Government Procurement Strategy

Mike Wood Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing this urgent question—I know how rare it is for a Government Parliamentary Private Secretary. [Interruption.] She is not any more—I apologise. I welcome the Government’s ambition to modernise public procurement, but ambition, as ever, must be matched by delivery. There are a number of questions that the Minister must answer today.

The Government promised transparency through a new online register of commercial agreements. When precisely will that register be live, and will it be comprehensive from day one? Ministers often speak of backing small business. Will the Minister publish in a single, accessible place every Department’s SME target, its latest outturn and whether it is on or off track? On prompt payment, how many suppliers have actually been excluded from major contracts for failing to meet the required standards? If this strategy is truly about value for money, why have the Government still not resolved the fragmentation, poor-quality frameworks and poor use of data and technology that were identified by the National Audit Office?

On national security, contracting authorities are now required to assess risks not just from prime contractors, but from associated persons and subcontractors. How many procurements have been referred for national security consideration, and how many suppliers have been excluded or challenged as a result? What assurances can the Minister give that public contracts are not still flowing into supply chains with links to hostile states? What assessment has the Minister made of the EU’s emerging “Buy European” policies? Is that not a protectionist barrier by the European Union?

Finally, if social value is now mandatory at 10%, what assessment has been made of the risk that it adds cost and complexity, particularly for SMEs? I know that the House will want clear answers.

[Chris Ward]

I thank the hon. Member for those questions—let me try to answer a few of them.

First, on SMEs and Department spend, as I say, part of the aim of this package is to support SMEs and ensure that they have a greater chance of winning contracts. We did publish the departmental spends the day before recess. I know that there was a lot going on, but we have published them; they are there. They show an ambitious step forward. I believe that around £7 billion of Government contracts will go to SMEs as a result of those changes. I am proud of what we are doing; it is the first time that the Government have done it. We have helped drive that through and have worked hard on that.

The hon. Member asked about “Buy European”. That is not in conflict with any of our international agreements or, obviously, with our negotiations with the EU that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is leading on, and we work closely on that. At the heart of this package is a recognition that we need to use our procurement budget within international law and international regulations to do more to support our industries. That is the right thing to do, and I hope that we can get cross-party support.

The hon. Member asked about social value. Again, I think he was implying that we are making this mandatory. It is already mandatory and it is already weighted at 10% within the contracting system. I am not changing that; what I am saying is that I am changing the definition of social value so that it does more to support communities and to ensure that it really works, so there is no change on that.

The hon. Member asked me a couple of specific questions about national security. I will get back to him if that is okay, but in general terms, I hope that we can get cross-party support on this. The Procurement Act 2023 was passed with cross-party support and was a step forward, but this is the next big step in trying to ensure that we do much more with that budget to support Britain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Wood Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 April.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Queen Elizabeth II devoted her life to public service. As we mark the 100th anniversary of her birth, I am delighted that her extraordinary reign will be marked by a permanent memorial.

In recent days we have seen a series of despicable antisemitic arson attacks. With additional funding to deploy specialist officers, a fundamental reset of how we counter extremism and action to tackle the poison of antisemitism in our schools, our colleges and the NHS, we will do everything in our power to keep British Jews safe, and I am sure the whole House will join me in standing with our Jewish community. There is no place in British life for antisemitism.

Today my thoughts are also with the family of Stephen Lawrence, murdered in a racist attack 33 years ago today. We honour his legacy in the fight against racism and in providing opportunity for every young person.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Mike Wood]

Can the Prime Minister deny that Downing Street considered appointing Matthew Doyle to a diplomatic position?

[The Prime Minister]

Matthew Doyle worked for many years in public service for me as Prime Minister and other Ministers. When people leave roles in any organisation, there are often conversations about other roles that they want to apply for, but nothing came of this.

Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Mike Wood Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western]

In a moment—I am just beginning to make my speech. There is the point about some sort of conspiracy or cover-up at No. 10 on which I can disabuse the Leader of the Opposition. The point is to differentiate between the team around the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister himself.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Matt Western]

I want to allow others in.

The Prime Minister clearly delegated responsibilities to his chief of staff. It may be that the Leader of Opposition missed the fact that the Prime Minister sacked that—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

I want to address three aspects in my remarks: first, the appointment of Peter Mandelson in the first instance; secondly, the approach taken by the Prime Minister as details have emerged over the last few months; and finally, the vetting process overall.

The debate so far has been characterised by collective amnesia on the Opposition Benches. We have seen some amateur dramatic theatrics, and the leader of the Liberal Democrats has demonstrated why he is such a risk to trade and industry with one of our largest trading partners. We have seen the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who sits on the Opposition Benches, choosing to lecture Labour Members about traditions in the Labour party. We have even seen some of my hon. Friends, whose experience of No.10, I suspect, has been purely about attacking No.10 or in a disciplinary capacity, claiming to have real insight into the culture there.

At the core of the current debate is the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the USA. Clearly, Peter Mandelson’s background of resigning twice from a ministerial office has been a matter of public record, but while there are other allegations about his conduct, not all of them were in the public domain at the time. Many recent revelations have led to his dismissal from the post of ambassador, action in relation to his peerage, and referral to the police, which is an ongoing process.

It is clear to all that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed to the role. While that is the case, the apology offered by the Prime Minister on repeated occasions in this House and outside has been full, wholesome and without equivocation.

Most importantly, the Prime Minister has repeatedly and rightly apologised to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for making the appointment in the first instance.

[Mike Wood]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

No, I will not.

While the initial appointment has been, and I suspect will continue to be, a matter of debate, the Prime Minister’s apology cannot be faulted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Gardner]

I apologise, because I struggle with my hearing. I did not pick up everything that the hon. Lady said, but I will come to the vetting and security policy in a second. I hope that might deliver an answer for her.

Conservative Members are quibbling about the process, but I remind them that the policy of the FCDO being able to grant vetting, contrary to the advice of UKSV, has been running for many years under successive Governments. This Prime Minister and this Government are now reviewing the process, and I will reiterate the key points. Mandelson should never have been appointed as our ambassador. The Prime Minister has repeatedly acknowledged that and repeatedly apologised.

[Mike Wood]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Gardner]

I am conscious of the time. We have a seven-minute guideline, so I will carry on.

It is clear that Foreign Office officials granted developed vetting security clearance to Mandelson and never told Ministers that they had done so, against the recommendations of the vetting agency. That is shocking, and any reasonable person would have assumed that the information would have been proffered without asking. The policy is wrong. It should change, and as a result of the review, hopefully it will change. This Government—still less than two years old—will not let such a policy continue. I am pleased that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has immediately suspended the ability of the Foreign Office to grant security clearances. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen is not in his place, but I understand that he asked for that to be a short-term response for other security reasons, and I acknowledge his point.

Thanks to the previous Government, the cryptocurrency-fuelled damage of Reform and, of course, the economic suicide of Brexit, which both the Conservatives and Reform are responsible for, people are fed up and trust in politics is at an all-time low. Indeed, the Prime Minister recognises this and understands that recent revelations have further damaged that trust, and I acknowledge that. However, I stress that politics focused on people, not political process, and on the decent, hard-working people of our country, who are thankfully still at peace due to the strength of this Prime Minister, can be a force for good.

The Conservatives are still addicted to chaos and game playing, and seek scraps of political capital where they can get them. I suggest that they have flogged this issue as much as they can. They need to focus on rebuilding their dying party and apologise to the people. This Prime Minister and this Government are focused on rebuilding this country—the country the Conservatives broke, which they still will not apologise for.

Security Vetting

Mike Wood Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Because he did not bring to my attention information that he should have brought to my attention. Had he done so, I would not have made the appointment.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The Prime Minister dissembles over what he knew about Sistema and Mandelson, but the Cabinet Office due diligence report sent to the Prime Minister on 11 December 2024 stated:

“Mandelson served as a non-executive director of the Russian conglomerate Sistema, which is itself the majority shareholder of RTI, a defence technology company…Mandelson remained on the board until June 2017, long after Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.”

Will the Prime Minister finally confirm that he knew that Mandelson was a director of Sistema long after the invasion of Crimea, but appointed him anyway?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have made clear, I did know what was in the due diligence report, and I have made that clear to the House a number of times today. I have actually made it clear to the House on previous occasions.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Mike Wood Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for providing an advance copy. We naturally welcome the progress reported today. The fact that 3,273 people have received offers totalling more than £2 billion is a significant milestone in a decades-long struggle for justice. I thank the Infected Blood Compensation Authority for its work to speed up the payments.

As Baroness Finn said in the other place,

“what we call the scandal was, in truth, the infliction, collectively, of grievous harm upon thousands of people by the state.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 2025; Vol. 849, c. 1821.]

Nowhere was that more egregious or more shocking than in those cases where victims were infected as a result of deliberate experimentation in the name of science. We therefore commend the Minister for the specific increases to the unethical research awards, and in particular the uplift to £60,000 for the survivors of Treloar’s school and the expansion of the scheme to include those treated as adults. Those are necessary recognitions of a truly outrageous chapter of the scandal.

However, while the Minister spoke of tangible, systemic change, many victims and their families will be looking at the fine print with a degree of trepidation. I therefore have a number of questions regarding the delivery and scope of these announcements. The Minister noted that further legislation will be required later this year to enact these substantial changes. Given that the infected blood inquiry’s additional report was published back in July last year, will he reassure the House that the legislative timetable will not lead to further agonising delays for those in declining health? Will the first quarterly feedback summaries, which he has promised will come in July, provide a hard deadline for when those new level 2B severity awards and backdated supply chain management payments will actually reach bank accounts? If not, does he have an expectation of when those payments will be made?

I think the Minister mentioned increased core injury awards for bereaved parents whose children died before the age of 18. Can he provide greater clarity on the justification for excluding parents whose children were infected when they were young children but turned 18 before the time of their death? Regarding the 50% increase to the core autonomy award for those infected at age 18 or under, will he confirm that that will also apply to those infected through their mothers in utero?

The Government rightly aim to minimise the administrative burden and the demand for evidence. We welcome the £60,000 lump sum for those with clear potential to earn but who lack evidence of earnings, but how will the Infected Blood Compensation Authority define “clear potential” without falling back into the lengthy, individualised assessments that the Minister says he wants to avoid?

Finally on the compensation scheme, the Minister announced that for past financial loss, the Government will use whichever calculation is “most financially beneficial” for the recipient. We welcome that pragmatic step, but can he clarify whether the removal of the 25% deduction for past care will be applied automatically to all existing offers, or will those people who have already received offers need to reapply to have their awards adjusted? As the Minister said, the compensation scheme must “embody their stories”. Justice delayed is justice denied, and we must ensure that the new supplementary awards do not become a secondary bureaucratic hurdle for a community that has already given so much testimony and waited so long.

Before I close, I turn to a matter that seems to be missing from the Minister’s statement: the inquiry. When he last updated the House before Christmas, I raised the need to

“move from a period of review to one of rectification and delivery.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2025; Vol. 774, c. 516.]

I also asked him how and when the inquiry might be drawn to a close so there could be a degree of policy certainty. I did not hear him refer to that in his statement, so will he confirm that, with the implementation of the key recommendations from the additional report and Sir Brian’s letters, the public inquiry has now drawn to a close?

Once again, I thank Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their diligent and comprehensive work over the past eight years to help deliver some justice after decades of scandal and suffering. Most of all, I again pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of the many victims and their families who were infected or affected by the infected blood scandal. They have suffered for far too long in ways that we can barely begin to imagine, and no compensation scheme can ever reverse the horrific harms needlessly done to them. I hope, however, that the universal acceptance of the conclusion of the reports and the determination of us all to do what we can to make changes that will stop others suffering in future will bring them some comfort.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I thank the shadow Minister for the tone that he took in that response and for the supportive tone that he has taken throughout. I will pick up on some of his earlier points. I agree with him entirely when he talks of the heinous nature of the medical experimentation on children that happened during this scandal. Although I have increased the specific amounts, it should be pointed out that those amounts do not stand in isolation; they are specific amounts for the particularly egregious nature of what happened, which are within much higher settlements, and that is exactly as it should be.

On the point about the inquiry, yes, there has now been the formal exchange of letters between me as the responsible Minister and Sir Brian Langstaff. Also, I entirely agree with the shadow Minister about the need for policy certainty going forward. He asked some very reasonable, detailed questions, and I will come back to him properly in writing on those, but let me just deal with a few of them.

I want to bring forward further legislation as soon as possible. When I have brought forward legislation in the past, parties across the House have always worked in a collaborative way throughout to get it through as quickly as possible. Obviously, positions are a matter for the Opposition parties, but continuing that constructive spirit is helpful in getting these things through as quickly as possible.

On the issue of exceptional loss, again, that £60,000, as referred to by the shadow Minister, is not designed to be a very detailed, individualised assessment. That is not what a tariff-based scheme is meant to do. Rather, it is meant to look at the situation of loss of a chance—the situation where somebody, but for their infection or how they were affected by the infection, would have had the opportunity to have gone on and perhaps been a higher-than-average earner but were denied that—and is designed specifically to look at that. On the other very reasonable and detailed matters that the hon. Gentleman raises, I will ensure he gets a full written response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Wood Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Hospitality adds nearly £2 billion to Northern Ireland’s economy, supporting more than 75,000 jobs, but last year more than 2,000 hospitality workers in Northern Ireland lost their jobs. Does the Secretary of State agree with Unite the union, of which I know he is a member, that this is the result of the Government’s disastrous national insurance rises?

[Hilary Benn]

The national insurance rise decision that the Chancellor took in her first Budget was necessary because of the woeful economic legacy left to this Government by their predecessor. If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to recognise that very basic fact, he has not been paying attention.

Draft Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 2026

Mike Wood Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 General Committees

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I am in the rather fortunate position of being able to stand here as an Opposition Whip and shadow Minister who does not receive a ministerial salary, so I cannot be accused of having any conflict of interest in supporting the Government in what appears to be a sensible and, as the Minister said, technical measure that brings the de jure rules into line with practice over the past few years.

It makes sense to exclude the salaries of permanent secretaries, as the previous review concluded, not least because permanent secretary salary bands are so broad as to make a mid-point measurement largely meaningless anyway. As the Minister says, we understand that the pay freeze that has been in place, certainly for the 15 years since the reduction at the start of the coalition Government in 2010, will continue.

If I may just speak very personally—this might be a word for the hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley—perhaps, in the longer term, the Government may wish to consider whether it is still appropriate that Members of the Whips Office should continue to be paid at a rather lower rate than Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. That is obviously a discussion for a different day and not one on which I think my party, nor the Minister’s, has a collective view.

I have only one question. As the entitled salaries are increasing while the claimed salaries continue to be frozen, will the Minister tell the Committee how that affects pension entitlements? Are they calculated according to the salary to which Ministers are entitled or the salaries that are actually paid?

Draft Procurement (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Mike Wood Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 General Committees

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

You can never have too many procurement SIs in a week, but for those who did not have the pleasure of Monday afternoon’s Committee, I will spare them some of the background information and just say that the Opposition support the draft regulations. As the Minister says, they will give effect to important provisions introduced by the previous Government’s Procurement Act 2023. The details required to be published for contracts over £30,000 are particularly important, as are the measures to ensure transparency for some sub-threshold contracts.

Understandably, the Government have again not produced a separate impact assessment for the draft regulations, relying instead on the broader impact assessment that accompanied the Procurement Act and the associated reforms in 2022-23. Although many of the provisions are technical in nature, they will nevertheless shape how the new procurement framework operates in practice. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could provide reassurance that the central digital platform is ready to support the expanded responsibilities under the regulations, and that the contracting authorities and suppliers, particularly smaller organisations and enterprises, have been given sufficient guidance to adapt to these changes. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Digital ID: Public Consultation

Mike Wood Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the briefing a short time ago.

It is said that in 1720, gullible investors were invited to put their money into

“a company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is”.

Today, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister appears to be reviving that proud tradition. For months, his Department has insisted that digital ID was absolutely essential, and until a few weeks ago, it had to be mandatory—even for babies. However, after months of insisting that the scheme was indispensable, the Government are now asking the public to tell them just what it is indispensable for. There was a time when this was supposed to be the magic bullet to tackle illegal migration. Now, the Cabinet Office seems to be suggesting that it might just help to reduce hold times in Government call centres.

This great undertaking has gone from promising the elixir of eternal youth to the equivalent of, “Well, you never know, it might help if you have a slightly upset tummy.” The public know snake oil when they are offered it. We should not be surprised, because this never was a thought-through policy; it was always a distraction stunt. For years, officials have been looking at the ID file on the shelf, hoping for a Government desperate enough to pick it up, and last September they finally found one. Desperate for an announcement to shove Andy Burnham off the front pages before a tricky Labour conference—look how that turned out—the Prime Minister dusted off this scheme with no clear idea of how it would work, what it would cost or what the consequences would be.

After one of the Government’s many U-turns, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister now assures us that this digital ID will not become compulsory. Nothing is ever compulsory until it suddenly is. We know how this story goes. At first, it is voluntary, then it becomes strongly encouraged. Then, you discover you need it to open a bank account and see your GP. Before long, your phone battery dies while you are in the queue at Costa, and you are essentially a non-person: “Sorry, sir, no flat white for you. Computer says you no longer exist.” It is no wonder that even the Health Secretary wants nothing to do with this particular headline.

Of course, the Government tell us not to worry because the system will be secure. This is the same Government who cannot even keep their own Budget secret. How much confidence can the public really have that their personal data will not be misused, when the Minister who was responsible for the scheme this time last week had to resign following reports that he hired a firm to spy on journalists who had written negative stories about his organisation?

In November, the Office for Budget Responsibility put the cost of this boondoggle at £1.8 billion over three years, which is more than the cost of building and operating a new Type 45 destroyer—and nearly as dangerous if not used properly. The OBR did not change that figure in last week’s projections, so we can assume that £1.8 billion remains the best estimate. And for what? Britain has managed perfectly well for centuries without a peacetime national identity system. Society functions without citizens having to authenticate themselves to the state every time they wish to open an app or go about their daily lives. Before we rush headlong into constructing the world’s most elaborate digital clipboard, the Government should recognise some serious concerns. If their system fails, it will be expensive; if it is hacked, it will be dangerous; and if it expands, it will be intrusive. So what exactly is the overwhelming crisis in British life that requires us to take all three risks?

Until the Government can answer that question convincingly, the British public will view this proposal in exactly the same way that they view most grand Whitehall technology schemes: with deep suspicion, a modicum of mild amusement and a firm determination to keep their identity exactly where it belongs—in their own pocket, not floating somewhere in the Government’s cloud.

[Darren Jones]

I enjoyed the hon. Member’s response to the statement, and I thank him for lifting our spirit with it. Let me say two things to him gently. First, I am very confident that, because the public do their banking and shopping online in a quick and convenient way, the fact that the Government are saying, “You should be able to access public services in that way,” will seem perfectly sensible and pragmatic. If Conservative Members want to say that the status quo is the best we have to offer and we should not even try to make it better, then all luck to them. Secondly, I genuinely do not think that I heard—not for the want of trying—a single question in the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, so I have nothing further to add.

Draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Mike Wood Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 General Committees

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Desmond. The Minister will be aware that we have some concerns about part of the UK-India agreement, but those concerns do not apply to the provisions on public procurement, and as such we support the measures in the regulations.

In effect, the regulations add the UK-India agreement to schedule 9 to the Procurement Act 2023 introduced by the previous Government. That will mean that suppliers from India that fall within the scope of the agreement will be entitled to participate in relevant UK public procurement processes on the same basis as UK suppliers.

We are proud of many of the changes brought in by the last Government through the Procurement Act to boost the UK economy, including the move from the EU’s most economically advantageous tender system to our own, broader, most advantageous tender system. That subtle change of language has massive real-world implications. It lets contracts reflect real value and not just price. Instead of the rigid focus on the lowest price under the previous EU-derived rules, under our new procurement framework we can consider value more holistically, including social and local benefit; instead of restrictive procedures, there is more competitive flexibility, so that buyers can design the process; and instead of it being difficult to exclude bad actors, as was the case under the previous system, robust powers are in place to debar suppliers on national security grounds. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that those powers will still apply under the regulations.

Importantly, buyers can now give significant weight to bids that create jobs in their specific region or the sector for which they are responsible, and for the first time, public bodies are publishing key performance indicators for major contracts. If a supplier fails to deliver for the public, it can be held to account and potentially barred from future work. Given those positive changes, it makes sense to apply the new system to procurement covered by the UK-India trade agreement.

Of course, due to the transitional provisions currently in place, some procurements continue to be governed by earlier legislative frameworks, including the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016. That is one of the reasons why we agree that the regulations before us, which will ensure that the procurement chapter of the UK-India agreement can also apply to procurements still conducted under those earlier regimes, are necessary.

In practice, that means that economic operators benefiting from the agreement will be entitled to the same treatment as UK suppliers in procurements carried out under framework agreements, dynamic purchasing systems or qualification systems that remain subject to the previous rules. The amendments will apply only to procurements commenced after the UK-India agreement enters into force; procurements already under way will not be affected.

The Government have indicated that a full impact assessment has not been produced on the basis that the regulations are not expected to have a significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors. Given the scale of public procurement in the United Kingdom, it would be helpful if the Minister provided some clarity on a few points.

First, what assessment has been made of the value of procurement opportunities in the UK that will now be accessible to Indian suppliers under the agreement? On the flip side, can the Minister further lay out what reciprocal access UK businesses will gain to public procurement markets in India, and what practical support will be available to help UK firms, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, to take advantage of those opportunities? Thirdly, could he clarify the expected timetable for the agreement to enter into force and, therefore, for these provisions to begin applying in practice?

The regulations are, in many respects, technical in nature, but they form part of the broader implementation of the UK-India trade agreement and therefore could have significant implications for access to public procurement markets, both here in the UK and abroad, so it is right that the Committee carefully scrutinises how they will operate in practice. I look forward to the Minister’s response.