Context
The question follows the announcement of alcohol duty reforms which aim to simplify and improve public health. Christine Jardine is concerned that these proposals may not be in line with the previous rationale stated in the 2019 Queen's Speech.
Question
In the 2019 Queen's Speech, the rationale for reform was set out as being to “ensure our tax system is supporting Scottish whisky and gin producers and protecting 42,000 jobs”—including many in my constituency. How would the Chancellor square that with the actual proposals, which will tax domestic producers more than those of imported cava, prosecco and champagne; do not take into account how people consume spirits with mixers, the sugar and calorific content or his own Government's health policies; and actually increase the competitive disadvantage of an important domestic sector compared with the international one?
Answer from Rishi Sunak
Our reforms of the alcohol duty system usher in a system that is simpler, fairer and better for public health. I am not entirely sure that the hon. Lady has got the details right on this. In fact, for Scotch whisky, this is an improvement because we have levelled the playing field for higher-strength drinks, which the Scotch Whisky Association had been calling for. With regard to the differential between domestic and foreign producers, because English sparkling wine is produced to a lower alcohol content naturally than foreign sparkling wine, it will actually, for the first time, enjoy a tax advantage under the new system. Perhaps most relevant immediately, we also froze all alcohol duties—a half-a-billion-pound tax cut for British people this year.
Not addressed: The Chancellor did not directly address how the reforms align with supporting whisky and gin producers as stated in the 2019 Queen's Speech.
How: I Am Not Entirely Sure That The Hon. Lady Has Got The Details Right On This.
Was this summary accurate? Tell us
How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)