UK-India: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I pay special tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for his pioneering work in chairing the International Agreements Committee. Several speakers have paid tribute to that work, but it goes far beyond this debate, although we are very grateful to him for moving the Motion that started it—and what an amazing debate it has been. There has been a great deal of passion.

I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, who talked about deepening the links between the Republic of India and the United Kingdom, and to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who ended by saying that this could be the start of something that grows and grows. That was the general atmosphere of this debate. We even had time to hear from my noble friend Lord Bates on the amazing character Dr Dilip Mahalanabis, the Indian paediatrician who pioneered the use of oral rehydration therapy and saved so many lives. We have had a wide-ranging debate highlighting the successes of our partnership with India.

But we also look to the future. Several speakers tried to catch the attention of my noble friend Lord Johnson, who has taken over the chair, in trying to widen the scrutiny of Parliament over treaties such as this. That is not for this debate; there will be a debate on that shortly. However, I certainly benefited from what almost every speaker has highlighted as one of the best reports of its type that they have had the privilege of reading. My noble friend Lord Howell said that. I always respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, and have done for decades, as he knows, and he thought it was the best report he had ever read. Several others also paid tribute. I hope the message gets through to those who were responsible for this report that it has been so welcomed in this debate.

It falls to me to speak from these Benches on behalf of His Majesty’s Official Opposition. I do so with a mixture of genuine welcome and profound disappointment: welcome because this agreement represents the fruits of seeds planted by the previous Conservative Government—it was good to hear from my noble friends Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Johnson of Lainston that they started this whole process—but disappointment because what has been harvested falls considerably short of what British businesses, farmers, lawyers and investors deserved and had every right to expect.

One sentence, which several speakers have referred to, was very revealing. As a committee, the report said,

“we highlight the need for the UK-India trade agreement to be a living instrument, rather than a static one”.

I hope the Minister will take that, as he responds to the many questions which have been posed to him, as his soundtrack for demonstrating that this is just the start. There is so much else still to be done.

It was of course His Majesty’s Official Opposition who laid the foundations on which this agreement rests. I put this to the Committee with the greatest seriousness: we have to ask ourselves whether this deal will prove to be an exception rather than a template. While the Government stand at this Dispatch Box and trumpet the virtues of free trade with India, they simultaneously pursue, with quiet but unmistakeable determination, a path of ever closer alignment with the European Union.

The noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Frost referred to the fact that we now have two deals. I think we need an analysis, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, just asked for, of the differences between the trade deal that has just been negotiated by the Republic of India with the European Union and this international UK-India comprehensive economic and trade agreement. I am sure that, although we will give the Minister as much time as he needs, there is probably not time to set out all the differences. I can readily appreciate that there will be areas that concerned the European Union which we would not be that concerned about—certain products and services—but certainly, so far as our financial, professional and legal services are concerned, we really need to know why this agreement is such a disappointment.

As all speakers have agreed, India is the United Kingdom’s 11th-largest trading partner. It is a nation that represents probably one of the most significant consumer opportunities available to British exporters anywhere in the world. My noble friend Lord Ahmad, after his 10 years as a Minister, highlighted that India is a nation that represents one of the most significant opportunities available to us anywhere on the planet. Yet, under this agreement, 99% of Indian goods imported into the United Kingdom become tariff free. Immediately, from day one, Indian exporters will gain full, immediate and essentially unimpeded access to British consumers and markets. Meanwhile, UK exporters will not receive that treatment, and we need to know why. My noble friend Lord Dundee posed these questions. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers because he must explain to this Committee why British exporters were placed at this disadvantage. What was the strategic rationale? What concession did we extract in return?

Several noble Lords mentioned the whisky industry, which provides a vivid illustration of the broader picture. A tariff of 150% is reduced to 75% on day one and will be reduced to 40% only by year 10. The Scotch whisky industry, one of Britain’s great export success stories, one of the jewels of our manufacturing and agricultural heritage, must wait a decade to see tariffs reduced to a level that is, let us be frank about it, still remarkably high. Our competitors will not be standing still in the meantime.

I turn to probably the significant omission, speaking now as a practising solicitor, still. The omission in this agreement that I regard as one of its most serious and damaging failures is the treatment, or rather the non-treatment, of legal services—as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, services represent virtually 80% of our economy—and the missed opportunities. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, I cannot quite understand why they have received this treatment. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, the Law Society and the Bar Council have described this deal as a missed opportunity. The very practitioners who would have benefited most directly from meaningful market access provisions for legal services have looked at this agreement and concluded that it falls far short of what should have been achieved.

I suppose in many ways our own International Agreements Committee has gone further still, describing the exclusion of legal services as a strategic error and noting that legal services do not merely serve their own sector but actively support and facilitate trade across virtually every other sector of the economy. Data from the Law Society shows that in London, 83% of lawyers working in the largest 50 international law firms are UK-qualified. This shows that international firms overwhelmingly create employment for local lawyers, rather than importing lawyers from overseas. I feel that an open legal services market creates high-skilled employment, particularly for young professionals. At a time when youth unemployment in the UK is higher than anywhere in the EU, expanding opportunities in globally competitive sectors such as legal services should be a government priority. I would love to hear from the Minister that it is.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gill, with all her experience in the European Parliament, reminded us of the importance of SMEs. My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford gave us the statistic that small businesses—those with between nought and 49 employees—make up 99.18% of the total. What a shattering statistic that is. What is going to happen so far as SMEs are concerned? The noble Baroness pointed out that they need extensive support. I think her phrase was “targeted facilitation”; I hope we will hear from the Minister that he is determined to provide that.

Perhaps in summary, we just need to know from the Minister what representations were made to the Indian Government on the inclusion of legal services. What was the response? What is the concrete, timetable-specific plan to address this omission in future negotiations? What assessment have the Government made of the implications for UK legal services exports and the economic impact of the absence of provisions on market access in the UK-India trade agreement?

Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I share the concerns raised by the National Farmers’ Union and Dairy UK. Their analysis shows that British dairy exporters gain no meaningful reciprocal access to the Indian market. We open our doors; they just do not open theirs. Several speakers have asked that we should now look into the extent to which British dairy farmers, already under enormous pressure and struggling with cumulative costs of this Government’s policy choices, surely cannot be told just to get on with it. There has to be some recognition of their concerns.

I suppose this is not an isolated concern. As several of my colleagues have pointed out, it is part of a pattern because every time this Government have a serious opportunity to achieve meaningful economic growth, stand before the British people and the British business community with the tools genuinely to empower enterprise, to unleash the productive potential of this economy against protectionism, and to demonstrate that a Labour Government can be a friend to business, they fall short. The Minister has the chance to put that right.

The Government have an opportunity to demonstrate how this agreement can be the living instrument that your Lordships’ committee described. As my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston reminded us, the Conservative Party is the party of free trade. We will continue to hold this Government to the highest standards in their trading ambitions because British businesses, workers and consumers deserve nothing less.