Macolin Convention

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Written Statements

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

On 6 December 2018, the UK signed the Council of Europe convention on the manipulation of sports competitions (the Macolin convention).

The Government laid this convention in Parliament on 4 June 2026 in the Miscellaneous Series under Command Paper number CP 1595, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum.

In accordance with section 21 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRaG), I wish to inform the House that the 21 sitting day period that relates to this convention pursuant to section 20(1) CRaG is to be extended. The 21 sitting day period is to be extended by 15 sitting days.

This extension follows a request from the House of Lords International Agreements Committee for further time to consider the convention.

[HCWS284]

Regional Accents and Social Mobility

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this important debate, which I have thoroughly enjoyed listening to. In all the stories shared, I recognise how powerful and rich the debate is. I thank her for the work that she has done in Parliament.

This is one of those topics that leads us to wonder why we have not had the conversation before. This must be its time as it has captured the imagination of Parliament so effectively and powerfully. It is already achieving the goals that my hon. Friend wants: that important culture change, a shift in attitudes and an understanding that where accentism might be holding back social mobility, it is our responsibility to do all that we can to tackle it.

I pay tribute to Professor Rob Drummond and Dr Amanda Cole and the accentism project for their Westminster Voices initiative, as well as their other important work in this field, particularly the “This is English” project with the British Council, which champions the powerful idea that the English language belongs to everyone who speaks it in all its rich, diverse and regional variations. Too often, debates in this House are defined by columns of statistics, spreadsheets and policy levers, but today my hon. Friend and all who have taken part have given our debate a rare and special thing: the space to tell stories and talk about identity and belonging and what it can be like for our constituents to navigate modern Britain.

I want to address some of the points raised in the debate, including about how accents have such an important relationship to identity and how, from what has been shared, they can be a barrier. It is important to recognise that everyone has an accent and that there is, as my hon. Friend said, no linguistic basis for a hierarchy of accent. We see in the research that life chances may be defined by background with accent bias. It is important to tackle that unconscious bias and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton described, the culture that drives it. It is important to tackle it so that young people do not lack confidence and feel unable to achieve their ambitions.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for York Outer (Mr Charters), for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge), for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) for their contributions. I also thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and of course, the Front-Bench spokeswomen, the hon. Members for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) and for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman).

I will highlight a couple of things in my remarks, including the message to young people across the UK about softening their accents. The hon. Member for Strangford made a very relatable point about Hansard. I have found that Hounslow has also fallen into that need for clarity on the names of places and people, but it is important that we get that right and that Hansard records our contributions correctly, because they are on the record for posterity. Everyone wants their names and places spelled right, and that is important for respect. I am grateful to Hansard for checking with us and making sure our contributions are represented accurately.

The attitudes that hon. Members have spoken about belong in the history books, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer said. I am grateful that he bravely risked controversy with his speech, but his points about local dialects and language, and about his experience at Oxford, are incredibly important for the House and his constituents. I am grateful to the pupils of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East, who spoke for all of us in highlighting the importance of seeing people who look and sound like them represent them in this House.

The Sutton Trust’s landmark “Speaking Up” report demonstrated why this issue matters. It states that accent remains

“the primary signal of socio-economic status”

in this country. Members have shared some of that research, but I want to pull out a few of its findings. It says that 35% of university students feel deeply self-conscious about their accent, and that 41% from the north of England fear that their voice will negatively affect their future success.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington for his contribution. I have had conversations with him after he has had a pint or two, and he does speak much faster. I hope that his powerful, important contribution will be replayed across the north-east, because he shared why it is so important that people are proud of their accent and who they are. Young people need confidence—we see that in the data from the north-east. All opportunities should be open to them, and it is important to have respect for each other.

Shockingly—this is a staggering statistic—nearly 30% of senior managers from working-class backgrounds report having been openly mocked for their accent in the workplace. As the data shows, there remains an outdated snobbery around accent that reduces a person’s intellect, capability and potential to the way that they speak. That is unacceptable, so it is important to shine a new light on the issue. For generations, the message to those who want to enter public life or elite professions has been that if they want to get on, they must sound like everybody else. When Margaret Thatcher became leader of her party in the 1970s, she famously underwent intensive elocution lessons with a tutor from the National Theatre. Authority had to sound a certain way. The message, particularly at that time, was that if somebody wanted power, they had to shed their origins. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer said in his powerful contribution, making it should not mean leaving part of yourself behind.

Decades later, while noting the much greater diversity of this place and our country, we must recognise that progress can and must still be made. We may find that progress accelerates as Manchesterism becomes part of our national conversation. Interestingly, studies also regularly show that regional accents such as Welsh or Yorkshire are rated by the public as trustworthy, warm and honest. Yet when those same studies measure perceived intelligence or employability, standard southern English and received pronunciation invariably top the metrics. We are effectively telling working-class people that we trust them to work on the frontline in our schools and NHS but not to lead our boardrooms, teach in our elite universities or perhaps represent us in this place.

Yet the diversity of British speech is a mark of our cultural richness. Our language is vibrant and alive. I may say these in a Hounslow accent, but depending on where someone stands in this country, a bread roll is a cob, a bap, a barm, a stottie or a muffin—no matter what you call it, it is still pretty tasty. To flatten our regional dialects into a single homogenised corporate drone is to strip Britain of its character.

This debate really matters here because Parliament is a workplace, but it is also the engine room of our democracy. If we genuinely believe in representation, that representation must extend to how the Chamber sounds. Our constituents do not want a Parliament of homogenous voices; they want to hear their own lives, regions and communities reflected from the green Benches and every debating part of this House.

When a Member stands up in any debate in the House and speaks with their own unvarnished accent, whether they represent constituencies in the north-east, Yorkshire, the Midlands, the Black Country, Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, working-class London, Essex or Sussex—as also reflected in this debate—they are undertaking, on equal terms, their democratic duty in this House. They are telling every young person or constituent in their communities who is watching at home that their voice belongs in the rooms where power resides.

I agree with the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield that social mobility should not mean conformity. Indeed, those barriers do not start at the doors of this House; we see them much earlier, when working-class young people arrive at our world-leading universities. They have worked staggeringly hard to earn their places, yet the culture shock they face is frequently linguistic. They are met with eyebrows or mimicking, as has also been relayed very powerfully in this debate.

We also want to take practical action to challenge some of that and change access to opportunity. As has been referenced in this House, far from limiting and lowering ambition, I am proud that from 2028 we are reintroducing means-tested maintenance grants of up to £1,000 a year, putting vital cash back into the pockets of students who need it the most—often from working-class backgrounds—without increasing their debt.

We are also investing £20 million this year into Uni Connect to build local partnerships between schools, colleges and employers. Whether a young person chooses a degree or a trade, their journey must be determined by merit and their potential—never by whether they have to change their voice or pretend to be someone else to fit in. As Minister for Equalities with responsibility on race and women, I know that those in this House will know how important it is that this Government are working to ensure that whoever someone is and wherever they come from, Britain is a country that will respect their contribution. That is a guiding principle of the work that we are doing in this Labour Government.

The Equality Act 2010 brought together and built upon 40 years of hard-won progress. While the Act may not directly reference place or accent-based inequality, its protections against discrimination related to sex, race and age frequently intersect with those issues. Intersectionality matters very much because we know that accentism can intersect with race and gender. For a working-class woman, a regional accent can be unfairly stereotyped as a lack of professionalism or authority. When an ethnic minority person speaks with a regional working-class accent or a multi-ethnic dialect like multicultural London English, they face a double layer of prejudice. That is based on evidence that we cannot ignore.

We must also recognise the importance of rewarding talent. That is why our gender pay gap reporting will be built on to introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting. Another important step in this space will be our commitment to ensure that everyone can succeed, no matter their background. We will be working to commence the socioeconomic duty on public bodies in section 1 of the Equality Act to require public authorities to put addressing socioeconomic disadvantage at the heart of their strategic decision making. There will be more on that to follow.

Let me again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton, and say how impactful the debate has been. It is a clarion call for a fundamental culture shift so that we start to see a world in which everyone can succeed based on their talents, their drive and their potential, and never be held back by their background, their postcode or the sound of their voice. We need our world-class institutions, our elite universities, our media and our employers to stop listening so much to people’s accents and how they speak, and start listening much more to what they have to say.

Equal Pay and Pay Discrimination

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)]

The Government have today published a consultation on equal pay and pay discrimination.

In our manifesto and plan to make work pay, we committed to strengthening equal pay provisions and eliminating pay discrimination. This is an important milestone in the Government’s wider plan to break down the barriers to opportunity and make work pay for women across the country, address racial inequalities, and champion the rights of disabled people.

The UK’s prosperity and long-term economic growth depend on a national renewal that is grounded in the principles of equality and opportunity. This includes reinforcing our commitment to upholding the fundamental right to equal pay for equal work. This Government’s ambition is to remove barriers to opportunity, provide greater certainty for employers, and reduce the burden on business and the justice system through less protracted litigation.

Concerns have been widely expressed by employers and employees that the existing law on pay equality has become excessively complex, costly, and protracted. With tens of thousands of claims stuck in the system and cases taking a decade or more to resolve, workers are trapped in endless litigation and employers face intractable uncertainty. No one benefits from this.

We know what the problems are: a system that fails to provide the data and tools needed to reliably and efficiently identify discriminatory pay practices; that places too much of the burden for enforcing the law on individuals; that incentivises arguments over minor details of a dispute, multiplying time, stress and expense; and that does not do enough to protect women or others who need it, such as ethnic minority and disabled employees and outsourced workers.

It is therefore crucial that we address the issues raised by workers, businesses, and the justice system, ensuring the pay discrimination framework works effectively for everyone.

This consultation seeks input from stakeholders regarding policy proposals designed to deliver the following commitments:



make the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people;

establish an equal pay regulation and enforcement unit with the involvement of trade unions;

ensure that outsourcing of services can no longer be used by employers to avoid paying equal pay.

In addition to these commitments, the consultation seeks input on the proposed introduction of allied pay transparency measures where the evidence shows that these are proportionate and effective in supporting a preventive approach to pay equality.

In April 2025, the Office for Equality and Opportunity launched a call for evidence on equality law which invited feedback on areas of existing equality legislation and possible equality law reform. This included questions on the equal pay commitments outlined above, as well as possible related pay transparency measures. The responses received, as well as Government-commissioned research on the socio-legal and lived experience impacts of the equal pay scheme, demonstrate a need for serious reform of the current system before broadening protections to address inconsistencies in the law.

That is why we are consulting on a phased and future-facing approach to reform which commits to fixing the system first, before broadening protections to ethnic minority, disabled and outsourced workers. In doing so, we would seek to protect employers from unforeseen liabilities for historic practices. We want to get this right, working in partnership with businesses, civil society and trade unions to make sure that our reforms account for all parties’ needs and circumstances. We also invite views from stakeholders on whether they think there are alternative ways to achieve our objectives. The launch of this consultation will inform how we can change the law for the better.

Specifically, the consultation includes proposed measures designed to proactively prevent pay discrimination, ensure enforcement agencies are empowered to drive good practice, and simplify the resolution of disputes when they arise. It also includes proposed measures to address gaps and inconsistencies affecting ethnic minority and disabled employees and outsourced workers. These measures are intentionally proportionate, prioritising targeted action that minimises administrative burdens and simplifies compliance.

As a result, these measures will support the Government’s ambition to remove barriers to opportunity, make work pay, provide greater certainty for employers, and reduce the burden on business and the justice system through less protracted litigation.

The consultation will be open for 15 weeks. In connection with the above, my Department has made the following documents available on gov.uk:

An independent analysis of the responses to the pay discrimination sections of the call for evidence on equality law, undertaken by an external contractor.

Independent research commissioned by OEO.

I will also deposit a copy of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS243]

FCDO Services Ministerial Targets 2026-27

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Written Statements

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

FCDO Services operates as a trading fund of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. In line with normal practice, I have set the following performance targets for 2026-27:

An in-year surplus before interest, tax and dividend;

Achievement of the return on capital employed of at least 6.5% (weighted average);

A productivity ratio of at least 82%, measuring actual billable hours versus available billable hours;

An in-year customer satisfaction rating average of at least 82;

An average civil service people survey score for “Employee Engagement” of at least 61%; and

An average civil service people survey score for “My Manager” of at least 65%.

FCDO Services will report to Parliament on its success against these targets through its annual report and accounts for 2026-27.

FCDO Services is an executive agency and trading fund of the FCDO. It provides a range of integrated, secure services worldwide to the FCDO and other UK Government Departments, supporting the delivery of Government agendas. Services include protective security, estates and construction, cloud computing, communications and monitoring, logistics, translation and interpreting. This is combined with a portfolio of global maintenance work. FCDO Services also manages the UK National Authority for Counter Eavesdropping, helping protect UK assets from physical, electronic and cyber-attack.

[HCWS210]

Environmental Sustainability: UK-Indonesia Collaboration

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to her long-standing work on climate and environmental issues, and to her generosity in sharing with us her experience of “squelching” in the Indonesian peatlands. Her account, alongside the contributions of other hon. Members who have also recently visited Indonesia, brought to life the richness of the environment in the country, and therefore the importance of our work together on climate and nature.

I am also grateful for the thoughtful contributions of hon. Members from across the House in speeches and interventions today, including by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden); the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage); my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds); my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel); the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner).

I recognise that this is a very timely and important debate. It comes just a few months after my first visit to Indonesia. I am very grateful to our climate and nature special envoys who were referred to in this debate, Rachel Kyte and Ruth Davis, for their extremely important work and their contributions to many discussions with Ministers across different Departments.

There is a very strong interest in this House in how we tackle climate change and protect nature, and in how we work with partners around the world to do so. With Indonesia, the core of our partnership is focused on climate, nature and energy co-operation. It is also important to say up front that Indonesia is pivotal to global outcomes on climate and nature for the reasons that we have heard today, including the scale of its rainforests and biodiversity. Indeed, its actions on energy, forests and oceans will help to tackle similar challenges across the world.

I also pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East as the UK’s Climate Minister last year, during which time she visited Indonesia. I know that she saw at first hand how our partnership with Indonesia works in practice. In Jakarta, she met Energy Minister Bahlil. She worked to deepen our co-operation on the energy transition—from renewables to carbon capture, carbon markets and critical minerals, all of which were referred to in today’s informed debate—recognising the real economic and political challenges that Indonesia faces as it moves away from coal. I am proud that she launched a UK-supported micro-hydro project in Lombok, demonstrating how we are working alongside Indonesia to support clean, reliable energy at a community level.

That combination of high-level policy engagement and practical delivery is central to our approach across climate, energy and nature, and we continue to build on that through our ongoing dialogue with Indonesian partners. Indonesia stands out as one of the most important countries in the world for climate and nature. It is home to the world’s third largest tropical rainforest basin and has rich marine ecosystems that store carbon and support extraordinary biodiversity. It is a major emitter and a major part of the solution.

As a G20 economy and a leading voice in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Indonesia has influence well beyond its region. Its economy has long depended on sectors such as coal and palm oil, and like many countries it faces difficult choices as it seeks to balance growth with environmental protection. At the same time, Indonesia has committed to reducing emissions and is taking steps on forest protection, clean energy and climate finance. This Government are clear that global challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss can be tackled only through partnership, because no country can do this alone.

I will endeavour to respond to a number of comments raised today. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley will be aware of concerns about Mama Yasinta. We take seriously all reports of human rights violations across Papua. We are concerned about the recent increase in violence in Papua, including fatalities. I visited Indonesia in February and underlined the importance that the UK attaches to human rights. I raised the issue of Papua directly with the vice Foreign Minister.

I also want to refer to the UK’s approach to supporting orangutans, which is twofold: to decrease the drivers of orangutan habitat loss and to support the mobilisation of finance for habitat conservation. An important example of sustainable commodity production is the multi-stakeholder forestry partnership phase 5, referred to earlier. That programme is helping Indonesia to strengthen the sustainability and legality of its timber production, ensuring that pressure from the forestry industry is managed sustainably. That is relevant for habitats across Indonesia, including the ecosystems of Kalimantan and Sumatra that are home to Indonesia’s orangutans.

Threats to Indonesia’s maritime environments include pollution; illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing practices; and warming waters linked to climate change. The UK and Indonesia continue to work closely with each other through the Blue Planet fund country plan. We are proud to partner with Indonesia through that fund and the maritime partnership programme. A number of hon. Members referred to the maritime challenges, and it is important to keep that focus in our debate.

In relation to the UK’s action, we have worked closely with Indonesia for more than 20 years, combining diplomacy, technical support and targeted finance to tackle environmental and nature issues. Indeed, what started as co-operation on sustainable timber has grown into a wider partnership. Hon. Members also referred to the important engagement earlier this year when the Prime Minister and President Prabowo Subianto agreed a new strategic partnership. The ambition for climate, energy and nature was clear at the Lancaster House breakfast, which I attended, where President Prabowo and His Majesty the King came together with a vision for Indonesia as a global leader in sustainable nature finance.

We are now taking that important ambition forward in practical ways. For example, we are supporting efforts to protect forests and tackle deforestation, including in supply chains such as palm oil. We are backing Indonesia’s energy transition, including through a just energy transition partnership. We are committed to providing a guarantee to unlock $1 billion of additional climate finance from the World Bank to support the energy transition. That is important because we know that Indonesia has to fill a significant climate finance gap to meet its mitigations and adaptation goals.

[Sarah Dyke]

The Minister is clearly setting out how the Indonesian rainforests and peatlands deliver irreplaceable global climate benefits. We know that conservation efforts have been severely undermined because of the funding issue and she is setting out that new funding will be available. Will she also set out a clear timeframe for that funding?

[Seema Malhotra]

I am happy for the hon. Lady to write to me to ask about the specifics because there are different funds, some of which are already deployed and some of which will continue in the future. If she would like to know more about specific funds, we can probably answer that.

It is also important to recognise that we are supporting efforts to strengthen governance and ensure that communities, including indigenous peoples, are part of that transition. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East for referencing the engagement and the rights of indigenous peoples.

[Kerry McCarthy]

On that specific point, Fairtrade was holding an event in the IPU room earlier and I was concerned to hear about the cost of complying with forest risk commodities regulation for indigenous farmers. They were citing figures in the tens—I think the low tens—for both African and Latin American smallholders. Can the Minister speak to her colleagues in DEFRA about how we can ensure that the burden of these regulations does not fall on people in indigenous communities? I think the answer is having co-operatives or regional government-led initiatives to make sure that they can comply with the certification, but can she make sure that that point is taken up?

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend raises an important point and I am happy to pick that up with colleagues. When we look at sustainability, we should also recognise the role that indigenous peoples play in supporting the environment and climate.

As I have referenced, it is important that we raise concerns about deforestation, supply chains and the pace of change. These are complex issues, particularly in countries like Indonesia, where commodities such as palm oil and timber are central to growth and livelihoods.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East referred to, the Government announced today that the UK is introducing a new approach to deforestation regulations to help to ensure that our consumption does not drive global forest loss. That will require businesses to strengthen due diligence and improve traceability in their supply chains. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East outlined, we are clear on that goal, but we also recognise that it must be done in a way that supports rather than undermines our partners. The UK has worked closely with Indonesia on sustainable forestry and supply chains for many years, and we will continue to engage and work in partnership with Indonesia and other partners as the policy develops to ensure that our approach reflects local contexts, is proportionate and supports sustainable growth, alongside forest protection.

Representatives from the Indonesian Government are in the UK this week for London Climate Action Week, to meet representatives from across the UK’s Government, private sector and civil society. This is an important and landmark week, during which we can share the full extent of the UK’s ambitions on climate and energy with partners across the world. I am pleased that on Thursday morning, the Indonesian Minister of Forestry, Raja Juli Antoni, and I will co-host a roundtable at the FCDO to showcase the Peusangan elephant conservation initiative: a flagship model under Indonesia’s new presidential taskforce to develop innovative financing for national parks. That is another initiative that demonstrates how conservation, livelihoods and finance can be brought together in incredible, investable opportunities.

To conclude, the UK-Indonesia partnership on environmental sustainability is wide, ambitious and rooted in practical co-operation. It spans forests, wildlife, cleaner energy, ocean protection and support for communities whose lives depend on the natural world. The partnership is backed by strong political commitment on both sides, and is supported by growing engagement between Governments, businesses and civil society.

We know that the scale of the challenge is significant, and that progress will take time. Like all countries, Indonesia will need international support to meet its commitments, and the strength of our partnership gives real grounds for confidence. Under Labour’s leadership, the United Kingdom will continue to share investment and practical support with Indonesia, because the choices that we make together will help to shape a safer, more secure and more prosperous future for both of our countries.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

1. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her Department’s policies of the level of risk to countries arising from environmental change in the Tibetan plateau.

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

Mr Speaker, I echo your words about Jo Cox, our friend and colleague, who we remember in our hearts. Had she not been so brutally murdered, she would have been in this House and, I am almost certain, would have been present for Foreign Office questions today.

Rivers originating from the Tibetan plateau are thought to sustain 1.8 billion people directly, providing drinking water, irrigation and power generation. Through the Himalayan resilience action programme, the UK has supported research into climate and environment risks around the Tibetan plateau and supported efforts to strengthen climate resilience in the region. The resilience action programme has promoted science-based policy and dialogue across the Hindu Kush Himalaya.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Mr Speaker, I echo what you said about Jo Cox. I think her message is more important today than it ever was.

I thank the Minister for her response. China’s actions, from environmentally destructive mining to building dams to divert water sources, will have consequences far beyond the Tibetan plateau, as she says, as will the failure to address the impact of climate change on the third pole. What steps can the UK take to raise these issues at a global level? Does the Minister agree that the voices of Tibetans should be heard in any such talks?

[Seema Malhotra]

The UK continues to engage with China on climate and environmental issues. During the recent UK-China environment dialogue, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs secured agreement for greater collaboration with China on ecosystem resilience, biodiversity, conservation and multilateral environmental processes. Our Himalayan resilience action plan is building regional resilience through nature-based solutions, tackling water insecurity, air quality management and promoting dialogue through the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development. As countries come together in pursuit of these solutions, it is important that affected communities are consulted.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The Tibetan Parliament in exile, which the all-party parliamentary group on Tibet visited a couple of weeks ago—we have engaged extensively with it—is terribly worried that the central Tibet Autonomous Region is completely closed off by the Chinese Communist party to any outside access. Little comes out and almost nothing goes in. Is the Minister not worried about the complete secrecy in which the Chinese authorities can conduct environmental destruction that has a massive global impact?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Lady raises an important concern. We are concerned by reporting from the UN special rapporteurs that large-scale environmental projects in Tibet risk the forced displacement of Tibetans from their ancestral villages. It is important that we keep these issues on our radar.

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

2. What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the UK's relationship with the US.

--- Later in debate ---

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

T2. I have been contacted by members of the Tamil community across Bexleyheath and Crayford, who continue to press for accountability and justice in relation to atrocities committed during the civil war in Sri Lanka. They are very concerned about how the country’s Prevention of Terrorism Act is currently being used to silence voices, including that of Hiphop Sangee. Can my hon. Friend outline the measures her Department is taking to press for accountability for both the historical and current persecution of Tamils in Sri Lanka?

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

We recognise the strength of feeling among diaspora communities and continue to press the Sri Lankan Government bilaterally and at the United Nations Human Rights Council for meaningful progress to improve the human rights situation. That includes securing truth, justice and accountability for past abuses affecting all communities, including Tamils. We have consistently raised concerns about the Prevention of Terrorism Act and its ongoing use, and we will continue to urge its repeal and replacement, in line with international law.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

T4. On 28 May, Prime Minister Netanyahu ordered the Israeli military to seize control of 70% of the Gaza strip, in breach of the ceasefire agreement. Some 90% of the homes have now been destroyed, and an estimated $53 billion is required to rebuild the strip. Meanwhile, settlement expansion in the west bank has increased by 80%, with Israeli settlers now comprising one in six of the population. What is the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office doing with European allies to help the Palestinian people?

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

T3. With Anthropic being ordered to suspend access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for foreign nationals outside the US, will the FCDO pursue reliable UK access to frontier AI models as a diplomatic goal?

[Seema Malhotra]

Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models have been withdrawn worldwide, including in the US. We respect that this is a decision for the US Government and are in direct contact with US Government officials as this develops. It reinforces the importance of Britain having greater sovereign control over critical technology and maintaining our national capabilities for us and our allies. The AI Security Institute is one of the best resourced teams of its kind anywhere in the world. Protecting our national security is central to this Government’s approach to AI.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

T5. Last month, two people were convicted of spying on Hong Kong dissidents in the UK on behalf of the Hong Kong Government. Alarmingly, one was a UK immigration officer. What is the Minister doing to better protect Hongkongers in Wokingham and across the UK who are concerned about growing Chinese influence threatening their freedom and safety?

[Seema Malhotra]

We are very clear that the UK will not tolerate any attempts by foreign states to intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities in the United Kingdom. That continues to be our position.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Dame Jessica Morden.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

T7. Recently I came back from Canada with the Business and Trade Committee, and we were impressed by the opportunities presented by middle powers. Last week the midlands had its first defence procurement conference. What opportunities are the ministerial team trying to develop in region, so that we can work with our allies to make the most of export business opportunities?

[Seema Malhotra]

We are building long-term partnerships between UK regions and our global network to support local growth, including in the west midlands and with more ministerial and head of mission visits across the UK this year. Our diplomatic advisory hub, delivered with the British Chambers of Commerce, is also supporting businesses to build geopolitical insight and to grow internationally, and we are working with the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that businesses seize opportunities from our trade agreements. Supporting growth at home is a priority for the whole Government.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

The International Court of Justice directed third states not to enter into trade dealings with Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories two years ago, but the Government have still not responded to that—why? Does the Secretary of State recognise the UK’s obligations to the ICJ, and will it comply?

[Seema Malhotra]

The UK reiterates the call in the ICJ’s advisory opinion that Israel should end its occupation of Palestine as rapidly as possible and in line with our goal of a two-state solution. There was a great deal in the advisory opinion with which we agree: the settlements are illegal, and we should distinguish in everything we do between Israel within its 1967 borders, and Palestinian territory that has been occupied since 1967.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Government have previously stated that Hamas must voluntarily disarm in accordance with the 20-point peace plan, but that is clearly not happening. What is the Government’s practical strategy to ensure that Hamas is compelled to give up its weapons, cannot rebuild its military capabilities, and does not divert humanitarian aid?

[Seema Malhotra]

Hamas is a terrorist organisation, and we have been clear that it must decommission its weaponry and no longer be allowed to pose a threat to Israel’s security. The UK is committed to supporting the implementation of the 20-point Gaza peace plan in full. As part of that transition process, set out in phase two of the peace plan, we will continue to support those international efforts and a credible plan to achieve those goals.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I recently visited Chad with the all-party group for Sudan and South Sudan, and in that connection we will shortly be registering an interest. Like the Foreign Secretary, I was moved by Chad’s willingness to accept 1.3 million refugees, but disturbed by the horrific scale of the crisis. Will the Prime Minister be raising the Sudan crisis at the G7, because it must be raised at every international gathering? Is the UK advocating for countries such as Chad to be included in international talks?

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

In Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Pakistani security forces have fired on peaceful demonstrators who were standing for human rights, and the right to food and proper security in their area. More than 30 people were killed, and more than 200 injured, including British nationals. What action has the Secretary of State taken to call in the Pakistani high commissioner and say not only that that is unacceptable, but ask what action is being taken to protect innocent bystanders?

[Seema Malhotra]

We are concerned about developments in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, including the loss of life of security personnel and civilians. We recognise that it is an internal matter for the authorities, but the hon. Gentleman will know that on 6 June we changed our travel advice to advise against all but essential travel to the Azad Jammu and Kashmir region of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, due to the ongoing situation. He will also know that we continue closely to monitor the situation, including the impact on British nationals, engaging with the Government of Pakistan as appropriate.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Next January, the United Kingdom will take the chair of the G20, providing our country with a real platform to lead international conversations and to deliver here at home. Will the Minister tell the House what our priorities will be when we take the chair and what plans we have across Government to make the most of this unique position?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary rightly challenged the Government on the use of Chinese slave labour in the manufacture of solar panels. Chinese companies also dominate the mining companies using slave labour to extract cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, so how much more needs to happen for the Government to challenge this evil use of slave labour, particularly by the Chinese state?

[Seema Malhotra]

Following on from the Foreign Secretary’s comments, the hon. Gentleman will know that we stand resolute in the support of human rights around the world, including in supply chains. We continue to raise the issue with Governments and the international community at every available opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir. The Foreign Secretary will know that I have written to her with the support of more than 60 parliamentarians to raise concerns around the serious escalation in tensions in Azad Kashmir, including reports of bloodshed, arbitrary arrests and food blockages. Will she reassure this House that she will use all diplomatic levers open to her to push for peace and justice in Kashmir? That includes the lifting of the lockdown, the restoration of all communications and the immediate resumption of peaceful table talks, at the heart of which must remain respect for Kashmiri human rights.

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend will know how seriously we take this situation. We continue to monitor it closely—including, as has been raised, the impact on British nationals—and to ensure that we continue to engage with the Government of Pakistan where appropriate. We want to see this situation come to an end.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Last month, along with other members of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar, I visited the Rock in order to assess responses to the proposed treaty at first hand. Will the Minister give us an update? When does he anticipate that the treaty will be finalised?

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]