UK-India: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

Lord Johnson of Lainston Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who is a pillar of our committee.

First, I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and his leadership of the International Agreements Committee. In my view—this is widely agreed, and not simply in this Room—he has been an exemplary chairman on and off over the course of several years. I am honoured and, frankly, slightly humbled, which is not my usual state, to step into his place.

I also pay homage and offer my thanks to the existing members of the committee, who have been so supportive of my new role. I recognise, as so many of us do, the incredible level of expertise, as demonstrated by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, just now.

I declare my interests in this debate. This is the fact about me that many noble Lords may find surprising—my noble friend and study mate Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon knows this well because I have told him it many times—but I am the first member of my family not to have been born in India since 1880. I am passionate about trade with India. My family’s businesses have invested in India. We had a cotton milling floor in Madurai with 60,000 spindles—it is still, by the way, the largest in the world—which I then continued.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)]

My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn and return in 10 minutes.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I was just getting to the good bit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, I was giving a great oration to demonstrate my interests and biases towards India, my passion for that great country, my own heritage and how important I felt it was, in the run-up to the India free trade deal, that we celebrated our joint community and shared roots. I am also a passionate free trader. I believe without equivocation that lower tariffs and the free movement of goods, capital and ideas are what leads to prosperity and happiness. As Libanius said:

“And so He called commerce into being, that all men might be able to have common enjoyment of the fruits of the earth, no matter where produced”.


But my vision of a tariff-free world is not shared by many. We all say that we are for free trade, but there is always a sector that needs protecting or some inconsistent view, held by many of my own colleagues, that we need to produce our own steel, children’s plimsolls or whatever it may be for whatever excellent reason. The fact is that, even if we do not receive reciprocity, so long as the trade is on a level and fair playing field, which I admit it is sometimes not, our consumers benefit and, most importantly, capital can be better allocated to investment rather than consumption. It is the duty of the Government to deliver this.

That is why the India comprehensive economic and trade partnership is so significant. It is significant not just because we have opened up new markets to our goods and services but because, as we have heard from noble Lords, we have made an important dent in the protectionist carapace of the Indian nation. I congratulate India on allowing us to do that—on being dented—and hope that this example and template negotiated by us will serve it well as it opens up its economy to the benefit of its vast and excellent population. We are seeing this with the deal that it has done with the EU and the potential deal with Canada. These are good things; they benefit the world. This agreement is important because it helps drive that change.

As our report states clearly, this deal is very powerful for the UK. We know the headlines, where whisky seems to have grabbed much attention. The high commissioner of India, who generously gave us tea last week, explained that 2 billion bottles of whisky are consumed in India every year, so it is clearly an important market to us. But, frankly, there are other areas of huge significance, as noted in the report. One of the most significant is the ability of our businesses to access the Indian federal procurement sector, which is truly massive. I request that the Government do far more to promote this win and help our companies navigate it before other countries sign up to such opportunities. It is a race we must win. Can the Minister tell us how we are going to do this? I refer him to a question I asked some weeks ago about the number of people the Department for Business and Trade is employing. I would join him in fronting up against the Treasury, which no doubt wants to reduce that number, and suggesting that, in situations like this, we should be increasing it.

This is also a living agreement, with various bodies designed to explore further ways of opening up our markets to each other. This new model is one we originated under the previous Government; the Conservative Government did some things right, and it is unquestionably the most effective way to trade further and make these agreements future proof as our economies evolve. Some noble Lords have mentioned some of these points, but I would be grateful if the Minister could give us some more details here, particularly on areas such as AI and future technologies, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, referred to. How will this agreement evolve and adapt?

However, as with all our reports, we note the limitations. The section on services is too light, as has been mentioned. This is often an issue with trade agreements, where people focus, not unreasonably, on agriculture and goods. The reality is that we are a services economy and in areas such as the law—this was mentioned but, with no disrespect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, I was puzzled —which is regarded in India as a noble profession, we could and should have pushed much further. Will the Minister comment on how we are going to achieve this very important point?

I am also concerned about the lack of details regarding the double contributions convention. I distinctly remember that, when I was in government—by the way, I congratulate my department’s excellent officials on achieving this deal—it was a key sticking point, and we seem to have just rolled over on it without comment. How come there are no real costings of this? There is certainly more benefit to India than to us. Will the Minister say what the real cost will be of the DCC, rather than the overall treaty, which is what the impact assessment is focused on? As has been acknowledged, I have already written to the Minister to request this information.

Finally, the biggest issue with free trade is now less about tariffs and more about non-tariff barriers and local restrictions—often cultural and emotional, sometimes essential, but always prohibitive of freer trade and growing national wealth. India has many of these regulations and, from my experience, it is these barriers that we need to erode more than any others. What plans do the Government have to do this and what timelines can we expect to celebrate?

In summary, I congratulate the IAC on its diligent work on this agreement. The excellent team led by Dom Walsh has written a report that is clear and fair. The Government would do well to bear our comments in mind when developing this arrangement. This is a very good example of why treaty scrutiny should be proper and open. We have genuinely added value to the process, and I hope this adds further weight to our calls around extending the CRaG process to other areas of treaty-making. I express my thanks to the Department for Business and Trade, its Minister and the Minister today for their engagement. As the new chairman of the IAC, I hope we will be deluged with new treaties and free trade agreements. We want more. We want to be kept very busy. We cannot stop here. We must push further and never stop until a tariff-free and barrier-free world is achieved. In my view, this is Britain’s gift to the world.