Chris Ward MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Apr 2026 · Government Procurement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I would very much like to do so. I have spoken with the Department for Transport about this. This is a broader issue about how we work with regional authorities and within our system of devolution, because that is where the power lies for some of these decisions. I am working with the Department for Transport on this matter, and I am happy to keep the hon. and learned Gentleman updated on it.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Government Procurement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Building on that previous point, it is really important that we do as much as we can to support British farming and have a national plan for food security. I am happy to take up the specifics and to work with my hon. Friend and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on that.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Government Procurement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Trade union rights are not inconsistent with what I am setting out. I am sorry, but I do not know what point the hon. Gentleman is making, because there is no requirement to have trade union recognition in Government contracts in the procurement system. I am not changing that or how that plays out; I am trying to simplify the system and remove burdens where I can. I am trying to look at the procurement system from start to finish, strip out all the duplication and erroneous stuff that has crept in and made it like a Christmas tree over time, and make it simpler and fairer. That will happen at the same time as ensuring that we deliver the generation of insourcing that this Government were elected to do, which can bring to an end decades of outsourcing by default.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Government Procurement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his question—he has raised a number of points. He talked about supporting SMEs, which is incredibly important to what the Government are trying to do more broadly, and specifically to what these reforms are trying to do. If you will permit me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I also want to point out that we should do more to support the voluntary sector. In my opinion, the charitable sector does not get a fair enough crack at this, and the system is weighted against it. In particular, I have in mind a visit I made to a women’s centre in my constituency, in Brighton, a fantastic charity that has been doing amazing work for a long time. It told me that it was spending £30,000 to £35,000 on a procurement process, having to divert resources that should be used to support people in real need in order to compete in a procurement process that is stacked against it because the big companies and the big providers have the money and expertise they need. We cannot defend that kind of status quo, and I will not do so, which is why we are trying to introduce this strategy.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Government Procurement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  It is always nice to have a kind invitation to come up the road to Burgess Hill. The hon. Lady raises a really good point. I do not know the specifics of the company, but she raises exactly the kind of case that we should be trying to support. I am happy to meet, and if she sends me the details of the company, I will look into that.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Government Procurement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Yes. My apologies, Mr Speaker. I was told it was five minutes, but I completely apologise.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Government Procurement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 22 Apr 2026 · Government Procurement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. We should be much prouder, as a Government and as a political party, about supporting British businesses and local communities. That is what I am trying to do with this statement. On working with others, I have been working on this matter for many months, as did my predecessor—we have worked on this matter with trade unions, businesses, voluntary sector groups and charities. The proposals that I have brought forward are an amalgam, but they are not the end of the road. Work will be done with the unions, businesses and so on to try to get the guidance right and put these through. I should also say that one of the reasons I am particularly proud of some of this work is that it has been welcomed both by trade unions and by businesses. It is not often that that happens these days, and I am particularly pleased that we have managed to achieve it.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Government Procurement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I basically agree with the hon. Lady’s assessment of the procurement system and how it does not do what it should do. As I say, £400 billion of taxpayer money is being spent. We need to ensure, as far as we can, that every pound that is spent supports British industry, supports jobs and delivers fairness, and it must also support SMEs. The Procurement Act made progress towards helping SMEs, but it does not go far enough. It is not the job of this Government to defend the status quo; it is the job of this Government to change it, so we will do that. I will come back to her on the specific point about payment thresholds.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Government Procurement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has raised the importance of changing the procurement rules with me a number of times—she is a tremendous champion on this. On next steps, the Cabinet Office is working on new guidance that we will put before the House very shortly—I hope before the summer recess—which will make flesh the commitments I have made today. As I say, it has three big principles behind it: backing British businesses, creating a fairer economy and making the system simpler and fairer for all.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Government Procurement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly can. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that company. It is exactly the kind of British company that we want to help and back, and such communities should have a real stake in how procurement money is used. I hope that we can do more on that, and I am happy to take up this specific point and this specific company with her.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Government Procurement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend brings a huge level of expertise and background experience to the issue. I reassure her that part of the package that I announced before Easter is aimed at helping our sovereign AI industry and our science and technology industries, and boosting start-ups. In the time that I have been doing this job, a lot of the stories that I have heard are about how the procurement rules work fine for companies that have a large procurement department to try to win the contracts, but they are not so good for start-ups or voluntary businesses that are trying to win their way into Government contracts. We should be doing much more to help those companies and, yes, we are joining this up across Government, including through the industrial strategy and the steel strategy that I spoke about earlier.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Draft Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 2026. The draft order flows from the legislation agreed by the House yesterday afternoon, and is a necessary and technical measure to address a historical misapplication of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which sets ministerial and other office holders’ pay. The office holders within scope are the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses, the Speakers in both Houses, the Chief Opposition Whips in both Houses and two assistant Opposition Whips in the Commons. The context for the order is that in 1997 a formula was introduced to link pay increases for Ministers and certain office holders to senior civil service pay bands. That formula set out that ministerial salaries should be increased by the average annual change in the mid-point of senior civil service pay bands. During the financial year ’23-24, the Cabinet Office identified that the formula had been misapplied. Since the introduction of the formula in ’97, the salaries of permanent secretaries have often been excluded from the calculation despite the 1975 Act not permitting such an exclusion. That technical misapplication has happened under successive Administrations over several decades. The formula was originally proposed by the Senior Salaries Review Body, which recommended that permanent secretary pay should not be included in the calculation for ministerial pay. This Government believe that the policy that has been applied since 1997 in line with the SSRB recommendation is the correct approach. This Order in Council is being introduced to ensure that the law aligns with long-standing policy. The order performs two primary functions. First, it resets the statutory salary levels for all Ministers and specified office holders. Given the historical misapplication, resetting the salaries in law will give legal clarity and a baseline for any future uplift. Secondly, the order amends the formula to exclude permanent secretary pay bands from any future calculations. That change simply formalises the policy approach that has already been applied in practice for several decades on a clear legal footing. For the initial financial year beginning 1 April, the order sets out transitional measures where the higher of the old or new formula will be applied to ensure that no individual is disadvantaged by the retrospective effect of this order. The order’s impact is therefore minimal: it only affects ministerial office holders and a small number of office holders in Westminster. For Ministers, this order will result in no change to their take-home pay—a point I emphasise with no little disappointment! The Prime Minister has maintained that the policy of freezing ministerial salaries for all Ministers will continue; it has been in place since 2008. The order therefore does not affect individuals who choose to take their entitled salaries. The Government have been unable to calculate annual pay increases while work on the order was ongoing, so we will provide back payments to current and former office holders dating back to 1 April 2023, which is when the mistake was identified. This legislation is also linked to the salaries of Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means, which increase through the same formula. They will also receive back payments dating from 1 April 2023. The Government are bringing forward this order to address a historical misapplication of the 1975 Act, which sets ministerial and certain office holders’ pay. It is a necessary, technical and minimal measure to address a misapplication of the law, and it ensures that the law aligns with long-standing policy under successive Governments. I look forward to hearing from other Members of the Committee.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Draft Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Opposition for their broad support. I will not be drawn too far on Whips’ salaries, if that is okay, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which that point was raised. As I said, although it is technical in nature, the order helps to iron out a discrepancy in application, and makes sure that the law has an accurate effect. As I have outlined, it is not about creating new policy or changing ministerial pay. I am afraid that I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about pension entitlements, but I will get back to him shortly. As I say, the order addresses a historical discrepancy that was entirely accidental and that it is important now to rectify. With that, I commend it to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the limited numbers who took part in this debate, taking advantage of the lack of a time limit. This is a simple Bill with just two clauses, and it has a simple purpose: to increase the number of Ministers who can be paid to 120, which is the average number of Ministers since 2010. It is also rooted in the simple principle that holding ministerial office should not be dependent on individual wealth. The Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General set out, amends the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. It does so to better reflect the nature of modern government, including the number of Ministers any modern Government tend to require. It allows, but does not require, a maximum of 120 salaried members across both Houses. That number is based on the average number of Ministers since 2010 under successive Governments. Since 2010, an approximate average of 11 Ministers have been unpaid in each Government. I know that is not among the great injustices of our age—hence this is a short Bill—but the Bill addresses a clear inequity that limits those in the other place who are able or willing to take on a ministerial role. This Bill rectifies that, broadening the bench of those able to serve as Ministers. It recognises that private income should never be a requirement to serve as a Government Minister.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thought that the right hon. Gentleman might raise the bishops. He is quite right to say that the removal of hereditary peers is a step forward in modernising the other place, but it is not the conclusion of the process. Our manifesto commits to a number of things that will be included in the second phase of Lords reform. A Committee is being set up to advise on how we go forward. I look forward to debating that second phase with him, and issues including a retirement age and other steps for modernising the second Chamber. However, those steps are quite far removed from this Bill. As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is a simple Bill. It has a very narrow purpose, and it is designed to address a very simple inequity. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time ; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day). Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill (Money) King’s recommendation signified. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)), That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided. —( Stephen Morgan .) Question agreed to.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, because I know the right hon. Gentleman is not a great fan of that legislation. In a few months’ time, this Government will also introduce legislation to widen the franchise to people aged 16 and 17, delivering on our manifesto commitment. What better sign of bold and radical constitutional reform than removing hereditaries and broadening the franchise? I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because I am feeling generous.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As I have said, the Prime Minister polices the ministerial code and has responsibility for it. The independent adviser was given the power to initiate his own investigations of Ministers, which is, I think, an important step forward. It comes, in part, because of some of the problems we saw under the last Government. I think that the role of the independent adviser has been significantly strengthened under the present Government.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for flattering me by not putting me in the first or third group. As I say, the Labour party has a manifesto commitment to limit second jobs significantly. It is not about pulling up the drawbridge in all circumstances; there will be exemptions, particularly for people who serve in the NHS and so forth. However, I do think that we should consider the hon. Gentleman’s point. There is a basic expectation from the public that being a Member of this House is an MP’s one and only job, except in exceptional circumstances, but this matter is being dealt with by the Modernisation Committee, and we will look at its findings. The right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said that nothing bold or radical is being put forward, but I point out that this Bill comes alongside a number of other reforms that this Government are delivering to modernise our democracy. Last week, following the Herculean efforts of the Paymaster General and others, legislation was finally passed to remove hereditary peers from this legislature—and not a moment too soon.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The number of Ministers in the current Government is virtually the same as it was in the previous Government. I think actually it is one lower than the previous Government. The intention of this Bill—this speaks to a point raised by a couple of Members—is not at all to increase the number of Ministers or the size of Government; it is simply to rectify the anomaly of unpaid Ministers in the other place. The right hon. Gentleman served in several Governments of this size over the past 10 years, and he asked why this Bill should come forward at this time. One answer to “Why now?” is that the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords proposed it in an amendment. It was put forward by the Conservative side. [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that that was wrong. That is one of the reasons this has come forward, and it is one of the reasons for addressing the inequality with which we are dealing. Let me refer to a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). The Bill will allow, but will not require, one additional salary at Secretary of State rank. It is for the Prime Minister to decide whether or not it goes to a Secretary of State; Parliamentary Under-Secretaries can be rewarded as well, as can Ministers of State. The Bill also allows four additional salaries at Minister of State or Secretary of State level, and 11 additional salaries overall. As I have said, those limits are cumulative, which means that the Prime Minister has discretion to make the awards. There is no prior intention; it is about discretion. Let me turn briefly to what the Bill does not do. As the Paymaster General said, it does not alter the salaries of Ministers, much to the disappointment of the former Deputy Prime Minister. They will remain frozen, as they have been since 2008. The Bill does not necessarily create additional ministerial roles; this is a point that was raised. Indeed, it simply reflects the average number of roles since 2010. It does not alter the maximum number of paid Commons Ministers, which remains at 95—it effectively reserves 25 places for Lords Ministers—and, of course, it does not affect MPs’ pay, which is rightly entirely independent of this House. All that the Bill will do is increase the maximum number of salaried Ministers, so that it is in line with the average number of Ministers over the last few Parliaments. As I have said, the size of the Government remains unchanged, and the Government have no intention of increasing it. The purpose is merely to allow higher numbers to be paid, and to remove that inequity. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) raised the issue of the amount of minimum service for severance pay. The Government have already addressed that by introducing a power requiring a Minister to serve for six months before any severance payment can be made, thus removing some of the absurdities under the last Government, which she rightly pointed to. People were being paid for a day, or in some cases a few hours, in the job. She also raised the matter of second jobs. I remind her that the Labour party has a manifesto commitment to address that, and to ensure that second jobs are permitted only in particular circumstances—for doctors, for instance. The Modernisation Committee is dealing with that issue. I am keen for it to be addressed as quickly as possible, but it will come back to the House. The hon. Lady mentioned the ethics adviser. Let me emphasise again that at the beginning of this Government, the Prime Minister made changes; there was an increase in the role and the independence of the independent advisers, so that they are truly independent—we have seen that they are, on several occasions—and the ethics adviser can now initiate his own inquiries. That is an important point. The hon. Lady also asked what roles the new salaried Ministers would fulfil. As I have said, that is a matter for the Prime Minister, and we have no intention of changing that.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Draft Procurement (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Members for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire and for Hazel Grove for the tone of their contributions. I welcome their cross-party support; as the draft regulations follow the Procurement Act introduced by the last Government, I would have been surprised not to get it, but it is still nice to hear it. In answer to the question about the central digital platform, it is fully operational. The final phase is to implement the last legislative requirements, which will be rolled out later this year, in time for the requirements coming into force. On the timetable, the technical amendments in the SI will come into force the day after they are made; others will come in on 1 April, and the changes related to Contracts Finder will come in on 1 October. On the points raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, there are no national security concerns that I am aware of, but I will write to her if anything further comes in on that. I am glad to have her support. The core of the draft regulations is simple: the public should always be able to follow significant payments under public contracts in a way that is meaningful, joined up and transparent. The regulations will help them to do that by linking payments to contracts and suppliers on one platform. I thank Cabinet Office officials for all their work on this SI and to implement the Act: a lot of work has gone on. I am grateful to colleagues across Government Departments and the local authorities that we have been closely working with. The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire mentioned work with contracting authorities; we have worked very closely to get people ready for this measure and to make sure that it works properly. I thank everyone for their work and engagement. I hope that Members will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Draft Procurement (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Procurement (Amendment) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. The Procurement Act 2023, which was introduced under the last Government and passed with cross-party support, is a step forward in making public procurement simpler, more transparent and more trustworthy. It is not the whole journey, of course: we will be setting out further reforms shortly to ensure that our procurement budget goes further and does more to support jobs and growth and to reduce unnecessary burdens on businesses. The Act does deliver progress, however, and reflects a clear expectation from the public that procurement should be open to scrutiny, that spending should stand up to challenge and that public money should always deliver value. The public rightly want to know what the Government are buying, who we are buying it from and what we are paying. That is the gap that the draft regulations will fill. They will not change how contracts are awarded, but they will complete a key element of the Procurement Act’s transparency framework by making it possible to follow significant payments under public contracts, and on a single central platform. That will strengthen confidence in the system, support better contract management and drive better value for money. It will benefit contracting authorities and suppliers, and the taxpayer too, by tightening fraud prevention and ensuring proper scrutiny of how our money is spent. This statutory instrument will implement section 70 of the Act by amending the Procurement Regulations 2024 to set out what payment information must be published for payments of more than £30,000 under public contracts, and how it must be published on the central digital platform. It is designed to be proportionate and manageable, requiring quarterly reporting and applying only to contracts procured from 1 April 2026. The draft regulations also include a small number of connected measures that will make the transparency system work properly across the market. They will ensure that, where a supplier is awarded a notifiable below-threshold contract, which is generally more than £12,000 for central Government and £30,000 for non-central government, they are registered on the central platform. That will close a significant transparency gap, while improving the visibility of small and medium-sized enterprise and voluntary, community and social enterprise participation in public procurement. The draft regulations will also require contracting authorities to state in below-threshold tender notices when a competition is reserved for SMEs and/or VCSEs. That will make sure that when an opportunity is reserved for SMEs or VCSEs, it is clearly flagged up front so that it is easy to find, bid for and, hopefully, win. The draft regulations will also make a limited set of practical and technical amendments to keep the regime functioning as intended. That includes flexibility for direct awards in scenarios in which it is urgent to protect life, public order or safety, or where the central platform is unavailable. Additionally, they incorporate minor corrections and consequential amendments; notably, they will facilitate the move away from the old Contracts Finder system. That is intended to remove duplication and ensure that the new Find a Tender service is the single place to publish and find information. The draft regulations will generally apply to all of the UK, but in Scotland and Wales they would not be applicable if the procurement were carried out by devolved Scottish or Welsh contracting authorities, unless they were using a reserved procurement arrangement. The Government have obtained agreement from the relevant Northern Ireland Department in respect of provisions that apply to procurements regulated by Northern Ireland Ministers. Those are limited to the corrections and technical amendments and do not include the implementation of section 70 or the amendments relating to below-threshold contracts. In conclusion, the statutory instrument will complete an important part of the Procurement Act’s transparency offer. It will make payment publication meaningful by linking payments to contracts, it will close transparency gaps, and it will keep the system coherent and workable.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The purpose of this statutory instrument is to implement the procurement chapter of the UK-India comprehensive economic and trade agreement via an amendment to the Procurement Act 2023. The UK-India CETA was signed on 24 July 2025. It is one of the most significant and ambitious bilateral trade agreements that the UK has concluded since leaving the EU. India is of course one of the economic heavyweights of the 21st century and is likely to become the third largest global economy by the end of this decade. Our trade with India is already worth £47 billion a year, up 15% year on year, and it is of course a market with huge and growing demand for imports, presenting major opportunities for British businesses and procurement. However, India’s markets are also behind some of the highest trade barriers in the world, locking out many British businesses. The deal we have secured knocks down many of those barriers and goes well beyond India’s agreements with other countries. Indeed, it opens the door for British businesses on an unprecedented basis, especially in respect of Government procurement. The procurement chapter will unlock around £38 billion a year of contracts in sectors such as advanced manufacturing, healthcare, construction, infrastructure and clean energy. For the first time, UK companies will be able to compete for those contracts. Alongside that, we are gaining access to India’s procurement portal, providing a line of sight for British businesses on a huge and growing market. Under the terms of the agreement, British businesses will have access to procurements above £478,000 for goods and services, and £5.3 million for construction services. We have also gained exclusive treatment for UK bidders to be treated as class 2 suppliers under the Make in India policy. This will apply if at least 20% of the product or service is from the UK or India. That will give British companies a significant competitive advantage, as it goes beyond anything negotiated by others. We have also achieved commitments on fairness, openness and transparency, including the use and accessibility of e-procurement systems, and we have agreed requirements for the publishing of notices and awards of contracts and domestic review procedures for businesses to challenge should the chapter’s rules not be followed correctly. Our agreement is also significantly stronger than the political agreement the EU has now reached with India. In particular, we have negotiated unique access to India’s £38 billion federal procurement market, something the EU has not obtained. The EU also does not have any agreement relating to class 2 status under the Make in India policy. Those are the benefits of the agreement legislated for in the regulations; I will turn briefly to the process for introducing them. As Committee members will know, the regulations were laid on 19 January in order to bring the trade agreement into force as quickly as possible while allowing for parliamentary scrutiny under the proper process. They will update schedule 9 to the Procurement Act 2023, implementing in domestic law the UK’s procurement obligations in the agreement. Suppliers entitled to benefit from it will be considered “treaty state suppliers” under section 89 of the Act, which will provide them with equal access and rights in UK public procurement as are afforded to UK suppliers. In turn, the agreement requires India to provide comparable access to UK suppliers. The Procurement Act 2023 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2024 are also being amended to ensure that the UK’s obligations under the agreement apply in relation to contracts that can still be entered into under the previous procurement regime. The territorial application of these regulations in relation to contracts under the 2023 Act extends to England and Northern Ireland. It also extends to Scotland and Wales, but not in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority or regulated by the Welsh Ministers. The Welsh Government, with whom we have been in discussion, are making a separate SI to implement this agreement. It was laid in the Senedd on 10 February and is scheduled for debate on 10 March and due to enter into force on 31 March, the day after these regulations. The Scottish Government are implementing the agreement separately under their own legislation, which was laid before the Scottish Parliament on 7 January and considered by the Economy and Fair Work Committee on 4 February. The Scottish Parliament approved the SI on 18 February, and it will enter into force on 24 March. The territorial application of this SI in relation to contracts under the previous procurement regime extends to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The procurement chapter unlocks unprecedented access to India’s federal procurement market. It covers access to approximately 40,000 tenders per year worth at least £38 billion per annum. It is good news for British businesses and our economy, and I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting these regulations.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the spirit in which the debate has been carried out. The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire rightly mentioned that the regulations build on the Procurement Act passed under the last Government. That is a good thing, although we will set out plans shortly to improve it. He is quite right that nothing in the regulations affects the national security powers, and that the regulations tidy up contracts completed prior to the Procurement Act—that is why they are important. On business engagement and impact assessment, this is really about getting a foot in the door of the Indian market for UK businesses, and it is very hard to model the impact of that at this stage. It is a large and growing market, with huge demand for imports. Until we gain access, as we have done, to the procurement portal and are established in the market, it is hard to know the exact material economic benefits, but obviously we hope that this will be a first step in that. As I say, it is a foot in the door that is greatly welcomed. I should point out that the Department for Business and Trade is working incredibly hard on business engagement in India. We have a team on the ground there to try to maximise this and capitalise on it as much as possible, and they are working really closely with British businesses to make sure that they can do that. In terms of application, the regulations come into force on 30 March. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process has been completed on the broader trade deal, so this will align with that. As I said, our aim is for the agreement to come in as quickly as possible. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove about services and the ambitious nature of the deal, we estimate that the agreement is worth around £5 billion a year to the UK economy. For an individual trade deal, that is very significant; as I say, it is more ambitious than a lot of the deals that have already been completed, and it is the first type of deal like this that the Indian Government have agreed. While none of us is in the mood to relitigate Brexit, or talk through that too much, I will make two minor points. First, Britain has negotiated a stronger deal than the EU. As I said, the EU has not gained the same arrangements around the Make in India policy and treatment of suppliers as class 2, and it has not gained access to the procurement portal in the same way that we have, so our deal is materially better. Secondly, I gently say that if the Liberal Democrats want to enter a new customs union, they should know that any free trade deal that we did on that basis would not be an independent free trade deal; it would be a trade deal agreed by the EU, and it would be on qualitatively inferior terms, because the EU has just negotiated its deal and ours is stronger. There is a consequence to the position that the Liberal Democrats take. I hope that helps; if there are points that I have missed, I will write with further detail. In conclusion, this agreement is a major milestone in our relationship with India, a vast and growing economy that we hope British businesses can contribute to as much as possible. Implementation of the procurement deal is a big step forward for us, and I hope colleagues will join me in approving the regulations. Question put and agreed to .

• 5 Mar 2026 · Personal Protective Equipment Contracts · Hansard source

  More

  The Government strongly support inclusive PPE for all workers and welcome the new British Standards Institution standard. Central Government commercial teams have seen increased provision of inclusive PPE across major programmes and projects. I know how seriously my hon. Friend takes this issue; so do the Government, and I hope to meet with her soon to discuss it further.