The agreement is expected to benefit various sectors including whisky, cosmetics, autos, aerospace, automotive, medical devices, clean energy products. It also includes provisions on human rights, labour laws, anti-corruption measures, and environmental protections. The deal will support UK companies in accessing India’s procurement market worth at least £38 billion annually.

Concerns have been raised about the impact of the trade deal on the ceramics and brick industries in the UK. The removal of tariffs could make Indian imports more competitive compared to domestic production, leading to potential undercutting of the domestic market.

The Trade Remedies Authority's lack of necessary tools to defend against unfair competition was highlighted. There are concerns about the impact on industries such as ceramics and bricks, and a call for close monitoring and readiness to implement protective measures if needed.

The agreement has not yet had significant impacts in Northern Ireland despite its projected benefits. The Minister is encouraged to provide clarity on when the full implementation of the deal will occur and when distilleries in constituencies like Strangford can start benefiting from reduced tariffs.

The deal is questioned for its limited economic benefits, with only a 0.14% increase to GDP. There are concerns over the trade-off between economic gains and commitments to human rights in dealing with partners like India.

Griffith argued that while the deal offers immediate duty-free access for Indian exporters, it lacks symmetry as British exporters face a lengthy wait before reduced tariffs apply. He also highlighted missed opportunities in areas such as legal services and investment treaties, expressing regret over the Government's failure to secure better terms.

Simmonds interjected to suggest that the deal reflects a lack of engagement with businesses having extensive experience in Indian markets, leading to missed opportunities for those industries.

Leadbitter intervened to point out that the deal is broadly welcomed by the Scottish whisky sector, despite asymmetry in tariff reductions. He noted that while whisky exporters benefit from reduced tariffs, they still face high domestic duties, which puts undue pressure on an already stressed industry.

Bryant briefly mentioned the importance of including Welsh industries in discussions about trade agreements, emphasising that such matters are not limited to Scottish interests alone.

Lewis questioned whether the agreement had implications for defence exports to India and sought clarification on potential safeguards given India's close relationship with Russia.

Emphasised that the export control system for UK exports considers diversion risks. Stated that FTAs do not affect this process, and clarified that Indian cheese companies still require a licence to export into the UK due to food standards requirements.

Asked Chris Bryant about the morality of importing seafood from countries with different animal welfare standards compared to the UK. Highlighted that swapping British prawns for cheaper alternatives reared using cruel methods would not meet the expectations set out in the House.

Reiterated concerns about animal welfare standards, noting that companies must adhere to UK food standards and obtain a licence to sell products. Also mentioned intensified border checks on Indian aquaculture products as part of the export control process.

Asked Chris Bryant about the rights of imported labour, suggesting they should not be allowed to benefit from taxpayer-funded services such as the NHS without contributing through national insurance and taxes.

Responded to Iqbal Mohamed's concerns by explaining that detached Indian workers and their UK employers must pay into the Indian provident fund, NHS surcharges, visa fees, immigration skills charge, and certificate of sponsorship fees.

I do not oppose free trade deals, but I raise serious questions about the UK-India free trade agreement and its implications for human rights, particularly in Kashmir. The absence of enforceable human rights clauses in the deal is deeply concerning to my constituents who have family ties to Jammu and Kashmir, where they face persecution, repression, and injustice. Since 2019, Indian-occupied Kashmir has experienced severe restrictions on civil liberties, mass surveillance, arbitrary detention, internet shutdowns, and political dissent criminalisation. The agreement contains no monitoring body for human rights risks, such as the risk of arbitrary detention and repression, and its labour commitments are excluded from dispute settlement mechanisms. I question how the Government can justify advancing this trade agreement without binding human rights protections in light of ongoing violations in Kashmir.

Economically, the agreement offers some benefits but the impact on GDP is minimal at 0.13% by 2040 compared to a significant hit of 6-8% due to Brexit. The UK’s free trade agreement with India allows only 92% tariff-free exports, less than the EU's deal of 96.6%. Concerns exist about enforceability of labour, environment and human rights clauses in the agreement. Maynard also questioned the Government's decision to sign an FTA with a country that is helping Russia breach sanctions.

Welcomes the UK-India free trade agreement, highlighting its importance for Scotland and West Dunbartonshire. Points out that India is expected to become the third-largest economy in the world by 2028 and argues that a strong relationship with India is essential given current global uncertainties. Emphasises the Scotch whisky industry's significance for jobs and tourism in his constituency, noting positive impacts from tariff reductions under the new deal. Mentions concerns about Jagtar Singh Johal's case and urges consistent dialogue on diplomatic issues.

Critiques the UK-India free trade agreement, particularly regarding provisions that allow Indian companies to transfer their workers to the UK more easily without paying full national insurance for up to three years. Argues this could lead to British workers being priced out by lower-cost Indian employees in fields such as IT and engineering. Raises concerns about the potential impact on skilled British workers.

The agreement is a significant moment for both the UK and India, connecting us with one of the world's fastest-growing economies. It secures substantial tariff liberalisation but faces risks due to India's complex regulatory system. The UK Government should invest in resources to ensure effective implementation.

While acknowledging the importance of the agreement, I raise concerns about compliance levels in India compared to those in Europe and the UK. We need more audits and external inspections to ensure products meet our standards, requiring increased investment in resources.

The speaker thanks officials for their work on the trade deal, acknowledges the reduction in whisky duty, and questions the claim that Brexit was necessary to achieve such deals. He points out that the EU has achieved similar results without leaving the union. The speaker also highlights the need for more information on safeguards related to food and drink in the trade agreement.

The speaker intervenes, questioning whether being inside the EU would provide collective bargaining benefits as mentioned by another member regarding Scotland's position within the UK.

The speaker criticises the trade deal with India for prioritising commercial gain over human rights, ethical values, and climate change commitments. He mentions specific cases of human rights violations in China and India, highlighting the government's silence on these issues. The speaker also emphasises the moral responsibility to uphold international law and the need for enforceable clauses protecting human rights within trade agreements.

Mr. Cooper highlighted the importance of acknowledging the previous Conservative Government's role in initiating the trade deal with India, particularly mentioning Lord Jack's efforts to address unfair whisky regulations in India. He expressed concern over the GDP growth projections from this deal, suggesting that the £4.8 billion lift or 0.13% increase might be a conservative estimate and should not cap potential gains. He also criticised cuts in staffing within the Department for Business and Trade, warning of adverse effects on export support and business growth. Mr. Cooper advocated for leveraging the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) to access significant markets, noting that returning to an EU customs union would limit trading freedoms post-Brexit. He raised agricultural concerns about dairying's vulnerability under the new deal while highlighting opportunities for lamb exports and Scottish dairy products such as Galloway cheddar in India’s growing market. Additionally, he questioned the impact of a potential sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU on future trade deals.

The UK's trade deal with India is good for tariffs on UK products going to India but the reciprocal movement of goods from India to the UK seems delayed. The EU took 19 years to negotiate a similar deal, while the UK did it in less than five years post-Brexit. However, under the Northern Ireland protocol (Windsor Framework), Northern Ireland is subject to EU tariffs on imports from India and cannot enjoy the full benefits of the trade agreement.

Supports the Government’s intentions in the growth strategy but emphasises the importance of human rights in trade agreements. Criticises India's Prime Minister Modi for his role in religious persecution, particularly during the 2002 Gujarat riots, and urges the UK to consider human rights when signing a free trade agreement with India.

Emphasises the significance of the UK-India Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, highlighting economic incentives and the potential impact on British workers. Raises concerns about asymmetrical market access, lack of mutual recognition of qualifications, absence of investment protection, and double contribution convention for Indian workers posted to the UK.

Responded to the debate, addressing points raised about services in the UK-India FTA. Emphasised significant advantages in telecoms, construction services, procurement, and most favoured nation status across various sectors. Defended the agreement's structure for future developments without needing to return to negotiations. Mentioned challenges regarding legal services due to India’s constitution but welcomed a digital trade chapter. Highlighted preferential tariff rates for Pakistan under the developing countries trading scheme in contrast to India. Rejected claims about lack of human rights provisions, stating that they are legally binding and monitored through review processes.

Questioned the Minister on the absence of EU-level human rights frameworks in agreements with countries like India, noting that this is important given both parties' commitment to remaining within the European convention on human rights.