UK-India Free Trade Agreement

Debate between Andrew Griffith and Graham Leadbitter

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

Well, I was going to be generous to the Government and say something slightly positive. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Governments of all flavours could do an infinitely better job of listening to businesses. They are the people at the frontline in the real world. His constituents have very deep links to the economy of India and it represents a real opportunity. We support the deal, but the only tone today is one of slight regret about the missed opportunities. Of course, it is easy for a Government to get a deal if they take the deal being offered, rather than negotiating and seeking to improve that deal. Therein is some of the difference between the approach of our Government and—[Interruption.] Well, we did not get it because we were not willing to take the deal that was on the table. We were holding out and negotiating for a better deal.

Let me give the Minister an example of that—a quite surprising example, in many ways—which is the complete omission of a legal services sector deal from this agreement. The Law Society called that

“a missed opportunity for a significant breakthrough”.

The chair of the Bar Council said it was

“a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity”

missed. How ironic that a Government of lawyers, led by lawyers and stuffed full of lawyers, could not get even that aspect of the agreement across the line. The deal places a 36-month target—I hope it is a target, not an aspiration or ambition—for the conclusion of a mutual recognition of a professional qualifications agreement. That would be a great opportunity. Our services sector would welcome that, but I hope the Minister will agree with me that not to achieve that now would be to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It would be a humiliation for this Government and I hope he will address, when he winds-up, the precise plans to secure that agreement.

In a similar vein, the bilateral investment treaty that was planned to be agreed at the same time—it was in the original objectives for our deal—has also not been delivered. This is the deal that was offered, rather than the deal that could have been negotiated and improved. That leaves British investors exposed to sudden policy changes, unfair treatment and expropriation. I could, of course, be talking about the policies of this Government, but in this case I am talking about the Indian Government and the jeopardy for some significant British investors. Again, this is another missed opportunity—a deal that we support but that could have been better. I understand that the chief negotiator on the deal has confirmed that, sadly, there are no plans to return to the table to get an investment treaty across the line, but I would be very happy to stand corrected on that. Perhaps that point could be addressed in the Minister’s winding-up speech.

As we heard from the Minister, on day one the deal will grant Indian exporters of such wonders as textiles, gems and engineering goods immediate duty-free access to the British market. This is a welcome deflationary measure. It will come as good news for households as the price of goods in their weekly shops fall. Leather shoes, clothes, home furnishings and more will be cheaper under this deal. However, it is disappointing that this welcome reduction in tariffs is very far from symmetrical. Indian exporters benefit immediately, while British exporters sit in the waiting room. Scottish whisky producers, whom we have heard about, manufacturers of electric vehicles, the medical consumables industry and chemical producers will have to wait for between five and 10 years before tariffs are fully reduced.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman briefly mentions whisky. The deal is broadly welcomed by the Scottish whisky sector and I have welcomed it myself as an MP for a constituency with 49 distilleries—I am trying to visit them all. He talks about asymmetry in the deal, but is there not asymmetry in Labour Government policy, between the export deal, where they are trying to get the best possible deal for whisky, while whisky is still paying the highest levels of duty for alcohol in the UK? That is putting undue pressure on a sector that is already under pressure.

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I do not want to simply agree with him for the sake of it: it is not easy for Chancellors of whatever flavour to balance the books, but where we have wonderful industries such as all our drinks and spirits industries, including, if I may say so, our English wine industry, the Government must do everything they can to promote them—

Hospitality Sector

Debate between Andrew Griffith and Graham Leadbitter

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

As it happens, I was in Edinburgh yesterday, talking to representatives of the hospitality sector and the hard-pressed tourist sector, and they made exactly the same point to me.

This is unnecessary. It did not need to be this way. And to what end? An increase in the jobs tax to fund tax cuts for Mauritians and cookery classes for illegal migrants, or to let the bloated public sector work from home another day a week? If proof were needed of where hospitality ranks in the priorities of this Government, we need look no further than the pages of their own industrial strategy, because in 160 pages of closely typed text and hundreds of thousands of words, the word “hospitality” features just three times, one of which was a typo where they misspelt the word “hospital”. Let’s be frank, their attitude to hospitality is lamentable, and the bad news just keeps coming.

No Government that understood business would ever come forward with the Employment Rights Bill. Tony Blair did not. Gordon Brown did not. It is 330 pages that prove this Government are not serious about growth. They have zero appreciation for the seasonal and flexible work that suits the workers and the hospitality and tourism businesses alike. They are conscripting pub landlords into an attack on freedom of speech with a banter ban on overheard remarks—not harassment, but remarks that somebody could construe, misdirected at them, as offensive.

Any small business owner will say that the two words they fear the most in the English language are “employment tribunal”, yet the Government want to legislate to grow even further the half a million cases that are already in the employment tribunal backlog. There is no point concocting and cooking up additional workplace rights if people cannot find a job in the first place. That is why the top five business groups in the UK—almost exceptionally—wrote an open letter saying that the impact on growth will be deeply damaging and lead to job losses and recruitment freezes. That is here right now; that is what is happening on our high streets and in our communities across this country thanks to this Government damaging the hospitality sector.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I agree with the hon. Member on the point about employer national insurance contributions, but in the Press and Journal today—one of the august daily papers in Scotland—there are reports that highland hoteliers are struggling to recruit. The large part of the blame for that is laid at the door of Brexit, and the current immigration policy does nothing to help the highlands and islands in Scotland. There is demand for a rural visa, which is fully backed by the Federation of Small Businesses—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind Members that there are 45 of you wishing to speak. Interventions must be a lot shorter. I am sure the shadow Minister has got the hon. Gentleman’s point.