Question follow-through · 51706
Whisky: Scotland
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the US-UK Economic Prosperity Deal on domestic Scotch whisky producers.
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Department for Business and Trade
- Tabled
- 12 May 2025
- Target answer date
- 15 May 2025
- Answer
- 15 May 2025 · 3 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots · 15 Jul 2026
- Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 · 15 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 · 1 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
12 May 2025
Question tabled
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the US-UK Economic Prosperity Deal on domestic Scotch whisky producers.
15 May 2025
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
15 May 2025
Answer published
On 8 May the UK government announced a landmark economic deal with the United States, making the UK the first country to get an agreement with President Trump. The US has committed to further negotiations, including on the 10% tariffs introduced on 2 Apri...
Official data retrieved 28 Sept 2026.
Later records
Possible follow-up questions
Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.
No later same-department questions indexed.
This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.