UK Steel Strategy

Lord Fox Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, only last year Ministers were forced to rush through the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act, which was an emergency nationalisation of British Steel in an industry that they had helped to destabilise. That Act told us everything we need to know—socialists must seize the means of production because they are utterly incapable of creating, maintaining or managing it. Unfortunately, this strategy is a testament to that.

Since the intervention at British Steel, the National Audit Office has now reported on the actual cost. The taxpayer has been paying £1.28 million to British Steel every single day. This strategy was meant to be published last year but has been delayed many times because the Government have said that they needed to get it right. What they needed, it appears, was time to construct a protectionist nightmare—a scheme that throws up tariff walls of potentially up to 50% and showers subsidies on a narrow set of domestic producers, while leaving the downstream industries that depend on affordable steel to fend for themselves.

The Government tell us that this strategy is necessary because British steel producers face crippling energy costs and unsustainable labour costs. Whose fault is that? This Government have driven energy costs higher through the contradictions of their own net-zero agenda. This Government have loaded employers with higher national insurance contributions and the cumulative regulatory burden and costs of the Employment Rights Act. They now arrive with subsidies, presenting themselves as the saviours of the very sector they have helped to cripple.

We have seen this pattern before. It is the logic of the youth jobs subsidy: the Government manufacture hostile conditions then spend taxpayers’ money papering over the consequences of their own failure while the underlying damage festers untouched. It is always the taxpayer who must bear the full weight of this Government’s incompetence. Even after subsidy, the UK’s energy prices in the steel sector will be almost two and a half times those of the US, 15% above France and 25% above Germany. There was no mention at all of any Asian producers in the steel strategy. I wonder why.

On net zero, the Government cannot have it both ways. They have banned new domestic coking coal production in the name of environmental responsibility, but the United Kingdom now imports coking coal from abroad: 47% comes from the United States and 38% from the European Union. We are not, therefore, reducing emissions. We are offshoring them, and paying a premium to do so, while simultaneously claiming to be building a strong domestic primary steel industry on the very raw material that we have made it illegal to produce ourselves.

We are told that this strategy is a response to global overcapacity and that the world is awash with cheap foreign steel, undercutting our producers at every turn. I invite the Government to explain precisely what they mean, because some might recognise what they describe as overcapacity as competitive pricing. Cheap steel is not a threat to the British economy; it is a benefit to it. Lower input costs for our manufacturers, our construction firms and our aerospace and automotive sectors mean that those businesses can invest, grow and employ more people.

The Government propose to eliminate that benefit artificially in order to protect a narrow band of domestic producers, and the bill, as ever, falls to the taxpayer. We have already seen £377 million consumed by the emergency nationalisation of British Steel in under a year. Now, the Government are announcing another £2.5 billion. The consequences of this decision will be felt most immediately by the industries that depend on steel as an input. Consider, for example, the automotive sector. There is, on average, 900 kilograms of steel in every vehicle manufactured in this country. The sector supports over 150,000 jobs and is already under severe pressure. When President Trump imposed 25% tariffs on passenger vehicles, UK car exports to the United States fell 55.4% year on year.

Construction tells a similar story. It is the largest single consumer of steel in the United Kingdom, accounting for about 53% of all domestic steel demand, and it is already suffering its fourth consecutive quarter of falling output. I ask the Minister directly: have the Government assessed the cost that these tariffs will impose on the construction sector? If they have, that assessment is conspicuously absent from the strategy.

There is a deeper contradiction that the Government must answer. They offer two arguments for these tariffs. The first is overcapacity: too much foreign steel flooding the market, creating supply so abundant that it undercuts our producers at every turn. The second is national security: we are dangerously exposed to unstable foreign supply and cannot afford dependence on it. But these two arguments cannot coexist: if the world is drowning in cheap steel then supply is, by definition, abundant; if foreign supply is genuinely precarious and could be disrupted then the overcapacity does not exist. Which is it? Is there too much steel in the world, or too little? Until the Government can answer that question honestly, this strategy has no coherent foundation whatever.

The national security argument also deserves further scrutiny on its own terms. The Government’s own data reveals that direct defence procurement requires around 36,000 tonnes of steel per year. Total domestic steel demand runs between 9 million and 11 million tonnes. Defence procurement represents less than 1% of total demand. The notion that we require up to 50% import tariffs and billions in state subsidy to secure that supply is a protectionist canard. Genuine strategic resilience is achieved through diversification—sourcing from the widest possible range of allies and partners. A supply chain built across allied democracies will be far more resistant to even the most radical geopolitical events.

If the Government wish to understand how world-class industries are built, they need look no further than some of our own. Financial services, life sciences and Scotch whisky between them are worth tens of billions in exports and, in many cases, are the envy of the world. Not one of them was built through the protectionism of the state. They were built through open markets, accumulated capital and the freedom to compete.

The Government have set a target of 50% steel production. Can the Minister commit today to providing the House with regular updates on progress toward that target? Will the Government tell us what the exit strategy from public subsidy is and when private sector investment is expected to replace it? What does the future of British steel-making actually look like, and who will build it? Any new entrant to the British steel market today will still face high and rising electricity costs, banned domestic coking coal, import quotas raising the cost of scrap metal inputs and a market dominated by subsidised incumbents with the full backing of the state.

This side of the House is not indifferent to the communities whose livelihoods depend on steel, nor to the genuine strategic importance of manufacturing in this country. But we do British industry no favours by raising input costs for every sector that depends on steel, and we do this country no favours by abandoning the open, competitive, capital-generating approach that made us a strong economy in exchange for a protectionism that serves the few at the expense of the many.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and welcome that there is a strategy here, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said, we were expecting it for some time. However, given what is happening in the world, reading this document conjures the image of someone trying to put up a tent in a howling blizzard, and at the heart of the blizzard are the energy market ructions caused by the Iran conflict.

The UK’s industrial energy costs were already at least twice those of the EU and four times those of the USA. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and I have different multiples, but they are all very large. It is not clear to me whether these distortions that are already there in the UK energy pricing system will increase the gap as a result of the Iran issue as it bites. I doubt the gaps will narrow.

As the strategy sets out, the British industry supercharger scheme helps those companies that benefit from it. However, the steel industry comprises very many businesses, large and small, that do not qualify for the supercharger, although some may qualify for the British industrial competitiveness scheme—BICS. Can the Minister say how many steel-related businesses will benefit from BICS? However, BICS does not kick in until 2027. Given what is happening internationally, will the Minister undertake to speak with her Treasury colleagues about bringing forward the implementation of BICS? In any case, we should note that while the supercharger scheme exempts recipients from network charges, BICS does not, and those network charges are set to increase by a staggering 60%.

These are just a few of the reasons why, unless the Government revisit the energy costs issue, the steel strategy will quite simply be blown away.

Among the more eye-catching and concerning parts of the strategy are the new trade measures to introduce tariff-rate quotas and the possibility of, in future, raising most favoured nation—MFN—applied tariffs to 50%. Late last year, the Trade Remedies Authority ran its rule over imports of rebar from Vietnam and made recommendations to the Secretary of State. This was an entirely appropriate use of that body; indeed, it is what the body was created to do. Having worked on the Trade Act, which established the TRA, at the start of this decade, I see that it clearly has an important role, particularly given the wider scope of the potential actions set out in the strategy. But I do not see any reference in the strategy to the role of the TRA. Have the Government asked the TRA for its recommendations? When could we expect its report? It seems inappropriate to act without that authority.

Next, in his answer to questions in the Commons, the Secretary of State confirmed that there has been discussion with his EU counterparts and that the discussion would continue when they meet at the WTO. Can the Minister confirm that for the purposes of these discussions, steel’s treatment in the TCA—the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU—is equivalent to its treatment in an FTA; in other words, from a WTO perspective, is the TCA equal to an FTA? Furthermore, can the Minister say how, for the purposes of these discussions, the Government are treating the MoU with the USA regarding steel? I assume it does not have the status of an FTA, so how will this modify what we can legally do under the WTO with the United States?

I turn to the local impact of this strategy, which means that there remain question marks for a lot of our communities. My honourable friend in the Commons, David Chadwick MP, spoke very forcefully about the importance of steel to Wales and its economy. He also reinforced the need for faster action in ensuring that the electricity used, for example, to power the arc furnaces is green energy. I strongly commend his comments.

In geographical terms, I would like to highlight the South Yorkshire area, including Sheffield, where there is a host of important steel businesses. It is not just down to the headline firms; there are many other important businesses further down the supply chain that make up this vital steel ecosystem. These kinds of ecosystems are echoed all over the country. The Statement says the defence growth deal will be established in five areas, including South Yorkshire, as part of the defence industrial strategy. Can the Minister tell us when full details will be published? When will a defence growth deal be operational?

To support the effectiveness of a growth deal, a colleague of mine from Sheffield Council, with a strong steel background, suggests that a defence manufacturing supply chain database be built to include the hundreds of thousands of smaller tier 2 and tier 3 suppliers that are critical to our sovereign capability. In this way, the whole sector can be explicitly brought into the realm of the defence growth deal. Noble Lords will be surprised, I think, to know that there is no such survey and no such data available.

I was able to see how the Aerospace Growth Partnership worked effectively with its supply chain, and perhaps the Minister might like to look at how that operated and try to put the same principles into practice for steel. We on these Benches share the Government’s ambitions for a robust and growing steel sector, and we believe that this strategy makes some steps in the right direction. However, the already significant headwinds just got a whole lot worse. That is why success will depend on further action on energy, clarity on tariffs and a truly inclusive growth strategy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their rich contributions. They have raised many matters that are covered in the steel strategy and are of vital importance to the future of steel-making and its centrality to the UK’s economic success.

This steel strategy is the first one to be set out. It explains the vision and sets out bold measures across the business environment, trade, electricity costs, carbon leakage and public procurement, and it is that which distinguishes it from what has gone before. We do not believe that, although the sector does face challenges, it is inevitable that it will decline. The steel strategy’s aim is to stabilise and rebuild our existing strategy, as the noble Lord opposite mentioned, with an aim to sustain 40% to 50% of domestic demand, which of course will be tracked over the coming years. We can see the benefit of moving with this vision to a greener, high-production steel model. Sheffield Forgemasters’ electric arc furnaces have the technical capability that we need to produce steel of the highest standards.

On the question of energy prices, businesses are naturally worried about the impact of the situation in the Middle East. The Prime Minister chaired a meeting of COBRA this afternoon and the Secretary of State is meeting business organisations to look at the impact on energy prices and the supply chain. We have a diverse and resilient energy system, but we are monitoring it extremely closely. If there is a lesson, it is that reducing dependence on externally produced fossil fuels and moving to clean, green, home-produced energy has to be the way of the future. That is exactly what we are doing with the clean energy mission to increase our energy security and reduce electricity bills over the long term.

However, as noble Lords have mentioned, there are measures in place right now, including the supercharger, the energy-intensive industries compensation scheme for steel producers and, as the noble Lord mentioned, the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will reduce bills for other businesses in the sector more widely. As I mentioned, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State are looking very closely at what needs to be done in the current context so that our businesses can be supported through this tumultuous time.

On the question of the trade measure, it is designed to shield steel-making from the damaging effects of overcapacity. This is not something that is unique to the UK. The US, Canada and the EU all apply their own similar measures to tackle overcapacity. We want to do this so that the British steel industry contributes fully to Britain’s crucial national security and defence, and to shore up the UK’s resilience to global shocks. Without this action, the UK steel-making capability faces real jeopardy, leaving us reliant on overseas suppliers. We do not want to let that happen.

I stress that this measure follows the expiry of the UK steel safeguard measure on 30 June this year, but it is a different measure and it has been carefully calibrated, following engagement with downstream importers, to get the right balance between measures to support our domestic steel industry and ensuring that those who use steel in the national economy can manage their businesses well. Following engagement with those downstream importers, we are exploring a transitional arrangement under which the new tariff would not apply to goods under contracts agreed before 14 March and imported between 1 July and 30 September 2026. We are finalising those details to ensure it provides genuine support to firms facing unexpected costs, while still protecting the UK market from excessive imports. We will also review the measure after 12 months to ensure it remains effective.

On the question of how it fits with other international agreements, with regard to the TRA, this measure is distinct from the steel safeguard and is not a replacement. It is separate from trade remedies, such as the current safeguard, which it is the Trade Remedies Authority’s role to review, so the TRA does not have a role in reviewing the new measure. On the TCA, I say that the TCA is the same as an FTA in the eyes of the WTO. I fear I have not addressed all the questions, but I am sure I will come back to them shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. I will be happy to meet with the industry representatives he talks about and to explore this in more detail. As he knows, we have changed the steel procurement guidance more generally, updating it to ensure that UK-made steel is regularly considered in public projects, and we are requiring procurers to consult a digital catalogue of UK-made steel products. But, specifically in the realm of defence, I would be very happy to take that further with the noble Lord.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the answer that the Minister gave me on the Trade Remedies Authority was a little confusing—or it confused me, anyway. Can she set out in some detail in writing why the TRA is not involved in this? When you look at the Vietnam case, it is exactly analogous, only much less significant than the case we are looking at now. If it was good for the Vietnam rebar, why is it not good for the much larger and more important issue that we are discussing here? Perhaps a detailed letter would be helpful.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

This measure is distinct from the steel safeguard. It is distinct from trade remedies, which is why it is not the role of the Trade Remedies Authority to review it, because the TRA does not have a role in reviewing this measure.

Companies: Online AGMs

Lord Fox Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

We are putting this forward in the modernising corporate reporting consultation to clarify the legal situation for fully virtual AGMs, as I mentioned, to bring the certainty into line with other international jurisdictions. We are engaging with investors on what those shareholder rights and safeguards might look like, so that if shareholders and businesses want to move to fully virtual AGMs, we will know what they might be. Examples could include five-year shareholder votes or best practice or guidance of that kind.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, if it is the Minister’s prediction that it is left up to shareholders to make the decision, the institutional shareholders will always outvote the individual shareholders. That is why individual shareholders should have their day at an AGM. When I organised AGMs for the three FTSE companies that I worked for, the chairman and I worked very hard on preparing for the questions that the awkward squad would be coming up with at those AGMs. To remove the proximity of the shareholder from the chairman is to lose that important check. Will the Minister go back and make sure that this is a firm part of the consultation?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

All noble Lords and the noble Baroness have raised the importance of AGMs. They are incredibly important. They are important for engaging shareholders, large and small, but particularly, as has been mentioned, those who perhaps do not have an institutional voice. We are engaging with investors and the shareholder representative organisations on what the shareholder safeguards should be, so that will be taken into account in the consultation.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

2nd reading & 3rd reading & Order of Commitment discharged
Thursday 12th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister called for wisdom and expertise. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, who displayed both of those, but I am afraid the Minister now has me.

The Minister set the scene in his admirably concise introduction, but I want to look at some of the numbers. They are big numbers—not quite as big as our trade deficit with China, but big numbers none the less. We have heard that the Bill increases the Government’s ability to provide financial support to industry and exporters by raising long-standing limits. It boosts the cap on selective industrial financial assistance under the Industrial Development Act 1982 from £12 billion to £20 billion, which is a big increase. The maximum amount by which the Secretary of State can raise this limit has been increased from £1 billion to £1.5 billion, reflecting inflation over the period since it was last adjusted in 2009.

As we have heard, the Bill also significantly expands UK Export Finance’s statutory commitment limit under the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991, increasing it from the current equivalent of around £84 billion to £160 billion, converting the limit from special drawing rights to sterling to create some simplicity, and allowing further rises of up to £15 billion through secondary legislation without restricting the number of times such increases can be made. It will be helpful if the Minister can confirm that those numbers are correct. He did not use them in his introduction, but it is important for the record that we have them.

These changes are intended to maintain uninterrupted support for investment, exports and jobs, ensuring that the Government can back key sectors such as advanced manufacturing, life sciences and defence, without hitting the old limits. By raising these thresholds now, the Government say that the Bill prevents constraints on viable projects at a time when businesses are making critical investment and export decisions, providing necessary headroom to offer support only where justified, while safeguarding taxpayers and sustaining the UK’s credibility. On the face of it, this is a sensible uprating, which we support. However, its passage through the Commons was not without query and I will raise some of those queries again for the Minister to perhaps recap the answers.

In the Commons, MPs from several parties highlighted that the Bill authorises very large increases in industrial assistance and export guarantees with relatively light ex ante control. There are weak safeguards, limited transparency and scrutiny over what are, or could be, very large sums, and there are potential ethical and risk concerns around how export finance could be used. Critics argued that this scale of contingent liability exposes taxpayers to significant risk, with Parliament largely limited to retrospective annual reports rather than regular, detailed scrutiny of which firms and sectors are being supported—I think that was the point the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, made about updates as to where the money is going.

In the Commons, cross-party amendments sought to block support where there is reason to believe that modern slavery or human trafficking are present in the supply chains. We on these Benches believe that it is unacceptable for any taxpayer-backed finance to underwrite that sort of exploitation, so it would be useful to know from the Minister how that will be overseen. Other amendments aimed to prevent UK Export Finance supporting goods which are likely to be re-exported to sanctioned destinations. It is very important that those safeguards are strengthened and any loopholes removed.

There are also questions about how all this fits in with the industrial strategy. The Bill certainly expands financial capacity, but what is the Government’s plan for which sectors and regions should benefit, particularly concerning steel, which is an ongoing issue, and other strategically important industries? Can the Minister confirm how the applications will be managed? Are they on a first come, first served basis? Does it stop when we run out of money, or will some sort of strategic overlay be put on to applications for drawing down on these funds? If it will, who will manage this overlay, and how will it be overseen and reported back to your Lordships’ House?

While we are talking about industrial assistance, I have spent the last eight years on the replumbing of the United Kingdom post Brexit. One of the many Acts I worked on was the Subsidy Control Act 2022. We would be very interested to know how industrial assistance will be managed within the Subsidy Control Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, also brought up the UK Internal Market Act, which was also part of the replumbing, and she asked some really important questions around that. There are constraints around what can and cannot be done, not least our own constraints, which were built looking at GATT and other things in the outside world.

Additionally, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for his really knowledgeable input on SMEs. I also have an observation that historically, the bulk of export finance money goes to larger firms; it does not go to SMEs. Although the Bill is being pitched as helping SMEs, there is no real indication in the Bill as to how that will be done. Experience shows that they will not be the major recipients of this uprating, so, like the noble Lord, I await the Minister’s views on this.

There is also this issue about government finance crowding out other finance, and how the process will be managed so that it is crowding in, not crowding out. It is really important that investment that would have come in any case is not being displaced. We really need to know that public money is going to be used genuinely as additional rather than substitutional. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these issues, but notwithstanding that, we support the changes being brought forward.

In conclusion, it is important to support investment, exports and jobs in sectors such as manufacturing, life sciences and defence, and it is vital that this support is extended to SMEs. On a broader note, a huge lever for UK exports would be to be included in the EU’s Security Action for Europe—so-called SAFE—financial instrument. As the Minister knows, this would give access to up to €150 billion of finance. Can the Minister update us on where we are on attempts to find our way into that programme? Of course, the looming threat of “Made in Europe” will do the opposite of what we are seeking to do here. It will exclude our businesses, our automotive businesses in particular, from exports. Clearly, the closer the UK is to the EU, the easier this will be to resolve—but, as the Minister knows, in this case, time is of the essence. The Bill is important, but sorting out our relationship with the European Union should be the priority. That said, we support the Bill.

Foreign Direct Investment

Lord Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

The reason I have come into government is to try to balance the need to grow our economy with making sure that our economy works for all sectors and parts of our country. Creating an economy that delivers for businesses and for working people requires some changes. To put these into perspective, total annual employment costs in the UK were £1.4 trillion in 2024, and the costs associated with the Act that the noble Lord mentioned are equivalent to an increase of less than 0.1% of that. Those reforms are not about burdening businesses for the sake of it; many employers already offer good terms and conditions that go well beyond what the law requires, and will consequently be less impacted by this package. The Act is designed simply to help level the playing field, so that responsible businesses and employers cannot be undercut.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister is no doubt aware of recent research published by King’s Business School late last year which estimates that foreign direct investment is 12% to 18% lower than it would have been had the United Kingdom not left the European Union. Does the Minister agree with me that the best way to make his job to attract investment into this country easier is for us to eliminate from our economy many of the bad things that Brexit brought, as quickly as possible? We could start by negotiating a customs union.

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

Hold that thought.

In the seven months I have been doing this job, the UK has clearly been redefining its position in the world, post Brexit and Covid. I am proud to be part of a Government who are out there doing trade deals, whether with India, the Gulf states or the US—ours is its first deal globally. Undoubtedly, renewed engagement with our closest trading partner, which represents 41% of exports from the UK and high figures for our direct investment, is critical to our long-term success. I would not go as far as the noble Lord suggests, but I agree that we are now in a position to have constructive and equitable conversations with our European partners.

British Business Bank

Lord Fox Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My noble friend is right to ask about mandate and risk appetite. This is the direction that the British Business Bank is taking, guided by its new strategic mandate. It is increasingly taking bigger bets to enable innovative British companies to scale and stay in the UK. The Government have provided a one-third uplift to the BBB’s financial capacity to help it to do so. It is able to leverage deep industry expertise across its investment activities, including both direct investments and investments made through funds.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My lords, as has been alluded to, as well as operating on a commercial basis the British Business Bank is expected to fill structural gaps in the capital market. As the sponsor of the British Business Bank, how does the Minister see its role in scaling up the UK defence supply chain? How will the British Business Bank help us to deliver the defence industry that we absolutely need?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The British Business Bank’s new strategic mandate explicitly talks about supporting businesses in the industrial strategy priority sectors, which, as noble Lords will know, includes defence. One of the things that we will be doing is looking at where the financing gap is, whether that is for R&D intensive or deep-tech companies, and at investing behind specialist fund managers or investment strategies that specifically support particular sectors. Using its mandate, and with the increased financial capacity, the British Business Bank will be able to support our defence industry supply chain here in the UK.

UK-India: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

Lord Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate and to follow some excellent contributions. This report was the last one I worked on before rotating off the International Agreements Committee; I am missing it already. I congratulate the chair, my fellow committee members and the excellent secretariat, who prepared this report.

There was a sense, I detected, of government triumphalism when this FTA was announced. That was somewhat justified. India has been famously protectionist and discussions had been long in process, so this agreement was an achievement. The IAC report acknowledges this, and the negotiating team who delivered the agreement should be congratulated. In a world where rules-based multilateralism has been shoved aside by a new zero-sum game philosophy, as has been noted, we should salute that the deal is compliant with Article XXIV of GATT.

However, the arrival of the EU deal hard on the heels of the UK deal took some of the gloss off the potential competitive advantage for the UK that could have been delivered. I have previously asked the Minister in the Chamber for some analysis of the two trade deals. It would be good if he could put on the record the department’s current analysis of their relative values and the disparities between them, as well as how his department will act where the EU has a more beneficial term than we find in our deal. After 14 rounds of negotiation, it may have been the charisma of this Government that finally helped the deal across the line. However, I note that the presence of Trump’s tariffs must have loomed large in the minds of the Indians and assisted the EU, the UK and others in getting their deals across the line.

Not unlike when we signed the CPTPP, there is talk of strategic realignment for the UK following this deal. Personally, I would be a bit cautious about the rate or significance of change that we might see as a result. However, the Government and our report speak about making this a starting point; a “living bridge” is the language used. It offers an important framework for future bilateral co-operation, which is how we should view it.

As has been noted, as things stand, the UK has a trade deficit of around £9.7 billion with India, including a services deficit of £5.1 billion; those figures are based on Q2 2025 numbers. As was set out by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, the scale of the potential deal is dwarfed by any future realignment or new alignment with the EU, but it is, as has been said, a significant possibility. I was surprised at the scale of the services deficit between our two countries.

I highlight that because, as many of your Lordships have said, the services part of our economy has not been included in much measure. It is largely absent, with limited or no agreements on liberalisation. Legal services are left out; there is small movement on financial services; and there is no mutual recognition of professional qualifications, no commitment to cross-border data flows and no bilateral investment treaty, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, mentioned.

The Law Society has bemoaned the failure to include legal services in the FTA, dubbing it a “missed opportunity” for the UK economy. For reference, India is one of the last large jurisdictions in the world in which the establishment of foreign lawyers is not possible, meaning that a lot of India-related legal work currently takes place outside India. The negotiators tried, I think, to gain access for our hugely successful professional services exports, so I am sure that the Minister would like to set out for your Lordships some detail as to why the final FTA failed to reflect any meaningful progress in this area.

More generally, given the Government’s stated ambition to promote high-value services trade, how will the Government pursue a side agreement with India to liberalise its professional services markets? In the meantime, what steps is the Minister’s department taking to support UK professional services businesses that face restrictions in accessing the Indian market? How will the Government help them trade?

As we have heard, it is a different story for goods. There are benefits for UK exporters, but a lot of them will not accrue for some time. India will reduce trade barriers gradually over 15 years, while Indian exporters will generally gain immediate access to the UK market. When it comes to our farmers, they often seem to be the sector that misses out—or, worse, is sacrificed for other potential gains. The previous Conservative Government undermined British farmers and our rural economy by agreeing to detrimental deals with Australia and New Zealand; those who disagree should look up what George Eustice, who helped negotiate the deals, had to say about them.

One way to limit the scale of these sell-outs would be to involve the House of Commons in a vote on deals. I agree with the comments that we have heard about changing the way in which trade deals are monitored and approved by Parliament. With or without votes, the Liberal Democrats will continue to hold the Government to account to make sure that farmers are not undercut and that any imported foods meet the UK’s regulations on environmental protection and animal welfare.

The committee’s report contains specific concerns about the food and drink sector, for which access is described as “cautious and phased”. For food and other goods, the expanding Indian middle class may create long-term demand for high-quality, value-added UK products, but, for many products, the agreement holds long-term promise rather than providing immediate commercial gains. Some UK food products are excluded entirely, and others will benefit gradually. As I said, in most cases, tariff reductions or eliminations are staged over five to 10 years. As the son of a man who milked cows, I say with due to respect to the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, that our dairy industry is particularly likely to face increased competition from India without reciprocal access to that market.

Can the Minister outline what the Government are planning to do to address barriers such as the export health certificate for lamb, which currently makes exports of that product very difficult or impossible? More generally, will the Minister undertake to work with Defra and the devolved Governments to deliver a comprehensive review of the cumulative effect of successive trade agreements on UK agriculture? Further, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, set out, there is scope for the Indian Government to introduce new so-called quality control orders. They hold the prospect of erecting new bespoke barriers for our exports, so can the Minister explain how the Government will monitor and police these orders? Also, how they will address their arrival with the Indian Government, if and when that happens?

The UK automotive industry also benefits largely from what I would call the “jam tomorrow” clause. Currently, India is closed to UK vehicles, so any access is a win, but access will come “progressively”, which is another word for “slowly”. Tariffs may fall, but quotas will remain. If all goes well, it could eventually be a big market for the UK, but that depends on the survival of the British car industry over the next decade and more; in the meantime, Indian manufacturers will have much better access from day one. There will be more Indian vehicles on British roads than the other way round for some time to come.

For this to be positive for our GDP, UK business has to be equipped with the knowledge of how to use this new access and navigate the not inconsiderable non-tariff barriers that will remain. Rules of origin are particularly complex and there needs to be an explicit effort from government to support businesses, especially SMEs, to fully utilise this agreement. This should include sector-specific guidance from the department and from the high commission in India. Following the excellent point from the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, how will we use the considerable links via the diaspora as a springboard into markets for us to take the benefit of this treaty?

There is also a likelihood of trade displacement and impacts on developing countries. In other words, goods perhaps previously sold by Bangladesh will be eased out in favour of goods being sold by India. I ask the Minister to undertake to monitor, in particular, the cumulative impacts of trade agreements on developing nations.

With apologies to the upbeat noble Lord, Lord Bates, I may have seemed a little gloomy in this speech, but its tone has been balanced by other speakers in this debate. In general, there is a danger of conferring too many hopes on this FTA, but it would be equally wrong to disparage it. It is a very good start.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and HM Treasury (Lord Stockwood) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to respond for the Government. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith and the International Agreements Committee for securing the debate today. I am pleased to echo the comments made about my noble and learned friend’s exemplary work as chair of the IAC. I also acknowledge the important work that went into the considered, robust recommendations of this report and the many comments that have encouraged the quality of that work by the team here today.

I begin my remarks by advising noble Lords, having spoken with the officials who negotiated this agreement, that now that they are leading its entry into force the focus has decisively shifted from signing to delivery, and that work is progressing apace. With that in mind, I should like to talk about why the deal discussed today is so important, and, more broadly, why the UK-India economic and trade relationship is so valuable, as many noble Lords have mentioned.

The UK did £47.2 billion in trade with India in the past year. That was up 15%, year on year, and India is now our 11th-largest trading partner. However, as many noble Lords mentioned, it is India’s future potential as an economic partner that stands out. India has the highest growth rate in the G20. It is likely to become the third-largest economy in the world by 2029 and, by 2050, it will be home to more than a quarter of a billion high-income consumers.

Demand for imports is due to grow as well, reaching £2.8 trillion by 2050. Assuming global FDI into India continues on its recent trajectory, it could grow to be worth £1 trillion by 2033. Noble Lords will understand why this has a particular resonance for me as the Minister for Investment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for referencing investment, and express my delight that investment sentiment has already increased since the deal was signed. However, the opportunity runs far deeper than statistics.

The United Kingdom and India share a unique historic relationship that many noble Lords have referenced—one built not only on institutions and commerce but on people, ideas and innovation. The Indian diaspora, as my noble friend Lady Gill mentioned, is one of the UK’s greatest strengths. It is a true living bridge that shapes our economy, public services and universities, and the character of modern Britain. Despite the strength of that relationship India’s market, as my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith rightly noted in his opening remarks, is also behind some of the highest barriers to trade in the world. In 2024, India was ranked by the OECD as the eighth most restricted service market and it has some of the highest tariff rates in the G20. Gin and whisky tariffs are at 150%, cars 110%, cosmetics 22%, and soft drinks, lamb, fish, chocolate and biscuits are all at 33%. That sounds like a menu in the Stockwood household, but I wanted to quote some of those tariffs.

It is worth noting that India’s protectionism is not just a matter of policy; it runs deep in its national story. At independence, the burning of foreign cloth became a symbol of economic self-determination. So, when India agrees a deal of this depth, it is not just a small adjustment; it is a significant shift marking progress in the relationship between our two countries. It is in this context that the agreement secured by this Government should be viewed as a momentous achievement. Others had been trying to get a deal like this one for years and failed, but this Prime Minister, along with the then Business Secretary and Trade Minister, has literally brought home the goods.

The agreement goes well beyond India’s precedent, opening the door for UK businesses. The Commons Business and Trade Select Committee said in its report that this deal

“is the UK’s most economically significant bilateral free trade agreement since leaving the European Union”.

It will boost UK GDP by £4.8 billion—approximately 0.13%—and wages by £2.2 billion and is predicted to boost bilateral trade by £25.5 billion by 2040. For those who says that 0.13% sounds modest, I simply ask: what other single, practical step on the table today could bring the same level of economic development?

I ask noble Lords to bear with me for a second as I have lost my place; as a technology entrepreneur trying to use technology, the irony here is not lost on me.

India will drop tariffs on 90% of its lines, covering 92% of current UK exports, giving the UK tariff savings of £400 million per year immediately on entry into force. This will rise to £900 million per year 10 years from now, even if there is no increase in trade. India’s average tariff will fall from 15% to 3%. Further, I emphasise that every region and nation will benefit from this deal, including a £210 million boost for the north-west, driven by aerospace and automotive wins, a £190 million boost for Scotland, supported by cuts on whisky and satellite tariffs, as well as financial services access, a £190 million boost for the east of England, generated through tariff cuts and improved rules for medical devices and clean energy products and a £50 million boost for Northern Ireland, supported by a reduction in the tariffs on industrial products for aerospace, medical technologies and electronics.

Of course, the deal will deliver these benefits only if it is used by UK businesses. This point was made by many noble Lords. We know that it will not always be plain sailing, thanks to varying rules in different states and provinces. The staging of tariff liberalisation will need some explaining, and non-tariff barriers can be just as important. This was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Sikka. That is why we are matching the agreement with practical export support, including stepped-up advice in market and the full range of UK Export Finance backing, so that firms—especially SMEs, which were mentioned—can turn preferential access into signed contracts.

I saw this at first hand during the trade visit with the Prime Minister in October, when we took a number of businesses—120 CEOs—to India. Two deals that had not been made previously were struck in negotiations during that week. A noble Lord committed on the impact on climate. One of those deals was on accessing technologies in the UK that could accelerate the climate transition for India.

Our department is committed to ensuring that businesses have all the support they need, which is why we have protected the DBT team in India. It is also why we have already engaged with more than 5,000 UK businesses through guidance, events and roadshows on how to exploit the CETA. Once we get to entry into force, we will monitor the operation of the CETA’s provisions, including through the regular reviews and the Joint Economic and Trade Committee—the JETCO —that are built into the agreement.

We will also try to resolve other market access barriers that are not covered in this FTA—many of them have been mentioned today—including legal services, recognition of qualifications and specific state-level barriers. The UK is clearly open to continuing negotiations on a bilateral investment treaty, as long as it works for UK businesses. As many noble Lords have said, this is the floor, not the ceiling. We will keep improving how the agreement works based on real feedback from UK firms.

This negotiation has never been about just the economic uplift that it delivers, substantial and important though that is. At a time when our global norms are under pressure, the UK is choosing to lead and to stand for open, fair and rules-based international trade. Agreements such as this are how we build resilience and prosperity for not just ourselves but our partners. This is how we build trusted economic relationships in a world that is changing fast, as evidenced by the past week’s circumstances.

The world is not the same as it was a decade ago—in fact, it is not the same as it was last week. In this new global order, strong bilateral partnerships that are rooted in shared interests and delivered through serious, detailed agreements are how we secure our long-term position. This is a proper, thorough, detailed, old-fashioned treaty. It has hundreds of pages—as we saw on the desk of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, earlier today—with commitments negotiated line by line. It is real, serious work that shows that the UK is a credible partner on the world stage. It reflects this Labour Government’s approach more broadly: being committed to the hard graft needed to get these deals done.

As previously mentioned, this deal is more about shaping the standards of the future, building trusted economic relationships and ensuring that countries that believe in openness and fair competition can work together. We have secured India’s first ever chapters on anti-corruption, consumer protections, labour rights, gender and development. The agreement also includes the strongest environmental commitments that India has ever made in an FTA. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referenced in her remarks, this is the start of a conversation, and we need to go further. I also take this opportunity to flag that the deal was negotiated by two formidable female chief negotiators, Kate Thornley and Nidhi Tripathi, showing both side’s commitment to putting women at the top table.

In response to my noble friend Lord Sikka’s points on corruption, the deal includes an anti-corruption chapter that has obligations to maintain measures on the criminalisation of bribery and prohibiting fraudulent book-keeping practices; the prohibition of facilitation payments; the criminalisation of embezzlement and money laundering; and whistleblowing protections—all things that we take incredibly seriously. In drawing attention to these crucial social chapters, I am keen to emphasise the importance of these agreements in strengthening real partnerships between nations and facilitating important, frank conversation in matters beyond the economic things set out in an agreement.

Turning to the European Union, we understand that it has now reached a political agreement on its own FTA with India, as many noble Lords have mentioned, where it seems that the UK deal was used as a baseline. We should in fact take this as a massive compliment, and we will be going through that agreement line by line to check the mark-ups later on.

Crucially, the UK retains a first-mover advantage. I am hopeful that the deal will enter into force before the end of spring so that UK businesses can start exploiting these reduced tariffs this year, while the EU will take some time to achieve ratification. Only the UK has secured access to India’s £38 billion federal procurement market, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, rightly acknowledged. I repeat that for impact: we are the only country in the world to secure that access. This is undeniably significant and a huge opportunity to a market that is growing at the rate India is growing.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I really welcome the fact that the noble Lord’s department is doing that analysis. Can he undertake to publish it so that we can see what the comparisons are?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord; I was going to come on to that, but we can agree to that.

My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, my noble friend Lord Anderson and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Frost, all made reference to the EU-India deal. As champions of free trade, we welcome this agreement. In answer to the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that the EU secured a better deal—as well as the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in that question, as he just noted—I will push back and note that we struck the deal that was designed to be in the best interests of the UK, built on UK business priorities. However, we will come back and comment on the comparison between the deals as well.

As well as its unique procurement process and access, the UK secured proportionally better access to the cars market as compared to production levels. We also kept CBAM out of the deal, while the EU made a £500 million commitment on climate financing over the next two years. Further, the deal also has a mechanism to help us keep pace if India gives more to other partners.

I hope that noble Lords will agree that the CETA is a good deal for the UK. I am grateful for the contributions made in today’s debate. Before closing, I shall take the opportunity to respond to the outstanding points and questions that I have not mentioned already. I will be pleased to follow up with noble Lords after the debate on the specific questions asked and any areas that I miss.

My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Hannay and Lord Howell, and my noble friends Lord Anderson and Lady Gill rightly noted that the deal is a long-term strategic investment—a start, not an end. The Government strongly agree with this view and the need to energetically pursue the opportunities the deal presents. As I mentioned, we have already engaged nearly 6,000 businesses on the deal and are putting out guidance to SMEs, and we are already preparing for our first Joint Economic and Trade Committee and the multiple technical working groups that sit underneath it.

On the points raised about services, modelling estimates that, in the long term, services exports should increase by over £1.6 billion every year because of this deal. The deal binds in access to over 43 sectors, and key UK services firms such as EY and PwC have come out in support of the FTA.

The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, asked about professional qualifications. I can tell him that the regulators will be supported by a professional services working group that will support engagement between the UK and Indian bodies. That work is already under way.

On specific sectors, the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Kerr, and my noble friend Lord Anderson noted the importance of legal services. As already mentioned, it is worth recognising that the UK treats the law as a noble profession, making access incredibly difficult. Through the negotiations, we have strengthened our ties with India’s legal system, and we will continue to support British lawyers and law firms seeking to operate in the Indian market. As the deal progresses, we hope to enter into further negotiations about access, particularly around legal services, but we recognise that this is the start of the deal rather than the conclusion.

My noble friend Lady Gill and the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, rightly mentioned the importance of using this deal as a platform for innovation. We have set up an innovation working group, which will bring together government, business, research institutions and academia to ensure that this framework of trade is fit for the future and supports the commercialisation of new technologies, which India excels at, as well as our own reputation globally. This will cover numerous sectors, including AI, quantum, advanced manufacturing and many others as we develop and progress. Indeed, on my trip in October, I found the energy and innovation sectors incredibly impressive. Where India is leading in many of these sectors, we need to be a partner.

The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and my noble friend Lord Stevenson raised India’s non-tariff barriers. We have addressed non-tariff barriers in the agreements, from frameworks for mutual recognition of conformity assessments right down to the practical benefits, such as streamlined labelling requirements and the use of stickers—something that businesses regularly raised. Again, this will be a work in progress, and we recognise that there is some way to go.

As mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, India has recently rescinded on a large number of quality control orders in the industrial space. We are keen to build on the momentum and are actively encouraging India to review its trade-restrictive barriers on other products, both bilaterally and through work at the WTO. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, suggested, we will continue to work to reduce these barriers, at both federal and state level, within and outwith the FTA.

Turning to goods, the noble Lord, Lord, Fox, raised dairy. All our current food standard protections remain in place. India does not have an approved veterinary residue plan for dairy, so any dairy products originating in India cannot be imported. I thank the noble Lord for his points on agriculture across the FTAs more widely. I commit to taking them to my colleagues in Defra and will write to him on some of the specifics that he raised.

On protecting the goods industry more generally, this deal includes a bilateral safeguard mechanism that allows us to temporarily suspend or increase tariff concessions if an industry is suffering or facing the threat of serious injury because of reduced duties in the CETA.

The noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Fox, asked whether we could have secured a quicker and more balanced trade liberalisation. As I noted earlier, the UK maintains a significant first-mover advantage, and we have secured a greater share of tariffs eliminated on day one of our agreement than the EU—64% compared with 49.6% of tariff lines, as we currently understand it. We expect the deal to increase UK exports to nearly 60%, with imports expected to increase by only 25%.

I will address the points made about human rights by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. The UK is clearly a leading advocate for human rights around the world and, as I mentioned earlier, having secure and growing trading relationships benefits the UK’s ability to influence our partners and helps us to have open and frank conversations on a range of issues, including human rights. We are hopeful that the trade deal we have set out here allows us to encourage those conversations.

With reference to the DCC and the IAC’s request for an impact assessment, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, for advance sight of this question. Foremost, the net impact on the Exchequer and the British economy of this agreement is significantly positive. The Office for Budget Responsibility will certify the impact of the CETA, including the DCC, in the usual way at the next fiscal event, once the deals have been finalised and ratified. We believe this is sufficient in reviewing the economic impacts of this convention.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, asked about the impact on developing countries. I draw his attention to the trade and development co-operation chapter, which includes a commitment to monitoring the effects of trade agreements on developing countries, allowing risks to be identified and opportunities for development to be supported. Long-term analysis set out by the UK Department for Business and Trade’s Global Trade Outlook still shows that we expect growth in countries across south Asia and the region.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked about climate and emissions. I answer by saying that UK businesses have a lot to offer through trade, innovation and procurement, and the access secured in the FTA, to assist in the transition to a greener economy. I saw this first-hand, as I mentioned, in a couple of innovative businesses that we took out to India, generating contracts that can significantly impact the transmission profile of India itself.

I come now to the parliamentary scrutiny process of FTAs, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others. I note that, alongside updates to the House after negotiating rounds, DBT regularly updated both committees privately to ensure that they were fully appraised of the sensitive negotiations. We take the feedback on the robustness of that process seriously and will debate some of the considerations further in the coming weeks. I note that the FTA and its impact assessment were published in full and laid in the House on the day of its signature in July last year. We also provided extensive evidence to the BTC and IAC to inform their committee reports and we published our Section 42 report in November.

Furthermore, we proactively sought a debate in both Houses on this deal to recognise the relevant committees’ respective inquiries and our commitment to transparency. As one of the Ministers accountable, I can firmly commit to taking the feedback and enhancing that process as we go further as well.

I want to respond on the geopolitical points raised by several noble Lords this afternoon, which are particularly salient considering the events of the last few days. We continue to see unprecedented turbulence and challenges to economic growth, alongside wider systemic issues, both domestically and internationally. We need to go back to growth and, to do so, businesses need certainty and stability. As part of this Government’s commitment to growth, we published our trade, industrial and small businesses strategies last year. We set out a broader vision and need to keep strengthening our trade partnerships and ensure the agreements that we have signed deliver clear economic benefits. That is one of the reasons I came into government: signing the India deal is only the start. We now need to make sure that it delivers.

In conclusion, this is a historic agreement that marks a major milestone in the UK-India relationship economically, strategically and geopolitically. It demonstrates that, when the UK engages with its partners, we engage seriously with credibility, detail and respect. It builds on the unique historic relationship between our two countries, showing how we can move forward together rapidly in an ever-changing world.

I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for his contribution about the story of Dr Mahalanabis —my apologies if I got that name wrong. In closing, I make the point that I agree wholeheartedly that the dominant human trait that drives our species is indeed optimism. While there is much work to do in making this deal work for the UK, there is much reason to be optimistic about it in its current form. I look forward to continuing constructive engagement as we move forward towards entry in force, hopefully in the spring.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Conferral of Functions) Regulations 2026

Lord Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing the statutory instruments. This is not a very complicated issue and I do not have much to say about it, but I do have one or two questions.

First, this emerged from the digital markets Bill, which I was happy to play a part in. I was a bit surprised to see, on the duty to provide reports, that the reports have to be provided to the Secretary of State in writing on a “durable medium”. I wonder why the Government’s choice of words on this appears to rule out the possibility that we might go digital on these as well as many other things. Will my noble friend reflect on that when he replies?

Secondly, my more serious point is about costs and cost recovery. Clearly, an operation such as this under the CTSI must be paid for, but the way it is framed in the instruments before us means that these fees will come only from consumers. If the ADR is to work effectively, it really should be a benefit to both sides: it should be a benefit to the companies that are being queried about by consumers as well as to the consumers. I understand the point about the consumers being charged only a fair fee—this is well laid out in Schedule 1. Can the Minister say why we are not expecting costs to be recovered from those who also benefit from the system—the companies concerned? Obviously, the last thing we want is to find that this is a huge extra burden on already-burdened consumers, who have to pay through the nose both for their own case but also for the case being answered by the other side.

My third point is more general. There does not seem to be much in the documents before us about reviewing these arrangements. This is quite a big change; it is a measure that will set up quite a complex structure. It will be to the benefit of consumers, and I welcome it, but there is a question about whether it will be reviewed and looked at. Can the Minister reflect on that when he responds?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction, which was very clear, and to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who asked some of the questions I was going to ask, which is good. I too worked on the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. It seems longer ago than 2024, and it took a bit of dredging up to come back to this.

In general, we welcome the idea of strengthening the ADR process and how that might then get more people to use it, rather than go into more lengthy disputes —we can talk about that at the end. In the past, as we hear, there was a voluntary registration system, and it would be interesting to hear about the number of practitioners—it would be useful to know the scale—who will need to be registered. Of those, how many were already registered? Do the ones who are currently registered, having volunteered to register, have to reregister themselves and go through another process? What is the scale of the number of dispute resolution operations that will have to be registered? What is the actual process of registration? Is it, “Fill in this online form and you get your registration certificate over the internet”, or are there four-day visits from 15 inspectors—or is it somewhere between that and Ofsted? There is no sense of the scale of what getting registered will mean or indeed of what the cost of getting registered will be.

We need some sense of the scale of the task that the CTSI will have to undertake, which then raises the question: does the CTSI have the capacity to pick this job up? There will be a big fat bulge of people needing to be dealt with at the front end of this. What happens in the meantime? If I were a currently registered or unregistered practitioner and I put my application into the CTSI, would I not then be able to trade until such time as I had my registration, or is there a grace period through which I could continue to operate until the CTSI had sufficient resources to deal with my case? How does the conveyor belt work and will the CTSI have sufficient capacity to handle what will be a really heavy workload at the front, which will obviously then tail off?

The Minister talked about monitoring, which is an interesting concept. What is the CTSI? It is a group of people. How will they monitor these cases? What data will they use? How will they monitor the process? Will they require certain documentation from their registrants on a regular basis? Will a reregistration process be required after five years, three years or whatever? The monitoring is an important element, but it is not clear to me whether the CTSI has experience in any of this kind of process. It is not an organisation that I know and I do not wish to cast aspersions on it—I am not—but I wonder about it, because it is being thrust into a whole new set of operations.

Will there be a process that can be led, which puts together a register of what these businesses are and promotes that register so that people who are in dispute have somewhere to go? Frankly, if I was in dispute, I would not know off the top of my head that there was an ADR process or where to go to get sufficient help with it. Who has accountability for promoting the process and getting people to use it? Obviously, it is preferable to clogging up the courts with endless cases. As is often the case, in principle this is great but the practice is still a bit mysterious, so I would welcome some answers to those questions.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I was not involved in the 2024 Act, so—to no doubt universal relief—I shall be very brief. As the Minister explained, the statutory instruments implement Chapter 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, by replacing the voluntary accreditation system for alternative dispute resolution providers with a mandatory framework. It grants the Chartered Trading Standards Institute the powers necessary to accredit, monitor and, where necessary, sanction ADR providers and it introduces reporting requirements to ensure transparency and accountability.

I am interested in the answers that I am sure the Minister has ready for the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who raised some interesting practical points. I am also extremely interested to hear what a “durable medium” is.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

It is carved in stone.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Paper is not that durable in fire or water, so are we talking stone tablets, or vellum, perhaps? I am very curious to know the answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.

Obviously, alternative dispute resolution plays an important role in enabling consumers to resolve disputes quickly and without recourse to the courts, so a clear and enforceable accreditation framework should strengthen confidence in that system. On that basis, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are happy to support these instruments.

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. As I stated in opening, the purpose of these instruments is to place the UK’s ADR framework on a stronger footing and to provide a more effective service for consumers and businesses alike. This feeds into the broader work of the DMCCA to bring greater fairness to digital markets and to bolster consumer protections.

I will try to respond to the questions raised by noble Lords today. The most important question, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Sharpe, was about durable mediums. I am reliably informed that this includes digital. We do not have to go as far as stone tablets, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, suggested. The digital medium is included in that, so that is the acceptable format.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised an important question around extra burdens on consumers. Accredited ADR providers can charge a fee only if provisions for doing so are agreed by the CTSI and published. The purpose is to limit fees that consumers may be charged, thereby incentivising the use of ADR. At the same time, this is intended to discourage frivolous claims. Those fees should be up front and should be clear. There is a balance to be struck between ensuring that consumers have adequate access to ADR and that the core costs of the service are covered. We hope that this addresses that balance.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also mentioned reviewing the regulations. The Government have no specific plans to conduct a post-implementation review of this instrument or the reforms to which it relates, but we will continue to monitor and evaluate the operation of the system of ADR accreditation under the 2024 Act and the provision of the quality of ADR carried out in the UK through the quarterly and annual reports that this instrument requires the CTSI to provide.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about the capacity of the CTSI, the number of practitioners, how many will have to reregister, the processes and the costs. Those currently registered will go through a light-touch process to transfer their original registration across to the new system. We recognise that this transition period will place some burden on the ADR providers and aim to minimise this. The transition period will be in the region of six months, when ADR providers can continue to operate without the accreditation. In part, this will ensure that current providers and cases can continue without disruption. It will also give the CTSI time to manage the transition. We recognise that this will cause some extra elements of burden, but this seems like the lightest-touch way of transitioning to the improved system.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, also asked about the CTSI register and about promoting the process. The CTSI currently hosts a list of accredited providers on its website. This will be maintained under the new regime so will remain in place. On the question about how the CTSI is monitored, it is required to provide reports to the DBT SoS on a quarterly and an annual basis. We hope that will be sufficient, but we will be happy to review that if it proves not to be an adequate way of keeping an eye on how things are going.

To conclude, I am grateful for the Committee’s support for this instrument. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, perhaps he could take this away: simply putting something up on the website—the “If we build it, they will come” approach—is probably not the best way for consumers to know that they have this service. You have to know it exists before you can find it. I suggest that the Minister takes away and discusses with the CTSI and others whether there is some sort of consumer marketing process that can follow once the capacity for ADR is there, so that people actually know it exists. I suspect that nobody knows the organisation exists—or very few people do—and certainly very few people know that ADR is a service on which they can call.

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a really important point. Let me take that away and consult with the team and I will come back to him with a response on that.

US Tariffs

Lord Fox Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

As a Minister only six months into the job, I have uncertainty in my own mind sometimes; I am certainly not going to comment on the US President. What I can say is that we remain the only country that has secured a 10% tariff on auto, securing hundreds of thousands of jobs; we are the only country in the world with a 0% tariff on pharmaceuticals; and we are the only country in the world to benefit from a 25% tariff on steel, aluminium and other derivatives. We believe that we will retain those competitive positions, but our position is to control the controllables that we have today and negotiate to retain those benefits for UK businesses.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure that industry is grateful for the sympathy the Minister has expressed from the Dispatch Box, and we are all encouraged by the hopes that the Government have expressed. But we all know that the opinions of trade officials often differ from those of the President. The uncertainty that is now surrounding all of British manufacturing is huge. What advice are the Government now giving to manufacturing businesses? What conversations have been had with the manufacturers, and how should they behave in the light of this huge uncertainty?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

The question of certainty, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Lamont and Lord Fox, is critical to business. We live in a world that is changing rapidly and evolving minute by minute—I just checked my BBC feed on my way into the Chamber this afternoon. What I can say is that this Government have a plan: for the first time since the 1960s, we have an industrial strategy that focuses on our competitive advantage in automotive, technology and pharmaceuticals. It remains important to have clarity on our comparative advantage, and we remain in negotiation with all those key sectors; indeed, the pharmaceutical sector has the most preferential deal globally. I was due to have a meeting at 3 pm today with the pharmaceutical sector, and this has overridden that. These are fast-moving events. We remain cool-headed, trying to negotiate on behalf of UK businesses, and we are confident that our preferential relationship with the US will bear dividends as things develop this week.

Land Covenants: Supermarket Chains

Lord Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I am assuming from the noble Lord’s question that he does not have Aldi and Lidl advantage cards as well. Just to acknowledge, the CMA is currently doing its work, including on a consultation to get feedback on how Aldi and Lidl should be treated. We acknowledge that the argument for exemption does distort the market, but the independence of the CMA must be respected. I share the noble Lord’s views that it seems right on face value that Aldi and Lidl should be brought into that same regime.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as well as the issue of Aldi and Lidl, there is also the issue of almost complete non-compliance with the 2010 order system. The CMA has identified multiple repeated breaches across all of the seven majors, as mentioned by the noble Lord. So, in addition to having this system, it is entirely unenforceable because the CMA has no legal powers to fine on this issue. The whole thing is being brought into disrepute by the absence of any real enforcement. Can the Minister confirm that the digital markets Act gives powers that could be taken by the CMA to fine on this issue, and will that be one of the issues that the CMA will be reviewing?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

The CMA has a broad primary and competition regulatory framework. It is equipped with the powers to investigate and to act against anti-competitive conduct. On the specific question about the digital Bill, I will have to consult with colleagues and come back to the noble Lord; I am not familiar with it.

UK Start-up Companies

Lord Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The UK has an extremely strong track record as a vibrant ecosystem for start-ups and scale-ups, and that is something the Government are committed to building on—hence, as I mentioned, the entrepreneurship package. Specifically on regulation, we are not sitting still on that either. We have announced, as part of our regulation action plan, a commitment to reduce the administrative burden on all businesses by 25%. We have already announced several specific measures to ease the regulatory burden for smaller companies. For example, we announced in October 2025 that we would exempt tens of thousands of companies from producing strategic and directors’ reports. We are looking carefully across all departments at how we can optimise regulation. In addition, through the Regulatory Innovation Office, we are looking at how to regulate new technologies that perhaps do not fit within the existing regulatory purview, such as drones or novel foods.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to hear that the Government are going out and looking for evidence. I want to add another sector that has not really been mentioned here. From my meetings with businesses, there is a whole section of businesses—a large lump—with perhaps 100 employees, which are successful and are doing well, and are often family owned or privately owned, but they find it difficult to get the capital they need, not to turn themselves into unicorns but perhaps to double in size or get half the size again. Can the Minister take on board that sector? Can she discuss with colleagues how those firms can get access to the finance they need? That incremental growth would make a big difference to our economy.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

As noble Lords may know, we are supporting our public finance institutions. We are increasing the capitalisation of the British Business Bank, which can play a role in this area, complemented by the National Wealth Fund’s new mandate, which includes a focus on other sectors such as digital and technology. As the noble Lord is aware, we are also acting over the longer term, which may take a little longer, to increase the amount of capital that domestic pension funds can allocate to private assets, including through the Mansion House Accord and the Sterling 20 group, in order to continue to support businesses getting access to finance in the UK.