India and Southeast Asia: Free Trade Agreements

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in securing free trade agreements with India and countries in Southeast Asia.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, trade is the bedrock on which successful economies are built. The UK’s withdrawal from the EU has given us the opportunity to pursue an independent trade policy, ratifying and implementing new trade agreements with other countries.

Last week, the Business Secretary said:

“Securing a trade deal with what is soon-to-be the third biggest economy in the world is a no-brainer, and a top priority for me and this Government”.


I welcome the Labour Government’s decision to resuscitate the free trade talks with India, which were initially launched four years ago by Boris Johnson and Narendra Modi—but we are not alone in the race to get a deal. The EU is also knocking on India’s door. Last month, Ursula von der Leyen visited Delhi and said that the EU and India were pushing to get a free trade agreement this year. Is that timeframe the same for the UK Government?

In a time of increasing global disruption, it is more important than ever to maximise our opportunities for international trade. There are both challenges and opportunities when negotiating trade agreements—of course, there always are. The trade talks begun by Boris Johnson were not concluded by the time of the general election last year. The BBC and newspaper reports suggested then that the sticking points included high tariffs in India on Scotch whiskey and relaxing fees and visa rules for Indian students and professionals coming to the UK. India was also reported as requesting an exemption from the UK’s planned carbon border adjustment mechanism. Do the Government plan to make concessions on all those issues? Do they have any red lines? If so, would they include the protection of sanitary and phytosanitary standards?

An FTA with India could indeed offer the UK both economic and geopolitical advantages, and give us better positioning in one of the most economically dynamic regions of the world. The wider geopolitical considerations could bring greater collaboration on issues such as security and climate change—matters that are in our minds every day in this House.

If tariffs and trade barriers were reduced, or indeed eliminated, UK companies could reach Indian consumers at more competitive prices, particularly perhaps in sectors such as technology, machinery, pharmaceuticals and financial services. The UK has a strong tech industry, about which we have just heard in the previous debate, and India has a large and growing demand for technology, engineering and digital services.

India’s expanding middle class creates more demand for a variety of products and services. The UK could tap into this growth, especially in consumer goods, education and healthcare sectors. India is a significant player in global supply chains, especially for sectors such as IT, textiles and pharmaceuticals. An FTA could improve collaboration between UK and Indian companies, creating far more efficient supply chains, and of course reducing costs thereby.

However, there are obstacles, stemming from economic and political challenges, which require careful consideration. For example, how do the Government plan to overcome the complexity and risks in resolving the difference in regulatory standards, particularly in industries such as pharmaceuticals, food safety and digital services? I am sure we all recall that India’s approach to intellectual property protection, particularly in the fields of pharmaceuticals and software, is far less stringent than in the UK. Seeking improved access for UK agricultural exports could meet resistance from domestic producers and stakeholders in India, who are currently heavily subsidised.

There is also the significant matter of human rights standards in India. We have heard much of that earlier today, and quite right too, because in two days’ time it is International Women’s Day. The FCDO’s most recent annual report on human rights refers several times to the human rights abuses in India, particularly of women, marginalised groups and religious minorities. Can the Minister give a commitment that, when the Government negotiate with the Indian Government for a trade agreement, it will include discussions on human rights? In particular, will they raise the importance of protecting women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights?

I would like to refer briefly to Indonesia. It has become one of the world’s major emerging economies. Members of this House and another place used their February Recess to go on a British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union visit to Indonesia to learn more about its governance and economy, and the impact of UK soft power. They were impressed by the establishment there of the Deakin University Lancaster University Indonesia, which provides high-quality business and tech education. It means that Indonesian students can gain degrees there which are not only accredited by a UK university—Lancaster—but accepted by the Indonesian Government as being equal to a sarjana degree from a local Indonesian university. It is the very first international joint campus of its kind. Does the Minister agree that innovative work, such as that by Lancaster University, is to be welcomed and enhances the UK’s soft power?

In conclusion, I certainly hope that a trade agreement with India could be highly advantageous to the UK. It could increase market access, trade diversification and services expansion, and strengthen our geopolitical relationships. That would, I hope, contribute to long-term economic growth and strategic influence. I hope that closer involvement in soft power ventures in Indonesia could raise the profile and expertise of the UK there.

Both India and Indonesia, together with China, are members of the BRICS intergovernmental organisation. In trade, we know that the economic heft of China casts a shadow over all negotiations. Securing FTAs and other trade agreements in India and south-east Asia is not an easy task; I recognise that. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, now and in the future, on what progress the Government are able to make.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments in my name in this group, and to support generally the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Jackson, who have already spoken on theirs.

My amendments are Amendments 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 25. Amendment 4 is designed to increase the time to a year. Amendment 7 would ensure that costs, numbers and funds were all understood by each of the bodies concerned—authorities and taxpayers—that fund the asylum system, and that they were itemised and publicly announced. Amendments 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 19 are designed to tighten and clarify the provisions governing age and to tighten the provisions governing status, about which my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lord Murray have already spoken. Amendment 25 is designed to make entitlement transparent, by bringing the identity documents needed in line with existing immigration arrangements.

Amendment 4 would require one year to pass before the Secretary of State was required to provide for family reunion. Amendment 7 would ensure that costs and numbers in the arrangements for funding and accommodating family members under the Bill were fully understood and that we knew who was funding the Bill, whether already hard-pressed councils, the Exchequer or both were paying, and whether people and families covered by the Bill would have priority over other applicants for local authority housing and public services.

The other amendments aim to ensure that those covered are eligible to entitlement on clear grounds. We need a Bill to be clear about the grounds of age and status, and in accord with UK law.

My final amendment in this group, Amendment 25, aims to underpin the security arrangements for entitlement by way of specific requirements for identity under the Identity Documents Act 2010.

All amendments therefore aim to ensure that, given the very large and growing number of applicants each year, such a significant transfer of population—the entire family for each applicant, which has serious consequences, including financial and practical—is limited strictly to the immediate family, children under 18 at the time the Bill passes and parents of such children covered under the Bill. Even then, the potential cost will be significant, and it will add to the costs and demands on the already overstretched asylum system, the first focus of which must be on asylum seekers themselves. The priority must be to ensure that applications are processed quickly and efficiently. I am very glad the present Government are continuing their work to hurry up the processing.

Resources should therefore be spent on those seeking asylum. We should seek to introduce the necessary rules to supervise, limit and identify those strictly covered under the Bill and those who believe that they have an entitlement. There are complex arrangements here and they need to be clarified.

Local communities and organisations should be consulted, because we do not want to see unpleasantness and objections from local communities unprepared for housing groups of asylum seekers in small villages or towns across the country.

We have no certain idea of the numbers, and I would be grateful—I am waiting with interest—to hear the noble Baroness let us know what they are. However, we know how many people made asylum applications in the year ending September 2024—77,066 over the 12-month period, relating to 99,700 people. If the Bill proceeds and the numbers expand, we will have no idea of how many family members will be covered by the Bill in addition to those already covered in law.

We know that the costs are high. The asylum system itself costs £5 billion. It is the highest level of spending on record, and it is up by a third on the previous year. The costs of the UK asylum system were £5.38 billion in November 2024—the highest, as I have said, and 12 times higher than when these statistics were kept in this format in 2013-14.

The Home Office figure for asylum costs covers direct cash support and accommodation, wider staffing and other related migration and border activity, but not the operation of channel-crossing interceptions to the UK. We need to take account of the additional costs this measure would put on the system, in terms of both compliance and money, and whether this will take away from the rapid processing of existing asylum claims, which should be and rightly is one of the priorities this Government are focusing on. Adding family members could increase the number by a factor of anything from three upwards.

To conclude, there is no appetite in this country for further immigration of that magnitude. Our housing, education and health services are creaking at the seams, with continued pressures adding to the burden they and taxpayers face. We have already seen that the Government intend to raise tax even further, to the tune of £25 billion a year. Total immigration was in the region of 700,000 last year. Voters want it brought down.

For this reason, I urge the Government to accept my amendments and the other amendments in this group if they strengthen what I am proposing. It is in line with the Government’s promise to bring immigration down. For those for whom a statement is made that family reunion can take place, the amendments I propose will curtail it to immediate family. They require clarity and tighten up the arrangements for identifying those covered. They are in line with current UK arrangements. They would ensure that public authorities and voters are aware of the cost and that there is more time for authorities, local communities and the Government to ensure that nothing is rushed, because it will end up being a mess.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly on Amendment 19. Like my noble friend Lord Jackson, I apologise that I was not able to be here at Second Reading. I simply echo his earlier comments without going into any detail. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lawlor for tabling Amendment 19 because I have a question and I would be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, were able to address the drafting.

Earlier today, I made the familiar comment in a Second Reading that, however good a Bill is, the devil is in the detail. I would like to address just one part of the detail to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Amendment 19 seeks to

“Clause 1, page 2, line 9, leave out paragraph (b)”.

That paragraph refers to

“such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—”

and it gives some exemptions. Rightly, of course, it talks about the best interests of a child. That is the crucial issue underpinning, I am sure, what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, wishes to do in bringing forward the Bill.

However, I am concerned about the drafting of Clause 1(5)(b)(iii). It applies to

“the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted protection status and another person”.

This is a hugely wide lack of definition about who we are talking about. I am assuming we are talking in the first terms about a child. The person might be the child, but who is the other person?

It goes far wider than just a family connection: there is financial dependency. I feel that that particular part of this clause requires further investigation. I do not propose to extend the time today on that—I have some ideas myself about how the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, might be able to better present that part of this clause—but as it stands, I certainly would not be able to support that part of the Bill.