Seema Malhotra MP: speeches

Speeches

• 4 Jun 2026 · Russian Attacks on Civilian Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice · Hansard source

  More

  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 in April, 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 should be—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.

• 12 Mar 2026 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. That debate continues, and I will touch on some relevant issues later in my speech. Last week, alongside the Minister for Women and Equalities, I was proud to launch our voluntary action plans. Under the Employment Rights Act 2025, employers with over 250 employees will be asked to submit action plans showing how they will reduce their gender pay gaps and support employees going through the menopause. We are working with business leaders, civil society organisations and trade unions, because we cannot reach workplace equality without the support and commitment of all. The removal of the two-child limit will lift 450,000 children out of relative poverty in the final year of this Parliament. As we know, poverty impacts women, whom the Women’s Budget Group describe as the “shock absorbers of poverty”. On business, the Chancellor has backed the Invest in Women taskforce, launching a funding pool of over £600 million, including £130 million from the British Business Bank, to be invested in women-led businesses. It is the largest fund of its kind globally, addressing the enormous barriers to access to finance that exist for women. Alongside that, the Government are supporting more women in the UK’s tech sector. Every year, the economy loses an estimated £2 billion to £3.5 billion because women leave the tech sector or change sectors due to barriers that should not exist. Men outnumber women by four to one in computer science degrees, which is a subject I studied. Women are less likely to enter tech, stay in the sector or rise to leadership roles.

• 12 Mar 2026 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered International Women’s Day 2026. It is an honour to open this International Women’s Day debate, which is being held in Government time for the first time since 2020. International Women’s Day was forged in the labour strikes of the early 20th century as women came together to call for better pay, shorter working hours and voting rights. It has become an important milestone that celebrates the achievement of women, promotes gender equality and acts as a call to action. In this debate, I have no doubt that we will hear about pioneering pathfinders, including women who smashed the glass ceiling in Parliament and paved the way for us today, such as Constance Markievicz, the first woman elected; Nancy Astor, the first to take her seat; and Margaret Bondfield, the first woman Cabinet Minister—I recommend her new biography by Nan Sloane, who is a driving force behind the Labour Women’s Network. I am sure that hon. Members will mention the first woman Prime Minister, who took office in 1979. Labour has had the first female Chief Whip, the first female Chancellor and the first black woman MP, the inspirational right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). We have also had Barbara Castle, Ellen Wilkinson, Jennie Lee and, of course, Baroness Harman in the other place. That is not to forget you, Madam Deputy Speaker—the first non-white Deputy Speaker and the first female Muslim Minister. I have many greats and firsts sitting behind me—and probably in front of me—including my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), who was the first black female Minister and the first black woman to speak from the Dispatch Box. I am proud that many of those were also Fabian women, and that we are marking 21 years of the Fabian Women’s Network this year.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Hong Kong: Human Rights Situation · Hansard source

  More

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

• 9 Feb 2026 · Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence · Hansard source

  More

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

• 2 Feb 2026 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member continues to put on record his concerns. He will know that, as we move forward following ratification, we will continue to have detailed conversations. It is important that the rules and regulations are clear for all to operate by. I was just referring to how we have been moving forward on the Bill to ensure that the devolved Governments are engaged in advance of regulations being made and are able to make their own provision on devolved aspects where they wish to do so. We continue to work closely together to support the timely and effective implementation of the agreement. Lords amendment 7 inserts a new clause, after clause 17, that makes changes to the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 to ensure that the UK meets its obligations under the BBNJ agreement in relation to Scottish marine licensable activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The UK Government will be amending their own environmental impact assessment regulations, and Scottish Government officials have worked closely with UK counterparts to draft corresponding provisions. Accordingly, Lords amendments 8 and 9 also limit the power in clause 18 to implementing only article 38 standards or guidelines, as a wider power is no longer required in the light of other changes that will be made directly through the Bill. Lords amendments 10 and 11 ensure that clause 22, which sets out procedures for the making of regulations under the Act, does not apply to regulations made under clauses introduced by Lords amendments 1 and 4. Instead, the procedures set out in Government amendments 2 and 5 respectively will apply. Finally, Lords Amendment 12 amends clause 25 so that the clause introduced by amendment 7 comes into force on such a day as the Secretary of State appoints by regulations, rather than upon Royal Assent. This change ensures a consistent approach across the Bill with regard to the environmental impact assessment regulations that are being amended. The Government’s objective is to implement the BBNJ agreement effectively across the whole of the United Kingdom, and to do so in a way that respects the devolution settlement and supports continued constructive collaboration with the devolved Governments. I therefore commend these 12 Lords amendments to the House, and I urge Members to support them.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is indeed important that all our devolved Administrations, as well as the UK Government, abide by the agreement. I thank the hon. Member for his interest and his engagement in this important Bill. I am grateful to all those we have been engaging with throughout the passage of this Bill. Working closely with Ministers and officials in the devolved Governments, we agreed at the Bill’s introduction that the legislative consent motion process is engaged for Scotland and Northern Ireland to varying extents by parts 2, 3 and 4. The Government have been in sustained discussions with both those devolved Governments to seek consent for the Bill, and I can confirm to the House that motions on consent have been passed by the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Lords amendments 1 and 4 provide Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs with concurrent powers to make regulations within devolved competence corresponding to the powers to make provision granted to the Secretary of State under clauses 9 and 11 of the Bill. Lords amendments 2 and 5 provide the procedure for those powers.

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I will continue my remarks. It is as if the Conservatives cannot decide who is speaking from the Front Bench today. As Lord Coaker told the other place in November, the UK-Mauritius agreement “enables the continued operation of the base to its full capability.” He said that we will continue to be able to “deploy the full range of advanced military capabilities to Diego Garcia.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 25 November 2025; Vol. 850, c. 1313.] It is not just us; the agreement has been tested at the highest levels of the US security establishment under not one but two Administrations. They too were satisfied that it protects the full operation of the base. We have agreed with the Mauritian Government that nothing in the treaty conflicts with our respective commitments, and we are absolutely clear that we can continue to operate the base as we have done and as we do now.

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I will continue with my remarks for the moment. As I have said, we are confident that nothing in this treaty conflicts with our ability to uphold international law and continue to operate the base as we do today. Moving on to the UK-US relationship, we have been clear that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation; update the UK-US exchange of notes; and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration. This Government consider it our duty to protect the public. Therefore, it is our duty to pursue this agreement with clarity and resolve, and we will not put party politics ahead of national security, as we see the Opposition doing today. We have made strong progress towards finalising an updated UK-US agreement and will reach an agreement on it before the agreement between the United Kingdom and Mauritius concerning the Chagos archipelago, including Diego Garcia, is ratified. These matters are still under negotiation, so it remains to be determined whether any updated agreement will be subject to ratification. We will keep Parliament informed about that.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Academic Technology Approval Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Sometimes our processes mean that we or the Home Office may contact the constituent earlier than we respond to the Member of Parliament. Sometimes it is joined up, but sometimes there is a slight delay. It is very important that we ensure that the constituent is updated so that they can make arrangements, but I appreciate that there was a slight delay in the correspondence sent to the hon. Lady to make sure that she was fully informed. This has been an important debate. I recognise that feedback is important as we continue to join up. The data shows that ATAS, which is a vital part of our security protections, operates strongly. Cases may take longer where there is significant demand, but the security of the United Kingdom requires careful and proportionate judgment. Where we can continue to improve our operations, we will certainly endeavour to do so. Question put and agreed to.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Academic Technology Approval Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I do understand the importance of that. There are other issues that in my previous role last year in the Home Office, I experienced when working alongside other Departments, including the DFE and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The hon. Member has also highlighted the relationship between Foreign Office-led processes, some of which may lead to and require checks being made outside the Foreign Office. I take her point and will relay it to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who oversees this area. I am happy to work with him on it, because I am interested in how Foreign Office-led services and delivery can be the best they can be, and whether there are further lessons to be learned. We will consider how we can keep the hon. Member for North East Fife and the House updated on where the improvements that we are already working on can lead to change, not least in responsiveness to Members of Parliament, which I take very seriously, as does my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I appreciate the feedback; I continue to believe that it is important that Government continue to learn. We are like any other organisation, in that the continuous improvement of our operations should be a matter of concern to all of us. In this case, it certainly is. I emphasise that ATAS sits within a much broader Government commitment to supporting research, innovation and international collaboration. Our approach is to combine openness with responsibility and to continue to work closely with universities to improve guidance, streamline communication and ensure that applicants understand ATAS requirements early. It is not always the case, but sometimes applications are put in very close to the mark. There can also be an assumption that, where there is a 30-day working standard, it will all happen within 30 days. I do not know the details of the hon. Member’s case, although I know that she is very assiduous in raising cases for her constituents, but it is important that we make sure there is that communication and that there are clearer routes for institutions to raise concerns, improve transparency on processes and strengthen engagement with the sector. At the same time, the Government continue to invest heavily in research and development. In a sense, we are a victim of our own priorities. The increase in demand for ATAS is a reflection of the Government’s own priorities and our recognition that it is important to attract talent in the shorter and the longer term. Work is going on through association with Horizon Europe, long-term funding in AI, clean energy and the life sciences, with deepening science and defence partnerships across regions including the Indo-Pacific, over which I oversee some of our work. ATAS supports that ambition by ensuring that the UK’s research environment remains secure and welcoming to global talent, in good faith. We want to support that work in the UK and internationally. Before I conclude, I want to make some remarks about the constituency case that the hon. Member highlighted. I very much appreciate that communication with the FCDO has been part of, and a driver for, today’s debate. It is regrettable that the hon. Lady experienced that difficulty and did not receive clear information about her inquiry at an earlier stage, particularly given the sad circumstances. I am grateful to her for the support that she gave her constituent and for telling us that he got a positive certificate and, importantly, was able to spend time with his family in those very sad circumstances. The hon. Lady said that when we knew about the situation and it got to the team, the application was expedited and the process was completed within, I think, 14 days. That is important to us. I have seen such work previously in the Home Office, so I know that it will have been important to those teams too. That was well inside the published service standard, and it shows what can happen when we mobilise teams in compassionate circumstances. Where there are lessons to learn, it is important that we do so. I appreciate that there was a delay in the correspondence that the hon. Lady received over the Christmas period, but we continue to try to improve our service standards in relation to correspondence. That is a priority matter for the Department as a whole.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Myanmar: Religious Minority Persecution · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry, but I have to wrap up. I know that there are matters that I have not been able to address today, but I am sure that we will continue to have these debates. In conclusion, the courage of Myanmar’s communities in the face of persecution must remain at the forefront of our minds. I thank those in the Burma Campaign and others who are here today, who continue to bring a lot of information to Parliament. The UK Government and the UK will continue to stand with Myanmar communities, defending freedom of religion and belief, supporting those at risk and pressing for accountability, and we will continue to work internationally for a more just and peaceful future for Myanmar.

• 11 Dec 2025 · US National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member will have heard me say that, as we respect the US as a democracy, we expect that friends and allies should respect each other’s choices and traditions. It is important that we defend our democracies. It is also important that we have an environment in which we can have debate that is not divisive and that robust political debate takes place in an environment of respect.

• 11 Dec 2025 · US National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Ultimately it is for the US to set its own strategy, but when it comes to Europe, there are some things with which we agree, such as the importance of sustaining freedom and security, and some with which we have disagreed. We see a strong Europe that is coming together, working together on security and prosperity, and working together to increase defence spending. That is important. It is also important that we respect the US as a democracy, and that friends and allies respect each other’s choices. We will always continue to have strong and robust relationships with our relevant counter- parts in the United States. We will work together on areas of mutual interest—our economic prosperity, our security and our work across the world—but robust political debate must always happen in a respectful environment.

• 11 Dec 2025 · US National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his urgent question. I am sure that the whole House will agree that the UK-US relationship has delivered security and prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic for more than a century. The special relationship we share with the US is built on a foundation of deep defence, security and trading links, and unique cultural and people-to-people ties. Both the Prime Minister and President Trump have repeatedly emphasised their commitment to continuing to strengthen it. Of course, it is for the United States to set its own national security strategy, as it is for any Government. The strategy contains many shared objectives: resolving conflicts, tackling migration and ensuring economic security. However, it will not surprise the House that on some areas we take a different view. When it comes to European security, what we see is a strong Europe coming together to defend Ukraine, with the UK helping to lead the coalition of the willing of more than 30 countries. We see a Europe that is stepping up on defence spending, with the UK committed to reach 5% of GDP on defence spending by 2035. It is right that Europe steps up. That is in our interests. Europe is united behind Ukraine and united behind our long-standing values of freedom and democracy, and we will always stand up for those values. Our bond delivers on both sides of the Atlantic. Our trading relationship is worth over £330 billion annually, we have over £1.2 trillion in mutual investment, and our businesses support over a million jobs in each other’s countries. The UK will continue to work closely with the US to strengthen Euro-Atlantic security through NATO, to support Ukraine, and to deepen our co-operation on emerging technologies and economic security. The strength of our relationship allows us to discuss and debate areas where we disagree, so we continue to strengthen this vital and mutually beneficial relationship with the United States. During the state visit, we announced over £250 billion in two-way investment, which was a powerful demonstration of the deepening economic ties between the UK and the US, and we signed a UK-US technology prosperity deal—the first of its kind—that will supercharge our co-operation across areas including AI, quantum and nuclear.

• 11 Dec 2025 · US National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that while it is ultimately for the US to decide its own strategy, there are parts of it with which we disagree. It is important that friends and allies respect each other’s choices, as we respect the US as a democracy. We can have robust political debate, but we must do so in an environment of respect. I believe the right hon. Gentleman was referring to Venezuela in his question. The act was a decision taken by the US Department of Justice in co-ordination with the FBI, the Department of Defence and other US agencies. It is for them to answer questions on that decision.

• 11 Dec 2025 · US National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. I am incredibly proud of my country, and migration is an essential element of Britain’s national story. We are a thriving multicultural society, and I am proud of that. We respect the US as a democracy, and friends and allies should respect each other’s choices and traditions. We must work together in a spirit of respect, recognising our mutual interests and long-standing relationship. Robust political debate can always take place in an environment of respect. The shadow Minister mentioned the proposed Chinese embassy. The US is our closest ally, and we liaise with it closely on a wide range of issues, including China. A final decision on this case will be made in due course by Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the timing of the decision is a matter for them.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to that later in my remarks. My hon. Friend makes a good point. Ratifying the agreement will also make it easier to share the benefits of research more widely and efficiently. That will allow those who might not be able to carry out such research themselves to use it and consider where innovations might be made. That is an important benefit of the Bill. The Bill is the culmination of nearly two decades of international negotiations. The agreement represents a once-in-a-generation step forward in ocean governance, to ensure that areas beyond national jurisdiction are managed sustainably, transparently and equitably. Through the Bill, the United Kingdom will be able to play its full part in that effort. It will allow our scientists, companies and research institutions to participate confidently in the new frameworks on marine genetic resources, to contribute to the development of area-based management tools, and to meet international standards on environmental impact assessments in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Royal Assent early next year—subject to time in the House—will place the UK in a strong position to ratify the agreement and to take its seat at the first Conference of the Parties, which is expected to be in the second half of 2026. It is vital that the UK is at that table.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a bit of progress—I thank my hon. Friend for his patience. The Bill is divided into five parts. Parts 2, 3 and 4 align directly with three operational pillars of the BBNJ agreement: marine genetic resources, area-based management tools, and environmental impact assessments. I will address the Government amendments and clauses stand part now, but I will address the Opposition amendments in my closing remarks, so that I have had an opportunity to hear the shadow Minister’s contribution. Part 1 sets out the definitions that underpin the rest of the Bill. Given that those definitions will be discussed at some length today, I say for the benefit of the Committee that “areas beyond national jurisdiction” comprise the high seas—waters beyond exclusive economic zones—and the area, meaning the seabed and subsoil beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, and “marine genetic resources” are defined as any marine material containing functional units of heredity of actual or potential value. Those definitions mirror the agreement and ensure consistency between domestic law and our international obligations. Clause 20 provides definitions for terms that are used in the Bill but not defined elsewhere in it. In part 2, clauses 2 to 10 implement the provisions of the agreement relating to marine genetic resources. The provisions promote transparency in the collection and utilisation of marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction and associated digital sequence information, and provide the building blocks for benefit sharing. Clauses 2 and 3 create reporting obligations for individuals collecting marine genetic resources using UK craft and for those utilising those resources and associated digital sequence information. Information must be provided to the Secretary of State before and after collection, and information about the results of utilisation should be provided in accordance with the schedule. Clause 4 provides that the Secretary of State may transmit to the BBNJ clearing house mechanism the information provided on collection and utilisation, unless it is protected from disclosure under domestic law. Those clauses are designed to implement the UK’s obligation on information sharing, with the clearing house mechanism facilitating transparency and helping us to deliver on our obligations while protecting information that is not to be shared. Clauses 5 to 7 impose duties on those managing repositories that hold marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdiction, or databases of digital sequence information on those resources. They must ensure that samples or data can be identified as originating from areas beyond national jurisdiction, provide access, and submit biennial reports. Clause 8 sets out exceptions from the requirements of part 2 in respect of fishing and fishing-related activities, military activities, and military vessels and aircraft, as well as anything done in Antarctica, the marine genetic resources of Antarctica, and the digital sequence information of such resources. The Committee will be aware that this is because the Southern ocean is governed by the Antarctic treaty system, which was part of the debate we had on Second Reading. Clause 9 provides the Secretary of State with regulation-making powers, including those necessary to implement the UK’s future obligations under part 2 of the agreement. Given that the conference of the parties may adopt further measures once the agreement enters into force, those powers are essential to ensure that the UK can respond in a timely and appropriate manner. The clause also allows for provision for any enforcement of those requirements imposed by or under part 2 of the Bill. We will ensure that there is ample time for scrutiny of additional measures that may be brought in under secondary legislation. Finally, clause 10 requires guidance to be published in relation to the above-mentioned provisions on marine genetic resources. Those will be prepared by the national focal point in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and will provide practical illustrations to help institutions and researchers understand the requirements placed on them. The guidance developed will also be laid before Parliament. Taken together, these measures create a clear, proportionate and internationally aligned system that allows UK researchers to continue their world-leading work with confidence, meeting the requirements of the Bill and, in turn, allowing the UK to meet its obligations under the BBNJ agreement.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is an area where obviously no nation can work on its own. It has to be done through being influential on the world stage, working through and with the UN, and with our international partners and other nations. Indeed, through the course of all of our conversations, be that in the FCDO, DEFRA or other Departments, we maintain dialogue on this and other important matters in relation to our environment and climate impact around the world. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, because it is another example of where being outward facing as a nation, as this Government have chosen to do, is incredibly important for not just what we achieve at home but our responsibilities on the world stage. I will make some progress on part 4 of the Bill. Clauses 4 to 19 implement the environmental impact assessment provisions of the agreement, where relevant to marine licencing, and ensure that UK marine-licensable activities and areas beyond national jurisdiction are subject to the appropriate level of scrutiny. Clause 14 amends the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to ensure it can be used effectively to regulate planned UK activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Government amendment 1—a minor amendment—has been tabled to omit the heading “on the continental shelf”, which will adjust the 2009 Act so it more accurately reflects the content of this section, including the section that is amended by clause 14 in part 4 of the Bill. Clause 15 updates the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 to bring them into alignment with the BBNL agreement. Government amendment 2 would add “or person” to subsection (5)(b) as a minor clarificatory amendment to the regulations. Clause 16 allows regulations to be made to implement the standards and guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties under article 38 of the BBNJ agreement. Clauses 17 and 18 ensure that equivalent provisions exist for Scotland, amending the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, and enabling Scottish Ministers to make regulations where it is a devolved competence, and to implement environmental impact assessment obligations for Scottish regulated marine activities. Clause 19 amends the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, to ensure that any future environmental outcomes reports can apply to licensable activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The BBNJ environmental impact assessment provisions closely replicate our existing domestic arrangements for marine licensing, which operators are familiar with. These are minor technical changes to align our existing regime with BBNJ processes. Together the provisions deliver a coherent and modernised framework for assessing and mitigating the environmental impact of activities linked to the United Kingdom on the high seas.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In the interests of time, I will do my best to come back to Members on the amendments they have spoken to. The contributions from the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) showed the importance of a healthy marine ecosystem that underpins global fisheries and climate regulation. The BBNJ agreement is an essential step towards protecting marine biodiversity and the creation of marine protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction. I will speak briefly about the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister and our reasons for not supporting them. I recognise his point about reducing burdens, which is on all our minds, and I thank him for tabling his amendments. However, the Government consider that amendment 4 is not necessary, as the ability to provide a single report already exists. If the person who controls the repository on which a report is required is the same person who controls the database on which a report is required, there is nothing in the Bill that prevents them from providing a single report covering both elements. I hope that is of some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. On new clause 1, I think it would be helpful to say that as we do not currently know when or if the powers in the Bill will be used, we believe that our approach of a post-implementation review after five years provides the necessary flexibility to review the implementation of the Bill at a more appropriate point. We therefore do not think that new clause 1, tabled by the shadow Minister, is needed. On amendment 5, the purpose of the enabling provision for the charging of fees under clause 11(3)(c) is to allow for the recovery of costs associated with the carrying out of functions. This is standard practice to ensure effective use of public money, as set out in the Treasury’s “Managing Public Money” guidance. Regulations made under clause 11 that amend an Act of Parliament, create a civil sanction or vary the maximum amount of a monetary penalty, and so on, are regulations that also contain provision for the charging of fees, which are already made by the affirmative procedure. The shadow Minister may not have been aware of that detail, but I hope it will reassure him. On new clause 2, we believe that the consequences of the various reporting requirements it would introduce would be disproportionate to the value it would provide. There is also a risk that it would duplicate existing processes, misalign with the international reporting cycle and increase the burden on entities providing information in the reports. Finally, it may help to reassure the shadow Minister if I say that engagement with scientific stakeholders suggests that the notification and other requirements are unlikely to impose a significant burden. Indeed, the BBNJ agreement will benefit the scientific community by encouraging information sharing and supporting scientific and technological development. I hope that reassures him that we have considered his amendments and that we have reason for not supporting them. Question put and agreed to. Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause s 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 Supplementary provision Amendment proposed : 4, page 5, line 4, at end insert— “A single report may be submitted for the purposes of sections 5(2)(c) and 6(3)(c), provided that any such single report meets the requirements in sections 5(3) and 6(4).”— (Andrew Rosindell.) This amendment would permit a single report to be provided to the Secretary of State for the purposes of fulfilling reporting requirements under clauses 5 and 6. Question put, That the amendment be made.