UK-India Free Trade Agreement

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I am delighted to see not just the excellent Minister for Trade, but the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] I did; just bank the win. I read that the Secretary of State is being earmarked as a caretaker Prime Minister, so we are pleased that he has the time to spend with us—I think we have 10 minutes before Labour colleagues have to run upstairs.

Richard Cobden said:

“I believe that Free Trade will do more to civilise the world than all the treaties of peace that have ever been signed.”

He was the former Member of Parliament for Stockport, but he was a resident in my own West Sussex constituency, near Midhurst. His advocacy of free trade, including in this House, was always about its benefits for ordinary people: cheaper food, higher wages and fewer incentives for people to wage destructive wars that had a huge impact on ordinary people.

We Conservatives agree. Those on the Conservative Benches will always be the party of free trade, where it benefits our country. That is why it was a Conservative Government who signed new landmark trade agreements with the EU, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, and negotiated the entry of the UK to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. It is why it was the Conservative Government who laid the foundations for this free trade agreement with India. And let us be absolutely clear: this agreement is a tangible benefit of the decision the British people made in 2016 to leave the political institution of Europe; the fruit of the independent trade policy we regained, allowing the United Kingdom to negotiate once again as a sovereign state, just like Canada, Australia and Switzerland —Britain first, not Britain hoping against experience that its interests would float to the top of a soup of 27 other conflicting flavours.

Since July 2024, the Indian economy has grown by 11%. For context, the European Union has grown by 1.9% in the same period. Under this Government, the British economy has grown by just 1.6%. Exports matter, so this deal has the potential to be a key part of a growth plan for our economy. However, as any business leader will tell us, the devil is not just in the detail of such deals, but in what is not in them. I welcome the excellent report by the Business and Trade Committee, which is very thorough and an important part of the scrutiny process of this House.

We are a nation for which services represent nearly half of our global exports. I am afraid it appears that the Government have accepted a deal that is disappointingly thin on the sectors where Britain leads the world. The inclusion of services in this deal was the No. 1 priority of the previous Government’s negotiations. Instead, this deal settles for locking in existing levels of liberalisation—all good—rather than breaking new ground on services. There is an absence of provisions for mobility to allow our service industries to really integrate in India, restricting our consultants, engineers and architects from practising on the ground.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend reflect on the view, which I hear a good deal in a constituency, which contains very many entrepreneurs both of Indian heritage and with connections to business in India, that this deal shows a Government who are not listening to the voice of business that has that level of experience, because they are missing out, as he is describing, on so many of the opportunities that those existing business links contain.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

I am in no way qualified to answer that. However, it is the Government’s position about crustacean welfare, and they should speak to it. Just before Christmas, they published a significant proposal to change the law on that. As ever in trade, this is not a point about the underlying fundamentals, on which the Minister will be advised by Government scientists and others—I did part of his job as Minister for Exports; it is a point about the symmetry and balance of the issue.

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend will recall that during the debates about post-Brexit trade agreements, the highest possible standards of animal welfare were raised frequently across the House on a cross-party basis. The matter my hon. Friend is talking about involves swapping prawns and other types of seafood caught in British waters to the highest possible standards with creatures reared using a method that involves pulling off their eyeballs while they are alive in order for them to lay more eggs so that more prawns can be produced more cheaply. I am sure we would all agree that is cruel and would not meet the expectations set out across the House. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a powerful point that illustrates the asymmetry in this deal, which he is quite rightly seeking to criticise?

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend puts the point in a better and more informed way than me. It is important, and it is for the Government to set out very clearly how they propose to maintain or create a level playing field on these matters so that producers operating here to British standards are not disadvantaged, while we all get the benefits of trade and prosperity that I spoke of.

Employment Rights Bill

David Simmonds Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

I start by pointing out my proud membership of the Communication Workers Union, just so I can get that on the record. Before I get into the issues with the amendments, I want to say that enough is enough. Unelected Lords must not get in the way of the democratic will of the people and the manifesto commitment to deliver this Bill and make work pay. My constituents have waited long enough, worked long enough and put up with it for long enough. Every delay means someone going to work ill. Every delay means another zero-hours week. Every delay means that, once again, someone gets away with bad practice.

The Lords amendments talk about a cap, but we have been here before. We have lifted caps before. Caps on compensation do not exist in cases of discrimination claims. There is no evidence to suggest that they have all of a sudden got out of control or gone absolutely mad —they have not, so we have been here before. We have lifted caps before to turn things around and send a clear message about what we want to build.

On the proposal to cap the fine for denying access to trade unions at £75,000, what sort of a cap is that? What would that do to global giants? We saw what Amazon did to the GMB to frustrate its organising. Why should we allow big businesses to pay to break the law? Frankly, we should not.

On guaranteed hours, there must be no loopholes and no cutting hours for a few weeks to dodge the law. We need a simple 12-week test, with a simple average of hours. That is fair, clear and enforceable.

This Bill is about common sense at work. If someone is sick, they should not be dragged into poverty; if they work regular hours, they should get a proper contract; and if they are unfairly treated, there should be consequences. This Bill was promised and voted for at the election; this Bill should now pass.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

We are addressing the specific issue of the removal of a limit on the cap. Of course, while this will have a big impact on businesses, it will also have a huge impact on our public sector. Large organisations that employ significant numbers of high-paid professionals, such as the NHS, will see their insurance costs driven up significantly by this measure, so it is all the more surprising that no consultation or impact assessment is before the House when we are asked to make the decision this evening.

We must reflect on the real-world impact of this measure, alongside the package of measures in a Bill that worthily deserves to be scrapped in its entirety. One of the proudest achievements of the last Conservative Government was that when we left office, youth unemployment was half what we inherited from the previous Labour Government. A huge share of those 4 million new jobs went to younger people. Today, the number of young people not in education, employment or training has hit over 1 million. The Resolution Foundation said, on this issue specifically, that

“young people are bearing the brunt of Britain’s jobs downturn”.

Most of us will have heard from businesses in our constituencies that all the measures in the Bill are significantly raising the barriers to entry for new workers into the market at a time when there is a double whammy. Our demographics as a country make it much harder to recruit them compared with older, more experienced workers, simply because there are fewer young people in our population. Imposing new measures like this that make it more expensive and harder for young people to get their first foot on the ladder is a dereliction of our duty to our economy. We must not forget that for our young people, many of whom we hope will end up as those high-paid professionals, getting and keeping a job is the thing that is most important in their lives—to their health, their mental wellbeing, their wealth and their long-term life prospects. In addition, it is our economy that pays not just for those people’s wellbeing, but for the public services on which so many other people depend.

In conclusion, while the whole Bill deserves to be scrapped—it is shocking to see the craven capitulation of the Liberal Democrats, rather than fighting the corner of British workers—let us at least vote to support this small change that has come from the other place. Let us show that somebody in this Chamber is on the side of jobseekers, wealth creators and those who will create future opportunities for our economy, our country and our people.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I will be brief. I proudly refer members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud member of several trade unions, and have indeed received money from trade unions to remove the Conservatives from power.

Speaking of removing the Conservatives from power, on 4 September I proudly voted, along with the vast majority of people in this House, to remove hereditary peers from the other place. I did so because I do not believe that individuals should be able to shape our laws purely because of the families they were born into. Whatever the arguments put forward on the Bill’s amendments, we are here today because hereditary peers stopped the progress of the Bill through the other place. The simple fact is that if we were to remove the hereditary peers who voted—

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

It is fantastic to hear about organisations in my hon. Friend’s community that, like many around the country, are acting at the grassroots to increase the number of defibrillators. Very soon, we will publish the criteria for the fund that I have just announced, opening it up for bids from organisations such as those, and I look forward to bids from them.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

5. What progress his Department has made on building 40 new hospitals.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

13. What his Department’s (a) budget and (b) timetable is for the delivery of 40 new hospitals.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)]

The Government are committed to building 40 new hospitals, which is why we have confirmed an initial £3.7 billion for the first four years of the new hospital programme.

[David Simmonds]

One of those 40 new hospitals is Hillingdon Hospital. At the start of this year, Hillingdon Council granted planning consent for the proposed new hospital, which is much awaited by my constituents. Will my right hon. Friend tell me when we might expect building work to commence?

[Steve Barclay]

As my hon. Friend knows, I have been to Hillingdon to look at the scheme. I am aware of how essential it is to his local area. He will know that on 22 February, the Prime Minister spoke at Prime Minister’s questions of the Government’s commitment to building 40 new hospitals, and I hope to announce something on that very shortly.