Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Lord Stockwood Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Stockwood]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

My Lords, this is a simple Bill, which I am honoured to bring to the House today. The Bill has two main provisions. It raises the statutory limits in the Industrial Development Act 1982 and the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991. These provisions ensure that the Government can continue to support British industry and British exporters with financial assistance.

This matters because we know that exporting firms grow faster. They are more productive. They offer better jobs and higher wages than businesses that sell only domestically. Yet we know that access to finance can be a major headache for these same businesses. It is particularly tough for those that want to export millions of pounds’ worth of goods. Getting the necessary financial guarantees can be the biggest hurdle to exporting abroad, but noble Lords will know that these exports hold the key to a company’s growth. Just a single deal could be what makes or breaks a company.

Export finance is having a tremendous impact on our economy. Some £14.5 billion of UK Export Finance support last year is supporting up to 70,000 jobs, including across key industrial sectors such as clean energy, advanced manufacturing, life sciences and the automotive sector. Through existing provisions in the Industrial Development Act, the British Business Bank’s northern powerhouse investment fund II has directly invested £115 million-worth of capital into over 300 small businesses. Similarly, in the Midlands, the Midlands engine investment fund II has launched a £400 million fund to drive sustainable economic growth by supporting innovation and creating local opportunity for new and growing businesses.

We want to take this further, so that we can drive more growth across even more regions. With the Bill, we will ensure that transformational levels of government support will be there for industry tomorrow. The Bill contains some technical provisions, such as changing the currency from special drawing rights to pounds sterling, and it allows the delegation of future increases to UK Export Finance to secondary legislation. I am sure that noble Lords will champion the assistance provided through the Industrial Development Act and UK Export Finance that has helped businesses to grow through trade, creating jobs and fostering economic growth. It ensures that we can go faster and further, supporting more businesses to be pioneers in the sectors that are front and centre of the UK’s economy.

In tandem with the new trade strategy, more businesses than ever before will be empowered to export with the financial firepower of the Government behind them. The Bill can mean only better prospects for those businesses, our economy and the UK, and will boost economic growth in the coming years. I am thankful to colleagues in the other place for their scrutiny of the Bill so far and look forward to the wisdom and expertise that noble Lords will bring to this debate today. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions and feedback. I am also thankful for the general support for the provisions in this small but important Bill.

As aforementioned, the Bill will ensure that the financial assistance the Government have provided through UK Export Finance and the means available in the Industrial Development Act 1982 can continue. From the £1.5 million to support a Yorkshire manufacturer, to enabling Gloucestershire’s finest truffles to be exported across the world—and, indeed, to the Stockwood household—to £20 million in support of the aviation specialists in Surrey, all the way to over £8 million in support of a Scottish manufacturing SME, UK Export Finance is supporting growth and jobs across the whole country, and the Bill will enable it to go even further.

Additionally, financial assistance under the Industrial Development Act has provided £520 million of funding to generate private sector capital investments to support the continued growth of our life sciences sector via the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund. As I discussed in my opening remarks, these provisions ensure that the Government can continue to support British industry and British exporters, putting them on the strongest possible footing to contend in today’s increasingly competitive global landscape.

I now take the opportunity to address specific points raised in the debate, starting with my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley, who asked some important questions, and I am grateful for the advanced sight of his specific interests in today’s debate. On the issue of expanded capacity of UK Export Finance translating to wider access for smaller and new exports across the country, in 2024-25, that contribution to GDP was up to £5.4 billion, supporting 496 SMEs during that year. UKEF has also recently commissioned research from Oxford Economics, which showed that there are 115,000 businesses—predominantly SMEs, by the way—in the supply chains of the businesses which UKEF supports directly. These supply chains extend to all parts and regions of the UK.

Going even further in the support of SMEs, just in January, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade announced a commitment from the UK’s top high street banks for a further £11 billion package to lend more to small businesses and medium-sized enterprises supported by UKEF’s guarantee. All of this will boost UK exports and economic growth.

On the question of providing Parliament with regular reporting, to which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, also referred, UK Export Finance reports to Parliament every year through its annual reports and accounts, which are both cleared through the National Audit Office, comprising details of all the transactions supported, their impact on the UK economy, and progress against the business plan targets. This also includes statutory obligations requiring reporting on spending levels under Section 7 of the Export and Investment Guarantees Act.

In relation to the Industrial Development Act, I can assure my noble friend that nothing in this Bill will change the existing reporting requirements around the use of support under the Industrial Development Act or the regular existing reporting arrangements. Sections 11 and 15 of the IDA require the Government to provide Parliament with annual reports setting out how they have discharged these functions under the Act, and that will continue. The annual report is presented to Parliament and includes detailed reporting on the provision of funding to support businesses through numerous different schemes and funds. This covers both expenditure and commitments for a given year, as well as the total commitment to date.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharp, noted broader concerns about the burdens on business of regulations, energy costs, et cetera. Before I fully answer, I would like to say that we largely agree that the role of government is not to de-risk businesses. It is largely to create confidence in our growth prospects and set the conditions of success for the private sector. It is one of the reasons I came into government: I believe firmly in that and took my own earning potential down to zero seven months ago in order to do that. As my noble friend Lady Alexander says, it is a place where we often find much common ground and it is one of the reasons I am proud to be part of this Government, because this Government firmly believe in it.

As part of that, we have a clear industrial strategy, a trade strategy, a plan for small and medium-sized businesses, and a plan to make work pay to address long-standing barriers to growth. These are underpinned by new policy co-creation approaches, with new initiatives being developed to respond to all businesses’ top concerns. I spend much of my time on round tables, speaking to CEOs, SMEs and businesses to ensure that we get the requisite feedback to ensure we are making the right decisions.

On energy prices, last month we concluded an eight-week consultation on the British Industrial Competitive Scheme—BICS, as it is called. This scheme will reduce electricity bills for eligible manufacturing businesses by up to 25%. We are keen to ensure we go further within the macro environment for energy prices. It is absolutely critical that we remain competitive, and we are trying to do as much as we can in that area.

To the question of balance between private capital and UKEF funds and project support, UKEF exists to help UK exporters win overseas contracts, deliver them and get paid for doing them. It does this by providing competitive finance terms to prospective buyers, supporting working capital and trade finance to help exporters develop, and insuring against buyer default. UKEF does not provide grants, state aid or equity support. I reiterate: it does not provide grants, state aid or equity support. It charges a premium for its products and UKEF complements rather than competes with the commercial sector and helps crowd in private investment. It is clear to say also that UKEF remains a hugely profitable part of UK P&L.

On the question of the steel strategy and when it is coming, I recognise the importance of that question from the noble Lord. The steel strategy is imminent.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

Thank you for your vote of confidence. The strategy is imminent. We are hoping to announce something in the coming weeks. We recognise the importance of publishing the strategy for the industry. The Government are committed to putting the industry on a sustainable, long-term footing. It is vital for our broader strategic resilience as a country over the coming years.

To the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, about whether HMG have plans to provide information to businesses on import substitution, UKEF can provide support that is conducive to exports. Its overseas support is conditional on sourcing from the UK and shifting supply chains towards UK firms. UKEF’s customers support an estimated 115,000 UK businesses in the supply chain, which shows that, when UKEF promotes UK exports, the benefits cascade throughout the UK supply chain and throughout the UK economy. The Bill is not changing policy or the mandate underpinning this reality.

My noble friend Lady Alexander asked if I could write to her about the uptake of export support by the devolved Administrations. I will be happy to follow up with her on the specific statistics following this debate. On the further question on the UK’s success in delivering on its mandate, it operates at no net cost to the taxpayer over the economic cycle and has generated more than £850 million returned to the Exchequer over the past four years. Risk is carefully managed and monitored, with regular reporting to Parliament as part of its statutory obligation and HM Treasury oversight. I firmly believe that, as part of the portfolio of assets that we have supporting UK business, UKEF is one of our strongest and most prominent capabilities.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on whether the numbers he referred to are correct, I can confirm that they are. I am grateful to him for his role in advertising the great work that this legislation seeks to do in supporting UK businesses. On the question about the funding applications and the sector overlay that he mentioned, UKEF operates UK-wide, supporting exporters in every nation and region. Allocation is demand-led and based on commercial viability, as noble Lords would imagine, not on geography or sector. UKEF’s business plan includes an ambition that at least 80% of the businesses it supports will continue to be based outside London. That does not mean that London is not important, but regional development and support is critical to the whole of the UK’s success. On the question about the impending pressure of the “Made in Europe” policy, I firmly agree that it is critical and we are engaged on it with alacrity and pace.

In conclusion, I hope the arguments that I have set out satisfy colleagues that the provisions in the Bill are simple and straightforward. They are necessary to improve economic growth and will provide the Government with the means to give much-needed financial support to industry and businesses up and down the country. I thank noble Lords across the House for this informed debate and for their wisdom.

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, can I ask him about SMEs?

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

I am sorry, the noble Lord should not be intervening because he is not on the speakers’ list.

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

The question was well made. I can tell the noble Lord that it is important and that there is a whole strategy with UKEF and the Government to ensure that the opportunity that the Bill creates is articulated to the SME community as well.

With that in mind, I thank noble Lords from across the House for this informed debate. It is with great pleasure that I beg to move.

Bill read a second time. Committee negatived. Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with, the Bill was read a third time and passed.

Foreign Direct Investment

Lord Stockwood Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to incentivise foreign direct investment into the United Kingdom.

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

My Lords, this Government are firmly committed to ensuring that the UK remains a leading destination for foreign direct investment. We are strengthening stability and certainty for investors, advancing planning reforms to unlock growth and championing our globally competitive sectors. Working closely with partners across the nations and regions, we are developing a clear, investable opportunity, so that inward investment supports productivity, high-quality jobs and long-term sustainable economic growth throughout the United Kingdom.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we all want to see more inward investment, yet the figures on the Minister’s departmental website show a fall of about 12% over the last year. We hear from those businesses that are thinking about investing in the UK that they are very concerned about the £1 billion in additional costs that were imposed on business under the Employment Rights Act. There is now talk of the trade unions pressing for another employment rights Act, which would impose even more burdens on business. What is the Minister going to do about this?

[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.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK has been a premier destination for foreign investment. This has enriched the financial sector, which has mediated the inflows of capital. However, in the process, we have experienced a loss of economic sovereignty. We no longer own our airports, seaports, energy industry, water industry, rolling stock and much else besides. Moreover, the heightened demand for sterling has led to its overvaluation and to the collapse of our export industries. What can the Government do to lessen the detriment of foreign direct investment?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

We are trying to balance the need for foreign direct investment to ensure that our industrial strategy is fully capitalised. One answer to the question is that we welcome foreign direct investment from partners around the world that are aligned to our strategic intention, but the greater opportunity is to access the reforms made through the Mansion House Accord and Sterling 20 to ensure that our pension capital is utilised in funding and capitalising our industrial strategy. I do not agree with the noble Viscount’s premise that foreign direct investment is inherently bad, but there is a huge opportunity in our pension services and providers to make sure that our pensions reap the benefits of not only the innovation that we are going through but the economic growth.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

Is the Minister aware of the key role that was undertaken over a 25-year period by the Welsh Development Agency, which helped attract more than 200 businesses from the United States and more than 50 businesses from Japan to invest in Wales? If, following the coming election to the Senedd, the next Welsh Government take steps to establish a similar agency, will the UK Government co-operate fully with them in fulfilling those objectives?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

What has been rewarding since I took this job on seven months ago is the ability to work with all the devolved nations, realising that every part of our country needs to benefit from the economic development that is coming through. We have members of our Office for Investment teams throughout the United Kingdom and the devolved nations, and I look forward to working with any partner that can encourage growth and innovation around our industrial strategy.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Banning investment in new diesel or petrol vehicles, putting on very high energy taxes and having very high energy prices are a massive turn off to large sectors of industry worldwide. Will the Government lift the bans and lower the taxes and then we will have much more investment?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

If anything is clear from the past couple of weeks, it is that energy sovereignty and controlling our own destiny when it comes to energy is critical. The macro environment and geopolitics are regrettable and unfortunate. They bring pressures on our energy, but security and the commitment we have made to low-cost renewable energy for the long term is where this Government will stay the course. The call for new fossil fuel exploration misses the point somewhat, in that the near-term pressures that we are feeling will not be solved by new exploration licences in the near term. We are committed to the net-zero goals and renewable sovereign energy powers, and that is where we hold control and our own destiny.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, as the UK trade envoy for Bangladesh, I am very aware of the need for accurate information about and strong promotion of the opportunities for foreign investment in the UK. Our diplomatic missions across the world do brilliant work on this, which I have seen at first hand. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that the Office for Investment will continue to support these diplomatic missions in the work that they do and make the Treasury aware that funding those diplomatic missions in this work is very good value for money?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. It is incredibly important that people understand that we have partnerships and relationships that go deep around the globe and that they are critically important. The trading relationships act as the gateway to having diplomatic conversations—and conversations where we might disagree with partners. The trade deal we did with India had a number of conditions that allow us to have difficult conversations on areas where we might not always see eye to eye. I agree wholeheartedly that these roles need to be protected. I commend all the people who work in the regions and in the Foreign Office’s global network.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, a report from the CBI and Energy UK found that 40% of firms have reduced investment because of high electricity costs, going back to a question that was just asked. Does the Minister accept that funding contracts for difference—subsidies through electricity bills—is making Britain more expensive and that key industrial sectors are becoming increasingly unattractive for investment, both foreign and domestic?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

It is undeniable that there is a challenge in trying to get the balance between the energy sovereignty that I previously mentioned and the need to make us attractive in the short term. This Government are taking practical steps to reduce barriers, including targeted regulatory simplification, faster grid connections, planning reforms and action on energy costs. The energy-intensive industries exemption scheme provides 85% relief on electricity policy costs for eligible energy-intensive industries. The British industrial competitiveness scheme makes eligible firms exempt from green energy levies, and 7,000 companies come under that scheme. Trying to balance our need for sovereignty and attractiveness for investment is something to which we give careful consideration day by day.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, how confident are we in our relationship with the United States when we have a President who seems to change his mind from day to day?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

It is clear that we are trying to retain long-term stability and our own attractiveness as a place for investment. The US is clearly a key partner; it has been historically and it will be in the future. We are trying to make sure that our global reputation does not focus on one relationship. I am certain that the trade deal that we are negotiating should bear fruit over the coming months.

UK-India: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

Lord Stockwood Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Grand Committee

[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 Stockwood Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Stockwood]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 January be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 25 February.

Motions agreed.

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

Lord Stockwood Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Stockwood]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Conferral of Functions) Regulations 2026.

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

My Lords, I will speak also to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026.

These instruments relate to the alternative dispute resolution, or ADR, chapter in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—the Act—which received Royal Assent in May 2024. The Act repeals the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015 and replaces it with a strengthened framework in Chapter 4 of Part 4.

In most instances, disputes between consumers and businesses can be resolved without the need for any formal action. But when consumers and the trader cannot come to a resolution, ADR is an effective means to secure redress for the consumer without resorting to litigation. All ADR providers are independent third parties offering dispute resolution that is usually less confrontational to the consumers and businesses involved. But not all ADR providers have the same accreditations and standards, so consumers can experience inconsistent quality of services.

For ADR to be effective, it must be of high quality and meet certain standards. The Act aims to strengthen the quality of ADR available to consumers by: introducing a mandatory accreditation framework for ADR providers for consumer contract disputes; providing a robust set of accreditation criteria to ascertain ADR providers’ expertise, transparency, independence and accessibility prior to their being accredited; and providing ongoing monitoring and review to ensure that accredited ADR providers continue to meet those high standards. The Act includes the power to revoke or suspend accreditation, limit accreditation, or impose further conditions if a provider is found to be non-compliant.

The intention of mandating accreditation of ADR providers is to strengthen the ADR framework in the UK. The Government believe that these changes will help deliver a trustworthy, timely and fair service that consumers and businesses can trust to resolve consumer disputes, with improved oversight to monitor standards and ensure consistency.

Section 307 of the Act allows certain ADR functions to be conferred on another person. The regulations before the Committee confer on the Chartered Trading Standards Institute—CTSI—responsibility for managing the provision of ADR in consumer contract disputes in non-regulated sectors, including the functions of accreditation, monitoring and reporting on the operation and effectiveness of ADR provision.

This includes upholding the standards of ADR providers in the UK through powers to compel or sanction ADR providers to improve performance in the event that they do not meet their obligations. It also requires the CTSI to prepare quarterly and annual reports for the Secretary of State for the Department for Business and Trade.

The reports will contain information and metrics on the performance of the CTSI, ADR providers, and the ADR landscape in the UK to ensure accountability and transparency and enable the Secretary of State to maintain oversight of the operation of the system of accreditation and the provision and quality of ADR carried out in the UK. The decision to confer these functions on the CTSI has been taken in recognition of the CTSI’s authority, track record and expertise in this area, including its long-standing and constructive relationships with ADR providers.

Separately, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 make amendments to primary and secondary legislation in consequence of Chapter 4, Part 4 of the Act coming into force, and the revocation of the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015.

The consequential amendments deal with the redundant references to the 2015 alternative dispute resolution regulations and, in some cases, replace them with a reference to Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Act. These amendments do not materially change the policy or affect the underlying law; they simply keep the statute book up to date in the usual way.

As I hope is clear from these remarks, the intention of both sets of regulations is to support and strengthen the ADR framework in the UK. They will put it on a stronger footing that provides a consistent, trustworthy, timely and fair service that consumers and businesses can trust to resolve disputes amicably, with improved oversight to monitor the service standards. I invite noble Lords to support the passage of these instruments.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

The Minister answered very fully the question about the fees and how they would be monitored, but those were the fees to the consumers. I asked a separate question about why it did not seem to be a cost to the provider of the services, who would also benefit from the ADR. If he does not have the answer, perhaps he could write to me.

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I think I did cover that but, if I did not, I will come back. The accredited providers will charge only a fee that is agreed already with the CTSI. That will be agreed up front and that will be published so that consumers know the charges they will be subject to. Perhaps we can pick this up afterwards. If that is not sufficient, I am happy to take further questions and to come back with a more detailed answer.

Motion agreed.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

Lord Stockwood Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Stockwood]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026.

Motion agreed.

US Tariffs

Lord Stockwood Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the UK economy of the announcement by President Donald Trump of increased tariffs, and what representations they plan to make to the government of the United States.

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

My Lords, the Supreme Court ruling does not affect the majority of trade under the economic prosperity deal, including the sectoral tariffs agreed on steel, pharmaceuticals and automotives. The Business Secretary spoke to his counterpart at the weekend and underlined his concerns about uncertainty for businesses and reinforced the need to honour the UK-US trade deal. We continue to engage with the Administration at all levels. Our priority remains to secure the best possible outcome for British businesses.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Does he agree that, following the Supreme Court judgment, the decision of the United States President to impose, even on a temporary basis, tariffs of up to 15% is deeply damaging to confidence, both in this economy and in that of the United States? Can the Minister say a little more about what now remains of the trade deal negotiated by the Government less than a year ago, which was supposed to give us a preferential advantage over other European countries, but now we all face a universal global tariff of 10%?

Has the Minister also seen the warning over the weekend from the United States trade representative that, in order to assess what tariffs are necessary for the future, “most major trading partners” of America will face accelerated investigations into trading practices, which, of course, could include things such as pharmaceutical pricing, which were excluded from the agreement before? Will the Government undertake not just to defend Britain’s actions and Britain’s interests vigorously but also to ensure that the outcome of these discussions leaves us no worse off than we were before these unfortunate announcements?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a number of challenging and fast-moving issues, and I will try to respond as fully as I can. It is worth stating that the UK secured that preferential deal last year, driven by the Prime Minister’s direct engagement with President Trump. That was trying to give British businesses certainty and competitive advantages. The ruling at the weekend does not affect our preferential treatment in the key sectors such as pharma, cars and steel that the noble Lord mentioned.

The Business Secretary spoke to US trade representative Jamieson Greer this weekend, making clear our concerns about uncertainty and our degree of confidence in the honouring of those agreements that we needed, and he had those reassurances. UK officials across Whitehall and Washington are engaging intensively with the US as we speak, and those discussions will continue all of this week, at which time we can update the House. It is worth stating that we have always had a cool-headed and pragmatic approach to trade deals, and while I would not comment on other Governments’ policies, we do have a competitive advantage globally in the sectors we set out in the original negotiation. The biggest beneficiaries of this weekend’s announcements are those trade barriers coming down for other countries, but we still have the best deal globally, and we continue to negotiate to retain that preferential position.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, would the Minister say whether the Government’s information leads them to suppose that the President’s choice of 15% and its differential impact on countries was deliberate or inadvertent?

[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.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I know that history does not always repeat itself, but would it be a kindness at this stage to remind President Donald Trump that the American tariff protections of the 1930s by Smoot and Hawley played a major part in accelerating the onset of the Second World War?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

Yes, I thank the noble Lord for that.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, the Minister quite rightly referred to pharmaceuticals and their importance. Can he clarify whether the derogation regarding pharmaceuticals will include the equipment and technology used for testing the need for and application of pharmaceuticals?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I will have to come back to the noble Lord on that question. The pharmaceuticals deal was for medical exports to the US for at least three years.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, while we welcome the industrial strategy that was mentioned by my noble friend the Minister, does he agree that, in these deeply uncertain times when there is much instability, the reset with the European Union on which our Government have embarked grows in importance by the day?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

As I mentioned, the cool-headed approach that the Government are taking includes many of our global trading partners. It is worth reminding the House that, while the US is a critical trading partner, with £330 billion of bilateral trade, the EU makes up 40% of our global trade and is an incredibly important partner, so those negotiations are ongoing. We have to redefine our position in the world, not just with the EU but as we have done with our trade deal with India and as we are doing with the Gulf states et al. It is undeniable that our relationship with Europe will be critical to our economic growth over the coming decades.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, somewhat bizarrely, the trading partners of the US that are the greatest beneficiaries of President Trump’s new regime are Brazil, China and India, which are currently looking at net falls in their tariffs of 5% to 13%, while the UK, in spite of our preferential status, will see a net average tariff increase of 2.1%. That is the highest rate in Europe and compares with the eurozone’s 0.8%. I am quoting figures from Global Trade Alert, a trade monitoring service. Does the Minister recognise these figures, and what is his reaction to them?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I recognise the figures quoted, but they are speculation at this stage. The deals on preferential rates for farmers, automotive, et cetera were agreed terms, but that was the beginning of the negotiations, not the end. The preferential deal that was secured was brought about by direct engagement between the Prime Minister and President Trump. The EPD negotiations remain ongoing, and we will look to further protect the UK’s interests with further announcements over the coming weeks. It is worth reminding the House that the UK was the first country to see tariffs removed for civil aerospace goods, and we remain the only country to retain those secured 10% tariffs on automotive, steel and aluminium. We are prepared to fight for British businesses from here on in as well.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we all know that President Trump is extremely transactional in his international relations and respects only those who bargain hard with him. Are His Majesty’s Government considering imposing a new and hard tax on foreign-owned golf courses?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I am not aware that that is part of the negotiations.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, is there a role for the World Trade Organization in this tariff-led turmoil?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

At the moment, these are bilateral conversations. We are acting in good faith and hope that they will come to a successful resolution.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are trying to reassure the nation that they do not expect the ruling to affect the majority of trade under the economic prosperity deal, but as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, there is huge uncertainty. Can the Minister clarify precisely what proportion of UK exports to the United States that represents and which sectors now fall outside that protection?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

The confidence that I am trying to relay is not unfounded. As we saw from last week’s announcements, part of the macroeconomic situation that we are trying to turn around has seen inflation fall and the largest recorded government surplus since the 1990s. That is the overall message that we are trying to relay. In terms of specific industries, the negotiations are ongoing. I do not have the specific numbers to hand, but I remind the House that, globally, we have the most preferential deal with the rates that we have secured for industries, and we will continue to fight on behalf of British business.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, one way to deal with this issue is by the acceleration of the free trade agreements. Under the last Government, we had agreements with New Zealand, Australia and then the CPTPP. Under this Government, we have accelerated those agreements. The Minister mentioned the six Gulf states and the GCC free trade agreement. Is there any update on the GCC FTA negotiations and what comes next?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a really important question about our current trading relationship based on the new world order that we find ourselves in. I do not have a specific update on the GCC deal; my noble friend knows that I was out there a couple of weeks ago, and we are incredibly close to an agreement. I should like to reassure the House that, in my travels around the globe, I find that we are still seen as a major place for investment globally. We have competitive advantage in our industrial strategy, in our rule of law and in our talent base. The trade deal that we did with India was significant, and the trade deal with the US remains the first and best trade deal that the US has negotiated. While this weekend has thrown up some bumps in the road, we remain confident. The negotiation with the Gulf states is ongoing but remains very positive, and we hope to have some good news in the coming weeks.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, I read somewhere that the Department for International Trade is going to be reducing the number of experts in the field from 1,600 to 1,000. Is now really the time to be reducing our global staff by a third when our businesses need all the support they can get at this time of tariff turmoil?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I thank my noble predecessor for the question. We are trying to balance the pressure from the public world to right-size our Civil Service more broadly to make it more effective—technology and information are tools that can help us with that. We are also trying to balance the public purse to ensure that we have the right quality of people to address the significant challenges that we have as a Government. It is not a zero-sum game. We have very talented people; I addressed the team in the Gulf when I was out there a couple of weeks ago, and I remain impressed by the quality of the people that we have in this sector. But it is undeniable that we must make sure, based on the advantages that we have in technology and information flows these days, that we also have the right number of people in markets at the same time.

[Lord Skidelsky (CB)]

My Lords, is there anyone in the Government thinking about alternatives to trade wars or trade deals as a way of organising the economic affairs of the world? The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is quite right: historically, tariffs tend to set the ground for war. That was also true before 1914, when there was a big increase in world tariffs. Who in the Government is thinking about alternative ways of organising the trade relations of the world? I am asking this not as a matter of policy but as a matter of thinking about the world we seem to be drifting into.

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a really important philosophical question. From my personal experience during the last six months, we are trying to readjust to both a post-Brexit world and a new world order with what we are seeing in the US, China and the EU in particular. We have to make sure that we are protecting our own economic interests. I am seeing a high regard still for our soft power in the world. We play that card particularly well, whether it is the institutional base of our universities, our talent base or our research. We are trying to make sure that we play to the assets and capabilities that we have. Trade remains important, but we also have to react to the new world order and be responsive to it in order to make sure that we are not left behind.

Post Office Capture and Horizon Scandals

Lord Stockwood Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sahota]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will provide an update on the Post Office Capture and Horizon scandals.

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

My Lords, as of 31 January 2026, over £1.4 billion has been paid to more than 11,300 victims of the Horizon scandal. The Government are also making strong progress in implementing recommendations from volume 1 of the Horizon inquiry, strengthening the operation of the schemes and accelerating the delivery of redress. As of the same date, DBT had received 153 complete applications under the Capture redress scheme. Of these, 30 have been deemed eligible, with the remaining 123 undergoing eligibility assessment. Five individuals have received their full payment.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. My friend, Kuldip Gill, ran a post office in 1995 in my neighbourhood. He was accused by the Post Office of stealing £5,000. He protested but had to pay. A few months later, his contract was terminated by the Post Office. Without a job, and with financial pressure and shame in the community, he started to drink and became an alcoholic. Within a year, he died of a brain haemorrhage induced by alcohol. He was only 53.

When, 30 years later, his wife was in a care home, I asked her whether she had put in a claim for compensation. She said that she had been told that she was not entitled to any. I told her that the Capture system was as faulty as the previous one, and she put in a claim and last year received her compensation. How many more postmasters and their families have died or left the country and have not put in their claim, or are simply not aware of their rights? Do the Government have any plan or policy to find them so that they can put in their claims?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his question and am truly sorry to hear about the terrible ordeal faced by Mr Gill and his wife. We remain firmly committed to ensuring that those affected by the Capture and Horizon systems receive the redress they fully deserve. The Government and the Post Office have proactively contacted postmasters to confirm their eligibility and to encourage them to come forward.

On the Horizon convictions redress scheme, for example, DBT has written to 142 people who have had a conviction quashed but may not have yet applied to the scheme, encouraging them to apply. This has led to 29 new HCRS registrations. On Capture, I am happy to hear that redress has now at least reached the family referred to by my noble friend. The scheme has been designed precisely to ensure that others in similar circumstances are not missed.

The long time that has passed since the software was in use means that the full cohort of users is not known. That is why we continue strongly to encourage anyone who believes that they used Capture and experienced a shortfall to come forward. This includes family members applying on behalf of postmasters who have sadly passed away and cannot apply themselves.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, the Capture system was the predecessor of the Horizon system. The Government are paying compensation to all the Capture sub-postmasters—except those who have convictions. Given that the Post Office’s behaviour towards the Capture sub-postmasters was every bit as bad as that towards the Horizon sub-postmasters, and that we cannot expect Capture sub-postmasters to have retained documents for over 25 years to present to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, will the Minister acknowledge that for us to fail to overturn the Capture convictions perpetuates the most ghastly injustice?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot—and the noble Lord, Lord Beamish—for supporting the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board; it is very much appreciated and important work. The noble Lord will know that the legislation followed over 100 successful Horizon conviction appeals through the existing processes. However, as he mentions, no convictions related to Capture have been overturned to date. However, we must therefore allow the independent judiciary to consider safety of convictions through the established process, and we continue to support the work of the CCRC. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further, as that process needs to be independent and run its full course.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that response, but noble Lords in yesterday’s Committee stage of the Victims and Courts Bill debated the urgent need to change the courts’ presumption that computer system evidence is always reliable. Everyone in that debate, including the Minister, agreed that this must be changed, not least following the Horizon scandal. Despite what the Minister said, will he and the Minister in yesterday’s Committee please work together to ensure that this change happens as soon as possible?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I can confirm to the noble Baroness that the department will work to try to ensure that that comes to its logical conclusion.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, as the person who first exposed the Capture system, I welcome the fact that victims are now being paid. That was in spite, for example, of the Post Office, which, with all the publicity around Horizon, never publicly pointed out that the Capture system existed. There are 29 cases of individuals who were prosecuted. The Government’s stance has been to refer them to the CCRC, which I do not think is the appropriate way of doing it. Can the Minister tell me why, in the one case that has now been referred to the Court of Appeal, which is Patricia Owen’s case, the Post Office is going to defend against it? Given the fact that, when I first exposed it, I and the campaigners had more information about the system than the Post Office, I would like to understand on what grounds the Post Office is going to resist that case. Also, how much money—public money, we should remember, at the end of the day—will be spent defending the indefensible?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

Again, I thank the noble Lord for his work overall on the Horizon and Capture scandals. While, again, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on a specific case, I can say that the Post Office was the original prosecutor in the criminal case on this specific Capture conviction—not this department, obviously. Therefore, the Post Office has responsibility for responding, and for conducting the case and the appeal. Again, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the ongoing case.

[Lord Magan of Castletown (Con)]

My Lords, I ask the Minister whether Fujitsu has yet paid a single penny to the sufferers in this terrible saga. If it has not, why not? Secondly, has Fujitsu been awarded further government contracts since that time, and if so, why? This is a national scandal that has lasted far too long. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot are the two people who have really tried to find justice for these very unfortunate people who have suffered, as we heard in the introductory remarks.

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I share and acknowledge the noble Lord’s passion for the subject. Accountability for Fujitsu will be rooted in evidence and due process. Wyn Williams’ inquiry is the proper mechanism for establishing what went wrong and who is responsible, and for the financial commitment. Fujitsu has acknowledged a moral responsibility to contribute to the costs of that redress, and Minister McDougall met with the European CEO in December last year and, in the recent Select Committee, the CEO confirmed the commitment to follow that moral responsibility with financial responsibility.

To the secondary question about government contracts, Fujitsu rightly said that it will not be applying for new government contracts unless the Government ask it to, where those services are necessary. In researching this question, I imagined this would come up: the Government have 68 live contracts with Fujitsu in some critical services, which include HMRC’s self-assessment tool and the Home Office’s border control systems. Walking away from these contracts instantly would do serious damage to important public services, so this is not a viable option. However, it has committed to the new software for the Post Office being completed in the middle of next year. If we were to stop that software service today, all postmasters would have to close. That is not pragmatic, unfortunately.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will already be aware that there is considerable concern in this House, on all sides, that there are still victims who have not received financial compensation. Beyond that, what specific non-financial support is being provided to those victims who have suffered significant mental health harm, and how are the Government ensuring that appropriate psychological and restorative support will remain available?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

The noble Lord reminds us all that, behind each of these numbers, there is an individual family that has suffered, as my noble friend so rightly highlighted today. The process that has been set out is careful to ensure that we are not retraumatising people going through the redress system. A new scheme called the family members redress scheme is currently in consultation with the Lost Chances group. We expect announcements shortly to ensure that the noble Lord’s question is fully answered.

Land Covenants: Supermarket Chains

Lord Stockwood Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in doing so, I declare my interest as a holder of a number of loyalty club cards with various supermarket chains and also my membership of the Co-op.

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

My Lords, the Competition and Markets Authority is currently assessing whether additional retailers should be designated under the controlled land order and brought within its scope. We continue to engage with the CMA and will consider its findings carefully once it has concluded its assessment later this year.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that incomplete reply. The situation is absolutely unsatisfactory in that the seven main supermarket chains have been obliged to adhere to strict requirements on restrictive covenants in their area, preventing others from opening shops nearby, whereas newcomers such as Aldi and Lidl, which have now grown to an enormous size—a commensurate size—are not required to fulfil those obligations. That surely is wrong. If the Competition and Markets Authority has any role in life, surely it must be to have a level-playing field in retailing.

[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.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, we all recognise the importance of competition, not just for economic growth but for the competitive pressure that keeps prices low for consumers. As the Minister has acknowledged, it is obviously not fair that some large retailers operate under different rules. At the same time, however, the fairness test fails when one considers this Government’s business rate policies. Does the Minister think it is fair that business rates will rise by 115% on hotels over three years but only 4% on supermarkets?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

Taking a broad perspective on the question, I came into government to support the pro-business agenda. What the Government are trying to enact is the ability to stabilise the economy based on fiscal rules, to create an investment environment that is investable from all parts of the market, and then, importantly, to look at regulation to enforce that fairness and sense of competitive tension. The Government are committed to reforming the business rates regime, and that work has already begun. At the Budget, the Chancellor announced a permanent 5p cut in the business rates multiplier for over 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties, which is also funded by the higher tax rate for the most expensive 1% of properties. We continue to take feedback to try to create the right fiscal conditions for businesses to be able to thrive.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, like most regulators, this one is failing the general public. Do we not need to review all our regulators to make sure that they are doing the job that they are supposed to do? If the legislation needs strengthening, then strengthen it—but also hold the regulators to account for the work that they do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I share some of the views that the noble Lord put over. As I have learned from my 20-plus years in business, the role of government is to set the regulatory conditions so that business can do the work in growing the economy. What we are seeing from the Government is a commitment to reduce the regulatory burden overall. Our Regulation Action Plan commits to reducing the £22 billion annual burden by 25%. There are reforms in place, and the unlocking business consultation means that we will take direct feedback from the market. It is beholden on us to ensure we set the conditions for businesses to thrive, while also ensuring that we have the right regulation in place so that we do not see the abuses of power that have been suggested by these particularly restrictive covenants.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the CMA also has a role to play in looking at the work of the Groceries Code Adjudicator? There is a great imbalance of power between the big supermarkets and the very small horticultural businesses and fruit growers in this country. Does he agree that it would be better if the Groceries Code Adjudicator could take an own-initiative inquiry off its own bat, rather than waiting for a producer to come forward with a complaint? That producer could so easily be identified and possibly lose their contract with the supermarket.

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

In my relative newness to government, I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. Overall, it is correct that the CMA’s regulatory framework should have independence. I would love to pick up that discussion outside the Chamber; I do not know the detail of that, but it sounds like an important thing that we should follow up on.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I will pick up from my noble friend’s question comparing hospitality and retail on the high street. Recently, a pub closed on a high street that was paying £67,000 in business rates. It was taken over by a supermarket, which now pays £16,000 in business rates—and, of course, supermarkets sell alcohol at cost price. Can the Minister look into this and provide much-needed help for hospitality on our high streets? Without hospitality, our high streets will become deserts.

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

Again, the noble Lord raises an important issue about our high streets. While it is not within the range of this Question, I am willing to follow it up. The Government announced a £150 million package for supporting our high streets, but I agree that we should go further on this.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, in considering the use of land by supermarkets, does the Minister agree with me that there is huge acreage sitting unused on top of supermarkets throughout the country? Given the housing shortage, would it not make sense to put pressure on supermarkets to use that space to provide housing, perhaps in a prefab state so that it is made easily, quickly and accessibly? After all, the shops are nearby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

It is important to state that the reason for some of these restrictive covenants in business is that they are commercially negotiated and should be mutually agreed in the bounds of setting up a contract. This is quite a normal course of action, so I want to make sure that I am not stood here in any way demonising the large retailers entirely. However, particularly pertinent to the point of the homes target, the Government, through the Planning and Infrastructure Act, are looking at how we streamline all our planning for homes and critical infrastructure, and I suggest that land usage by the major retailers would come within that review as well.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Watts, does the Minister share my concern that, over recent months, there is increasing evidence that delays from the Competition and Markets Authority are having a serious effect on a number of key areas? The noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned the digital markets regulation side, but there are also outstanding decisions on veterinary services, cloud computing and legal services. The Minister may be aware that the authority is now looking at what it calls the four Ps project—pace, predictability, proportionality and process. Is he happy with its progress?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

In preparation for this Question, I spent a bit more time than I should have done learning about the CMA’s role. I agree that, as we look to create a regulatory framework that is both agile and appropriate, it is only right that we ask the same questions of the CMA. There is a strong strategic steer from this Government about making sure that we have the right regulation and application for growth and pace. On price, product, place and promotion, I suggest that we have to reverse that and apply it to the CMA, so I will be asking that question and will come back to the noble Lord on that.

Hospitality Businesses

Lord Stockwood Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support hospitality businesses.

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

My Lords, hospitality businesses are fundamental to the life of our communities. As such, we are introducing permanently lower business rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, and a £4.3 billion support package over three years to shield rate payers from bill increases following the revaluation. In addition, the Chancellor announced earlier today that every pub and live music venue will receive 50% off their new business rates on top of this support, and bills will be frozen for two years. Moving forward, we will review the valuation methodology for pubs and hotels as well.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s announcements are welcome, as far as they go, and will provide some short-term relief to three out of four pubs, but in three years’ time, when the discounts and the freeze end, bills will still rise by 76%. Also, there was nothing for hotels beyond a review of valuation methodology, despite the fact that hotels’ rates will rise by 115% over three years. Why do the Government not just apply the 20p discount that is allowed in legislation across the entire hospitality sector, instead of the current 5p? That proposal has the virtue of being much simpler and cleaner than endless reviews and freezes. Why is this relief restricted to three years, and when will the review of hotel rates be delivered?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

Business rate reform has been on the agenda for the last number of Parliaments and this Government have taken it on. Since I came into government six months ago, I have been proud that our overall objectives have been about stability in our economy, bringing down inflation—it is on target for next year—and making sure that consumers have more money that they can spend in the hospitality industry. Alongside that, the review of overall business rates and the commitment of £4.3 billion mean that over a third of businesses will pay no business rates, over half of ratepayers will see no increases and 23% will see their bills going down. This is funded by targeting those with higher rateable values. Overall, while the main thing is bringing stability to the economy and bringing inflation down to make sure that consumers are spending, reform of revaluation is increasingly important as well.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, while, of course, there is a need for holistic reform of business rates—the Liberal Democrats have long proposed a commercial land- owner levy—in the short term, just as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, suggested, reducing the retail, hospitality and leisure multiplier by 20p, as opposed to the Government’s 5p, would make a big difference. The whole retail and high street sector has been hit by this—not just pubs or hospitality—so does the Minister recognise that the current proposals, while welcome, are too small and narrow to help our high streets?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I clearly acknowledge that there are challenges in the economy that are not of the making of the last 18 months alone. Changing consumer behaviours post Covid are a challenge for our overall economy. However, to restate what I said before, we need to get the economy back on track overall and ensure that we have fiscal responsibility. This package alone will cost us £4.3 billion. The additional announcements today on pubs and live music venues take that even further. On average, that relief will be more than £1,600 per pub. We have to do all that while balancing the overall needs of the economy with fiscal responsibility, which the Government set out as major proposals.

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, in my maiden speech last week, I spoke about the important role that local government can and should play in creating and curating place. With that in mind, does my noble friend the Minister agree that local authorities can be good and effective champions for the hospitality and retail sectors in their areas?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I welcome the noble Lord to the Chamber and thank him for his question. The national government policy that has been announced since we came in is critical, and local government is an even more critical part of leadership in our communities. Not only do local authorities offer the vision and ability to enact what is relevant to each community but they are close enough to the hospitality sector and individual high streets to know what is needed. I thank the noble Lord for his contributions so far and look forward to working with him.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, hospitality businesses across the south-west of England, particularly those in our coastal and rural areas beloved of tourists, suffer from an inability to attract staff in specialist roles. A major cause of this is a chronic lack of suitable housing, particularly due to planning restrictions and the popularity of second homes. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that housing is available for those seeking a career in hospitality in our rural and coastal communities? I note my interest as the owner of a hospitality business in Devon.

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I believe the original Question was about helping the hospitality sector. The comment about housing is outside the purview of my domain of expertise as Minister for Investment. However, the Government are investing in young people’s futures holistically. We have seen a sharp decline in apprenticeships. We are trying to implement a new foundation apprenticeship to give young people a route into critical sectors. While I acknowledge that housing is a critical part of that, making the economy grow more holistically is a way that we can ensure that the hospitality sector works in its own right.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I listened very carefully to the Minister, but he did not answer the question about hotels, particularly family-run hotels. Their rates bills are going to rise by even more than pubs’ and there is no help coming for them. What are they to do? They run fantastic businesses, which attract people to rural areas in particular, but they face rises in their business rates of over 100% in April.

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

The department is in constant dialogue with all industry sectors, including the hotel sector. We are trying to balance support for the overall economy with the need to be fiscally responsible in this Parliament as well. We continue to take feedback and will respond to that, but today we are focused on cutting rates overall, which, as I have said, has been on the agenda within the last couple of Parliaments, but we have taken it head on.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, I note the rather grumpy welcome from the Opposition for the measures that the Government have taken. I say, let the good times roll. This is a tremendous announcement, particularly for pub-goers and for gig-goers. However, is any consideration being given to add to these measures with some relief for recording studios, which are very much part of the R&D of the music industry and are generally accessible to the public as places that they can book for their private use?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I share the noble Lord’s optimism for the positive steps taken today and generally, in the last five months of being in government, for the way that the economy is shaping up after the last couple of decades. The announcements made today were on the back of the £4.3 billion for rate revaluation and really focused on live music venues and pubs as well. Perhaps I could refer everyone to the Statement made an hour ago. If there are specific follow-ups, I can come back to that, but I do not have any further detail on those venues at the moment.

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, the wider visitor economy, of which the hospitality industry is such a valuable part, is worth some £127 billion a year to the economy and 3.9% of all jobs. It is therefore a valuable export industry. Last year, for the first time for several years, the number of international visitors was down, and the ForwardKeys data for VisitBritain show an 11% drop in long-haul flights. This, as the Minister will know, follows on from several years of cuts to the VisitBritain grant in aid and the Great programme. What are the Government going to do to reverse that?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

There are a number of difficult choices that we are trying to make. The visitor economy is clearly a huge part of who we are and what we should be proud of in this country. The industrial strategy we have set out is around eight key sectors that have comparative advantage to us, but, again, all those are about how we can make the economy stronger overall so that we can have an attractive proposition for all our industries, including our hospitality and the tourism sectors.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, given that road safety must be paramount, would the Minister share with us the Government’s current thinking on drink-driving levels? Does he accept that drink-driving campaigners will never cease campaigning until they have zero drink-driving? What assessment have the Government made of the effect on our beleaguered and hard-pressed rural hubs if the levels were to be reduced further than they are now?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I will have to come back and write to the noble Lord specifically about the drink-driving regulations; I do not have that to hand for this Question. I can tell the noble Lord that this Government are committed to supporting the great British pub. Like many Peers who started their careers in the industry, I worked both as a waiter and as a barman. The Budget is looking not just at the commitments we can make financially but at positive licensing reforms overall, including the first national licensing policy framework. However, I will come back specifically to write to the noble Lord on the question of drink-driving.