Russian Attacks on Civilian Infrastructure

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the recent deliberate attacks by Russia on civilian infrastructure, including residential apartment buildings and other non-military targets.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)]

I thank the right hon. Member for his urgent question. Once again, we are witnessing truly reckless attacks from the Russian state, not only impacting the people of Ukraine, who continue to stand up to these barbaric assaults time and again, but in Romania; a Russian drone hit a residential building there on Friday, injuring civilians. This incident represents a dangerous violation of Romania’s sovereignty and a serious violation of NATO airspace, and it heightens the risk of miscalculation. We stand in full solidarity with Ukraine and Romania, and with all those impacted by Russia’s actions.

Russia is now launching an average of over 5,000 drones a month at Ukraine, more than five times the 2024 average. Last month alone, Russia fired over 7,100 drones —a new record—giving rise to the highest civilian casualty count since April 2022. We condemn this clear escalation by Russia, and it is why yesterday we summoned the Russian ambassador to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, where we condemned Russia’s escalation, the assaults on Ukraine, and the violation of Romania’s sovereignty. But Ukraine continues to hold firm, and we and our partners and allies stand united with them.

The UK’s total military, economic and humanitarian support for Ukraine amounts to £21.8 billion, and that includes £13 billion in military support. Last month, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary announced that the UK will provide the biggest ever drone support for Ukraine, delivering at least 120,000 drones this year. As he said at the Dispatch Box on Monday, he has directed that UK delivery of air defence systems to Ukraine be accelerated. Later this month, he will chair the next meeting of the 50-nation-strong Ukraine Defence Contact Group at NATO headquarters, and will look to further step up the military aid that we and partners can provide to Ukraine together.

Russia can end this war, but in the meantime, we will continue to work with international partners. The Prime Minister spoke with President Zelensky last night. We will continue to ensure that Ukraine gets the military and financial support it needs to defend itself, while ramping up the economic pressure on Russia to force Putin to de-escalate the war and engage in meaningful talks.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I thank the Minister for her reply. She will be aware that on Tuesday night, one of the largest aerial attacks so far during this war took place against Kyiv and other cities. It left 22 dead, including two children, and 130 injured. In Dnipro, there was the use of cluster munitions and, indeed, a so-called double-tap attack against one of the civilian protection units. Ukraine has developed some of the best technology in the world against the use of drones, but Russia is stepping up its use of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. Can she say what the Government will do to try to boost Ukraine’s air defences, particularly through the supply of Patriot anti-missile defences? Can she confirm that records are being kept of the attacks carried out by Russia that constitute war crimes, and that Russia will be held to account for them, through the establishment of a special tribunal to prosecute Russia for the crime of aggression? Can she confirm that Russia will be made to pay for reconstruction of the damage, through the use of frozen assets? Finally, will she now look at formally designating Russia a terrorist state?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. It is absolutely clear that the strikes that hit Ukrainian cities, killed civilians and injured hundreds of people are utterly unacceptable. That underscores the fact that Russia is not serious about peace. It must end its illegal war. Some of the questions that he asked are on matters that he continues to discuss with the relevant Minister, but I want to say this: it is extremely important that we continue to maintain international pressure on Russia. He will have heard me talk about the announcement that the Defence Secretary has made. We continue to work with our international allies to ensure military support for Ukraine’s efforts. We are keeping up our sanctions effort, which he knows we have strengthened to ensure that we hold Russia to account, from every angle, for what it is doing. We are seeking to end the war, and to ensure that we have meaningful dialogue.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s answer to the urgent question. Does she agree that those of us who are children of people who went through the second world war are now the closest to remembering that we cannot appease dictators in Europe? We know what that leads to. With that in mind, is this not the time, after such a long period of war, to press home on sanctions and restrictions on Russia, which is finding it very difficult to sustain its war effort? We must step up our efforts in that regard.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. It is essential that we continue to keep up the pressure on Russia. It is also important that we are clear about why we need to increase and to continue to review our sanctions packages. On 19 May, a new package of sanctions was laid to crack down on Russia’s economy. It included a new maritime services ban on Russian liquefied natural gas, which will restrict Russia’s access to UK world-leading shipping and insurance services. It will also restrict the import of refined oil products from Russian crude oil and the import, supply and delivery to third countries of Russian uranium. We will continue to keep the pressure on Russia, and we will continue to work with our allies internationally to ensure that we are strengthening that pressure and supporting Ukraine.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

This has been a sobering and devastating week in Ukraine. Britain must continue to stand with Ukraine in its fight for freedom and sovereignty and back it against the evil and heinous acts we have seen, which are constantly committed by Putin.

The latest barbaric acts from Putin and Russia have led them to brutally target civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. The world has once again witnessed his cold-blooded actions: we have all seen bodies of civilians being pulled from rubble and the deaths of young people and children. We have seen all that in the news this week. We have also witnessed his war machine hitting targets in Romania, one of our NATO allies. Putin’s barbaric war of aggression continues. He has demonstrated his complete and utter lack of interest in de-escalation or pursuing a peaceful resolution.

The Conservative party in government has a proud record of supporting Ukraine in its fight against Putin. When this Government get it right, we will support them, but the recent shameful actions to loosen sanctions on Russian oil and gas are not acceptable to us. Will the Government take action in the light of the continued threat from Putin? Would they not rather drill in the North sea than loosen sanctions on Russian oil and gas?

We see that the Russian ambassador has been summoned by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but how are the Government responding to Russia’s drone attack on Romania? That is a dangerous escalation. What support is being given directly to Romania and other NATO allies in the region to protect them? What action are the Government taking to tackle the Russian shadow fleet as it continues to slip through our waters?

What work is the Foreign Secretary doing with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that both the RAF and the Royal Navy are equipped and prepared to deal with Russian proxies passing through our waters? When is the coalition of the willing next due to meet? What actions are being taken to further target Putin’s ability to wage war? What proposals are coming forward to bring an end to this conflict? The UK must continue to show resolve and use every tool at its disposal to back Ukraine and our allies and defend our freedoms and values from Putin’s acts and assaults.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her comments. She will know how important it is that we maintain support across the House for our action in supporting Ukraine and putting pressure on Russia. That sends an important message to Putin from the whole of Parliament that we stand in solidarity with Ukraine.

It is important to recognise the work we are doing on sanctions. I disagree with the right hon. Lady’s characterisation of what we have done; I outlined how we have actually strengthened sanctions. In addition, on 26 May the UK sanctioned cryptocurrency exchanges operating in Russia along with entities and individuals suspected of links to the UK-sanctioned A7 network. It is important to recognise that we must continue to keep all our sanctions under review and strengthen them where we can.

The right hon. Lady’s contribution emphasises the need to commit to achieving an unconditional ceasefire. The attacks on Ukraine and the drone attack on Romania are unacceptable, but it is important to say that it is Russia that is stalling and backtracking. Putin has continued to repeat ultra-maximalist demands that would end Ukraine’s existence as a sovereign independent state, while dragging out talks and escalating his aggression against Ukraine. We, however, will continue to work with international partners, as we do every week, to ensure that Ukraine gets the military and financial support it needs to defend itself and to ramp up the economic pressure on Russia in order to force Putin to de-escalate the war and engage in meaningful talks.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Given that the urgent question is about Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure, I want to bring the voice of a Ukrainian who messaged me earlier today to the Chamber:

“Today Ukraine marks the Day of Remembrance for the Children killed as a result of Russia’s aggression. And this is not history—even this week, there are new deaths, new wounded children, new families destroyed. My Instagram and Facebook feeds are full of these stories: children injured on the way to shelters, mothers and grandmothers killed, little ones left bleeding while people wait for the attack to end before help can reach them. This is what Russia’s attacks on civilian infrastructure mean for Ukrainians—not numbers, but children’s lives being stolen.”

I ask the Minister and other hon. Members to reflect on that.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. It is devastating to reflect on the impact on children—the children who have been killed; the children who have been injured; the children whose schools have been destroyed; the children whose education has been affected; and the children whose parents do not live with them because they are involved in the war on the frontline or supporting the frontline.

The drone entering Romanian airspace creates even more fear of further escalation, rather than de-escalation. We continue to call for and work for an unconditional ceasefire. Time and again, Russia has shown that it has no regard for civilian life, for children’s lives, for international law, or for the sovereignty of its neighbours. This must not be allowed to stand.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

The House will join me in expressing deep condolences to all those who have lost loved ones as a result of Russia’s unlawful war in Ukraine.

The UN has verified nearly 16,000 Ukrainian civilian deaths and 45,000 injured civilians since Russia’s illegal invasion. On Tuesday alone, Putin’s evil regime fired another 74 missiles and 656 drones at residential buildings and non-military infrastructure across Ukraine, killing at least 22 people and wounding more than 100. Russia has destroyed 90% of Ukraine’s thermal power generation, while continuing to profit from fossil fuel exports that fund this destruction.

Will the Minister please confirm that the Government will stop prevaricating and show leadership on the world stage by transferring the £30 billion of frozen Russian assets held in the UK to Ukraine to aid in its defence? Will the Government also ban all UK maritime services from supporting Russia’s fuel exports? Finally, will the Government scrap the shameful sanctions waiver on fuel and diesel products refined from Russian crude oil?

[Seema Malhotra]

I have outlined how we have increased sanctions, even in the past few weeks. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is important that we continue to work with the international community and continue our close working with the EU. He will know how much of a personal priority this is for the Prime Minister. We must continue to work actively, across the whole of the international community, towards the commitment to an unconditional ceasefire, and we must work with close partners on a shared plan for peace. It was important to hear Secretary Rubio, in his evidence to Congress yesterday, call out Russia for failing to meet its objectives. We must continue to work with the US closely on peace and also in supporting Ukraine.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

It is clear that the sanctions imposed by this Government and other Governments have denied Russia funds for attacks on both military and civilian targets, but as the war has progressed, Russia has found ever more creative ways to avoid and delay their impact. Are the existing sanctions under constant review, and what more can be done to stop the funds going to Russia and driving these attacks?

[Seema Malhotra]

As my hon. Friend will know, we always keep sanctions under review. We have taken recent steps and will continue to keep the pressure on Russia. It is important to say that we stand united with those who have been affected in Ukraine and by the recent drone incident in Romania, and we will always stand with all allies in defending every inch of NATO territory.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

It would be easy to see this conflict in purely geopolitical terms, but if I may be slightly philosophical for a moment, I would suggest that this is very much a battle between good and evil—between light and darkness. If seen in that context, it gives us a little bit more impetus to continue to do what the United Kingdom has been doing from the beginning of this war and to stay united across this House as much as possible, notwithstanding the comments on the temporary licences of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) with which I completely agree.

Would the Minister like to join me in congratulating the new Government of Hungary on lifting the veto on the European peace facility, which will directly help Ukraine’s war effort? Is it not the case that the attacks on Poland, Romania, Moldova and the Baltic states are not an errant missile going astray but a probing of NATO and a testing of NATO and our resolve, and that that resolve must remain tough, strong and resolute?

On the issue of Russian sanctions, which I have supported from the very beginning, is it not the case that the component parts of many of these ballistic missiles and drones are coming from North Korea, Iran and China—I thank Sir Richard Moore, the former chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, for calling out China—and we need to take more action?

Finally, may I put on record my condolences following the death of Sir Alex Younger, a former head of SIS who was a first-class public servant and dedicated his life to keeping this country and our allies safe.

[Seema Malhotra]

I join the right hon. Member in expressing condolences in relation to Sir Alex Younger, for all the reasons he gave. Let me respond to some of his comments; there were quite a few in his question.

It is indeed the case that Russia’s recklessness in violating NATO airspace, including the incident in Romania just a few days ago, serves only to strengthen the unity of NATO and the resolve of allies to support Ukraine in its defence, and continues to send a message to Russia that we will defend every inch of NATO territory. It is also important to recognise the ongoing support that we are giving and why it is so important. I have already stated the support that we have given to the Ukraine war effort. We have committed £13 billion of total military support through our £2.26 billion extraordinary revenue acceleration loans. Since the start of the invasion, the UK has committed up to £5.3 billion in non-military support, including £4.1 billion to the World Bank loans and £1.2 billion in bilateral support. We are a leading bilateral donor.

In our work with EU allies, we continue to support those efforts. Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine continues to be met by European unity. The right hon. Gentleman will know that at the European Political Community summit in Yerevan last month, the Prime Minister announced that the UK will enter talks to join the EU’s €90 billion loan, which will support Ukraine’s budgetary and military needs.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

May I take this opportunity to commend the Minister and her colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on the continuing ratcheting up of sanctions, whether it is on Russian hydrocarbons, crypto-networks or other illicit financial flows? I was not a Member of this House in the last Parliament, but I was proud as a British citizen to see that there was consensus across the political parties about the need to stand up to Putin’s barbaric and unlawful war of aggression and to support Ukraine for as long as it took. Regrettably, that is no longer the case in this place. Will the Minister and other colleagues join me in condemning the remarks by the Reform UK candidate in the Makerfield by-election, when he said that Putin’s Russia was “well within their rights” to annex Crimea?

[Seema Malhotra]

I join my hon. Friend in condemning that comment. There is no space for apologists for Putin in this Chamber. It is incredibly important to look not just at sanctions and at what we are doing, but at the impact of those sanctions because we want to see that they are taking effect. On 12 May, Russia slashed its economic growth forecast for this year from 1.2% to just 0.4%. Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister ascribed that downgrade to the impact of sanctions, among other factors. It is important to recognise that we must keep the pressure on and that it is having an effect.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Is it not clear that this escalation is a portent of what Russia intends to do as it begins to lose this war? Only a few months ago there was a general view that Russia was winning, but now it is clear that Russia is losing and it will run out of money before it can annex Ukraine. What are the Government doing to ensure that we are properly prepared to face down this escalation? It is all very well Ministers coming to this House, wringing their hands and condemning these atrocities, but what are we going to do to deter this atrocity and further Russian escalation? Will the Minister make an assessment of the St Petersburg international economic forum? It set out various scenarios for Russia in the future, some of which included the threat of nuclear weapons, so how will we deter that?

[Seema Malhotra]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Russia’s failure on the battlefield is likely to be one reason why it is escalating its air raids, including on major Ukrainian cities. That is the view of analysts at the Institute for the Study of War think-tank who said that the strikes were also aimed at distracting from the impact of Ukraine’s long-range attacks on Russia. It is important that we recognise that this is a sign of Russia starting to seek to have those distractions and to escalate rather than de-escalate, which is what we need to happen.

I have already outlined the work that we are doing to increase defence support bilaterally and multilaterally, and the dialogue and work we are engaged in with our European allies, as well as allies across the world. The Prime Minister is continuing to lead those efforts. That is why he spoke to President Zelensky last night— we must continue to have that dialogue—and why we summoned the Russian ambassador yesterday. We will continue to engage in this effort to support and stand with Ukraine, and to ensure that there is de-escalation and a unilateral ceasefire, and that Russia withdraws.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I think almost all of us in this House believe that Russia must pay for the damage and devastation that it has caused in Ukraine. My constituents want to see the assets seized from the Russian state and its proxies being used to start supporting Ukraine both during and after this war. Will the Minister give an update to the House and my constituents on the progress on that?

[Seema Malhotra]

I have sought to cover a number of points, but I will reiterate one point about our continuing support and the continuing progress in the war in Ukraine. The Secretary of State will be chairing the next meeting of the 50 nation-strong Ukraine Defence Contact Group at NATO headquarters. It is important that in every area and in every forum that we can, we continue to keep the military pressure and the economic pressure—the pressure of sanctions—on Russia.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The SNP continues to support the military assistance that is being provided and will continue to push for further sanctions on Russia in order that it can no longer afford this war. I understand that the Minister may not have the answers at her fingertips, so I am happy for her to write to me, because I would rather have a full answer. The right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) spoke about war crimes, and targeting civilian infrastructure is a war crime. Will the Minister lay out what the UK is doing with allies to protect and preserve the evidence of those war crimes in order that prosecutions can be brought in the future?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point about the work that is going on. The Minister who is connected with that work is unable to be here today, but I am very happy to ensure that there is that engagement with her.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Eight years ago next month, Dawn Sturgess died in my constituency as a direct consequence of Russia’s attack, via Novichok, that aimed to take out Sergei Skripal. During that awful episode, it was quite clear that the work of our security services was instrumental in understanding the covert networks that Russia has across the globe. I pay tribute to Sir Alex Younger, who did so much to hold together an increasingly sophisticated capability to protect us in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister reassure us that continued investment will take place in whatever sophisticated surveillance of Russian assets across the globe exists, so we can ensure that we are one step ahead of Putin?

[Seema Malhotra]

The right hon. Member is right to pay tribute to Sir Alex Younger. I recognise the right hon. Member’s work in relation to the horrific Salisbury attack and the impact it will have had on the community, and I know that the work continues with him. He will be aware that the strategic defence review and the national security strategy have identified the Russian state as the most acute threat to the UK’s national security. We will continue to keep that matter under review and work with our international allies to ensure that we keep our country safe, put a stop to Russian state threats wherever they are happening, and continue to give Ukraine our iron-clad support.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The latest attacks by Russia should be condemned in the strongest terms. Russia has rightly been made a pariah on the international stage for its ongoing invasion of Ukraine and the crimes associated with it, but it is slowly slinking its way back into cultural and sporting events, such as last month when Eurovision boss Martin Green said that Russia could return to the stage while the war in Ukraine continues. What steps will the Government take with their international allies and across Departments to ensure that such normalisation and rehabilitation of Russia’s image is not allowed while egregious breaches of international law and war crimes continue?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He will have seen the assessment of Russian state threats that we have made through our security reviews, and he will have heard earlier about our concerns in relation to Russia’s failure to advance on the battlefield, which is of course why it is escalating matters now. We must look at all measures we can take to keep the pressure on Russia; we do so through our economic sanctions, but we will continue to do all we can to send a message to Russia that its behaviour and its violations of international law—for which it has no respect—are unacceptable, and that we will continue to back our allies across the world.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Given that our own infrastructure is under constant cyber-attack, will the hon. Lady reassure us that Russia would be right in understanding that no such attack will go unanswered, like for like?

[Seema Malhotra]

I think that I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He makes an important point about risks and why it is so important that we are taking all the steps we can, alongside our international allies, to upgrade our defence and security systems. We will be looking to detect and deter any potential risks to our security, and we will always defend our country and our infrastructure. That is a focus for the whole of this Government.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

I want to return to the issue of UK maritime services bankrolling Putin’s barbaric war by supporting Russian fossil fuel exports. Despite the ban relating to LNG, campaigners have criticised what they see as a lack of enforcement of the rules. What will the Government do to ensure that sanctions are not just a paper tiger?

[Seema Malhotra]

It is important to note—as I did earlier—the impact that sanctions are having, which has been commented on by the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia. The UK’s Russia sanctions regime is designed to maximise the impact on Putin’s regime—to cripple supply chains and technological advancement and undermine Russia’s war effort. The hon. Lady will also know that the UK has sanctioned over 3,300 individuals, entities and ships under our Russia sanctions regime; over 3,100 of those designations were imposed since the full-scale invasion in 2022, and over 1,300 of them were imposed by this Government. I could go on, including about our sanctioning of over 30 Russian banks, accounting for 90% of Russia’s banking sector. Our sanctions are hurting, and it is important that this message to Russia continues.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for tabling this urgent question, and I thank the Minister and, indeed, every hon. Member in this House for their support for Ukraine, which sends a very strong message from this Chamber. For four years, the world has witnessed Russia waging a brutal, unprovoked war of aggression in a systematic attempt to erase a sovereign nation from the map, marked by a deliberate campaign of terror against innocent civilians, energy grids and first responders. The intensity of long-range bombardment has increased by 20% in the past year, so how can we further meet our obligations to the rule of law and take whatever steps are necessary to end the war, while ensuring that Ukraine still exists at that end point?

[Seema Malhotra]

I always thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He is absolutely right that it is imperative that we see a ceasefire, an end to this war and the withdrawal of Russia from Ukraine. That remains our focus in the support we give to Ukraine and the continuing work we are doing internationally with our close partners on negotiations. It is also important to recognise the impact that our sanctions are having. Indeed, it is also worth mentioning that Russia’s oil and gas revenues fell 24% year on year in 2025, and by 47% in January and February compared with the same period last year. We have to keep the pressure on, and it is important that we uphold international law and our values. We must ensure that sovereign nations can continue their lives in peace, supporting prosperity and security for their people, and not be subject to illegal wars, as we have seen in Ukraine.

Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)]

With permission, I would like to make a statement on the draft Equality Act 2010 code of practice for services, public functions and associations.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is the independent equality regulator, and it ensures compliance with the Equality Act 2010. Its code of practice covers all nine protected characteristics and the steps service providers should take to comply with the law. On receipt of the draft code from the EHRC in September, we consulted the devolved Governments in Wales and Scotland, per the process set out in the Equality Act 2006. The EHRC sent the Government an updated draft code last month, following engagement and further legal analysis, ensuring it is robust and accessible with clear explanations. The Minister for Women and Equalities updated Parliament in April, with the Government committed to laying the code in May following restrictions during the pre-election period. My right hon. Friend honoured that commitment on 21 May.

The EHRC has worked hard to produce a code that works for everyone. Following the laying of the draft code, there is now a 40-day period, not including the recess, that allows for parliamentary scrutiny, as set out in the Equality Act 2006. If neither House disapproves the draft in this period, the Minister can then revoke the 2011 code by regulations and then bring the new code into force by a commencement order.

Today, I want to update the House on the contents of the code, in particular what has changed between this draft code and the 2011 version. The updates are primarily where there have been legislative changes, developments in case law, a change or clarification of terminology, or new guidance issued since the original code was published in 2011. The most substantial changes relate to the ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers handed down on 16 April 2025. The judgment set out that sex means biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, and that trans people are still protected by the Act. In its judgment, the Supreme Court also warned against reading the judgment 

“as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”. 

That is why this Government will always treat these issues sensitively and will refuse to use any group as a political football. 

The Government have been clear that we will protect single-sex spaces based on biological sex where they are needed, such as women’s refuges. We have also been clear that everyone, including trans people, should have the right to access the services they need in a way that is respectful, protects dignity and privacy, and ensures adequate provision. Changes primarily relate to the provision of sex-based services, when it is lawful to limit access to services and associations based on sex and gender reassignment, implications for competitive sport, and asking about someone’s sex. 

For duty bearers, the draft code provides further clarity on how service providers can follow the Supreme Court ruling in practice. Although it cannot cover every single scenario, the EHRC has provided key explanations and worked examples, meaning that there is something that every organisation can take from it and apply in their own context with common sense. If a service provider still is not sure, perhaps because of a quite specific circumstance, they should take legal advice. 

For clarity, the draft code indicates that a single-sex service should be provided on the basis of biological sex, so a women-only service should be for biological women only.

Service providers should find that the code provides certainty and clarity on who can access single-sex services and how they can best ensure women’s privacy, dignity and safety.

The code encourages services to communicate their policy on single-sex provision clearly, empowering women to make informed choices when accessing services. This could be especially useful for those women who, for feelings of safety or cultural or religious reasons, are unable to share some spaces with men. The draft code is also clear that trans people should not be left without services to use. Providers could provide mixed-sex facilities or specific support for trans people. We believe service providers will be able to find the right balance for everyone. 

Members have raised accessing toilet facilities. The code indicates that toilets designated as male or female should be for those of that biological sex. Trans people can use accessible toilets, individual lockable toilets or unisex toilets. The draft code reflects that there must be toilet services for all, and many businesses and service providers will already meet those requirements. For example, a small café might have only one or two individual locked toilets for use by all customers. The draft code provides practical guidance on different ways to comply with the law. Some organisations will not need to make any changes at all and for those that do, in the majority of cases, we are talking about changing signs on existing facilities or updating them so that they are fully enclosed. 

What the code does not provide is the right for members of the public to challenge one another on their sex and access to those spaces. People have been using single-sex spaces with a sensible and respectful attitude to other users for years and will continue to do so. Most people have the common sense to step in when necessary, when a person of the opposite biological sex enters a single-sex facility in error, for example, or to know when to alert a member of staff. The draft code provides clarity to service providers to ensure that people have access to services that are private and safe.

I am aware that some have also raised concerns over the code’s content regarding special category personal data. The code states that where an individual is asked to confirm their sex, that should be done sensitively and with respect for their privacy. The draft code explains that information about sex is likely to constitute special category personal data, where, for example, asking about sex may lead to the disclosure of someone’s medical history or the fact that they have a gender recognition certificate. The code advises providers to handle such conversations appropriately. We will work with the EHRC to ensure that service providers understand what is required of them when handling data.

There is also an interest in associations. If an association is for “women only”, the draft code indicates that that should be on the basis of biological sex. The draft code’s section on associations based on more than one protected characteristic means that an association that wants to be trans-inclusive can do so by basing its membership on both sex and gender reassignment.

There are also changes to disability, maternity and pregnancy protections. The draft code highlights protections for disabled people in the Equality Act that expand on what was included in the previous code, such as non-discrimination in relation to access to services. This will be the first time they are recognised and explained in the code. This is an important step for disabled people’s rights.

For pregnant and breastfeeding women, the updated code highlights that harassment relating to breastfeeding may also constitute unlawful harassment on the grounds of sex, confirming that women are protected. The code also highlights that while the protected characteristic of pregnancy and maternity is not covered directly under the harassment protections in the Act, it is indirectly covered, as such harassment amounts to harassment related to sex.

We note the wider interest in the implementation of the For Women Scotland judgment and the draft code across Government. We are committed to doing this and are working across Departments, considering the implications of the code on policies and activities.

The Equality Act is one of the most significant achievements in modern British history which was enacted by the previous Labour Government. It is the quiet guardian in millions of people’s daily lives. This Government will uphold and protect it, not weaken it. We are grateful to the EHRC for its work on the draft code to ensure that duty bearers and service users have up-to-date guidance on the Equality Act. We will always uphold our British values of treating everyone with dignity and respect. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement.

It is understood that the Secretary of State first received the draft code of practice in September last year, nine months ago—nine months in which the law has been clear, the Supreme Court had ruled, and women, girls, public bodies and businesses across the country have been waiting for the Government to act. What did the Government do when they received it? Instead of action, we saw delay after delay from a Government reluctant to face their own Back Benchers and protect vulnerable women and girls.

First, the Secretary of State claimed that she needed impact assessments; then she said that consultation with devolved Governments was required, despite this being a reserved matter; after that it was purdah; and finally, having exhausted every excuse, she chose to lay the code of practice before the House on the very last day before the Whitsun parliamentary recess, seemingly actively minimising scrutiny. That is not acceptable. It is also telling that the Secretary of State has sadly not even come to the House herself to account for these decisions—it seems the lure of Makerfield is too great.

The Secretary of State previously told the House that she requested only minor changes to the EHRC’s draft. If that is the case, I ask the Minister, in the Secretary of State’s absence, why it took eight months to request them. The statement talks about engagement—in the interests of transparency, who was that with? My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) and I have written to the chair of the EHRC asking for clarity on what changes were made. Under the Equality Act 2006, the Secretary of State must provide written reasons for rejecting the original draft. As changes plainly have been made, will the Minister commit to publishing the detail on what has changed and why?

The code of practice is right to emphasise the importance of protecting single-sex spaces and services for women, but the law has been settled since the Supreme Court judgment over a year ago. Sex means biological sex, and yet the Secretary of State has failed to enforce that ruling and women have faced ongoing harassment and discrimination for stating that basic fact. We have seen cases such as the Darlington nurses, who were hounded out of their roles or drawn into lengthy tribunal processes for asserting their legal right not to share changing rooms with men. The Government have done nothing to protect them. What does the Secretary of State and the Minister say to those many women whose privacy, safety and dignity have been compromised during these nine months of inaction? Why did the Secretary of State fail to get a grip on her own Government when Department after Department claimed that they could not update their policies while awaiting the code?

The Minister said in her statement: “We are committed to doing this and are working across Departments, considering the implications of the code to policies and activities.” Is that why, more than a year after the Supreme Court ruling, the NHS still has not updated its policy on single-sex spaces for staff? Perhaps following the new Health Secretary’s recent remarks there may be greater clarity in the wider Labour Government about what a woman is, but this revisionist mindset about Labour’s supposed long-term support for single-sex spaces will frankly be fresh news to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield). Will the Minister set out the steps that all Departments will now take to comply with the code, and will they all do so without further delay?

In the meantime, some have sought actively to misrepresent this issue as an attack on trans people. It is not. It is simply about applying the law correctly while safeguarding women and girls. I think the Green party’s deputy leaders’ inflammatory rhetoric is reprehensible and unhelpful, especially at the start of Pride Month. Not to be outdone, we are witnessing peak Lib Dem-ery, with the party leader claiming to accept the Supreme Court’s judgment while opposing the guidance that flows from it. As has rightly been said, that position is unprincipled. Only the Liberal Democrats can claim to support the rule of law while rejecting the practical application of it.

This code of practice is welcome. As the Minister said, it covers a broad range of areas including age, disability, pregnancy and maternity, race and so much more, but, disgracefully, it has landed nine months overdue—and helpfully after local elections in which we women voted. During that time, women have paid the price of inaction. Now that the code has finally been published, women and girls need proper action—not hiding away, not further delay and not more excuses. We need the immediate enforcement of the rights that women and girls are entitled to under the law of this land.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Lady for her response and questions. Let me say up front that we take this issue incredibly seriously. Services and associations need to operate in compliance with the law, and we want to support them. The issue is not a political football for us; nor should it be for any Member of this House. We are focused on the practical—treating everyone with compassion, dignity and respect—and we should never fan the flames or seek to grab headlines. We will support services to operate and provide single-sex spaces where needed and ensure that trans people have access to all the services to support their needs, too.

The hon. Lady accused the Government of delay but, as a shadow Equalities Minister, she will know that there is a process that has to be followed. In line with that process, as outlined in the Equality Act 2006, we consulted the devolved Administrations; we worked across Government on the myriad services that we provide, or support others to provide; and we conducted an analysis of the code and its impact. The EHRC made some changes following its engagement and consultation. We were told by the Cabinet Office’s permanent secretary that we could not lay the code during the pre-election period. We have now laid the draft.

The hon. Lady said that in laying the draft in May, before the parliamentary recess, as my right hon. Friend committed to do, we were somehow seeking to delay scrutiny. It may help to clarify that upon laying the draft there is a 40-day period that allows for parliamentary scrutiny, and that excludes the recess. There is sufficient time for adequate scrutiny, and I am sure that the House will give the matter its attention.

In relation to guidance for the NHS, it is helpful for the House to know that NHS England is currently reviewing its guidance and will ensure that it reflects the Supreme Court ruling in the For Women Scotland v. The Scottish Ministers case. It will also take account of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s statutory code of practice.

It is important to note that although the code does not directly apply to employers, its explanation of the Equality Act 2010—particularly around unlawful discrimination and harassment—will be relevant to and helpful for employers in considering how best to comply with their obligations under that legislation. The EHRC has a separate employment code of practice, which it also intends to update in the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

I really wish that there was a better beginning to Pride Month than what we are discussing. Although the code is marginally different from its draft, it is still a trans-exclusionary one at its core, and unfortunately not inclusive. Moves like this from the EHRC and the Government have seen the UK slip from third in 2019 to 22nd in the European rankings for LGBT+ people to live and feel safe. Does the Minister share my concern that the new code of practice will only further the UK’s now hostile environment for trans people and not calm it? How will she act to stop the erosion of LGBT+ rights in this country?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She will know that making sure that we can support women and their rights, alongside treating trans people with dignity, must be the priority for all of us. That is what we are aiming to achieve. That is why it is important that we have the draft code now available for scrutiny. We will continue to ensure that we provide single-sex spaces where needed, and also ensure that trans people have access to services to support their needs, in an environment of dignity and respect for all.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. After the Supreme Court’s ruling last year, the Government’s job was to give people, businesses and organisations clear, workable guidance. The code is instead unworkable, exclusionary and expensive for businesses. As the Minister knows, the Government must ensure that they meet the legal obligations placed on them by the public sector equality duty. That requires the Minister to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct, to advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not, and to foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not.

Yet the Government’s own equality impact assessment identifies disproportionate harm to those with protected characteristics, and a failure to set out how that harm will be addressed. Can the Minister really say, hand on heart, that she believes the guidance does that? The impact assessment notes how the guidance will likely impact women who are not trans, yet do not meet cultural and social expectations around what a woman should look like. There have already been stories of women with mastectomies being challenged when accessing women-only spaces because they do not look like women. Has the Minister truly considered that?

For trans, non-binary and intersex people, the code operates from a position of exclusion. It risks driving those small minorities away from public life, as leading mental health charities have since warned. The guidance conflicts with our core British values of tolerance, decency, respect for individual liberty and the rule of law. That is why I urge the Minister to withdraw it and to accept that this issue needs to be resolved by Parliament as law makers. To achieve that, I beg the Minister to adopt the Liberal Democrat proposal to appoint a joint committee of cross-party MPs and peers, to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010, taking evidence from all communities who have been impacted, in order to propose amendments or new legislation that it sees as necessary to ensure that existing rights are protected. If we work together we can fix this; sowing division will not.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and question. I again highlight how the draft code does provide further clarity on how service providers can follow the Supreme Court ruling in practice, and we can ensure that we both protect single-sex spaces and have services and support for trans people. It is important to recognise that although it cannot cover every scenario, the EHRC has provided key explanations and worked examples, also based on wide consultation, that every organisation can take and apply in its own context with common sense. If a service provider is not sure, it can and should take legal advice.

I also want to mention the burden on business. The EHRC expects that for most aspects of the draft code, businesses will already be compliant, and for some businesses there will be no cost at all. For example, a small café might have one individual lockable toilet for use by all customers, and it would not need to change anything. It may be helpful for the House to know that the EHRC will be running a session to answer questions from Members of Parliament later this week, and there may be some matters that the hon. Lady wishes to raise directly.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

The EHRC code of practice fails everyone. It effectively pushes trans people out of public life, it subjects all women to gender policing based on stereotypes, and it does not provide clarity to organisations that want to be trans-inclusive. For example, a charity that wants to put on a women’s coffee morning that is open to the public cannot, according to the guidance, be trans inclusive without being open to the whole public. The Government’s equality impact assessment warns of the disproportionate risk of violence and sexual assault towards trans women if they are forced to use men’s services, as well as the increased harassment of anyone who does not conform to gender stereotypes. Why are the Government pushing ahead with this? Why not instead withdraw the guidance, and legislate to clarify that the Equality Act 2010 was always intended to be trans inclusive? For goodness’ sake, it was passed after the last Labour Government passed the Gender Recognition Act in 2004.

[Seema Malhotra]

The Government are proud of the Equality Act, and we will always protect and uphold it. I want to pick up on my hon. Friend’s question about associations, because it is clear in the draft code that if an association is, and describes itself as, for women only, the draft code indicates that that should be on the basis of biological sex. However, if an association wants to be trans-inclusive, it does not say that its services need to be open to absolutely everybody. The draft code’s section on associations based on more than one protected characteristic means that they can do so by choosing their membership by both sex and gender reassignment. It is important that we continue to ensure that that is as clear as possible.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

This is definitely better late than never, and after listening to the Lib Dem spokesperson—I cannot believe I am going to say this—I am actually grateful that we have a Labour Government and not a Lib Dem Government, because what the Lib Dems have just said is absolutely shocking. They do not respect the rule of law at all. On that note, I am going to ask a technical question. Did the Secretary of State formally reject the draft code of practice, as submitted by the EHRC in September 2025? If so, please can the Minister provide us with a copy of the written reasons given, as per section 14 of the Equality Act 2006?

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I have shared the process that we have been through, which is in line with the process outlined in the Equality Act 2006. It is important to note that, in line with that process, we have seen the consultation with the devolved Administrations; that work has also been done by the EHRC; and the Secretary of State has now laid the draft code before the House, as she committed to do.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I wonder whether the Minister could clarify this specific point. If a single-sex organisation wanted to open its doors to trans people, would that be to all trans people, or could a women’s organisation, for example, open its doors or membership to trans women exclusively?

[Seema Malhotra]

I know that my hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on individual cases. It is important to note that there is guidance in the draft code, with worked examples, and if an organisation is unsure, it will be important for it to be able to consult that guidance and to take legal advice, should it so wish, but there is also experience and common sense involved in this, as well as the application of the draft code with its examples that I think will provide answers to all organisations as to how they should proceed with the services they provide.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I am really appalled, frankly, with the response from the official Opposition. Just a few Prime Ministers ago, Theresa May said:

“Indeed when it comes to rights and protections for trans people, there is still a long way to go.”

Well, how far the Tory party has fallen from those words. As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I attended the evidence session when we interviewed the new chair of the EHRC, and for the Minister to say that that was an independent process when the Government rammed it through despite cross-party consensus that the new chair was not fit for the role is, quite frankly, surprising. I also want to pick up on the fact that the Minister said that we should “treat these issues sensitively”. Today is the start of Pride Month. To do this today, of all days, is not just a kick in the teeth but a slap in the face for LGBT people across this country. I want to know what the Minister would say to my constituents who have told me how they have been challenged in toilets because they live their lives as trans people already, before this guidance was put forward. Why does she think this will make it any better? What basis does she have for that suggestion?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Member will be aware that people have operated in society with respect for each other in relation to single-sex spaces for a long time, and that will continue to be the case. It is important to note that access to a toilet should be very clear, and to recognise the Supreme Court ruling in relation to toilets: toilets that are designated as male or female should be for those of that biological sex. However, facilities can be provided in other ways, and a large number of organisations across the country already do so, whether by providing unisex toilets or individual lockable toilets. That means that those facilities are accessible by anybody.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have listened very carefully to my constituents who identify as trans. One thing that is very clear is from the EHRC guidance is that it will cost organisations a significant amount to put on additional services and facilities if they are to become inclusive organisations. What discussions have taken place with the Treasury to ensure that organisations are supported to build an inclusive society?

[Seema Malhotra]

I reiterate what the EHRC has said: it expects that businesses will already be compliant with most aspects of the draft code. My hon. Friend may also be referring to Government services. We are committed to making sure that the Government estate is 100% compliant with the requirements of the Equality Act and in line with the EHRC guidance.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I am going to try to get some clarity, because my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) asked when there will be written explanations of the draft changes, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul). In both answers, the Minister talked about process. Well, process dictates that there should be written answers, so when will we see them in this House?

[Seema Malhotra]

I am aware that the shadow Secretary of State has written to the EHRC, and I am sure that the EHRC will be engaging directly in relation to those specific questions.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

What this place does best is scrutiny. That is why it is so problematic that this legislation is coming forward in a draft form as a negative statutory instrument. This guidance falls apart on hard contact with the real world. I will quote back to the Minister something that she just said in her statement, because businesses in my local community, which just want to be cafés or restaurants, will be troubled by it. She said that the guidance

“does not provide…the right for members of the public to challenge one another on their sex and access to those spaces”,

but she also said that

“where an individual is asked to confirm their sex, this should be done sensitively”.

Most businesses will be deeply confused as to whether somebody can be challenged, and frankly they do not want fights between their customers. Does the Minister accept that, to prevent being people’s gender being judged by their appearance—which we know will harm many more people than, I suspect, even those people who wish to see harm through this guidance would like—the safest option for most businesses will be getting rid of women’s toilets altogether? Will that not be an inevitable consequence of this guidance?

[Seema Malhotra]

It will be for organisations to make decisions about how they comply with the law, and different organisations will choose different ways of doing so. In the majority of cases, we are talking about changing signs on existing facilities or updating them so they may be fully enclosed. As I mentioned before, the code does not provide the right for members of the public to challenge one another on their sex or access to those spaces, but most people will have the common sense to step in where necessary or, if they are concerned, to alert a member of staff.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I would also like to refer the Minister to her own words. She described the Equality Act as

“one of the most significant achievements in modern British history”.

I think we would all agree with that, but she then went on to describe it as the

“quiet guardian in millions of people’s daily lives”

and said that

“This Government will uphold and protect it, not weaken it”.

She will look very hard before she finds a member of the LGBTQ community in this country who believes that. Regardless of what the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) might think, I fully respect the Supreme Court’s judgment, but I believe the Supreme Court judged on the letter of the law, not on the spirit of that historic achievement that the Minister described. In order to reflect the spirit of that, do we not now need to look carefully at the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and ensure that all people in this country—including women and the LGBT community, because their rights are not mutually exclusive—get the protection that was envisaged in that law, in both its letter and spirit?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I do want, however, to challenge her on some of what she said. It is important to recognise and reassure trans people that there are still protections in the Equality Act via the gender reassignment protected characteristic, and this includes direct and indirect discrimination. It is also important to note and not to take for granted the choices that we make in government; they are active choices to pursue and support people’s rights. The Government have also recently updated hate crime legislation to make hate crimes against LGBT people an aggravated offence. We will also shortly bring forward legislation for a trans-inclusive conversion practice ban to end that abusive practice. It is important not to say that we are not supportive of trans rights and LGBT+ rights. We must recognise the progress we are making where we can, the complexity of the debate we are having today, and the importance of ensuring that, in complying with the law, we are supporting women and single-sex spaces alongside treating trans people with respect and dignity.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and her attempts to present it in quite an even and fair way, because this debate is already far too toxic. She will acknowledge, however, that the guidance will change the lives of many people, particularly those who have been living as trans for many years. She is right that we should protect the rights of women and trans people, but I am keen to understand what that means for those delivering single-sex services that only have very limited space—no space to create that third space. What do they do? If they are a charity, where do they find funding to make that happen?

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend will find that similar scenarios are shared in some of the guidance and the worked examples. For the vast majority of organisations, the changes may actually be very small. As organisations seek to comply with the guidance and the law, it is important to recognise that if there are changes to be made, as I said, in the vast majority of cases, they will be very small, and that they can take advice should they be unsure.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

It has been over a year since the verdict, so what is the Minister doing to persuade non-compliant public sector bodies, like the NHS, to implement the Supreme Court ruling at the earliest possible opportunity?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Gentleman may not have heard me reference the work that the NHS is doing. It is important that it is able to continue that work and that we ensure that other Government Departments still working through the implications are able to do so and bring forward their policies.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I cannot be the only Member to have had dozens of emails from constituents who are dismayed that, under this guidance, the vague, ill-defined and highly subjective term “discomfort of service users” becomes the litmus test for excluding people from essential services. I heard what the Minister said about associations, but can we be clear whether public spaces will still be able to provide trans-inclusive services? If that is not the case, I feel that this guidance is simply unreasonable, unfair and unworkable.

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend is right; it is extremely important that as we take forward the draft code and its implications, and as we look to how we ensure compliance with the law, we do support women and their rights to single-sex services and spaces, but that we do so while ensuring that we are meeting the needs of trans people too. That is incumbent on all of us in this House.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

At the beginning of Pride Month, a number of trans people will be unsettled and anxious about the contents of the statement today; they will be wondering how on earth they will safely access public services. Not only have we fallen to No. 22 in the rainbow index, but we are now 45th out of 49 European nations for the service of transgender people across Europe. Can the Minister give us any explanation for why we have fallen so low? What impact does she expect this code of practice to have on those league table positions?

[Seema Malhotra]

I always thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. This draft code has more worked examples and it has seen consultation. He is able to speak directly with the EHRC about the way in which it has consulted and brought forward the draft code. As I have said, it is incredibly important that we have a balance, so that we are protecting single-sex spaces for women—and that should not be in conflict with ensuring that trans people continue to be protected from harassment and discrimination. I want to reiterate that the Supreme Court warned

“against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”.

It is important to get this right for everyone.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

The proposed code of practice represents a major and worrying change in how equality law may operate in practice for trans people and service providers. A number of LGBTQ+ charities and equality organisations have warned that the guidance risks legitimising exclusion and increasing harassment of both trans people and gender non-conforming cis people. A number of my constituents across Stourbridge have contacted me because they are deeply concerned by the proposed changes. Will the Minister confirm whether this House will have the opportunity to debate and to vote on the final code of practice before anything comes into force?

[Seema Malhotra]

We are certainly having some of that debate today, and it will certainly be possible for hon. Members to bring forward questions and raise matters in the usual way. My hon. Friend may well wish to raise issues and discuss them directly with the EHRC when it has its meeting for Members of Parliament, and I am sure she will continue to raise these matters in the House in the usual ways.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Oxford is proud to have the highest proportion of trans and non-binary people of any area outside London, so it was with sadness that I received an email from a constituent, Jennie, who already accompanies their spouse, who is trans, to the toilet, because she is so worried for their safety. Last year, 3,800 hate crimes were reported against trans people, and the worry in the community is that things will only get worse, not better, as a result of this guidance. This weekend is Oxford Pride, and the Liberal Democrats and I will stand proudly with our trans and non-binary neighbours.

My question to the Minister is simple: what if she is wrong? What if her assurance that this decision will protect trans and non-binary rights does not come to pass and the situation gets worse? Is she open to working with others across this House to fix this issue, or is this a done deal?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Lady has great experience in this House, and she will know about the processes of engagement. She will also know about the consultation and the engagement that the EHRC has had in the development of the guidance and the fact that there were two periods of consultation last year. She may well wish to raise some matters with the EHRC directly, but it is important to recognise that we must respond to the ruling from the Supreme Court. It is also important to recognise that in upholding the law as it is in the Equality Act, we have a responsibility both to protect single-sex spaces and to ensure that the rights of trans people are respected and their services and needs are supported. I am sure that the hon. Lady will continue to raise those concerns.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I have concerns that human rights that have long applied to trans people since the Gender Recognition Act 2004 will no longer apply. I am afraid that that will be the case more broadly than in the areas that the Minister mentioned in her statement. When read together, paragraphs 2.5 and 2.92 of the code imply that a transgender person and a cisgender person who are in a relationship can no longer enjoy the rights that they have enjoyed since the introduction of the Act—for instance, in terms of their relationship being respected, registered and recognised by the law. Has there been a human rights analysis of the EHRC guidance? The right to family life appears to be under threat from it.

[Seema Malhotra]

I suggest that my hon. Friend raises that matter with the EHRC. I am not sure that I completely agree with his conclusions, but I am very happy to meet with him and discuss the matter further.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

As we begin Pride Month, I reiterate my party’s solidarity with trans people, who are valued members of our communities in Wales and deserve continued protection from harassment and discrimination. We will uphold the rule of law through the Welsh Government, but as we have heard on numerous occasions today, in this guidance it appears that there is a lack of clear, workable guidance for services supporting transgender people, which is causing huge concerns. The Minister has mentioned consultation with devolved Governments, but what assurance can she give me that the UK Government will work with the Welsh Government to support inclusive services?

[Seema Malhotra]

The right hon. Lady will agree with me when I say that transgender people are valued members of all our communities across the whole country. I am happy to assure her that we will continue to engage with our devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland. Engagement is an important part of how we move forward on all issues.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I am being contacted by so many transgender constituents, who say to me that the EHRC guidance is in conflict with the Equality Act. They feel that the guidance is absolutely making things worse for transgender people, who feel further stigmatised and isolated. What would the Minister say to my constituents regarding how they feel?

[Seema Malhotra]

I think we all want to ensure that trans people across the country feel supported. As we move forward on how the draft code provides guidance, with the worked examples and the extensive consultation that has gone on, I hope we will see progress in how we strike the balance we need between supporting women and their rights and treating trans people with dignity. It is important that we continue to deal with this topic sensitively and with respect, and to make sure we engage as we move forward.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I pay tribute to Bourne Out LGBT and Bourne This Way in Eastbourne, which do great work to advance the rights of LGBT folks locally. I also pay tribute to LGBT+ Lib Dems and Liberal Democrat Women, which do great work within my party to advance equality, unlike this code of practice, which is unworkable for all, immoral for all and undermines equality for all. The Government’s own equality impact assessment has said of the draft code that

“Women who are considered masculine may face greater scrutiny about their sex as a result of the changes. This will likely have a negative impact on this group”.

In what way does this enhance the privacy, dignity and safety of women?

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

The draft code is there to provide further clarity on how service providers can follow the Supreme Court ruling in practice. It cannot cover every scenario, but with the worked examples, there is something that every organisation can take and apply, in its own context and with common sense. It is also important that if a service provider is still unsure, it can take legal advice, but in addition, there will be an expectation that organisations are able to undertake training for their staff so that if there is any concern, there is a process to deal with any issue sensitively.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

I have concerns about the code and its implementation, although these largely stem from the Supreme Court judgment and its seeming disregard for the Gender Recognition Act. While we are operating within the law as set by the Supreme Court, we should also recognise the anxiety and trauma that the judgment has caused many people in our communities, including mine in Exeter. Does the Minister agree that the onus is on duty bearers to be inclusive and transparent when it comes to services and organisations, given that gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, and can she provide a bit more clarity on her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)? Does someone have the right to challenge someone in a service or an area such as a single-sex toilet, or do they not? If they do have that right, how might someone prove their biological sex, especially if they have a gender recognition certificate?

[Seema Malhotra]

It is important to clarify that we continue to have engagement, and my hon. Friend may want to raise some of those matters with the EHRC. What we have said about challenging is that, prior to this debate, people have been able to sensitively say when somebody is walking into the wrong toilet, and to raise that. If there is a concern that goes beyond that, they should alert a member of staff. We expect that there will be training within organisations, and that organisations will see themselves as having a responsibility to ensure they are providing an inclusive service to all. As we continue to move forward with this debate, it is important that that training takes place, so that issues are dealt with sensitively and that individuals and organisations do not feel that either they do not have a way of asking, or it is not being handled in a proportionate way.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

One of my constituents described this code of conduct as “trans apartheid”. Another said that it was “state-sponsored repression”. Let us flip it, because we always talk about trans women; let us talk about trans men. If the rules say that somebody cannot enter a toilet of the gender that they were not born, a trans man is no longer allowed to go into a men’s toilet, but they also may not be allowed to go into a ladies’ toilet—their sex at birth—because at that point, they might become a threatening prospect for some people. They often are exceptionally well built young people, and a woman can say that they feel uncomfortable about that person in their toilets. Where are the human rights and privacy of the trans person in all this? I am concerned that we have missed the very group of people who are most affected.

[Seema Malhotra]

The draft code says that if someone has concerns about users of the opposite sex, or those perceived to be of the opposite sex, and raises those concerns with a service provider, the service provider can ask those users to confirm their sex, but that this should be done sensitively and with their privacy protected. It also outlines that staff should be equipped to handle such sensitive situations. If someone still wants to engage someone whom they believe to be in the wrong space, we would expect them to do so in a way that does not compromise anyone’s safety. Women should not have to face intrusive questioning simply because they do not conform to feminine stereotypes, and the draft code is explicit that service providers must handle any such queries sensitively and proportionately. Everyone must have access to the services that they need.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

A number of my constituents have raised concerns about this draft code. One trans woman wrote to me to say that she and her partner are frightened for her safety and ability to take part in public life. She fears being forced to stay at home, rather than risk humiliation, confrontation or even being outed in public if she cannot use public facilities safely. Can the Minister reassure me and the House that as the code is considered, the Government will ensure that trans people are not effectively driven out of public life and remain able to participate safely, fully and with dignity?

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that no one should be driven out of public life or denied the ability to live their life as they wish. She raises an important point about why this must be done so sensitively, and why it is an important responsibility for service providers to be able to respond and adapt as needed to ensure that we have an inclusive society. It is not unreasonable to expect there to be safe and private toilets for people to use when they are out and about.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I suggest to the Minister that the very clear Supreme Court judgment and the resulting guidance render the Gender Recognition Act 2004 irrational. That Act persists with the fiction that by filling out a few forms, someone can change their sex on official documents. The Supreme Court was clear that gender recognition certificates are of no effect in changing one’s legal sex. Is it not time that we stop pretending under any guise that one can change one’s sex or change biological reality?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will say one thing in response to the hon. and learned Gentleman, which is that it is extremely important that we treat trans people with respect. Secondly, the Equality Act will continue to protect trans people and their rights in law.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

I welcome the clarity that the code brings for service providers, and I note, too, that Women’s Aid is just one of the organisations that has welcomed it. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Supreme Court judgment and the code have not revoked any rights for anyone, but have confirmed single-sex rights that protect women and girls?

[Seema Malhotra]

I was not quite clear about that question, but I will say that the draft guidance is about supporting women and their rights and the provision of single-sex spaces, alongside treating trans people with dignity, and that will continue to be our focus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlotte Cane]

Will the Minister consider changing the law so that the Equality Act lives up to its name?

[Seema Malhotra]

I believe that the Equality Act does live up to its name, and I am proud of the Equality Act. I think that what we are discussing here is compliance with the law, and I know that the whole House will want to send the message that no one should be concerned about going for operations or accessing services. It is important that any concerns are raised directly with those who are providing those services, and I am sure that reassurance will be given. I think that, in relation to the debate we are having, the hon. Lady will know that it is important that we get the balance right between supporting women and their rights, and ensuring that we uphold respect for all trans people.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I try to start from a position of empathy on this topic. I have no idea what it is to experience the pain of being born in a body that does not accord with one’s gender, and I do not know what it is to have the very real fear of assault that women live with, so I recognise the need for understanding and balance. However, I do not think that there is sufficient balance in this guidance. Given its focus on “proportionality”, businesses and organisations are forced to make judgment calls in a highly sensitive area. There is a real risk that the guidance will create a situation in which trans people, who already face high levels of discrimination, are subject to a urinary leash controlling where they can go. Will the Minister please tell me how the Government will ensure that they are not excluded from services and are welcomed into public spaces, as everyone should be?

[Seema Malhotra]

As I have said before, it is extremely important that everyone has access to the services and facilities that they need. It is also important to recognise that, while balance does matter, there are worked examples and explanations in the extensive draft code of practice which I hope will provide reassurance as we move forward, and as organisations feel that they have the clarity they need to make the changes to ensure that they comply with the law.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I think it is clear from these exchanges that this is an issue that divides the House, and it also divides the country. There are many different opinions. Will the Minister commit herself to putting the statutory instrument to a vote?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the process in the Equality Act 2006, which we are following. However, he may want to raise some of his concerns and have a discussion with the EHRC, which has undertaken extensive guidance and continues to engage with stakeholders.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

The High Court judgment of February this year against the EHRC, when the initial guidance was challenged, stated:

“there would, in principle, be scope for a strong argument that a rule or practice that permitted trans women to use the ‘female’ lavatory but required other biological men to use the male lavatory would comprise different but not less favourable treatment on grounds of sex.”

The clear implication is that providers may choose to offer trans-inclusive services. Can the Minister explain how the EHRC’s code of practice is at all consistent with that?

[Seema Malhotra]

Although the draft code indicates that toilets designated as male or female should be for those of that biological sex, it is also the case that it will contain sufficient guidance for organisations to make their own decisions about changing the signs, making clear the use of accessible toilets in line with building regulations about smaller spaces, and providing individual, lockable toilets or unisex toilets. There are many ways in which we can ensure inclusivity, and it is important that we do so.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has rightly talked about the need to avoid using any particular group as a political football and the need to treat everyone with dignity and respect. I agree with her on that, but the Government’s own equality impact assessment says:

“The debate on single sex services and the treatment of trans people is particularly divisive at this time. The Code of Practice may exacerbate these tensions.”

Does she accept the Government’s own impact assessment on that point?

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend highlights aspects of what has been written in the impact assessment, but it is also important to note that the Government want to reassure trans people that they have protections under the Equality Act, which is clearly the case via the gender reassignment protected characteristic. As we move forward, it is important that we do so together, that as organisations and businesses implement changes we also learn as we go, all organisations feel supported in ensuring compliance with the law, and that in providing single-sex spaces, we do so with respect and dignity for all trans people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

I have always been assured by both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that the case of my constituent, Jagtar Singh Johal, who has been arbitrarily detained in India for eight and a half years, would continue to be raised at all levels, but I understand that the Foreign Secretary met her counterpart Jaishankar on two occasions recently and was unable to do so. Can I have the Foreign Secretary’s assurance that she remains committed to raising Jagtar’s case and is actively working to secure his release?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)]

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we continue to raise the important case of Jagtar Singh Johal and to seek a resolution to his case as soon as we can.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

Last month, the United Nations General Assembly voted to demand that countries including the United Kingdom pay reparations for slavery. Astonishingly, the Foreign Secretary instructed our ambassador to abstain and to issue a pathetic hand-wringing statement that failed to mention the United Kingdom’s unique role in the eradication of this great evil. Are we a punchbag or are we a great, proud country? Will the Foreign Secretary explain her decision and state to the House unequivocally that the United Kingdom will never pay a penny of British taxpayers’ money in reparations?

Ethnicity and Disability Pay Gap Reporting

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)]

This Government are clear that equality and opportunity are at the heart of our programme of national renewal. Three principles guide our approach: opportunity, fairness and growth. We are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and improving outcomes for everyone. Everyone deserves to go to work and achieve their full potential, regardless of their ethnicity or disability. By introducing ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting, this Government are supporting employers to create more inclusive workplaces, so that, regardless of background, everyone can thrive.

As set out in our manifesto and in the King’s Speech in July 2024, we are committed to introducing mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for large employers—those with 250 or more employees. Our aim is to develop a reporting framework that is workable for employers and leads to improved outcomes for ethnic minority groups and disabled people. We held a public consultation on these measures between 18 March and 10 June 2025 and conducted extensive engagement to seek views.

Today, we are publishing the findings from the external analysis of the consultation responses and the Government response. As part of the Government response, we have included indicative clauses, which we have developed to illustrate how the primary legislation may work in practice—this is in place of publishing a draft Equality (Race and Disability) Bill. We are also publishing the regulatory impact assessment alongside these documents, which outlines the expected costs and benefits of mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting.

The consultation findings show strong and widespread support for each proposal set out in the consultation. The Government response summarises the key findings and sets out further details on our intended approach towards mandatory reporting. This includes aligning ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting with the existing requirements for gender pay gap reporting, which have been in place since 2017. The proposed approach would require large employers to report their ethnicity and disability pay gaps, and the overall composition of their workforce by ethnicity and disability—also known as workforce reporting—as well as the proportion of their employees who have declared their ethnicity and disability data, and actions to address any ethnicity and disability pay gaps.

We have engaged extensively with business and want to acknowledge the positive work they are already doing to achieve more inclusive workplaces. Many businesses have been vocal supporters of mandatory reporting and have already been reporting their ethnicity and disability pay gap data on a voluntary basis, in recognition of the benefits that this can have on their workforces and their organisations more broadly.

Increased transparency on ethnicity and disability pay gap differences will help employers to identify and tackle pay disparities across their workforces, remove barriers to opportunity for ethnic minority and disabled staff, and support low-income households. We are committed to continuing to work closely with employers and stakeholders as we move forward.

This comes as part of the wider Government commitment to break down barriers to work, including a £3.5 billion package of employment support by the end of the decade to help more sick or disabled people into work. We are expanding WorkWell across the country, supporting up to 250,000 people to return or stay in work, and this is backed by £250 million.

We are also providing 300,000 sick or disabled people with tailored help through Connect to Work by the end of the decade, partnering with employers to transform how disabilities are managed at work, following the “Keep Britain Working” review, and have put in place the equivalent of over 1,000 full-time Pathways to Work advisers across Britain to support disabled people into work.

A copy of the Government response will be placed in the Library of each House and will be available on gov.uk.

[HCWS1453]

International Women’s Day

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered International Women’s Day 2026.

It is an honour to open this International Women’s Day debate, which is being held in Government time for the first time since 2020. International Women’s Day was forged in the labour strikes of the early 20th century as women came together to call for better pay, shorter working hours and voting rights. It has become an important milestone that celebrates the achievement of women, promotes gender equality and acts as a call to action.

In this debate, I have no doubt that we will hear about pioneering pathfinders, including women who smashed the glass ceiling in Parliament and paved the way for us today, such as Constance Markievicz, the first woman elected; Nancy Astor, the first to take her seat; and Margaret Bondfield, the first woman Cabinet Minister—I recommend her new biography by Nan Sloane, who is a driving force behind the Labour Women’s Network. I am sure that hon. Members will mention the first woman Prime Minister, who took office in 1979. Labour has had the first female Chief Whip, the first female Chancellor and the first black woman MP, the inspirational right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). We have also had Barbara Castle, Ellen Wilkinson, Jennie Lee and, of course, Baroness Harman in the other place. That is not to forget you, Madam Deputy Speaker—the first non-white Deputy Speaker and the first female Muslim Minister.

I have many greats and firsts sitting behind me—and probably in front of me—including my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), who was the first black female Minister and the first black woman to speak from the Dispatch Box. I am proud that many of those were also Fabian women, and that we are marking 21 years of the Fabian Women’s Network this year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Talking of strong women, there is my mum, my wife, my three daughters-in-law and my three grandchildren. Those three wee girls are at a very young age, but I tell you what: they have the potential to be leaders as well. They are fierce women and they are strong, and I am very pleased to see that.

Ever mindful that today we are celebrating International Women’s Day across Northern Ireland, the Minister will know that another lady was killed there last week. Of the women murdered in the whole United Kingdom, the highest proportion has been in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister share my concern that while we celebrate women, we also have to protect women? Our society must do that.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and wish all the women in his family a very happy International Women’s Day. Let the message ring out from this House that every girl is a leader. He is absolutely right that we must look at where women come under threats online or through violence, and do everything to protect women and girls across the UK and around the world.

We speak today about the agenda of women’s progress, but we must remind ourselves that although we have made progress, men and women are still not equal—not equal at home and not equal abroad. Indeed, we face the new challenge of a misogynistic insurgency that is determined to roll back women’s rights. When we look at the level of online abuse, sexual harassment and intimidation, it is horrifying to see products that appear designed to make money out of the sexual harassment of women.

Today, I want to make three main arguments: that women are still not equal, that we must be uncompromising in resisting the backlash against women’s rights, and that in these fragmented times women must work with women around the world.

In a world where inequality persists in society, in the economy and in power, I am proud that Labour, led by a Cabinet that is 46% women, is putting the progress of women at the heart of its missions. That is not a coincidence. Women’s representation in politics drives new conversations and puts wider issues on the agenda. Of the 695 women ever elected to the House of Commons, 405, or 58%, were first elected as Labour MPs and 182, or 26%, as Conservative MPs.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

I am proud to have joined this Parliament as part of a record number of women elected for Plaid Cymru in 2024, and part of the record 40% of women elected in that same year. We are clearly on our way towards a gender-equal Parliament. With that historic milestone in sight, would the Minister commit her Government to Centenary Action’s call to commence section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, which would require political parties to publish diversity data on candidates, to increase transparency?

[Seema Malhotra]

On the hon. Lady’s comment about women making up 40% of the House of Commons today, that is an important milestone, but we are not yet at 50%. I am proud that the Labour party has got close to it, and in fact pretty much reached that level. It is important that we continue to look to the centenary, as she said, with a range of measures to push forward the progress of women’s representation and political parties’ role in that, but also to look forward to the progress of women in every part of society and of our economy.

I recognise that this is about the choices we make. Labour’s manifesto committed to action to tackle gender inequality, from strengthening rights for women in work and reducing the gender pay gap to halving violence against women and girls. Our groundbreaking violence against women and girls strategy begins a decade-long, whole-of-Government and whole-of-society effort to halve violence against women and girls, backed by over £1 billion of funding. I know that every Member of this House will want to get behind that goal.

I want to acknowledge the incredible efforts of my friend and colleague the Minister for Safeguarding—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips)—who I am proud to stand alongside in today’s debate. [Hon. Members: “More.”] Exactly!

We are not just acting at home: we have made tackling violence against women and girls a priority in our foreign policy, too. Recently, the Foreign Secretary launched All In, a new international coalition to scale up action to end violence against women and girls. It brings together global leaders, experts and campaigners, and focuses on preventing violence before it happens.

Labour is working to prioritise women’s health, with a refreshed women’s health strategy to be published soon. Our plans to make work pay are putting in stronger protections for pregnant women and new mothers at work, and tackling maternity inequality. We are reviewing parental leave and making flexible working more easily available. With two consecutive years of minimum wage rises, we are putting more money in the pockets of working women.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

The Minister is making a brilliant speech that lots of us will be feeling very emotional about. Does she agree with me and Members across the House that although increasing the minimum wage is really important, as it disproportionately affects female workers, we also need to restructure how we value women’s work and the workforce predominantly made up of women?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. That debate continues, and I will touch on some relevant issues later in my speech.

Last week, alongside the Minister for Women and Equalities, I was proud to launch our voluntary action plans. Under the Employment Rights Act 2025, employers with over 250 employees will be asked to submit action plans showing how they will reduce their gender pay gaps and support employees going through the menopause. We are working with business leaders, civil society organisations and trade unions, because we cannot reach workplace equality without the support and commitment of all.

The removal of the two-child limit will lift 450,000 children out of relative poverty in the final year of this Parliament. As we know, poverty impacts women, whom the Women’s Budget Group describe as the “shock absorbers of poverty”.

On business, the Chancellor has backed the Invest in Women taskforce, launching a funding pool of over £600 million, including £130 million from the British Business Bank, to be invested in women-led businesses. It is the largest fund of its kind globally, addressing the enormous barriers to access to finance that exist for women.

Alongside that, the Government are supporting more women in the UK’s tech sector. Every year, the economy loses an estimated £2 billion to £3.5 billion because women leave the tech sector or change sectors due to barriers that should not exist. Men outnumber women by four to one in computer science degrees, which is a subject I studied. Women are less likely to enter tech, stay in the sector or rise to leadership roles.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Will the Minister talk about not just the tech sector, but how there is such a glass ceiling in engineering—there is a huge number of engineering jobs in my constituency—that women rarely manage to get through it? There is also a similar race equality issue in the higher tiers of engineering.

[Seema Malhotra]

Never a truer word was spoken. To building on the hon. Lady’s comment, it is worth the House knowing that, at the current pace, it will take 283 years for women to achieve equal representation in tech. That is why I am proud that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has launched the Women in Tech taskforce to champion diversity in the UK tech sector, with a pipeline strengthened by stronger engagement with tech in the classroom. There are spaces in which our economy is going to grow, and we need a plan for women to be part of that.

Throughout history, women have consistently been the backbone of our communities, giving their power, time, ideas and more. They have done this in our classrooms, in our offices, in our hospitals, in our military and in the home. History has taught us that despite giving so much, women do not always gain equally to men. Every day, women and girls across the UK challenge the stereotypes so often thrown upon them, but they are our scientists, our teachers, our business leaders, our astronauts, our athletes and so much more. There is nowhere that women and girls should not be able to reach.

But while this Government have women’s equality firmly on the agenda, the battle is not yet won. Increasingly loud voices attempt to dismiss the necessary protections for an inclusive culture at work. Some argue that our existing equality framework has gone too far—that it hinders progress. Let us be clear: these protections embody the British values that women should be treated equally with men, and that people should be treated equally regardless of their race. That is a core British value. It was fought for.

In a Westminster Hall debate last September, a now Reform MP described the Equality Act 2010 as fuelling “a corrosive culture” of grievance. He then called for it to be abolished. It is not a grievance to recognise that a woman who is made redundant for being pregnant, or who leaves work because her employer does not make reasonable adjustments for the menopause, leaves us poorer as individuals, as an economy and as a society.

In this battle, these voices are taking up space online, too. When we see the level of online abuse and intimidation, we must tackle the misogynistic insurgency that threatens to roll back women’s rights and that is having a huge impact on the wellbeing and aspiration of women and girls across our country. The online abuse of women athletes is set to be discussed at the next women’s sports taskforce meeting. I am proud that the offence of creating intimate images without consent was signed into force last month, and that our female Secretary of State announced that it will be made a priority offence under the Online Safety Act 2023, delivering for users the strongest protections from such content.

But this happens against a backdrop of changing social attitudes that we are only just beginning to address. New research from Ipsos MORI and the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at King’s College business school shows that 31% of gen Z men—born between 1997 and 2012—agree that a wife should always obey her husband, and one third, or 33%, say that a husband should have the final word on important decisions, according to a new global study of 23,000 people in 29 countries. We are in a renewed battle of ideas and new conversations about progress and rights. We also see pressures and influence through online social influencers. This demands our engagement. It is through conversation, legislation, education and campaigning that this Government are determined to keep us moving forward.

With the challenge to women’s inequality now being international, so must our response be. In the year 2000, we led the first UN Security Council resolution on women, peace and security. It was a simple but transformative idea: that peace is more durable when women help to shape it. UN statistics show that when women meaningfully participate in peace processes, the resulting agreement is 64% less likely to fail and 35% more likely to last at least 15 years. Women and girls are disproportionately affected by conflict and more likely to see their rights curtailed. Some 60% of preventable maternal deaths and 53% of deaths of under-fives take place in settings of conflict and displacement.

We continue to use our voice at the United Nations to push for women to be embedded in peace processes, resolutions and humanitarian responses. Indeed, this week Baroness Smith of Malvern and the UK special envoy for women and girls, Harriet Harman, are leading our delegation in New York at the Commission on the Status of Women, because this Government stand in solidarity with women and girls not just in the UK but around the world.

International Women’s Day marks the beginning not only of a month-long celebration of women’s history, but also, I hope, a year of progress and action. The theme for this year’s International Women’s Day is “Give to Gain”, the aim of which is to emphasise the power of reciprocity and support, whether through advocacy, education, mentoring or time, to help to create a more supportive and interconnected world, building new networks in our communities to bring hope, leadership and change, and renewing our determination. Connecting with our sisters at home and abroad will give us a renewed frontline to resist the roll back of our rights and push forward for the progress of women and girls for generations to come.

But this month is about more than reflection; it is about maintaining momentum. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg said:

“Women belong in all places where decisions are being made.”

That is not an observation; it is a directive. It is for us to hold the light up to highlight progress, and to keep fighting for a better world for women and girls everywhere.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

11. What recent assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of the human rights situation in Hong Kong.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)]

China’s imposition of the national security law on Hong Kong has significantly eroded the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers. We remain deeply concerned about that. Our most recent assessment was set out in the last six-monthly report on Hong Kong to Parliament in October, and the next report will be published soon. On his recent visit to Beijing, the Prime Minister raised our concerns at the highest level, including with President Xi, about the situation in Hong Kong and about Jimmy Lai’s case specifically.

[Adam Thompson]

Many people who have come to us from Hong Kong have made their home in Long Eaton in my constituency. Their children are thriving in our local schools, new businesses are being established, and a vibrant community is taking shape. Will the Minister outline what further steps the Government are taking, in partnership with local councils and Members of this House, to support the continued integration of Hongkongers into our towns and communities, and to ensure that those who have chosen to settle in Long Eaton feel fully welcomed as part of our community?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for his constituency work. I am proud that the UK has welcomed around 200,000 Hongkongers since 2021. We will continue unequivocally to uphold our commitment to them. As he will know, their contribution enriches our economy and our society, including in Long Eaton. We remain committed to ensuring that they feel safe, supported and valued. Indeed, for five years, the welcome programme has delivered successful integration for the British national overseas community, and mainstream provisions will continue to be available.

[Daniel Francis]

In addition to the situation on the ground in Hong Kong, there remains evidence of transnational repression against Hong Kong nationals living overseas, including here in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister update us on the work being done on that issue across Government Departments, and on the measures that she is pursuing to end the deliberate targeting of opposition voices in the UK?

[Seema Malhotra]

Any attempts by foreign Governments to intimidate or harm critics overseas are unacceptable. Freedom of speech and other fundamental rights of all people in the United Kingdom are protected by law. Ministers have raised those issues—including the arrest warrants placed on individuals in the United Kingdom by Hong Kong police—with the Chinese authorities. It is important to note that training and guidance on state threat activity is now being offered to all 45 territorial police forces across the United Kingdom.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) has just raised a case that I am aware of. I do not want to steal her thunder on that, but I will say that there is a real issue with what is happening in Hong Kong. China has trashed the Sino-British agreement. Hong Kong no longer uses common law, and every single system is being abused. When will the Government deal with these deficiencies by sanctioning somebody? America has sanctioned many people. Many other countries have too, but the UK, which used to run Hong Kong, has sanctioned absolutely nobody. Surely we should do so now.

[Seema Malhotra]

The right hon. Member will be aware that our concerns in relation to China’s breach of the Sino-British declaration are laid out clearly in our six-monthly report on Hong Kong. There will be a further report coming shortly, but Hong Kong is required to ensure, for example, that national security legislation upholds rights and freedoms, as is set out in the Basic Law. Indeed, we have repeatedly called on Beijing to repeal the national security law and release all individuals charged under it.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Bounties have been placed on the heads of pro-democracy activists living in Hong Kong—a shocking act of transnational aggression. May I add my voice to that of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and ask: when will the Government use our Magnitsky sanctions regime against those in Hong Kong and Beijing responsible for the unacceptable targeting of Hong Kong pro-democracy campaigners? It is time that we used those sanctions.

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Member will know that any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate or harm those in the UK are utterly unacceptable. Indeed, these arrest warrants and bounties encourage reckless behaviour on UK soil, and damage Hong Kong’s international reputation. It is important that we continue to address these issues, and we will look further at the situation. We will publish our six-monthly report on Hong Kong soon.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Last month, the Foreign Secretary held an unpublicised meeting in Munich with Wang Yi, which we only know about because the Chinese Communist party boasted that the Foreign Secretary told the party that the Prime Minister’s visit to China was

“a complete success with fruitful results”

for UK-China relations. Can the Minister, on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, confirm whether or not the human rights of those living in Hong Kong were raised at the meeting? With Jimmy Lai languishing in prison, the CCP looking to toughen up the Hong Kong national security law, and Hongkongers living in Britain with bounties on their heads, on what basis was the Prime Minister’s visit a complete success? Given how little the UK got, it was a complete failure, wasn’t it?

[Seema Malhotra]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had many meetings with counterparts on very important issues of national and international security in Munich, and raised a number of issues, including Jimmy Lai. The Conservatives were in charge for 14 years, and they had almost as many different policies on China during that time. They talked about state threats, but delayed the essential reform of our outdated security laws. In May 2021, the shadow Foreign Secretary launched her consultation on the new legislation, but it took more than two years to get the National Security Act 2023 passed into law, leaving our country without the powers needed to prosecute such cases.

[Priti Patel]

Clearly, the Minister is desperate, and is having to go backwards, rather than moving forwards to address the situation. For her information, China oppresses Hongkongers, refuses to free Jimmy Lai and supports Russia and Iran in their barbaric actions to undermine freedom and democracy. Those are issues that the Government should take a grip of now. China plots, spies and undermines our security. Rather than kowtowing to China, when will her Government wake up, deal with the threat posed by the CCP, and put China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? When will she start taking action and expel CCP diplomats, to show our disgust at their appalling actions when it comes to transnational repression?

[Seema Malhotra]

The Government have not yet made any decision about whether China will be added to the enhanced tier, but the right hon. Lady will know that we condemn in the strongest terms the politically motivated prosecution of British citizen Jimmy Lai. This issue remains a priority for this Government, and she is fully aware of that.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

6. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the compliance of the Palestinian Authority’s school curriculum with the UK- Palestinian memorandum of understanding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

7. What recent discussions she has had with her Chinese counterparts on the release of Jimmy Lai.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)]

The UK condemns in the strongest terms the politically motivated persecution of British citizen Jimmy Lai. We continue to call for his immediate release, and for giving him full access to independent medical professionals and all necessary treatment. The Prime Minister raised the case of Jimmy Lai when he met President Xi in January, and we will continue to raise at every opportunity.

[Gregory Stafford]

Jimmy Lai now faces a jail term described by Ministers as an effective life sentence. It is clear that his life sentence directly reflects this Government’s weak policy on China, so will the Minister tell us what clear steps she and the Prime Minister are taking, and—more importantly—what sanctions she and the Prime Minister will put on the Chinese, to ensure that Jimmy Lai is released, and that his case is not forgotten?

[Seema Malhotra]

We continue to keep sanctions under close review. It would not be appropriate to speculate on any future designations, since doing so could reduce their impact, as the hon. Member knows. However, although we will not get into the details of any private discussions on Jimmy Lai, the Government will continue to raise his case at every opportunity, as the Foreign Secretary, the previous Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have done. Diplomats from our consulate general in Hong Kong have attended all court proceedings, and continue to press for consular access.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

Sticking with detentions in China, last week I had the great honour of meeting Grace Jin Drexel, the daughter of pastor Ezra Jin, who—along with 18 other pastors from Zion House Church—was arrested and detained by the Chinese authorities last October on the very vague charge of illegal use of information online. Basically, they had an online church service. What can the Government do to advocate for the release of all the Zion House Church leaders, and to promote freedom of religion or belief for all people in China?

[Seema Malhotra]

Reports from within China about the detention of Zion House Church leaders are a very worrying indication of further persecution of Christians in China. This Government continue to engage with China on the issue of human rights and freedom of belief. We will continue to champion freedom of religion and belief for all and uphold the right to that universal freedom through our positions at the UN and in the G7, as well as through our bilateral engagements.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

8. What steps she is taking to ensure greater financial transparency in the British overseas territories.

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the urgent question on Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence on 9 February 2026.

[Seema Malhotra]

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is also in close contact with Mr Lai’s international legal team at Doughty Street Chambers, and with his son and daughter, Sebastien and Claire, whom the Foreign Secretary last met on 8 January.

[Official Report, 9 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 556.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra):

[Seema Malhotra]

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is also in close contact with Mr Lai’s international legal team at Doughty Street Chambers, and with his son and daughter, Sebastien and Claire, whom the Foreign Secretary last met on 9 January.

Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the 20-year sentence imposed on our brave British citizen, Jimmy Lai.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question on this serious matter. He will know that the UK condemns in the strongest terms the politically motivated prosecution of British national Jimmy Lai. As the Foreign Secretary said this morning, 20 years is tantamount to a life sentence for a 78-year-old man. We remain deeply concerned for Mr Lai’s health. We call on the Hong Kong authorities to release him on humanitarian grounds, so that he may be reunited with his family.

Sadly, this sentence is not a surprise. The national security law was imposed on Hong Kong by Beijing precisely to silence China’s critics. That is why the Government have long called for the repeal of the national security law, and for an end to the persecution of all individuals charged under it. It is also why the Prime Minister raised Jimmy Lai’s case with President Xi on his recent visit to Beijing. The Prime Minister’s visit allowed us to open up discussion with China. Making our case directly to the Chinese President is an approach being taken by the USA, Canada, France, Ireland and many other allies. In relation to private conversations that have happened, the Foreign Secretary has been in touch with Mr Lai’s family, and I know that many in this House will want to express their support for the family. We recognise their fortitude at this incredibly difficult time.

This Government remain steadfast in our support for the people of Hong Kong. That is why today the Home Secretary has announced the expansion of eligibility for the British national overseas visa route. The UK has welcomed around 200,000 Hongkongers since 2021, and we will unequivocally continue to uphold our commitments to them.

This Government’s utmost priority is to secure the release of Jimmy Lai, an elderly and unwell British citizen. He has endured an extraordinary ordeal for five years, and we call for it to end now. That is why we are focused on the action that will help him the most: sustained engagement with China, so that we can make our case consistently and directly. As the right hon. Member knows, we should not sit outside the room, refusing to engage and unable even to have that conversation. I am grateful for this opportunity to reiterate the Government’s call for Jimmy Lai’s immediate release.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.

Today, as the Minister said, Jimmy Lai, a British citizen, has been sentenced to a further 20 years in prison. Given his poor health and the fact that he sat for five years in solitary confinement, that is not a sentence; it is a death sentence for that brave man. The authorities have trashed everything that we would consider reasonable in law. For example, like others, I was named—nine times—in the prosecution case, and I have never even met Mr Lai, or spoken to him, sadly.

I simply ask the Minister why the statement that the UK Government released today refers to Jimmy Lai as a “British National”. Lord Cameron finally changed that, and made it clear that Mr Lai was a British citizen. Will the Minister change the statement and refer to him as a British citizen, which is what he is?

Why do the Government constantly refer to Hong Kong and the national security law? The reality is that the British Government have sanctioned absolutely nobody in the Chinese Government for trashing the Sino-British agreement and installing the Chinese national security law, which is the reason why Jimmy Lai was arrested. He has been convicted and sentenced for nothing more than standing up for freedom of speech and peaceful protest for democracy.

The Government went on a visit to China recently. Before doing so, they granted full planning permission for the huge and ghastly Chinese embassy in London. Why did they not at least hold back on planning permission, so that they could say to the Chinese Government, “You must release Jimmy Lai now and cancel the prosecution altogether, or you will not get your embassy”? Instead, we have given them the embassy for nothing, and the Prime Minister was treated like dirt while he was out there.

Sebastien and Claire Lai, Jimmy Lai’s children, have fought for him. I feel sorry for them, and my thoughts go to them. Surely, this is a sad day for anybody who believes in freedom, justice, and the legitimate rule of democratically made law. Will the Government now call for a humanitarian parole?

[Seema Malhotra]

The right hon. Member may have missed my earlier reference to Jimmy Lai as a British citizen, but I reiterate it. It is also important to reiterate our call on the Hong Kong authorities to release Jimmy Lai immediately on humanitarian grounds, so that he may be reunited with his family and receive all necessary medical treatment, and have full access to independent medical professionals.

The right hon. Member will know that the Prime Minister raised Jimmy Lai’s case with President Xi on 29 January in Beijing. Since the visit, the Foreign Secretary has been in contact with Mr Lai’s family. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is also in close contact with Mr Lai’s international legal team at Doughty Street Chambers, and with his son and daughter, Sebastien and Claire, whom the Foreign Secretary last met on 8 January.

On the Chinese embassy, national security is our first duty. The planning decision was taken independently by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. It was the conclusion of a process that the right hon. Gentleman may remember began in 2018, when the then Foreign Secretary provided formal diplomatic consent for the plans. It is also important to say today that we stand with the people of Hong Kong. We will always honour the historic commitments made under the legally binding Sino-British joint declaration, and China must do the same.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Jimmy Lai is 78. He has rotting teeth. He has diabetes, heart issues, and recently he has visibly been losing weight. He has now been sentenced to 20 years. It is effectively not a life sentence, but a death sentence. I urge the Chinese authorities to end this elderly man’s appalling ordeal, and I would ask that they exercise clemency, and allow him to be reunited with his family. Does the Minister agree that concern for the suffering of Jimmy Lai extends far beyond his family, and touches the hearts of so many British people?

[Seema Malhotra]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. She is right to say that the situation Jimmy Lai is in, and the urgent need to release him on humanitarian grounds so that he may be reunited with his family and receive the independent medical treatment that he must have, goes beyond his family and touches the hearts of Members across the House and this country. He has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression. My right hon. Friend will know that his case remains a priority for this Government and the Prime Minister.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important urgent question. Today Jimmy Lai, and the democracy and freedom that he has campaigned for in Hong Kong, has been sentenced to 20 years. As his son Sebastien has said, Jimmy

“dedicated his life to defending the freedoms of Hong Kong. For that heroism, he’s being punished; he’s essentially getting a death sentence for that.”

Jimmy is a hero and deserves to be back home with his family, not hauled in chains before the courts and languishing in a prison cell. We call for his release. The fact that Jimmy Lai has been sentenced to 20 years—the longest sentence ever under the national security law—is not only a reflection of the cruelty inflicted by the Chinese Communist party, but it is a monumental diplomatic failure of this feeble and gullible Prime Minister. Just over a week ago, he was with President Xi defending engagement with the CCP. He gave China permission for its super-embassy spy hub, but failed to secure Jimmy’s release. Will the Minister now have some backbone and tell us exactly what details were discussed between the Prime Minister and Xi? Did the Prime Minister call for Jimmy to come back home, or demand that he gets access to the healthcare he needs?

The official readout of the meeting published on the Downing Street website did not even mention Jimmy Lai’s name. We need answers, Mr Speaker. Jimmy’s family, and the whole country, want to know when this weak and pathetic Labour Government will finally stand up to China and show some backbone. Will the Foreign Secretary actually do something, such as summon the Chinese ambassador and prepare a list of diplomats to expel in response to China’s refusal to free Jimmy Lai? Will the Government revoke the planning permission granted for the super-embassy spy hub, and will China now be placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme at long last? With the UK holding the presidency of the UN Security Council, what diplomatic steps will be taken to escalate this case, put some pressure on China for once, and secure global support for Jimmy’s release? Jimmy must be freed now, and this is a day of shame for this weak Labour Government and their failure to stand up to China.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her comments. She will know that this situation has been ongoing since before we were in government, and that we continue to seek the release of Jimmy Lai immediately. We assess Jimmy Lai’s prosecution to be politically motivated, but in order to have a conversation with the Chinese Government, we need to be in the same room. That is why the Prime Minister raised the matter during his visit, and we continue to raise it at every level of Government and at every opportunity.

The right hon. Lady will know that on the instruction of the Foreign Secretary, the British Consul General attended the sentencing, and that we continue to keep in regular touch with the family. We continue to do all that we can, publicly and privately, to secure the release of Jimmy Lai, and we will continue to do so.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

The whole House is angered by the sentencing, but no one is more devastated than Jimmy Lai’s family. Jimmy is a British citizen: every single international pressure must be put on the Chinese Government to secure a humanitarian response to the situation. Will the Minister tell us how we will build an international coalition to put on that pressure and secure a humanitarian response?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and for her work on behalf of her constituent, Jimmy Lai. I can confirm that we are in discussions with our allies, including the United States, Australia, Canada and the European Union, about what we can do internationally to continue to advocate for and to secure the immediate release of Jimmy Lai.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The whole House shares my horror and disgust at the politically motivated imprisonment, conviction and sentencing of Jimmy Lai. Last week, following his trip to Beijing, the Prime Minister suggested that he could change outcomes for Jimmy Lai and Hong Kongers by speaking softly with President Xi. It is clear now that the Prime Minister’s trip to Beijing failed spectacularly to secure Mr Lai’s release. Have the Government summoned the Chinese ambassador to make clear this House’s shared outrage? Jimmy Lai’s experience is the most visible example of Beijing’s efforts to supress any and all criticism of the Chinese Communist party, but it is far from the only example. Pro-democracy Hong Kong activists living in the UK continue to face intimidation, repression and threats from Beijing. Can the Minister provide any guarantees to those Hong Kongers that they will not face further persecution or intimidation at the hands of the CCP?

[Seema Malhotra]

We continue to raise Jimmy Lai’s case with the Chinese Government, publicly and privately. In December, when the verdict of the trial was announced, senior officials in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office summoned the Chinese ambassador to condemn the development in the strongest terms. There is a public readout of the representations made during that meeting. It continues to be the case that any attempt by any foreign state to intimidate, harass or harm individuals in the United Kingdom will not be tolerated. We have taken action to do more to support law enforcement and training in this country to ensure that that is the case.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

Many members of Jimmy Lai’s family, including his son Sebastien, are my constituents. They are devastated by today’s sentence, which risks being a death sentence for a 78-year-old British citizen. It is a much longer sentence than that given to any of the co-defendants and the longest ever given under the national security law. Will the Minister assure the House that now this sham trial is over, the Government’s position is that there are no more phoney procedural reasons for us not to work with our international allies to negotiate Jimmy’s release?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has done to support the family. Let me be clear that we see this as a politically motivated prosecution, and we believe and continue to state that Jimmy Lai should be released immediately. We will continue to work directly with the Chinese Government, raising our concerns and views in public and in private. We will continue to engage closely with the family and to work with our allies, as I have mentioned. My hon. Friend will know that the Foreign Secretary has discussed this case with Secretary Rubio, and officials are in regular contact on the matter with the US Government.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

Many of us in this House were sanctioned by China, and the Prime Minister went over and somehow managed to sell the partial un-sanctioning of a few of us as a victory. I would have welcomed a victory that was the release of Jimmy Lai, but sadly the Prime Minister conceded all his cards before getting on the plane, leaving himself nothing to negotiate with. Can the Minister find anything else that China wants that the Prime Minister could negotiate with? Maybe he could offer them the Isle of Wight or the Outer Hebrides—he is trying to give away everything else anyway. At least the job of the Prime Minister would then be to protect a British citizen—one who, as we all recognise, has been given a death sentence by the Chinese, not the Hong Kong authorities.

[Seema Malhotra]

Perhaps I can answer the substance of that question with a more serious response. It was important to see the progress that was made in lifting the ban on parliamentarians being free to travel to China, and what the Prime Minister said last week is absolutely right. There is more to do, and it is important to get clarity on how we move forward where those bans have not been lifted. It is very important that we continue to see that progress.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

It is really disappointing to see those on the Opposition Front Bench treating this as if it is some kind of party political issue. They do not have a monopoly on outrage about this; it really should be a cross-party issue. I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister about a specific element. As she and the Government work for the release of Jimmy Lai in this outrage, can she keep in consideration his freedom of religion or belief? I understand that he has been denied access to the Eucharist. As we are making representations on his behalf, as all of us should, can we keep that in mind?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he does as our special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. We certainly continue to keep in mind and advocate for that matter on his behalf.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

Now is the time not to lambast the Chinese Government for the wider issues between us, but to focus 100% on securing clemency for Jimmy Lai. Surely the granting of clemency and a one-way ticket back to the UK and to his family would be a win for everyone, including the Chinese.

[Seema Malhotra]

Perhaps we can agree on this matter. We want to see an immediate release on humanitarian grounds so that Jimmy Lai can be reunited with his family. He must be supported to receive vital independent medical treatment to support his health and wellbeing right now.

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

Last year, the UN working group on arbitrary detention ruled that Mr Lai has been unlawfully and arbitrarily detained. In 2022, the same UN working group concluded the same thing about Jagtar Johal. Today, Jagtar turns 39, but instead of celebrating, he is languishing in a foreign prison like Jimmy Lai. I caution the Government that if we do not stand up for our citizens unlawfully imprisoned abroad, we risk becoming beholden to the whims of others, rather than standing on firm principles. How are the Government making meaningful representations to our Indian and Chinese counterparts to bring these British citizens home?

[Mr Speaker]

I think that question has been woven in well.

[Seema Malhotra]

We take the UN working group’s opinion on Jimmy Lai incredibly seriously, which is why we continue to call for his immediate release. My hon. Friend will also know the work that we continue to do in relation to Jagtar Singh Johal.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

In December, I asked the Prime Minister to make it clear that his visit to Beijing could go ahead only if Jimmy Lai was released. He responded:

“It is important that we continue to engage, so that we can raise this issue”.—[Official Report, 17 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 910.]

That clearly achieved nothing. Will the Minister also bear in mind the fact that, alongside Jimmy Lai, six other senior members of Apple Daily received lengthy prison sentences in what Reporters Sans Frontières has described as

“the complete collapse of press freedom in Hong Kong”?

What action will the Government take during the two-week period in which an appeal has to be lodged to ensure the release of not just Jimmy Lai but all of them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the appeal is a matter for Jimmy Lai, his family and his legal team, but he is right that it is important that we continue to call for an end to the national security law, and for the release of all those being held or prosecuted under it. That is our position, and it will continue to be.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong, I want to say on my behalf and that of many of its members how we horrified we are. This case exemplifies the systematic dismantling of Hong Kong’s judicial independence. The proceedings under the national security law do not operate within the independent or impartial judicial framework, and judges are designated by the Executive of the Hong Kong special administrative region. Trials are conducted without juries, evidential thresholds are lowered and the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence is gone. How will the Government ensure that, on behalf of not just Jimmy Lai but all Hongkongers who live in the UK, we protect them from nefarious activity and this illegal law?

[Seema Malhotra]

We absolutely continue to be concerned about the erosion of freedoms, and my hon. Friend will have seen that expressed in the six-monthly reports published by the Foreign Office. We continue to, and always will, stand with the people of Hong Kong. It is essential that we continue to honour historic commitments made under the legally binding Sino-British joint declaration, and it is absolutely clear that China must do the same.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) said, Jimmy Lai’s conviction is a massive failure for the Prime Minister, who said that he could change outcomes. This sends a worrying signal to Hongkongers living in Wokingham and across the UK, many of whom face intimidation from China when they are simply standing up for their civil liberties. What steps are the Government taking to protect pro-democracy Hongkongers in Wokingham and across the UK, who feel themselves to be under threat from Chinese authorities in our country? These residents are very concerned, and many of them fear for their lives.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Member for his important question. It is essential that any attempt by a foreign state to harass, intimidate or harm individuals in the UK must not be tolerated. That is why we support increased training and support for law enforcement in these matters, so that they can respond with the required urgency, as well as with important intelligence sharing.

In relation to Jimmy Lai and the Prime Minister’s visit, let me also say that I disagree with Members of this House who are seeking to make this a party political matter. Jimmy Lai has been imprisoned since before this Government came into power, and we continue to work—as we should—across the House to do all we can to make sure we are not just advocating for his release, but that it remains a priority for the Government. We continue to work to have him released immediately on humanitarian grounds.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for her answers, but I think it is fair to say that when the sentence was handed down, the CCP baked in that our reaction would be to reiterate calls for Jimmy Lai’s release and put out warm words and demands regarding his wellbeing. Of course, there are now concerns that he may be transferred to a prison inside China, where access to legal representation will be even more difficult. What practical and tangible changes will be made today as a result of this shift in the relationship with China, now that it has sentenced a British citizen to 20 years, and is the Minister able to say a bit about what actions her Department is going to take in the weeks ahead to give practical support to Jimmy Lai, so that we do not have another statement or question in a few weeks’ time lamenting an appeal that was unsuccessful?

[Seema Malhotra]

I reiterate that we continue to work with our allies and to speak directly with China, both publicly and privately, as part of the work we continue to do to secure Jimmy Lai’s release. The Government also remain in close contact with Mr Lai’s family to discuss the actions we are taking. We will continue to do that, because securing Mr Lai’s release remains a priority for this Government and for the Prime Minister.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I say to the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) and to the Minister that this is not party political—the last Government were as bad, if not worse.

The Minister spoke about condemnation in the strongest terms. That is a complete waste of breath; the Chinese Government understand one thing, which is that there has to be a cost. Will the Minister sanction those responsible?

[Seema Malhotra]

The right hon. Member will perhaps disagree, but the key point is that we cannot move forward unless we are in dialogue. That is why what the Prime Minister did in going to China and raising this matter directly has opened the doors to further conversation. It is important to say that we continue to advocate in public and in private for Mr Lai’s release, and that we remain in close contact with Mr Lai’s family on the steps we are taking.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Government have been pretty generous to the Chinese Government—first the embassy, then the Prime Minister’s visit to China and trade concessions. In return, the Chinese Government have conferred a death sentence on Jimmy Lai. Will those in Hong Kong’s Administration and judiciary who undertook this politically motivated sham trial be welcome in the United Kingdom, or will they be sanctioned?

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend will know how important it is that the Sino-British declaration is upheld. We expect the standards established by the declaration to be upheld, and not just in relation to historic commitments by Britain—we expect China to do the same.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

As the Minister is aware, there is cross-party consensus that we are horrified by the jailing of Jimmy Lai. She will also be aware that there are consequences when a UK Government are perceived as being weak, including for British citizens. The Minister said that the Prime Minister spoke softly; he also spoke ineffectively, so will she tell us what is next?

[Seema Malhotra]

Perhaps I will just say again what I have shared with the House today. In relation to the announcement, we continue to advocate publicly and privately for Jimmy Lai’s release. We have not hidden our view over his imprisonment. We have not hidden that we see it as politically motivated. We have said clearly and unequivocally that he should be released on humanitarian grounds. That remains a priority for this Government, and it remains a priority for the Prime Minister. The hon. Member will know that.

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

Parallel to the terrible injustice inflicted on Jimmy Lai, my constituent Chloe Cheung still has to live with a £100,000 bounty on her head. I spoke with her this weekend, and her resolve has never been stronger, despite knowing that anyone in the UK can claim that bounty. In the spirit of keeping the conversation going, can I ask the Minister to use everything in her power to convince the CCP to lift that bounty from Chloe and, indeed, all the other UK residents who have bounties placed on them under Hong Kong’s national security law? The only crime these people have committed is telling the truth about the repressive regime in Hong Kong.

[Seema Malhotra]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We will not tolerate this harassment and intimidation in the UK. The safety of Hongkongers in the UK is of the utmost importance for the Government. He will know that training and guidance on state threats activity is now offered by counter-terrorism policing to all 45 territorial police forces across the United Kingdom. That includes upskilling dedicated 999 call handlers on transnational repression. [Interruption.] Perhaps the last Government did as much of that—I do not know. This new package of training allows frontline police officers and staff to increase their understanding of the threats that foreign powers present, and we will continue to work with my hon. Friend in relation to his constituents.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am sorry, but this is really hopeless. I mean no disrespect to this particular Minister, but I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, have noticed, as I have, that whenever something indefensible comes up, the Government always put middle-ranking or junior Ministers on the frontline. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary is abroad or perhaps she is in her sick bed, but otherwise, why is she not voluntarily making a statement, rather than sending someone else to take the flak? This is really not fitting for the outrage that hon. Members—there are hon. Members on both sides of the House—feel about the fate of Jimmy Lai.

[Seema Malhotra]

I am not sure whether to take not being directly targeted by the right hon. Gentleman as a compliment, but as the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, I take great interest in this case. It is important that we are in front of the House today.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I do not know whether the Minister has read Confucius, the Chinese philosopher of 2,500 years ago, and his “Silver Rule”, which talks about mercy and compassion. While all of us in this House will continue to campaign for Jimmy Lai’s release, can the Minister at least confirm whether there is consular access to Jimmy Lai, and not just consular communication? Will she call upon President Xi, who no doubt has studied Confucius, to revisit compassion and mercy and at least allow Jimmy Lai medical treatment, the correct diet and to be released from solitary confinement?

[Seema Malhotra]

The right hon. Member may already be aware that we continue to seek consular access. It is important that we continue to advocate for the release of Jimmy Lai on humanitarian grounds. I am sure that that message is going out loud and clear from this House.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Trump Administration are not known for their record on human rights, yet the United States has been perfectly prepared to sanction Chinese Communist party officials who have been abusive, whereas the United Kingdom has sanctioned no one. Why is that, and when will the judges and prosecutors involved in Jimmy Lai’s sham trial be sanctioned by this Government?

[Seema Malhotra]

What I will say, in relation to what we expect to see in Hong Kong, is that it is unacceptable that we have not seen the upholding of the historic commitments made at the time of the Sino-British joint declaration. It remains a matter of concern that the national security law was brought in at all, and it remains a matter of concern that people are being prosecuted under it. We seek an end to the national security law, and we seek the immediate release of Jimmy Lai.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Strong words of condemnation are appropriate and necessary, but when will the Government’s actions match those words of condemnation?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. and learned Member will know that this case is a priority for the Government and is raised at every opportunity and at every level of government, and that we continue to work on it publicly and privately. I know that it is a matter of great concern to the House and to the country. People want to see all of us working as much as we can and wherever we can to bring about the release of Jimmy Lai, and that is our priority.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

The Prime Minister was happy to trot back from China heralding the successes of the visit without having secured the release of Jimmy Lai, and now we see Jimmy facing a 20-year prison sentence—in effect, a life sentence. Does the Minister think that was a price worth paying?

[Seema Malhotra]

I reiterate that the most important thing is that we focus on doing everything we can to secure the release of Jimmy Lai. That is our priority. We will continue to raise this matter, publicly and privately, and we will remain in close contact with the family on the steps that we are taking.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The Minister appears to have come to the Chamber today with absolutely nothing to say. The recent visit to China was an absolute disaster, with people taking burner phones and a burner plane—we even appear to have taken a burner Prime Minister. The Minister referred earlier to progress being made in these discussions, so can she outline exactly what progress has been made, and what was the response from the Chinese Government when the Prime Minister raised the case of Jimmy Lai with them directly?

[Seema Malhotra]

The Prime Minister’s recent visit allowed us to open up discussion and dialogue directly with the Chinese Government at the highest level. The Conservatives seem to have forgotten that it is actually quite important to engage in such discussions and dialogue with other Governments, including on incredibly difficult issues. There is absolutely no point in trying to call for something when you are shouting into a void, and the Conservatives should know better. It is much better to have a relationship that allows us to make our case directly to the Chinese President, rather than talking to ourselves. As the Prime Minister has said, the purpose of engaging is to seize the opportunities that open up as a result of engagement, but also to provide an opportunity for those discussions. If you sit outside the room, if you refuse to engage, you cannot even have the conversation. I come back to the point that I have made a number of times in the Chamber today: we continue those discussions, publicly and privately, to secure the release of Jimmy Lai, which is this Government’s priority.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister will have heard me ask numerous times over a number of years for interventions on behalf of Jimmy Lai, who is a British citizen, as other Members of this House have done—indeed, we have been very strong collectively. His sham trial has now ended and, unsurprisingly, Jimmy will be held in unknown conditions for 20 years until he is 98, if he lives that long. He will be denied his religious beliefs, with no mass, and will be unable to worship his God, as he so wishes to do. This surely cannot be acceptable to this Government, whose Prime Minister and Attorney General have been at the forefront of using human rights as a panacea for every decision. Are we in this House truly to believe that Government abandonment of Hong Kong has meant that there are no options for those who are British in Hong Kong and whose only crime is not agreeing with Beijing?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the importance of seeing progress in this case. He is right to say that the sentence of 20 years—tantamount to a life sentence or, as has been said in this House, a death sentence—is unacceptable. That is why we continue to call for the release of Jimmy Lai, and it is important that we see that release on humanitarian grounds.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 12.

[Seema Malhotra]

I am delighted that the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill has returned to this House for the consideration of Lords amendments. I thank Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny and for the constructive and collaborative approach throughout the Bill’s passage. I also place on the record my thanks to Baroness Chapman of Darlington for leading the Bill expertly through the other place. In today’s debate, we will seek to address the amendments made by the Government there, and I thank all those in that House who have been involved in debates on this Bill.

Before I speak to the Lords amendments, I remind the House that the passage of this Bill is a vital part of delivering the UK’s international obligations under the BBNJ agreement. It will strengthen the global framework for protecting biodiversity in areas of the ocean beyond national jurisdiction, improve how we manage environmental impacts in those areas and help to ensure that the benefits arising from marine genetic resources are shared fairly.

I am pleased to inform the House that the BBNJ agreement entered into force on 17 January. Following Royal Assent, and subsequent secondary legislation to be passed in the coming months, the UK will ratify the agreement. We intend to play a leading role at the first conference of the parties, which will take place at some point before 16 January 2027.

Turning to the Lords amendments, the House is being asked to consider a package of 12, all of which were put forward by the Government. They relate to devolution and are designed to support effective implementation of the BBNJ agreement across the whole United Kingdom, while respecting the devolution settlements and ensuring that devolved Ministers are appropriately engaged, where devolved competence is affected.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Part 2 of the Bill contains a specific exception for fishing, and the new regulations do not apply to the use of a UK craft for fishing if it is done under a valid licence under the Fisheries Act 2020. I have been contacted by some of the organisations back home in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister not agree that it is essential that the devolved Administrations enshrine this legislation and acknowledge that the fishing industry is reliant on the ability to continue to fish in all current areas? In other words, it is important that the Administrations, and the Northern Ireland Assembly in particular, do what this Bill says. If the Assembly does not do that, Northern Ireland fishing organisations will find themselves at a disadvantage.

[Seema Malhotra]

It is indeed important that all our devolved Administrations, as well as the UK Government, abide by the agreement. I thank the hon. Member for his interest and his engagement in this important Bill.

I am grateful to all those we have been engaging with throughout the passage of this Bill. Working closely with Ministers and officials in the devolved Governments, we agreed at the Bill’s introduction that the legislative consent motion process is engaged for Scotland and Northern Ireland to varying extents by parts 2, 3 and 4. The Government have been in sustained discussions with both those devolved Governments to seek consent for the Bill, and I can confirm to the House that motions on consent have been passed by the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Lords amendments 1 and 4 provide Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs with concurrent powers to make regulations within devolved competence corresponding to the powers to make provision granted to the Secretary of State under clauses 9 and 11 of the Bill. Lords amendments 2 and 5 provide the procedure for those powers.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

As I understand it, the BBNJ deals primarily with matters in international waters, and of course the devolved institutions have no say in those matters. So as to broaden our understanding of the Bill, will the Minister tell me what type of regulations she anticipates the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—the local Stormont Department—will be making in consequence of the Bill?

[Seema Malhotra]

Following ratification of the agreement, we will be participating in future discussions relating to its implementation. There will continue to be further conversations. The important point is that the work we have been doing with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland reflects how our UK Government officials and devolved officials are already working together effectively in practice, including in relation to consultation and effective delivery, and I know that those conversations will continue.

Lords amendments 3 and 6 place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland before exercising powers in clauses 9 and 11 where regulations engage devolved matters. This duty does not apply where the Secretary of State considers that regulations need to be made urgently for the purposes of implementing emergency measures adopted under article 24.1 of the BBNJ agreement. This approach ensures that the devolved Governments are engaged in advance of regulations being made, enables them to make their own provision on devolved aspects where they wish to do so, and reflects their responsibilities while supporting timely and effective implementation of the agreement.

[Jim Shannon]

I am asking these questions because they have been put to me by fishing organisations back home and I want to put them on record. The Bill enables the creation of internationally agreed marine protected areas in the high seas. If a Northern Ireland vessel were to operate in those international waters, it could face new restrictions on where it could fish, in order to protect vulnerable habitats and species such as sharks and whales. Does the Minister not agree that we need to ensure that MPAs are not created without input from the fishing industry—the sector itself, the fishing organisations and the fish producers—that its opinions carry weight and that this is not simply a tick-box exercise?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Member continues to put on record his concerns. He will know that, as we move forward following ratification, we will continue to have detailed conversations. It is important that the rules and regulations are clear for all to operate by.

I was just referring to how we have been moving forward on the Bill to ensure that the devolved Governments are engaged in advance of regulations being made and are able to make their own provision on devolved aspects where they wish to do so. We continue to work closely together to support the timely and effective implementation of the agreement.

Lords amendment 7 inserts a new clause, after clause 17, that makes changes to the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 to ensure that the UK meets its obligations under the BBNJ agreement in relation to Scottish marine licensable activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The UK Government will be amending their own environmental impact assessment regulations, and Scottish Government officials have worked closely with UK counterparts to draft corresponding provisions. Accordingly, Lords amendments 8 and 9 also limit the power in clause 18 to implementing only article 38 standards or guidelines, as a wider power is no longer required in the light of other changes that will be made directly through the Bill.

Lords amendments 10 and 11 ensure that clause 22, which sets out procedures for the making of regulations under the Act, does not apply to regulations made under clauses introduced by Lords amendments 1 and 4. Instead, the procedures set out in Government amendments 2 and 5 respectively will apply.

Finally, Lords Amendment 12 amends clause 25 so that the clause introduced by amendment 7 comes into force on such a day as the Secretary of State appoints by regulations, rather than upon Royal Assent. This change ensures a consistent approach across the Bill with regard to the environmental impact assessment regulations that are being amended.

The Government’s objective is to implement the BBNJ agreement effectively across the whole of the United Kingdom, and to do so in a way that respects the devolution settlement and supports continued constructive collaboration with the devolved Governments. I therefore commend these 12 Lords amendments to the House, and I urge Members to support them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean, I am delighted to see the Bill’s swift passage through Parliament, and I look forward to its full ratification, but I have some specific questions for the Minister. Can she outline the timeline for the next steps to ensure ratification? Specifically, will it happen ahead of the first ocean COP, expected later this year? If the Minister is unable to give that detail today, would she be willing to meet the APPG for the ocean to discuss the timeline, particularly given that we are now five years away from our 30 by 30 commitment?

I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, tabled an amendment in the other place that would have ensured that the “polluter pays” and precautionary principles, alongside other principles in the Environment Act 2021, must be applied by UK authorities when they exercised powers or duties under this Bill relating to the high seas. As that amendment was not passed, there are concerns across the ocean sector that there is no statutory requirement in the Bill to extend those environmental principles beyond the UK’s territorial or domestic jurisdiction. Can the Minister comment on that? Will she also offer assurances that, when representatives of the Government or public authorities act under the Bill in relation to the high seas, they will apply the UK’s existing environmental principles so that we do have that coverage?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I will make a couple of comments about the timing of amendments in the other place. There have been ongoing discussions with the devolved Governments. It is important to recognise this Government’s respect for the devolution settlements and our adherence to the principles underpinning the Sewel convention; we aim for them to be our core considerations and to inform how we work. We have been working closely with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to get agreement on moving forward with this legislation together, and that was part of the reason for the delays.

[Mr Snowden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will make some progress.

I acknowledge the importance of moving ahead quickly with the Bill to ensure that we have a seat at the table for discussions with other parties to the agreement, including on MPAs. We wanted to ensure that the Bill’s provisions in devolved areas were watertight, which is why we had constructive conversations with the devolved Governments.

Part 2 obligations do not apply to fishing. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) has left his place, but he can be reassured that the Northern Ireland Assembly will have concurrent powers to implement provisions in areas of devolved competence. Under part 3 of the Bill, the UK will be involved in MPA decisions and will carefully consider the impacts on fishing.

In relation to the comments raised regarding multilateral co-operation, I want to mention some ways in which we continue to work with other states to support ratification. We continue to be proactive in preparing for implementation of the BBNJ agreement, and we are committed to partnering with others, including the global south, to ratify and implement it. Indeed, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has worked with the Commonwealth Secretariat to support smaller member countries with their implementation work. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has also published research that developed a shortlist of potential area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, that could be proposed once the agreement is in force.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) asked about the process of the Bill. Following the passage of the Bill, we will be laying two statutory instruments, one of which will define digital sequence information for the purposes of the BBNJ legislation. The other, along with an associated Scottish Government SI, will amend the marine licensing regime, where needed, to implement part 4 of the BBNJ agreement on environmental impact assessments. Those will be progressed as soon as the BBNJ Bill has received Royal Assent. Once the SIs have been passed, we will be able to ratify the agreement by laying the instrument of ratification formally at the United Nations in New York. We are keen to see that happen as quickly as possible, as I know my hon. Friend is.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), asked about legislative consent motions. While foreign affairs and treaty making are reserved matters, implementing international obligations in domestic law is not reserved where those obligations concern devolved areas. Several provisions in the Bill, particularly in parts 2, 3 and 4, relate to matters such as environmental protection and scientific research, which fall within devolved competencies for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Consequently, the legislative consent motion process is engaged to varying degrees. The assessment of whether legislative consent motions are required for this Bill has been agreed across the relevant UK Government Departments, including the Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales Offices, and in consultation with the devolved Governments.

The shadow Minister also asked whether there is a risk that requirements in Scotland for an environmental impact assessment for marine activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction might be different from those in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is the case that Scotland could choose to implement the requirements slightly differently. We will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that differences are kept to a minimum and that the United Kingdom as a whole takes a consistent approach. That is very much in the spirit in which we have been working, collaboratively, to respect devolution settlements while recognising the importance of this agreement to both the Scottish and UK Governments. That has been an important part of how we have progressed.

[Mr Snowden]

I thank the Minister for answering my question on the potential for the Scottish Government to take a different approach to implementing the Bill. If ongoing conversations are under way, will the Minister tell us whether an indication has been given by the Scottish Government that they want to implement the Bill in a different way?

[Seema Malhotra]

We are at the start of the process. The spirit in which we have been working, and the way in which we have reached agreement on how to work alongside the Scottish Government, are important to how we will continue to work going forward. In the light of those conversations, I believe that a collaborative approach will continue, because it is in all our interests.

Let me make some further comments in response to the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats. I know that it is important to Members on both sides of the House that there is a separate process under way to agree a global plastic pollution treaty. Plastic pollution is a transboundary issue with its source on land, and it is appropriate for it to be addressed by a bespoke treaty for the full life cycle of plastics, including the phasing out of problematic products, improving waste management and reducing leakage. The BBNJ agreement focuses on conservation and sustainable use of resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and is therefore not best suited to addressing plastic pollution across the life cycle. However, the hon. Lady makes an important point, and it is a matter of concern across the House.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the Government’s showing commitment to global leadership on protecting the oceans by bringing this Bill through Parliament so quickly. Last week I joined Greenpeace on board its vessel Witness, which was docked nearby in London, and I heard about the devastation that bottom trawling can wreak on marine ecosystems. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to regulate, or preferably ban, this destructive fishing practice in our marine protected zones and elsewhere? It is a particular area of concern for my residents in Exeter.

[Seema Malhotra]

That is indeed a matter of concern, and it has been raised in debates by Members from across the House. Although my hon. Friend will know that bottom trawling is not within the scope of the agreement, he will also be aware that we are consulting on restricting bottom trawling in more vulnerable marine habitats. It is important that the consultation and that work continue.

This is a landmark piece of legislation. It ensures that the UK can ratify the important BBNJ agreement and take full part in the conference of the parties. It contains measures that will not only safeguard marine ecosystems, but deliver real benefits for the UK’s research and innovation community. In January, I was pleased to visit the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, to which the hon. Member for South Cotswolds referred. It is a world-leading institution, and it highlighted the value of this agreement in improving the visibility and transparency of UK-led marine research, as well as in strengthening international research collaborations. I want to put on record my thanks to the centre for its work and leadership.

I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the health of our oceans is inseparable from the health of our planet. Although we may not often see these ecosystems with our own eyes, the responsibility to protect them falls on all of us and on the wider international community. The BBN J Bill is the UK’s opportunity to rise to that responsibility, to safeguard fragile ecosystems, to support sustainable development, and to ensure that the benefits of ocean science are shared fairly and responsibly. The United Kingdom has always played a leading role in advancing global ocean governance. With this Bill, we have the chance to continue that leadership. The ocean cannot wait, and nor should we.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 12 agreed to.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, proceedings on the motions in the name of Secretary Heidi Alexander relating to (i) High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill: Carry-over and (ii) High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill: Select Committee shall be brought to a conclusion no later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; the Speaker shall then put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on those motions; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings on those motions may be entered upon and may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Sir Alan Campbell.)

British Indian Ocean Territory

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to respond to this debate.

Let me start by saying that the Government oppose the motion. The treaty guarantees full UK operational control of Diego Garcia for generations to come.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

On that point—

[Seema Malhotra]

Let me make a few remarks before I give way.

The motion proposes a wildly exaggerated cost, in contrast to the actual costings published by this Government at the time of the treaty’s introduction, which has been verified by the independent Government Actuary’s Department. The motion invokes an exchange of notes, which the Government have publicly confirmed is being updated with our US partners. It also attempts to bind parliamentary procedure on that exchange despite that exchange not having been finalised. That is not patriotic. That is political point scoring at the expense of our national security. It is a sad indictment of what the Official Opposition have become.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The Minister refers to the cost, but does she agree that the Government have confirmed that it is over £34 billion?

[Seema Malhotra]

No. Furthermore, I will have no truck with Reform, which has no record on supporting the security of our country, especially given what has happened in Wales.

The Opposition may not want to hear this, but they backed negotiations over Chagos every step of the way. Some 85% of the Chagos negotiations took place under the Conservatives, and were led by the former Foreign Secretary. [Interruption.] They may not want to hear this, but it is important to share that, in November 2022, the former Foreign Secretary said that through negotiations—[Interruption.] I think a lot of people are interested in the past.

[Mr Speaker]

May I ask the two Front-Bench teams to make interventions rather than having this running battle?

[Seema Malhotra]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

On that point, will the hon. Lady take an intervention?

[Seema Malhotra]

Let me make a little progress before giving way to the right hon. Gentleman.

In November 2022, the former Foreign Secretary said that

“taking into account relevant legal proceedings, it is our intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues”.—[Official Report, 3 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 27WS.]

In February last year, a spokesperson for the Leader of the Opposition insisted that negotiations over the islands were needed due to the international legal position. [Interruption.] I am referring to the current Leader of the Opposition—some might not remember who she is, but she is still in post, I believe. She may have defected to Reform.

What I will say—this is a serious point—is that there has been ample time for debate on this topic. Indeed, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), debated it for more than two hours last week and for 45 minutes on Monday in an urgent question. Baroness Chapman of Darlington has spent hours debating the topic in the other place, including during an urgent question on Monday. We have committed to this deal and to these hours of debate because it is important that we do so. Courts had already begun to make decisions that undermined our position in relation to the security of the base.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am a little worried that the Minister is confusing Ministers coming to the Dispatch Box and not answering questions with proper scrutiny of what is going on, so here is a very specific question for her. She has heard previously about the Pelindaba treaty. Mauritius is a signatory, and all signatories have to declare their territories to be nuclear-free zones, effectively. If in the future the Americans, with our agreement and approval, wish to have some nuclear weapons permanently or temporarily on the base at Diego Garcia, will they be able to do so if Mauritius has sovereignty over the islands?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the right hon. Member for his comments. The answer to that question has been set out by Lord Coaker, and I will be laying it out—[Interruption.] The answer is yes, and it has been set out by Lord Coaker in the other place. I will come on to that in my remarks.

There have been questions from the Opposition today about the legal matters behind this treaty. It is important to say that Mauritius’s legal claim of sovereignty over the island of Diego Garcia is supported by a number of international institutions, including the UN General Assembly. The International Court of Justice considered this issue in the advisory opinion delivered in February.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), I understand that the Prime Minister of Mauritius made it clear yesterday that he would not allow or agree to the placing of any nuclear weapons on the islands. Can the Minister please answer the question of how the Government can reassure the USA?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will be coming on to that point in my remarks. That is important.

I want to finish my point on the legal matters that have been raised. What the International Court of Justice said in its advisory opinion carries significant weight and is likely to be influential on any subsequent court or tribunal that considers the issues arising out of disputed sovereignty and whose judgment would be binding in international law. The ICJ—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Seema Malhotra]

I will finish my remarks on this point. The ICJ concluded that

“the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible”.—[Interruption.]

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) may want to listen the next bit. The 2019 advisory opinion was followed in 2021 by a special chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in a case about delimitation of the boundary between Mauritius and the Maldives, which ruled that Mauritian sovereignty was inferred from the ICJ’s determination.

[Dr Luke Evans]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Who are you giving way to, Minister? Three Members think it is them.

[Seema Malhotra]

I give way to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans).

[Dr Evans]

Specifically on that point, the 2021 judgment did not have any British representation and rested on the UN’s non-binding judgment. We also know from the 2015 ruling that that court cannot preside over sovereignty, so how does it stand up to scrutiny that the Minister is saying that there is a dire need to hand the islands over?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Member will know that these matters have been shared before with the House. Perhaps I may remind him what US Secretary Hegseth said:

“The UK’s (very important) deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key”—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Dr Evans, do you have to keep chuntering? You have asked the question, and you are getting an answer. I do not need—[Interruption.] Order. I wouldn’t bother giving me backchat. I do not need a running commentary. Let’s calm it down a little. It does not look good on TV.

[Seema Malhotra]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I remind the hon. Member of what US Secretary Hegseth said:

“The UK’s (very important) deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests in the region.

We are confident the base is protected for many years ahead.”

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Seema Malhotra]

I will continue my remarks, but I will give way shortly.

It is, therefore, the UK’s long-standing legal view that if Mauritius challenged us again in the courts, we would struggle to defend our position. Our Indo-Pacific foothold and the operation of the base could be put at risk within weeks. That is why the Government remain fully committed to the deal to secure the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia, which is vital for our national security.

[James Cartlidge]

This is a fundamental point. The most sensitive part of our military is the nuclear deterrent; it is critical to the defence of ourselves and our allies. The United States is also nuclear armed. We are a naval nuclear nation, and the base at Diego Garcia is a critical naval base in strategic terms. Yesterday, it was reported that the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius, Mr Bérenger, had declared that nuclear weapons could not be stored on Mauritius if sovereignty is restored to Mauritius. Does the Minister understand that to be the case?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the shadow Defence Secretary for his intervention. It is a long-standing policy, as he will know this from having been in government, that we do not comment on operational matters or the location of nuclear weapons.

The Opposition know—[Interruption.] Perhaps I may make some comments on the Pelindaba treaty—

[Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister said that she would address the issue of whether nuclear weapons could go to Diego Garcia, and now she says that she cannot comment. Is that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. No, no, no. You are on the Panel of Chairs. You know that that is not a point of order—it’s not even the start of one. You are trying to continue the debate. I am sure that you are on the list to speak, so you will get to make your points later.

[Seema Malhotra]

The right hon. Member could not have known it, but I was on the first line of a page of comments on that exact issue. I am sorry that he chose that moment to interrupt proceedings.

As I was saying, it is a matter of long-standing policy that we do not comment on operational procedures. The Conservatives know that and, of course, took the same approach in government. As the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, told the Foreign Affairs Committee:

“We are confident that nothing in this treaty conflicts with our abilities to uphold international law, and to continue to operate the base as we do today.”

As Lord Coaker has—

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will continue my remarks. It is as if the Conservatives cannot decide who is speaking from the Front Bench today.

As Lord Coaker told the other place in November, the UK-Mauritius agreement

“enables the continued operation of the base to its full capability.”

He said that we will continue to be able to

“deploy the full range of advanced military capabilities to Diego Garcia.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 November 2025; Vol. 850, c. 1313.]

It is not just us; the agreement has been tested at the highest levels of the US security establishment under not one but two Administrations. They too were satisfied that it protects the full operation of the base. We have agreed with the Mauritian Government that nothing in the treaty conflicts with our respective commitments, and we are absolutely clear that we can continue to operate the base as we have done and as we do now.

[Mr Francois]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

No, I have been very generous in giving way. I will continue with my remarks. [Interruption.] Sorry, what was that comment?

[Mr Francois]

Frit.

[Seema Malhotra]

Is that in order, Mr Speaker?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is getting touchy in here. I want the debate to be tolerant and respectful. It is up to the Minister whether she wishes to give way. That word is in order. It has been used from the other side as well, so let us not forget our memories.

[Seema Malhotra]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Given the security risk, this Government, like the Government before us, made the decision to negotiate with Mauritius to secure a deal to protect the base and the UK. Our agreement ensures full operational control of Diego Garcia; a 24 nautical mile buffer zone where nothing can be built or placed without UK consent; a rigorous process including joint decision making to prevent any activities on the wider islands—some over 100 nautical miles away—from disrupting base operations; full UK control over the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands, whether civilian or military; and a binding obligation to ensure that the operation of the base is never undermined.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will continue with my remarks for the moment. As I have said, we are confident that nothing in this treaty conflicts with our ability to uphold international law and continue to operate the base as we do today.

Moving on to the UK-US relationship, we have been clear that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation; update the UK-US exchange of notes; and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration. This Government consider it our duty to protect the public. Therefore, it is our duty to pursue this agreement with clarity and resolve, and we will not put party politics ahead of national security, as we see the Opposition doing today.

We have made strong progress towards finalising an updated UK-US agreement and will reach an agreement on it before the agreement between the United Kingdom and Mauritius concerning the Chagos archipelago, including Diego Garcia, is ratified. These matters are still under negotiation, so it remains to be determined whether any updated agreement will be subject to ratification. We will keep Parliament informed about that.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I listened to the criteria that the Minister expressed before ratification is possible. Is American agreement one of the criteria that she considers essential?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Member will have heard me say that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation; update the UK-US exchange of notes; and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration. It is important—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I will continue with my remarks, because I want to finish shortly.

The strength of the deal and the protection of national security is exactly why the US endorsed the deal last year and why Secretary of State Rubio called it a “monumental achievement”. The agreement safeguards the interest of both the United Kingdom and the United States well into the next century.

I will briefly turn to costs. A financial contribution over 99 years was always necessary to safeguard the operation of such a vital base. We published comprehensive detail on the payment schedule alongside the treaty. That was laid in the House within minutes of the signature of the treaty. The figures used by the Government were verified by the independent Government Actuary’s Department, in line with standard accounting practices. Those who seek to imply that the Government have misled the public on that do so without the facts, so let me set those out.

First, the Office for Statistics Regulation welcomed the Government’s approach to setting out the methodology and confirmed that it is in line with the principles of intelligent transparency. Secondly, the Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that the discount rates used by the Government were the reasonable ones to use. Thirdly, the figures have been verified by the House of Commons Library and scrutinised by BBC Verify and The Independent. All those confirmed that the Government calculated the figures correctly.

Beyond the numbers, it is also important to debate, as this House has done, the challenges that have been raised in relation to the Chagossian community, and rightly so. It is a vibrant and diverse community that now sees the Conservatives’ political tactics. They are the same Conservatives who, after ruling our resettlement for the Chagossians and committing to a £40 million package of support in 2016—they may want to answer to those two things—succeeded in spending just £1.6 million by the time this Government came into power.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Seema Malhotra]

I will conclude my remarks—I am sorry but I have taken a number of interventions today.

Since coming into power, this Government have been clear on our deep regret for the way in which Chagossians were removed from the islands and have sought to recognise the wide range of views within the Chagossian community. We remain committed to building a relationship with that community that is built on respect and an acknowledgment of the wrongs of the past.

We have established a contact group to give Chagossians a greater say in UK Government support to their communities and are in the process of enhancing that group, as Baroness Chapman committed to doing in the other place. Officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office have engaged with Chagossian individuals and groups more than 30 times and they are regularly in conversation with the Minister responsible for the overseas territories, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth.

In conclusion, doing this deal was right and essential. It protects our national interest, it defends our national security, it protects the Diego Garcia base from legal threat, it supports the Chagossian community and it preserves the unique environment in the archipelago. We know that the best way to do that is to pursue this deal. It is time that the Conservatives realised—or should I say, remembered—that too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.