 will come into force immediately on Royal Assent. Under subsection (3) Ministers may include transitional arrangements in these commencement orders. Subsection (4) confines the Bill, apart from Clause 4, to Great Britain.

I hope it will not be misunderstood if I suggest that the continuing good name and quality of Scotch whisky are likely to be dear to the hearts of many Members of your Lordships' House. The emergence across the world of a variety of whiskies of one kind or another and the projected Euro definition of whisky make it highly desirable that legislation should be in place in this country as soon as possible. The European Community allows for such legislation. It could hardly do otherwise; after all, champagne has been protected under French law since 1934 and that protection will continue.

I commend the Bill to the House and I hope that your Lordships will give it a fair wind.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Carnegy of Lour.)

7.48 p.m.

Lord Gallacher

My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Baroness on the manner in which she has both introduced and explained this rather important Bill. I believe, without anticipating what other speakers in the debate may say, that most people will wish to welcome its general aims. However in certain parts of Scotland there is concern about the designation of alcohol by volume, particularly in the light of the fact that powers are to be given to Ministers to make this designation by order. The attitude of Ministers to the trade in lower strength Scottish whiskies has yet to be specifically defined. There is the possibility that these lower strength whiskies, which are popular in Scotland and beyond, could be abolished by Ministers without the necessity for further legislation.

As I understand it, the history of the legal position of Scottish whisky is that there is no minimum strength at present in United Kingdom legislation, but there is a defence in law—if spirit is sold over 37.1 per cent. alcohol in volume, and even sales at a lower strength than this are legal if the reduced level is clearly marked. Currently the position is that since 1983 whisky under 40 per cent. alcohol by volume marked "under-strength" is acceptable. In 1985 agreement was reached between the producers of lower strength whisky and the Minister of Agriculture for a voluntary practice of marking "under-strength" clearly on the label.

I have already mentioned that these lower strength whiskies have grown in volume sales in recent years and I am advised that currently 10 million bottles are sold annually. The reasons for the popularity are, first, price, and, secondly, quality, because it is a well blended whisky. I am told that Which? magazine recently tested Scotch available in supermarkets. A leading lower-strength brand came second in their test. There is also the growing use of mixers with whisky, and that points the way for most consumers to purchase a slightly cheaper product in the first place if it is consistently well blended.

The image of Scottish whisky, to which the noble Baroness referred, is important. It is equally important that domestic consumers should have the opportunity of making a choice between full-strength whiskies of nationally-advertised brands which are usually sold at or near the manufacturers' recommended price, and sometimes with considerable encouragement from the supplier to sell at those particular prices. One recalls the intervention of the Director-General of Fair Trading not so long ago. He felt that a particular supplier was perhaps encouraging his outlets too strongly to sell at a specific price by reason of an indication that if they failed to do so they may suffer a loss of supplies.

The damage to the image of Scottish whisky abroad comes from bulk exports of whisky. The whisky is bottled in foreign countries and sold under different laws. It is regrettable that the Scotch whisky industry has so far failed to deal with the growing problem of bulk exports to foreign countries.

The main producers of lower-strength whisky are smaller private companies. It is important to preserve them because much of the Scotch whisky industry is now controlled outside Scotland, regrettable as that is to most Scots. The noble Baroness referred to the European Community's activity in that area and it is an important point to make in the debate this evening.

The harmonisation of excise rates of duty in the Community, as part of the move towards completing the internal market by 1992, presents social issues as great as those arising from seeking a two-tier system of value-added tax, for example, with near-common rates throughout the Community. The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Community reported on indirect taxation and the internal market in 1986. The report was numbered HL 127. It is an important report and it showed clearly the nature of the potential social problem confronting harmonisation. For example, is the United Kingdom to end zero rating on food for value-added tax purposes while reducing excise rates on alcohol and tobacco to levels imposed by other major member states? We must ask ourselves what effect such changes would have on consumption.

The noble Baroness referred to current European Community activity regarding definitions and regulations for spirits throughout the Community. I understand that the proposal as it stands is that the common alcohol-by-volume content for spirits should be fixed at 37.5 per cent., and that negotiations are under way in that connection. We therefore see some dangers under the Bill if Ministers use powers to designate higher alcohol-by-volume rates for whisky sold in Britain. That might lead to bulk exports of whisky to the Continent with the loss of the bottled trade and a growth in the continuing problem of selling Scotch whisky at strengths below that which it is being sold here.

During the discussion of the Bill in another place, which was at times contentious, the Minister made it clear that the Government had not made up their mind on the question of alcoholic strength. I certainly do not expect the Minister to make a statement on that matter this evening. The purpose of my intervention is to emphasise some of the arguments which have been brought forward for applying a not too heavy-handed approach in this matter. There are also the dangers which could exist for an important if small section of the trade in Scotland if a level of alcohol-by-volume content is set higher than that which they are currently operating. That said, I welcome the Bill.

7.54 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I rise to welcome the Bill perhaps in a slightly different way to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. I must declare an interest in that I also grow malting barley and it is probable that I consume even more whisky than the noble Baroness who introduced the Bill. But by all kinds of test I believe that I am qualified to speak about whisky, including the hereditary test. I had a forebear who was the farmer of Pitmillan. He consumed a great deal of whisky and his wife did not altogether approve. For the benefit of the English present, I shall put what he said into English. One day in exasperation she said, "William, William, you've drunk as much whisky as would swim a ship". He looked at her complacently and said, "Aye, I believe I would have given it a gey shake".

Whisky is part of our heritage, and it is often misused. However, taken on the whole it has done the Scots a great deal of good. Our national poet extolled its virtues when he said: Wi tippenny we fear nae evil, Wi usquebcach we'd face the deevil. Again, he said: Freedom and whisky gang thegither". In taking the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, to task, I believe it is terrible that a good Scot like him should be defending this tippenny which is now being sold. I have no doubt that it is being sold because the price is dropped below what one expects for a decent bottle of whisky at the proper strength. Although that is clearly marked on the bottle, people see that they can buy a bottle of whisky for £6 and they do so. It is a kind of deception, although it is clearly marked, and it cannot do anyone any good. After all, if one wanted to reduce the strength of whisky, one needs only to add a little water.

There seems to be no point in charging more per unit of alcohol and then selling it like that. I believe that it reduces the value of whisky in the eyes of the world. There is no question that the Scotch whisky trade has been built up with immense skill all over the world. It may have fallen back a little lately but it has promoted exports on the excellence of the product. Without any doubt the strength of the product has a great deal to do with its quality.

I agree with the noble Lord about one matter. I believe that the industry has probably done itself a great deal of harm by exporting malt in hulk and allowing other countries—notably in the Far East—to reduce it with their own grain whisky and then sell it as an imitation of Scotch whisky. In the long run that cannot have done us any good. I welcome the move to protect standards, as does my neighbour, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. I should like those standards to conform to previously accepted strengths of blends of whisky. Possibly they are our main export, although increasingly the single malts are coming into favour all over the world. A great deal can be done to promote them and they are much more difficult to imitate and to cheat with than are the blends. Nevertheless, I believe that standards must be set.

The name is extremely important. We cannot allow the name of Scotch whisky to be anything other than the traditional Scotch.

Finally, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, who is to reply, on her ambitions. She sits on the Front Bench surrounded by four Scots and she is to reply on behalf of the industry. I admire her courage, her cheek and her competence.

7.59 p.m.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, when I started to investigate this Bill I was surprised and concerned to learn of the number of counterfeit whiskies available on the market, and that there is no statute establishing a definition of Scotch whisky. This is a very important Bill designed to protect an industry which, as has already been said, generates over £1 billion in foreign exchange earnings. It provides direct employment for over 16,000 people in Scotland.

Although free trade without restrictions is important to this country, particularly within the EC, unless the Ministers can produce a satisfactory standard for the nature, substance and quality of Scotch whisky, this important industry will be wide open to counterfeit imitations. Even within my own area of the Lothian Region the trading standards director and his team of officers are facing an ever-increasing battle against cheap imitations of well-known quality products flooding the market.

The definition of whisky in the third clause is broadly the definition recognised by the EC. However, there is nothing in the EC rules preventing any member country from setting a higher standard for its own products. Your Lordships will see that at line 33 the definition uses the expression: with or without other natural enzymes". Very crudely, that can be regarded as flavour buds. Scotch whisky is always without other natural enzymes. Seven hundred litres or 154 gallons is a huge cask. The largest cask used by the Scottish whisky industry is a hogshead of about 52½ gallons or 238 litres. In the quality whiskies of Scotland it is extremely important to keep the surface area of a cask at a suitable proportion to the volume of the contents so that undesirable products can evaporate through the wood and flavours can he absorbed from the wood. It should be emphasised that three years in a wooden cask is the absolute minimum period and I believe I should add that the age of a blended Scotch whisky is determined by the youngest whisky that goes into the blend.

In Clause 2(1)(b) reference is made to the minimum strength of Scotch whisky when sold over the counter. While I do not believe that a figure should be determined in this Bill, the general opinion in the industry is that it should be not less than 40 per cent. by volume. In days gone by that would have been 70 per cent. proof. It is worth pointing out that whenever water is added to whisky, or beer for that matter, thereby reducing the strength from the production strength to the strength in the bottle, it tends to go cloudy, as one will often see in homemade wines, because it is a yeast product.

Both the previous noble Lords who have spoken raised this point but I should like to take it further. It is because whisky or beer tends to go cloudy that the industry passes it through a filter. If the alcoholic strength is less than 40 per cent. by volume, it means that a lot of the natural flavours are filtered out. That results in three distinct disadvantages: first, the whisky loses many of its natural flavours; secondly, it is relatively more expensive to buy a bottle at 37½ per cent. than 40 per cent. in respect of the alcoholic strength; thirdly, it would be very difficult for the industry to prove a counterfeit product.

As has already been said, the purpose of this Bill is to enable the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to establish by statutory instrument the definition of Scotch whisky. I wholeheartedly support this Bill and hope that it receives a speedy passage through your Lordships' House. I am confident that it is adequately drafted and meets the requirements of the industry in allowing it to take to court any person contravening the provisions of this Bill. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour for introducing this important piece of legislation.

8.5 p.m.

Lord Ferrier

My Lords, as a native Scot and a consumer of Scotch whisky of long standing, I join with my noble friend Lord Balfour in urging your Lordships to give this excellent Bill a Second Reading forthwith.

I remember that at one time I was discussing prohibition with a prominent Minister of the Indian government. I contended that porridge and Scotch whisky were important parts of our national diet. I could go on and on because I can remember when I fitst drank whisky during the 'flu epidemic in 1918–19. The eminent Scottish physician whom I consulted said that whisky is a preventive, and possibly quinine also. He said, "The medical profession know nothing about what they call influenza".

My excuse for speaking tonight is to urge the promoters to initiate a campaign to go back to the old-fashioned request for Scotch and soda—emphasising the Scotch—or, in the United States, the euphonious Scotch-on-the-rocks. It is also interesting that in South America the practice is to order a whisky by the brand name, and that point has already been made by one speaker. The brand names are important. I urge your Lordships to lose no time in putting this excellent Bill onto the statute book.

8.7 p.m.

Baroness Strange

My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the break but I made a muddle of putting down my name. The French in the Champagne district are proud of their sparkling wines and since 1934 have prevented others from using the name of Champagne. There is Sekt in Germany, Asti Spumante in Italy, Vin Mosseaux de Borugogne and even sparkling elderflower wine which we make and drink at home. They are all delicious but not one is allowed to be called champagne. Surely if our auld allies can protect their national wine, we should so do in Scotland. Our Usquebeach, which means the water of life, is not the same as Jack Daniels, Tennessee Mash, Welsh whisky, Eurowhisky or Japanese whisky. It is made in Scotland and made to a very high standard. It is made from distillation through copper coils from a mash of very high quality malting barley, as grown by my noble friend Lady Carnegy, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and also by ourselves. It is then fermented to a high alcoholic strength and matured for a long time in proper wooden casks.

It is enjoyed by many, not only Scotsmen. As Daisy Ashford wrote in The Young Visiters: Bernard always had a few prayers in the hall and some whisky afterwards as he was rather pious". Surely we should take this opportunity of allowing only the highest quality whisky produced in Scotland to be called Scotch whisky. Who else can export the water of life?

8.10 p.m.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for the very clear and concise way in which she put forward the Bill and explained to us the various clauses, which, on the whole, are fairly simple and straightforward. They are to be welcomed. Like most of the other speakers I confess to the universal liking for Scotch and, as my noble kinsman said, the family on both sides have a fair record of consumption in the past and the present generation are keeping up that heritage.

I always remember the story of the temperance meeting. The speaker had very carefully explained all the points about what happens to you when drinking Scotch whisky, including killing a worm in a glass; pouring it in, and things of that kind. When question time came, a gentleman at the back repeatedly questioned the speaker about one thing after another, but the speaker was fit for him. Finally, the gentleman at the back said: "Well, there is one thing, ye canna say that we dinna like it".

The definition of whisky as Scotch, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said, is universal. I have travelled a good deal in other countries including America, and there is no question but that if one asks for Scotch one gets Scotch whisky; if one asks for whisky, as the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, said, there are various brands of bourbon which are produced the world over. I am very much against the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that Scotch on the rocks is a drink that should be encouraged. However, every man to his taste.

As regards the strength of whisky, my noble friend Lord Gallacher has a point; namely, that if there is a demand for it, it should be clearly marked. I am not sure that at present it is as clearly marked as it should be. It is marked at 37.5 per cent. proof, and I have seen bottles of a lower proof level than that. The bottles are not as clearly marked as I should like, but how many people look right down in the corner to see the proof level? Probably they have their finger or thumb over it anyway. I believe that bottles should be much more clearly marked than they are. I am not against the production of lower proof whisky if there is a demand, but I do not know why it cannot be pointed out to people that it is far better to buy a bottle of 40 per cent. by volume and water it down if one wants it a little weaker. It is also a little cheaper.

I am sorry to take the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, to task twice but I do not think the 70 proof is a percentage. I believe it is the temperature at which its flash point is reached. I may be wrong, but I think not, because many people have often asked me about it and I have tried to explain. Sometimes I say that it is the temperature at which it explodes! I am rather sorry that we have forsaken that because it was unique for a bottle to have that figure on it. However, we have to move with the times.

Another question is the size of the bottle. I believe that the standard 75 cl. should be clearly marked on the bottle because there are quite a lot of bottles, particularly brandy bottles, although they do not come into the picture tonight, which contain much less than 75 cl. As the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, said, the Bill is simply to enable us, when we go fully into the Common Market, to argue the case of the name, as the champagne people did a few years ago, for Scotch whisky and the method of making it.

I am sure that we all welcome this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and I believe the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, also suggested that we get it through as quickly as possible. I cannot imagine that there will by any amendments put down.

Perhaps I may finish with another story about Scotch whisky. Not long after the private stills had at last disappeared, an Englishman arrived in a West of Scotland village and got into conversation with a native. He asked the native if the cost of living was high. That is something about which the native of a small village in the North of Scotland would not talk about a great deal. He looked a little blank so the Englishman said: "Are the necessities of life expensive here?" The Scotsman said: "Och aye, they are very expensive; and are nae worth drinking when you get them".

Lord Ferrier

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may add that I never recommended the consumption of Scotch on the rocks. I only used the word because of the programme that I hope will follow this Bill. It is a euphonious description and promotes Scotch. I never favoured Scotch on the rocks, especially if the rocks were made with London water. It is to be avoided like anything.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord.

8.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)

My Lords, I remind my fellow Scottish Peers that it is not for nothing that my maiden name was Campbell-Harris. Your Lordships have tempted me. At the age of 12 and at the very first grown-up lunch party I went to, my mother allowed the hostess to pour me one glass of sherry. The hostess made a mistake and gave me one large glass of neat Scotch. I drank it with alacrity. I like to think that I have never looked back since that day.

I am most grateful for the opportunity given by the Second Reading of this Bill to emphasise the importance that the Government attach to the wellbeing of the Scotch whisky industry. I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said and I wish to reassure him, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy said in her eloquent opening speech, that the Government have given firm assurances that they will consult widely with all those having an interest in the precise level of minimum strength to be set for Scotch whisky. These consultations cannot therefore be prejudged by giving any prior commitment on the level of minimum strength that may be proposed in the light of those consultations.

Since the question of a minimum alcoholic strength of whisky—not Scotch—is also the subject of current negotiations in Brussels, it would in addition be unwise to prejudice the position of the United Kingdom in those negotiations by specifying a minimum strength in the Bill.

As regards the noble Lord's remarks about exports of bulk Scotch whisky, the question of whether the Scotch whisky industry should export its products in bulk is really a matter for the industry to determine for itself. There can be no question of the Government legislating to prohibit such exports. To do so would risk criticism in GATT and it would be of doubtful legality under EC law.

My noble friend Lord Balfour referred to the abundance of counterfeits available in his area. I reassure your Lordships that there is no evidence of counterfeit Scotch whisky available in the United Kingdom even if there are counterfeits of other products. There is certainly some evidence of counterfeit Scotch in overseas markets. The industry vigorously and rigorously searches this out and it brings legal proceedings against offenders in foreign courts. This Bill will reinforce the efforts of the industry in these proceedings and strengthen its hand.

The industry has made tremendous efforts throughout the world to defend its own interests. However, this Bill deals with problems which the industry alone cannot solve. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will welcome the Bill as a practical step which this House can take towards safeguarding this great industry and thus equipping it better to increase its exports based upon the undoubted quality of its products. I warmly commend the Bill to your Lordships and I hope that it will not be long now before we can go out and have a wee dram.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

8.19 p.m.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this Second Reading debate. In a small way this subject is an inspiration to us. We have certainly borne out the fact that there is no subject which arises in your Lordships' House which does not find a number of experts to speak upon it. We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, speaking as a prominent member of the Select Committee on the European Communities, particularly on the agricultural side. He knows much about what is going on within the Community and he was able to bring that experience to bear in what he said. He referred to the producers of lower-strength Scotch whisky and any anxieties they may have. This was discussed very fully in another place. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, this matter requires an enormous amount of consultation before any minimum strength is fixed. All those people will be consulted. That assurance was given in another place and I think I can give it now too.

We do not yet know what strength Europe will settle on. Should it be lower than the 40 per cent. for which the industry has hoped it is possible for it to ask the Government to go to Europe and ask for a special dispensation for Scotch whisky. That can be done but it would be a judgment for the industry whether to ask for it and for the Government to decide whether they would do so. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, clearly very strongly disapproves of the export of whisky in bulk. It is true that in Australia one finds whisky which has travelled a long way and which is sold at a strength different from what one would expect here. That is the way they drink it in Australia. It is a commercial matter on which the industry has to make a judgment.

I am sure that we were interested in what the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, had to say about the production process, about which he knows so much. We will take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, about the importance of the different brands. I am sure that we all agree about that. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, reiterated my earlier comment that champagne is protected and is defined geographically. That is what the Bill seeks to do. I was much encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and indeed my noble friend Lady Trumpington had to say. My honourable friend in another place, the promoter of the Bill, appreciated very much the help that the Government have given both with the drafting of the Bill and in its various stages. It has been encouraging that the Government have been so helpful. I am grateful to the House and I hope that it will now give the Bill a Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The sitting was suspended from 8.26 to 8.35 p.m.]