Seema Malhotra MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

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

  More

  I will make some progress. I acknowledge the importance of moving ahead quickly with the Bill to ensure that we have a seat at the table for discussions with other parties to the agreement, including on MPAs. We wanted to ensure that the Bill’s provisions in devolved areas were watertight, which is why we had constructive conversations with the devolved Governments. Part 2 obligations do not apply to fishing. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) has left his place, but he can be reassured that the Northern Ireland Assembly will have concurrent powers to implement provisions in areas of devolved competence. Under part 3 of the Bill, the UK will be involved in MPA decisions and will carefully consider the impacts on fishing. In relation to the comments raised regarding multilateral co-operation, I want to mention some ways in which we continue to work with other states to support ratification. We continue to be proactive in preparing for implementation of the BBNJ agreement, and we are committed to partnering with others, including the global south, to ratify and implement it. Indeed, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has worked with the Commonwealth Secretariat to support smaller member countries with their implementation work. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has also published research that developed a shortlist of potential area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, that could be proposed once the agreement is in force. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) asked about the process of the Bill. Following the passage of the Bill, we will be laying two statutory instruments, one of which will define digital sequence information for the purposes of the BBNJ legislation. The other, along with an associated Scottish Government SI, will amend the marine licensing regime, where needed, to implement part 4 of the BBNJ agreement on environmental impact assessments. Those will be progressed as soon as the BBNJ Bill has received Royal Assent. Once the SIs have been passed, we will be able to ratify the agreement by laying the instrument of ratification formally at the United Nations in New York. We are keen to see that happen as quickly as possible, as I know my hon. Friend is. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), asked about legislative consent motions. While foreign affairs and treaty making are reserved matters, implementing international obligations in domestic law is not reserved where those obligations concern devolved areas. Several provisions in the Bill, particularly in parts 2, 3 and 4, relate to matters such as environmental protection and scientific research, which fall within devolved competencies for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Consequently, the legislative consent motion process is engaged to varying degrees. The assessment of whether legislative consent motions are required for this Bill has been agreed across the relevant UK Government Departments, including the Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales Offices, and in consultation with the devolved Governments. The shadow Minister also asked whether there is a risk that requirements in Scotland for an environmental impact assessment for marine activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction might be different from those in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is the case that Scotland could choose to implement the requirements slightly differently. We will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that differences are kept to a minimum and that the United Kingdom as a whole takes a consistent approach. That is very much in the spirit in which we have been working, collaboratively, to respect devolution settlements while recognising the importance of this agreement to both the Scottish and UK Governments. That has been an important part of how we have progressed.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

  Let me make a little progress before giving way to the right hon. Gentleman. In November 2022, the former Foreign Secretary said that “taking into account relevant legal proceedings, it is our intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues”. —[ Official Report , 3 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 27WS.] In February last year, a spokesperson for the Leader of the Opposition insisted that negotiations over the islands were needed due to the international legal position. [ Interruption. ] I am referring to the current Leader of the Opposition—some might not remember who she is, but she is still in post, I believe. She may have defected to Reform. What I will say—this is a serious point—is that there has been ample time for debate on this topic. Indeed, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), debated it for more than two hours last week and for 45 minutes on Monday in an urgent question. Baroness Chapman of Darlington has spent hours debating the topic in the other place, including during an urgent question on Monday. We have committed to this deal and to these hours of debate because it is important that we do so. Courts had already begun to make decisions that undermined our position in relation to the security of the base.

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

  More

  The hon. Member will know that these matters have been shared before with the House. Perhaps I may remind him what US Secretary Hegseth said: “The UK’s (very important) deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key”— [ Interruption. ]

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

  More

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

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

  More

  Is that in order, Mr Speaker?

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

  More

  No. Furthermore, I will have no truck with Reform, which has no record on supporting the security of our country, especially given what has happened in Wales. The Opposition may not want to hear this, but they backed negotiations over Chagos every step of the way. Some 85% of the Chagos negotiations took place under the Conservatives, and were led by the former Foreign Secretary. [Interruption.] They may not want to hear this, but it is important to share that, in November 2022, the former Foreign Secretary said that through negotiations— [Interruption.] I think a lot of people are interested in the past.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

  I will continue with my remarks, because I want to finish shortly. The strength of the deal and the protection of national security is exactly why the US endorsed the deal last year and why Secretary of State Rubio called it a “monumental achievement”. The agreement safeguards the interest of both the United Kingdom and the United States well into the next century. I will briefly turn to costs. A financial contribution over 99 years was always necessary to safeguard the operation of such a vital base. We published comprehensive detail on the payment schedule alongside the treaty. That was laid in the House within minutes of the signature of the treaty. The figures used by the Government were verified by the independent Government Actuary’s Department, in line with standard accounting practices. Those who seek to imply that the Government have misled the public on that do so without the facts, so let me set those out. First, the Office for Statistics Regulation welcomed the Government’s approach to setting out the methodology and confirmed that it is in line with the principles of intelligent transparency. Secondly, the Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that the discount rates used by the Government were the reasonable ones to use. Thirdly, the figures have been verified by the House of Commons Library and scrutinised by BBC Verify and The Independent . All those confirmed that the Government calculated the figures correctly. Beyond the numbers, it is also important to debate, as this House has done, the challenges that have been raised in relation to the Chagossian community, and rightly so. It is a vibrant and diverse community that now sees the Conservatives’ political tactics. They are the same Conservatives who, after ruling our resettlement for the Chagossians and committing to a £40 million package of support in 2016—they may want to answer to those two things—succeeded in spending just £1.6 million by the time this Government came into power.

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

  More

  I will conclude my remarks—I am sorry but I have taken a number of interventions today. Since coming into power, this Government have been clear on our deep regret for the way in which Chagossians were removed from the islands and have sought to recognise the wide range of views within the Chagossian community. We remain committed to building a relationship with that community that is built on respect and an acknowledgment of the wrongs of the past. We have established a contact group to give Chagossians a greater say in UK Government support to their communities and are in the process of enhancing that group, as Baroness Chapman committed to doing in the other place. Officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office have engaged with Chagossian individuals and groups more than 30 times and they are regularly in conversation with the Minister responsible for the overseas territories, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. In conclusion, doing this deal was right and essential. It protects our national interest, it defends our national security, it protects the Diego Garcia base from legal threat, it supports the Chagossian community and it preserves the unique environment in the archipelago. We know that the best way to do that is to pursue this deal. It is time that the Conservatives realised—or should I say, remembered—that too.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

  I will finish my remarks on this point. The ICJ concluded that “the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible”.— [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) may want to listen the next bit. The 2019 advisory opinion was followed in 2021 by a special chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in a case about delimitation of the boundary between Mauritius and the Maldives, which ruled that Mauritian sovereignty was inferred from the ICJ’s determination.

• 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 thank the shadow Defence Secretary for his intervention. It is a long-standing policy, as he will know this from having been in government, that we do not comment on operational matters or the location of nuclear weapons. The Opposition know— [ Interruption. ] Perhaps I may make some comments on the Pelindaba treaty—

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

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for his comments. The answer to that question has been set out by Lord Coaker, and I will be laying it out— [ Interruption. ] The answer is yes, and it has been set out by Lord Coaker in the other place. I will come on to that in my remarks. There have been questions from the Opposition today about the legal matters behind this treaty. It is important to say that Mauritius’s legal claim of sovereignty over the island of Diego Garcia is supported by a number of international institutions, including the UN General Assembly. The International Court of Justice considered this issue in the advisory opinion delivered in February.

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

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker.

• 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.

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

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. I remind the hon. Member of what US Secretary Hegseth said: “The UK’s (very important) deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests in the region. We are confident the base is protected for many years ahead.”

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

  More

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

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

  More

  The right hon. Member could not have known it, but I was on the first line of a page of comments on that exact issue. I am sorry that he chose that moment to interrupt proceedings. As I was saying, it is a matter of long-standing policy that we do not comment on operational procedures. The Conservatives know that and, of course, took the same approach in government. As the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, told the Foreign Affairs Committee: “We are confident that nothing in this treaty conflicts with our abilities to uphold international law, and to continue to operate the base as we do today.” As Lord Coaker has—

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to respond to this debate. Let me start by saying that the Government oppose the motion. The treaty guarantees full UK operational control of Diego Garcia for generations to come.