PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
English Whisky: Single Malt Definition - 15 September 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on the English whisky geographical indication definition of single malt.

The UK’s whisky is a national treasure and is rightly renowned across the world for its quality. Whisky supports jobs, investment and growth across all four nations of the United Kingdom and showcases British expertise to consumers around the world. Scotch whisky is one of the greatest export successes, and Welsh and Irish whiskies also enjoy protected status and strong international reputations. I am pleased that English whisky has now joined that family of protected UK whisky geographical indications, further strengthening the UK’s four nations of whisky.

The registration of English whisky as a protected geographical indication recognises it as a distinctive product, with qualities and characteristics linked to its geographical origin. It reflects the growth of a dynamic sector, with more than 70 distilleries now producing or maturing whisky, and exports reaching 30 countries worldwide. That is good news for local growth and British agriculture. Distilleries are supporting skilled jobs and attracting investment in regions across England, while supporting British farmers by using British-grown grain. We want to see that success continue.

The specific decision that is the topic of this urgent question followed the UK statutory geographical indication process. The application was assessed against the requirements set out in legislation and was subject to an opposition process, allowing parties with a legitimate interest the opportunity to object. Those parties whose objections were considered admissible had the opportunity to consult with the applicant regarding their objections. Following careful consideration of the evidence, it was concluded that the application met the relevant legal requirements for registration.

Let me be clear that this recognition does not alter the protected status, reputation or production requirements of Scotch whisky, Welsh whisky or Irish whiskey, nor does it alter the Government’s commitment to the whisky industry and its leading global success. Scotch whisky is one of the UK’s most important food and drink exports, but it is far more than an export: it is part of the culture, history and identity of Scotland and the United Kingdom. It is enjoyed at Burns night celebrations, family gatherings and special celebrations, at home and across the world. It is one of the great national treasures.

I recently visited Glen Garioch, one of Scotland’s oldest distilleries, where I was delighted to enjoy a wee dram and see at first hand the craftmanship and heritage that make Scotch whisky so famous across the world. The Secretary of State spoke to the chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association only yesterday. This Government will continue to protect and champion the whole whisky industry—Scotch, Irish, Welsh and English—both at home and in key exports around the world.

I declare an interest as chair of the Scotch whisky all-party parliamentary group, and I also hold a Chartered Institute of Brewers and Distillers general certificate in distilling. On Friday evening at 5 pm, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced that it had approved the English Whisky Guild’s application for English whisky to receive geographical indication status, despite objections from the Scotch, Welsh and Irish whisky associations.

Let me be clear that my objection is not to English whisky obtaining geographical indication status. English whisky has a long and legitimate history in its own right. My concern is specifically about the definition of English single malt whisky that DEFRA has now approved. Under that definition, English single malt whisky requires only distillation at a single distillery, rather than for all the stages of production to take place at a single site. The term “single malt whisky” carries a long-established reputation and meaning for consumers. It risks disadvantaging Scotch producers, who have invested heavily to comply with the traditional single-site production model, including distilleries in my own constituency such as Kingsbarns, Eden Mill, Daftmill and Lindores.

Scotch whisky is one of the UK’s most important export industries, supporting jobs, investment, tourism and economic growth across rural communities. Weakening an internationally recognised definition risks damaging consumer confidence and diluting brand value at a time when the Scotch whisky industry is not in the rude health that the Government mistakenly think it is. The new definition could also be misleading for consumers who reasonably understand a single malt whisky to be a product produced entirely at one distillery.

I ask the Minister: why was this announcement made after the House had risen on a Friday evening, and why does the appeal period finish before the House returns from recess? I ask the Minister also to explain why a decision that undermines the integrity of the single malt definition—a decision that creates an uneven playing field across the UK and risks disadvantaging distilleries that have invested to uphold long-standing industry standards—was approved. Why did the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury tell the House in March last year that DEFRA would not be watering down the definition of single malt whisky? Because I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that is exactly what the Government are doing now. Will the Minister also set out what discussions he has had with the Scotland and Wales Offices and what assessment has been made of the implications of this decision for the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and how those implications were considered?

I thank the hon. Member for her continued interest in these matters and for her leadership of the APPG for Scotch whisky. I know how important the Scotch whisky industry is to her constituents and to communities across Scotland. Since taking up this role, I have been keen to engage with the sector; as I mentioned in my opening remarks, I had a valuable visit to Aberdeenshire in August, and look forward to continuing to work with the APPG, the Scotch whisky industry and the wider sector as we continue.

In response to the hon. Member’s questions, I must stress that Scotch whisky’s protected status, reputation and production requirements are unchanged and that the English definition of single malt has no impact on how single malt is made in Scotland. The Government remain committed to supporting the success of the Scotch whisky industry and the wider UK whisky sector.

The hon. Member asks about the decision-making process, and I must stress again that this is a regulatory decision and a decision made by the Secretary of State. Let me assure her that this Government remain absolutely committed to supporting and championing Scotch whisky at home and abroad. Nothing in this decision changes the protected status, reputation or production requirements of Scotch whisky. I am very happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss any further concerns that she may have.

Scotch whisky is one of our great success stories, and I recognise that there are concerns from the Scotch Whisky Association about this proposed change. I am proud to have in my constituency locally a distillery on land that Robert Burns once farmed, and I am pleased to have played a small part in reducing whisky tariffs when I was the trade commissioner in Mumbai and that this Government have continued to put Scotch whisky on the world stage through our very successful trade deals. I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), in her place on the Front Bench. Will the Minister say that she, he and the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade will do all they can to promote this great Scottish product around the world?

Of course. I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that he does on trade matters. He speaks in this House with real authority on this issue. He will know that this Government back British businesses and that we are keen to champion the Scottish whisky industry not only internally—nationally—but externally—internationally—as well. That has included securing a free trade deal with India and cutting the costs of the US tariffs, boosting export markets.

I call the shadow Minister.

Across the country, businesses are under increasing pressure. Competition, the costs of doing business, ever increasing taxation and regulatory burdens are making it as hard as it has ever been for our rural businesses to get on. While I recognise that whisky producers, farmers and the wider supply chain in England will welcome this announcement, those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are viewing it with concern.

The whisky industry is a crucial sector in Scotland, supporting more than 40,000 jobs, adding billions to our economy and showcasing great Scottish produce abroad. Consistency in regulation is key across the UK. How are the Government going to ensure that the Scotch single malt whisky industry is not undermined by this decision, particularly given that distilleries in England will not have to follow the same single-site production standards as distilleries in Scotland to get single malt status? Has the Minister engaged with the Scottish Government on this issue to ensure that the Scotch whisky industry is not put at a disadvantage because of this announcement?

A new designation for English whisky does not compensate for the hostile business environment being created by Labour. The Government are piling costs and regulation on to food and drink producers, including distilleries across the UK. The ever increasing level of whisky duty, the exclusion of distilleries from the British industrial competitiveness scheme and now the extended producer responsibility—adding £1.4 billion of costs to producers—all mean that the Government are making life ever more difficult for businesses that are struggling to keep their head above water. The huge and growing cost of doing business is making it difficult for businesses to survive, especially in rural areas. What steps will the Government take to ensure that these mounting costs, especially for food and drink producers, will not result in more and more businesses going under?

I welcome the shadow Minister to her place on the Opposition Front Bench and thank her for her contribution and questions, and for her recognition of the vital contribution of Scottish whisky and all whisky to our national identity. It would be remiss of me not to remind the House that the previous Government allowed tariffs on single malt whisky exports to the United States to cost the industry more than £600 million in lost exports, and that they stood by while one of Britain’s most iconic sectors paid the price. In contrast, this Government acted, securing an agreement that brings tariffs on Scotch whisky exports to the US down to zero. I do not think that producers will be taking lectures from the Opposition when it comes to standing up for British whisky in its biggest export market—this Government got a deal done both in terms of the India deal and reducing the US tariffs.

As one Member of this House has said,

“Scotch whisky is a national treasure and one of Britain’s great exports. Nobody is trying to take anything away from it. There is plenty of room in the market for a growing English sector alongside Scotland’s. Consumers, not lawyers, should decide what ends up in their glass.”

I think the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) put that very well.

This Government agree that Scotch whisky’s reputation and protections must remain robustly defended while recognising that other parts of the UK’s whisky sector can also grow and succeed. We will continue to engage with others and with the devolved nations to make that a success.

I thank the Minister for his statement. If the Secretary of State made this decision, I am disappointed that she was not able to come along today to answer this question, as I think there are real concerns here. The sector in Scotland is 100 times bigger than the sector in England; if it is going to grow, I wonder what the target market is if it is not people who are currently drinking Scottish whisky. When the Minister visited the distillery in Aberdeenshire, did the people there explain the importance of the malt whisky brand and why it should be protected? It does seem that this decision today will weaken that brand.

My hon. Friend will have heard what I said at the outset about protecting Scotch whisky going forward. A number of issues and concerns were raised on my very enjoyable visit to Aberdeenshire in August, and I can assure him from the Dispatch Box that I will continue to engage with the sector to understand issues and concerns to ensure that the sector continues to flourish.

I know that this is an issue that the hon. Member has been trying to address with colleagues in the Department, and I thank him for his correspondence on these matters. I stress that GI status provides a powerful platform for producers to strengthen their brand, attract investment, access new markets and compete internationally on the basis of quality, provenance and authenticity. The decisions that this Government have made will go a long way to supporting the industry in his constituency. I am very alive to the issues that he has described and will take them back to the Department.

I think this is fantastic news for the English whisky industry and will be welcomed by the Roudham distillery in my constituency, which in 2006 was the first distillery in England registered for over 100 years, and this year won world’s best single malt at the world whiskies awards, which is great news. Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as being good for the whisky industry, this measure is good for supporting our famers who grow cereals, particularly barley crop in the eastern region, which feeds many of the English distilleries?

My hon. Friend is a real champion on these issues, and I pay tribute to him for the work that he does with the farming community in his constituency. He is absolutely right that this strengthens the links between farming and distilling, and it will ensure that more of the value generated remains within the UK’s rural communities. It is a significant vote of confidence in British agriculture and the quality of British-grown cereals, particularly our world-renowned barley growers.

I visited Witchmark distillery in Fonthill in my constituency a year or so ago. The people at the distillery had gone to considerable lengths to match the standards that they saw in Scotland on a single site, and are putting down whisky casks and growing a significant business, as well as providing a significant number of jobs in this rural constituency. I am concerned about the differentiation of standards, which the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) spoke about. Could the Minister reassure the House that the appropriate high standards for this growing class of goods will be protected?

It will have no impact on standards that any other UK whiskies have set for themselves. They all vary across the United Kingdom, but I will certainly take the right hon. Gentleman’s points back to the Department.

I share the surprise of distillers in my constituency, including Glengoyne, Deanston Tullibardine and the Stirling distillery, about this decision, which seems as though it will cause longer-term problems for distillers in both Scotland and England with regard to consumer confidence, but that should not undermine the fact that this Government are a friend of the Scotch Whisky Association. Could the Minister outlines some of the things he is doing to support the 41,000 jobs in Scotland and the 25,000 jobs across the rest of the country, and to make sure that this continues to be one of our best exports for Brand Scotland and, indeed, Brand UK?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; Scotch whisky is one of the country’s top global exports, and that is not going to change any time soon. We remain committed to backing it and supporting its continued success.

I am really struggling to see what the Government are seeking to achieve by removing the requirement for the whole process to be carried out on a single site. It seems to me that they risk confusing the definition for the Scotch, Welsh and Irish industries, and they undermine the investments that have already been made in the conventional model by other English distilleries. Are the Government trying to create a new market for a different product, and if that is what they are doing, should that not be reflected in its name?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his long-standing support for the Scotch whisky industry, including as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I know that he recognises the significant contribution that whisky plays to our national identity and as a global export opportunity. I can assure him that nothing has changed in terms of the protected status reputation or production requirements of Scotch whisky. I am looking forward to meeting him later today, when I will be happy to answer any further questions he may have.

The definition of a Scotch single malt whisky is that it must be mashed, fermented and distilled at a single distillery in Scotland, but for English single malt, some of those steps may happen away from the single site. Does the Minister not feel that it would be better to have a consistent definition of a single malt whisky, and that that would be easier for consumers to understand?

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.

Can the Minister tell distillers in Scotland, like those who invested £12 million in the Port of Leith distillery in Edinburgh to achieve the prize Scottish single malt label, which I visited with the Scottish Affairs Committee earlier this year, why English producers will be able to use the same single malt label without playing by the same rules?

I refer the hon. Lady to my previous answer with regard to the issues around single malt. I am very happy to take away the concerns that she has raised.

That is the end of the urgent question. I will suspend the sitting to allow proper notice of the statement. The sitting will resume at 2.32 pm; the bells will ring two minutes before.