Commons Chamber

Wednesday 28th January 2026

(began 2 hours, 19 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
11:34
11:34
11:34
None Portrait Oral questions: Women and Equalities
-

Bell Ribeiro-Addy.
11:34
None Portrait Q1. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to protect LGBTQ+ rights. (907530
-

11:34
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
None Portrait Q4. What steps she is taking with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to help tackle health inequalities affecting women. (907533)
-

Grouping. Minister. Commission Reigate Max Wilkinson. Thank you,
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
None Portrait Q5. What recent progress she has made with Cabinet colleagues on improving access to work for people with disabilities. (907534)
-

half of disabled people in the UK say they feel it's harder to get a job or keep a job. It's even worse
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
David Lammy Portrait Rt Hon David Lammy MP, Deputy Prime Minister (Tottenham, Labour)
-
-
the concentration camp in Poland. We owe it to every survivor and to the 6 million Jewish people murdered in the Holocaust to never forget. We will build a national Holocaust memorial and learning Holocaust memorial and learning centre next to this Parliament, so that the voices of survivors are never forgotten and their courage inspires future generations. Mr. speaker, I know the thoughts of the whole House will also be with the family and loved ones of Captain Philip Gilbert Maldon of the fourth Regiment, Royal Artillery, who died on Sunday.

We will never forget the courage, bravery and sacrifice made for our country by British servicemen and women. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to my duties in this House. I shall have further such meetings later today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker, and. I'd like to associate myself with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister on Holocaust Memorial Day and British servicemen. Memorial Day and British servicemen. This week, the BBC and Good Morning Britain have reported of the Britain have reported of the national disgrace of out of control waste dumps. And for years my constituents in Kirkby have lived constituents in Kirkby have lived with one. People struggle to breathe. They're sick. They have to live with their windows shut and schools sometimes shut down for days.

I've been campaigning on it with our Labour councillors, but the response from the Environment the response from the Environment Agency has been slow and ineffective. So will the government work with me to sort this nightmare and stop the Simmons Woods stink?
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:05
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:16
Daisy Cooper Portrait Daisy Cooper MP (St Albans, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Jimmy Lai captive in prison, and whilst the Chinese regime continues to hunt down pro-democracy protesters on the streets of Britain with bounties on their heads, the British Prime Minister has gone cap in hand to China to ask for a trade deal on the promise of a super embassy, from which the Chinese regime will continue to spy on us. The Chinese regime remains undeterred in its illegal actions against the UK and our citizens. So can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to name one single consequence that the Chinese regime will face if they do not stop their campaign of espionage and repression?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Prime Minister? Well, Mr. Speaker, China matters

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, Mr. Speaker, China matters and ignoring them would be a dereliction of duty. We will build dereliction of duty. We will build a consistent, long term and strategic approach grounded in strategic approach grounded in reality. I set that out in the China audit statement I made a few months ago. And that is what our months ago. And that is what our allies do. President Trump, Macron, Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Carney all are visiting and engaging. We will cooperate where we can.

And I'm sure in areas like we can. And I'm sure in areas like climate, she would expect us to cooperate. And we will challenge challenge in areas where we challenge in areas where we disagree. That's that's the way that we deliver for the public of this country.
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:43
12:43
12:43
George Freeman Portrait George Freeman MP (Mid Norfolk, Conservative)
-
-
infrastructure. To acquire the Secretary of State. To prepare and publish a report on the potential merits of establishing a flood merits of establishing a flood compensation fund to support home owners whose primary residence has become unsaleable as a direct result of flooding. To promote to make provision about the Flood reinsurance scheme. To make provision about the responsibilities of developers and water companies in respect of the provision of drainage upgrades with new housing developments to make new housing developments to make water companies statutory consultees for certain planning applications, and to place a duty on fire and rescue services, to respond to flood events, and to make provision for national and local flood mapping and for connected purposes.

Mr. speaker, when you hear North Norfolk and floods, I imagine that you, sir, like most, think of coastal flooding, salt marsh flooding, storm tides eroding our cliffs, river flooding, the broads, but not inland. Flooding from surface water run off, overloading drains and sewers, which is all too often overlooked. Which is why I'm introducing this bill today. Mr. speaker, you are probably, like many, wondering why is Mid Norfolk flooding? It's Breckland, it's dry, it's sandy, it's inland. The clue is in the name.

It should not be flooding. But over the last decade or so, we've seen a spate of inland surface flooding in 23 of my 130 villages increasing every year. Why yes, climate change in 2023 we have the wettest October, November, December, January, February and March on record, but also lack of maintenance of council highway culverts, a lack of maintenance of farm ditches, inadequate funding of internal drainage boards who, by the way, have been doing a really good job since about 1560 when they were created, and local flood authorities the relinquishing of riparian rights, I'm sorry to say.

I think the Environment Agency rather more focussed on rivers as habitats than channels to get water off the land. But this is happening in many areas. Why Mid Norfolk? The big factor in Mid Norfolk is new housing along the A11 corridor. In the last 1015 years we've seen 5000 houses at Thetford, 5000 houses at Attleborough, 3000 at Wyndham, 1000 at Seafield, a 5000 house new town planned at Snetterton, and in commuter villages like Yaxham and Ellingham. Big national developers and their agents like Gladman Homes using abusing the five year land supply to land Bank and then dump massive commuter housing estates on the outskirts of towns and villages without proper infrastructure investment.

Against the wishes of the local council, local plan and communities who are too often powerless. I want to make clear that I am not against housebuilding, nor all developers. We have excellent local developers in Norfolk, like able homes who build excellent homes and estates across many of my towns and villages. They aren't the problem. The problem is the rush to dump massive commuter estates on the outskirts of towns and villages, and the scale of new housing without adequate infrastructure investment. In 2020, my eyes were fully open to the scale of this.

When I spent that Christmas week helping villagers, village residents in my villages clear out sewage water from their houses, get on the telephone lines and try and get Anglian Water to get tankers to pump out the villages that continued. And in 2023, Mill Lane, Attleborough, was hit by a significant flooding event affecting 100 homes. Spare a thought please, for Lynn and Hans Short, who live next to the culvert which was, by the way, wrongly installed by Anglian Water before they handed over the riparian responsibilities.

Lynn and Hans have been flooded four out of the last five years and that's why I've set up the Mid Norfolk Flood Partnership, work with the county council to set up the Norfolk Strategic Flood Alliance, ably led by Henry Cater and Fiona Johnston, convened our first Norfolk flood summit last year and established and supported local flood action groups. My first instinct was not to come to Parliament or government for help, but to lead locally. But what has become very clear, not least through the case of Mill Lane, Attleborough, a case study where a culvert was built under the river in a inappropriately blocked with a grill that was never properly checked in, forces at the wrong angle.

It piles up waste flooding the houses next to it. We ended up having to put together a multi-agency task force. We removed 30 tons of debris from the whole river. There was an illegal housing development lower down the watercourse, inappropriate development and a lack of catchment work all the way through. It was a huge multi-agency project, but this is happening all over the country. Norfolk is only six out of the top ten inland flood counties, and that's why I think, Mr. Speaker, there are four new flooding appgs in this new Parliament.

MPs across the House recognise it and with new housebuilding targets, 1.5 million homes in the next three years, this is only going to get more serious. I pay tribute to the new flood Minister who I see is on her seat, Peter Bonfield for his flood review, and I welcome the CSR funding announcement of 2.6 billion for flood and coastal erosion management to protect 65,000 homes. The insurance sector tell us 18 million homes are at risk, 1 in 4 over the next 1015 years.

And this flooding is costing 66 billion a year to the economy. We won't solve this problem unless we really deal with the fundamental structural, systemic problems causing the misery and chaos around the country. Inland flooding often overlooked as funding goes to the higher profile coastal rivers, towns and cities. Serious lack of clear responsibilities. Mr. speaker, there are over 30 agencies in Norfolk alone who have responsibility for flooding the disempowering of local bodies such as the Internal Drainage Boards. Local flood authorities, with no power or funding, continue building on floodplains without adequate infrastructure.

No enforceable requirement to upgrade pre-existing drainage. No funding for those drainage upgrades. Because most section 106 money goes on important local services. Residents in district council areas with IDB flooding seeing their service funding cuts tons of data, but no proper mapping of where and when these floods are likely to happen. We have the technology and the data to do it. We don't use it. The vital flood re scheme limited in time and scope and set to expire and an insurance, mortgage and saleability time bomb in our housing market and nothing.

Sadly, in the recent planning bill despite multiple amendments including from the other House. So this bill that I'm introducing today has been designed with and around the advice of frontline bodies to tackle the practical reality of flood prevention in four key areas responsibilities funding, planning and national and local data and flood mapping. I've developed it in a spirit of non-partisan, practical politics to help and embolden the Minister to take this opportunity to make the key reforms essential to avoid a growing crisis worsening to calamitous levels.

I want to thank the many agencies and organisations in the water sector who have helped, in particular local residents Liz Whitcher in Walton, Hanson Lynn in Attleboro and many others too numerous to mention. My councillors, agencies like the Norfolk Flood Alliance and Aviva, a great local Norfolk insurance business on the front line of this crisis. But most of all, this is a bill shaped by and for those poor people up and down this country who, like Hans and Lynn Short at Mill Lane, Attleborough, live in fear of going through the hell of their homes being flooded through no fault of their own.

But because the system has failed them the planning, drainage, sewerage, insurance and flood prevention system has evolved without design. No single body or person is responsible. That's the problem. It's not fit for purpose today, let alone for the 1.5 million new homes set to be built in the next three years. We were all sent here to make the system work for the people who pay their taxes, pay our wages and expect us to deliver. We owe it to them, to the next generation, and to repairing public trust in our politics and this Parliament to fix it.

And this bill is designed to help the Minister do just that. And I commend it, Mr. speaker, to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Let the hon. Members have leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let the hon. Members have leave to bring in the bill. The question is that the hon. Member have leave is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the bill. As many of that opinion say I the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare to bring in the bill, sir? And Mr. Nick Timothy. Mr. Jerome

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And Mr. Nick Timothy. Mr. Jerome Mayhew. Mr. James Wild. Mr. Lee Pitcher. Mr. Helen Morgan. Mr. Roz Savage. Mr. Steff Aquarone. Mr. Adrian Ramsay. Mr. Blake Stephenson. Mr. Ben Spencer and myself, sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

George Freeman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Yeah. Flooding Bill. Second Reading what day? Friday, 10th of July, sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday, 10th of July, sir. Friday the 10th of July. I thought you had your Wellingtons on Putney. Take care George. We now come to the opposition day motion on the British Indian Ocean Territory. I inform the House that I have not selected the amendments. I now call shadow Secretary of State Dame Priti Patel.
12:53
None Portrait Opposition Day Debate: British Indian Ocean Territory
-

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg to
12:53
Priti Patel Portrait Opposition Day Debate: British Indian Ocean Territory Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (Witham, Conservative)
-
-
move the motion that stands in my name and in the names of the honourable and right hon. Friends. Mr. speaker, Labour's 35 billion Chagos surrender deal is falling apart every single day, and it's apart every single day, and it's high time that the Prime Minister tore up this atrocious surrender treaty and put Britain's interests treaty and put Britain's interests and our defence first and our security first, and Britain's hard pressed taxpayers first. This side pressed taxpayers first. This side of the House has made it clear from day one at every opportunity to expose the deceit, falsehoods and foolishness of the approach taken by Labour.

Whether it's on international law arguments, the defence and security arguments, the costs arguments, the important self-determination arguments of the chagossian people standing up for their rights, and of course, the environmental arguments. It has been conservatives on this side of the House standing up for Britain's national interests and have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unequivocally opposed this surrender treaty. I will give way. To Alec Shelbrooke. Tom Morrison friend and building

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tom Morrison friend and building and what she just said there. Is she not shocked that most Labour MPs cannot be bothered to turn up for this debate?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for this debate? And it's absolutely right. And, you know, I just think it demonstrates their disdain and contempt for the British people. contempt for the British people. Quite frankly, it really does. And while the Prime Minister and in fact, their various Ministers fact, their various Ministers travel the globe, it's pretty obvious that they all go around waving the white flag of surrender. They can sit there chuntering, but the British public can see exactly what's going on with this government. Weak, feeble and giving away their money.

Had the Prime Minister. So? So the Minister is chuntering about starting the negotiations. This deal is on him. It's on their government. It's on the Labour government. And you left your friends and your international law agreements. And perhaps you'd like to listen, because had the Prime Minister, you can sit there. Absolutely do listen because they may they may learn a few things. Today had the Prime Minister and his dear friend, the attorney General, perhaps you'd like to contribute to the debate. She perhaps put her name in to even speak.

Then I suggest you sit and listen. Had the Prime Minister and the Attorney general and the Foreign Secretary, Jonathan Powell, and the current and former former secretaries who are in foreign former secretaries in name, but only got their way then the Mauritian flag would already be flying over the Chagos Archipelago, and hundreds of millions of the 35 billion of taxpayers money would already be in the coffers, lining

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the coffers of a foreign government. I will give way. My friend. May I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I. Invite her to challenge the Minister to deal with the issue that the treaty which came into that the treaty which came into force, I think, in 2009, designed to prevent African nuclear proliferation, if we breach that treaty by means of this deal, it treaty by means of this deal, it will open up an opportunity for all kinds of hostile powers, including China and others, to site nuclear weapons in Africa. Do the government realise that? And I know, my hon.

Friend certainly does.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely. Right. And of course, again, it's this side of the house that's been raising this issue because been raising this issue because guess what? It gives succour and strength to Britain's enemies. So all the people basically that are working against us, China, Russia and on, you know, they'll be accelerating their plotting with their Mauritian friends on how to undermine the operationalisation of the military base at Diego Garcia

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the military base at Diego Garcia and exert their influence in the Indo-Pacific at the expense of all our interests. I will give way. I command Shadow Minister and indeed the Conservatives for bringing forward for the consistent focus on what they're trying to do. But does the shadow Minister share the concerns over the long term guarantee for the UK and the right to extend the military lease and the right of access within the treaty, and the fact that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

essential base can never have no ambiguity attached to it in any way. Is absolutely right. And this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is absolutely right. And this speaks to the fundamental point about the capitulation, the surrender, the way in which this surrender, the way in which this government has worked night and day. We see we see it now in terms of working against Britain and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

working against Britain and Britain's interests. And that is unforgivable. I will give way right. On. Right on. The friend who I must say, is making an excellent start to this attack on the government. But I will ask you this simple question which shouldn't we also dig a little bit deeper as to some of the linkages between, say, the Prime Minister and some of his earlier colleagues to learn that Philippe Sands, who was representing the Mauritian government, had a deal done with the Russians over Crimea in which he assured them, I understand that the granting of independence and ownership for Mauritius would not impinge on their right to stay in Crimea, which brought them to vote and support this.

Doesn't that look to you, like to my right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend and to myself as absolute method traitor? Yes. The right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend has made his point very clearly. This is a government that effectively is not standing up for effectively is not standing up for our values, our interests, or even making any effort whatsoever to demonstrate that it's on the side demonstrate that it's on the side of our national security. And fundamentally, this is what it's been all about. And, Mr. Speaker, you will absolutely know it's been you will absolutely know it's been the diligent work and the scrutiny of conservatives in this House and in the other place that has led the government being forced to pause in this surrender through our diligent diplomatic engagement with the US administration, asking over 400 parliamentary questions to opposition day debates.

And thanks to you, Mr. Speaker. Urgent Question after Urgent Question here to demand answers which they never provide, they only hide. This is all thanks to this government shameful and outright contempt of Parliament and the British public. We have proudly made representations on behalf of the Chagossian people. Not only have they been betrayed, Mr. Speaker, but they're also now being threatened in Britain, and their family members are now being intimidated by people associated with the government of Mauritius, who seem to be learning how to conduct transnational repression from the Chinese Communist Party.

Friends, this Labour government will go down, will go down in history for many, many terrible things. And they can now add to that list of shame the repression and betrayal of the Chagossian people. Labour must rethink their deeply corrosive policy, which is putting our security and the safety of the Chagossian people at risk. But instead we have a weak and feeble Prime Minister currently on his knees in Beijing, who will do anything possible to push through this deal, a deal that has been constructed and negotiated by his left wing international lawyer friends, whose views he seems to value much more than the British people and the Chagossian community.

And Mr. Speaker, we all know how this has gone completely wrong. The Prime Minister can take a different course, and it's gone wrong, because this surrender is completely unnecessary, because as this side of the House knows, it's based on an on an advisory opinion, and Ministers have failed to give convincing answers as to why we will accept this. There is no answer on what enforcement mechanisms would exist. So tell us today, please, other than some hypothetical comments about the electromagnetic spectrum and the ITU.

Mr. speaker, we not only have a government of incompetent politicians, it's a government of incompetent lawyers. And in the words of President Trump, Labour is surrendering sovereignty for no reason whatsoever. But it's not just the fact that they are misinterpreting international law. Given that this Labour government's obsession with international law, it is surprising and shocking to see that they've overlooked essential detail. Mr. speaker, very important detail. This detail in the 1966 UK US Exchange of notes, which is now the third time I've brought this to the Dispatch Box in just the last week, the 1966 treaty with the USA, which establishes the military base on Diego Garcia.

And it states, for the avoidance of any doubt in this House or even any ignorance on behalf of the benches opposite the territory, and that's the whole of the British Indian Ocean territory shall remain under British sovereignty. Subject to the provision are set out below the islands as all of the Chagos Islands, not just Diego Garcia, shall be made available to meet the needs of both governments for defence. This is a legally binding treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

Regarding the British Indian Ocean Territory and any attempt for the UK to surrender sovereignty over Biot violates international law. And yet, when the government signed and published their treaty on the 22nd of May last year and then published their surrender bill, there wasn't a single mention of the treaty. In the treaty. All the bill of any of these explanatory notes, all the need for the exchange of notes. So on Monday, in response to the urgent question, the Minister for the Overseas Territory said we have been clear throughout that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we'll need to do the following pass primary and secondary legislation update the UK, US agreement, the exchange of notes and put in place agreements on environment, marine protection, security, migration and this was not mentioned in any of the documents accompanying the legislation, let alone the treaty.

And when we questioned this in both houses, Ministers have merely mentioned talks are ongoing to update the UK. US exchange of letters as exchange of notes was not even referred to in any of their company documents for the legislation. I think this House deserves an explanation. When did these talks begin? What is the status of these talks? What is the timescale for making changes? Have the Americans raised concerns that the exchange of notes were not part of the original discussions with the US government last year, when the Prime Minister said the US supported the treaty, and why was the government? Why did they try to force through this surrender bill without confirming the future of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this exchange of knows? I will give way. Give way? Because the key question on this part is negotiations may well be ongoing, but this rests on whether the UK can make a unilateral decision to can make a unilateral decision to give sovereignty away without the blessing of the US. Now I pose this question. It was posed three times question. It was posed three times on Monday and the Minister simply said it's in discussion, so the Ministers need to answer directly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. Can this be done unilaterally or not? Well, this is the perfect.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Debate, an opportunity for the government. And perhaps the Minister would like to intervene right now. And I'm very, very happy for her to answer that question. And I think and I think just shortly and I think there is also another question, has the American administration questioned why the British government, the United Kingdom, would want to give up Kingdom, would want to give up sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory and in doing so, violate international law? For once, violate international law? For once, the Minister just needs to be straightforward and give precise answers to what are precise questions that these benches have, because the government has continuously failed to do so.

And by the way, British taxpayers rightly want an explanation as to why their taxes should line the pockets of the government of Mauritius without further proper scrutiny and disclosure and transparency that they deserve. So perhaps the Minister can tell us what exactly did the national security adviser, Mr. Powell, and the former ambassador, Lord Mandelson, do we remember him? What did they tell the US administration about the surrender treaty? It is well known that the government is run by its friends and cronies.

And it's also well known that Jonathan Powell, a friend of China, accelerated the negotiations when he was appointed envoy in September 2024. And frankly, can anyone in this House really trust anything that Lord Mandelson would have been involved in? I think that's definitely a question for the government. I will, of course, give.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Way with the right hon. Lady agree that we stand at a critical point, not just for this nation, point, not just for this nation, but for the United States of America, and that they, too, should have regard to the fact that up to have regard to the fact that up to this point, the islands are under the control of a nuclear power with the control of a nuclear power with a navy. And this proposition, this treaty, would hand them over to a treaty, would hand them over to a country over a thousand miles away with no navy.

And doesn't that create an obvious geopolitical vacuum to which we are all vulnerable? And shouldn't the Americans in particular be very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wary of that? Well, my friend. Absolutely. As he has many times actually

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As he has many times actually spot on. He really is. And, you know, I think this is exactly why the Minister today has this marvellous opportunity to explain marvellous opportunity to explain to the House and also to the British public, because let's not forget President Trump, the forget President Trump, the commander in chief said that the UK is giving away extremely important land. It's an act of great land. It's an act of great stupidity. I think this House would agree with those comments.

There is no doubt that China and Russia have noted this act of total weakness. Has there been any Minister to Minister engagement with the US administration? Has the Prime Minister directly spoken to the president on this matter before he kowtow to China? I asked this very question here on Monday, but the Minister, who is not here today, could not answer this question. So it's a new opportunity for the Minister for the Indo-Pacific to tell us, is it a yes or no? And on that point as well, it's worth asking, should there be a change in the proposed US UK treaty, will this come to Parliament, do the 21 day crack process? Because again, we ask this on Monday and the Minister refused to answer the question, so what are they trying to hide? Because Labour failed to provide this House with the scrutiny under the previous process.

So it's clear that they're happy to give away the sovereign territory and billions in taxpayers money without being held to account. And given the Labour government's abject failure to clarify these points, it took conservatives in the other place to take action which led to the pause of this treaty. But instead of showing some humility, transparency and commitment to engage in proper scrutiny, Labour have sought to gaslight its critics. And, by the way, the British public, with a spokesperson from the government telling the media this is irresponsible, reckless behaviour by peers blaming peers, conservative crossbenchers and others down there for doing their job diligently is.

Another new low from a Labour government seeking to undermine accountability, democracy, scrutiny and accountability. So when the junior Minister for the Indo-Pacific responds, I hope she will respond on behalf of this feeble Labour government and apologise to the British people for their appalling and discredited

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conduct, I will give. Way to my right hon. Friend and like her, I'm proud of the role that conservative peers have played in the other place. But can we also take a moment to pay credit to backbench Labour MPs? Because I think it's important to note, Mr. Speaker, they're not here. Literally. Practically the only person scribbling is the Member for Rugby, who I admire a great deal. But loyalist, he is to his very core. If if he's practically the only person who's prepared to speak up, the truth is they've moved with their feet and they now agree with my right hon.

Friend, this deal has to go.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to. Thank and commend my right hon. Friend for his intervention, because he's actually highlighted a because he's actually highlighted a lot of things. And in the interest of time, because we've got a lot of colleagues that do want to speak as colleagues that do want to speak as well. You know, it's just worth pointing out. Yes, they'll have a few of their, their sort of the ones that like to climb the greasy ones that like to climb the greasy pole.

I think there is one that's not here today, who's now the trade envoy for Mauritius, because he did envoy for Mauritius, because he did speak up so frequently for the government. But of course, ultimately this is about the security and the defence of our country. And when it looks well known and the government has a lot of questions to answer, it really has, because the remarks of the government have been absolutely shameful when it comes to their feeble defence of this entire process.

It really has, whether it's on China and the relationship, not just they have with China, but the government of Mauritius has with China as well. Completely misleading remarks about China and Mauritius, when it's this side of the House that has constantly called out the cosy relationship. And I've even brought some press cuttings here for the Minister, who may as Minister for the Indo-Pacific. She may have seen this already, but I would advise her to read the Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry website because it's a weekly diary now of their friendly relationship with the government of Mauritius on the Pelindaba treaty.

We've already heard on this side of the House the comments about what this now means. We think it's absolutely wrong to inhibit and restrict our ability when it comes to stationing nuclear deterrent on Diego Garcia. And it's right that this side of the House continues to question this all. And on the money, let's just discuss the money, Mr. Speaker, and I will close my remarks shortly. It is an absolute disgrace that this House has not had full disclosure around the money.

It's in the public interest for Ministers to tell the truth, to be held to account, and to stop hiding the true cost behind literally misrepresenting the positions of the OBR and the government's actuary department. That's just utterly shameful. So, Mr. Speaker, today Labour MPs have an opportunity to join with us. They're all in hiding because they're embarrassed about this and stop this surrender. They can tell their constituents that they voted to save a British territory from being lost, stood up for our defence and security, voted to save £35 billion from being handed over to a foreign government.

Disgracefully, while their taxes at home go up and public services are squeezed and voted to defend the rights of the Chagossians. Or they can be sleepwalk through the division lobbies like sheep defending the indefensible. And back in another Labour weak policy and failure of their enfeebled Prime Minister. Mr. speaker, conservatives have opposed this deal from day one at every stage, and we will continue to do so. We'll fight to kill this bill in order to defend British sovereignty and, of course, defend Britain's pride and national interest.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. The question is on the Order Paper, Minister Seema Malhotra.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper, Minister Seema Malhotra. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, and it is a pleasure to respond to this debate pleasure to respond to this debate today. And perhaps let me start by saying that the government opposes saying that the government opposes the motion introduced by the opposition today. The treaty guarantees the full UK operational control of Diego Garcia for
13:11
Seema Malhotra Portrait Seema Malhotra MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Feltham and Heston, Labour )
-
-
generations to come. The motion proposes. I will just make some remarks first. The motion proposes remarks first. The motion proposes a wildly exaggerated cost, in contrast to the actual costings published by this government at the published by this government at the time of the treaty's introduction, verified by the Independent Government Actuary's Department. This motion invokes an exchange of notes which the government has notes which the government has publicly confirmed is being updated with our US partners, and it attempts to bind parliamentary procedure on that exchange, despite it not having yet been finalised.

This isn't patriotic, it is political point scoring at the expense of our national security. A sad indictment of what the official

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposition have become. I will give. Way. Minister giving way. She refers to the issue of the numbers, the to the issue of the numbers, the cost. Does she agree with me that the government has actually confirmed that the number is over

**** Possible New Speaker ****

£34 billion? No. And I will say as well that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. And I will say as well that I will take no, no truck from reform who frankly have no record on supporting security of our country, especially with what's happened in Wales. And and I will continue with my remarks. Thank you very much. And I will if the opposition may the opposition may not want to hear this. The opposition may not want to hear this. But the Tories back negotiations over Chagos every step of the way. 85% of the Chagos negotiations took place under the Conservatives, led by the former foreign secretary.

And indeed, they may not want to hear this, but I think it's important to share. They may not want to hear this, but I think it's important to share. And in November 2022, the former foreign secretary said that through negotiations, through negotiations,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

aren't they? I think I think a lot of people are interested in the. Past order. Can I just.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just. Say the two front benches. Either intervened. Each other, not having this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Each other, not having this running battle. Seema Malhotra thank you. Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will just make I will make slight progress and then I will give way to the right hon. give way to the right hon. Gentleman. The and indeed the former Foreign Secretary did say in November 2022 that taking into account relevant legal proceedings is our intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues. In February last year, a spokesperson for the Leader of the Opposition insisted she understood negotiations over the islands were needed due to the international legal position and the current Leader of the Opposition.

They might have not remembered who she is, but she is still in her post. I believe she may not have. She may defer to reform. No, but what I will say is that there has been ample and this is a serious point. There has been ample time for debate on this topic. Indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, the Minister for Overseas Territories, debated this for over two hours last week and for 45 minutes on Monday for an urgent question.

Baroness Chapman, of Darlington, has spent hours debating the topic in the other place, including delivering an urgent question. Repeat on Monday. We have committed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful and. A little worried. That she's confusing. The issue of Ministers coming to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the islands? Alison Hume I thank the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alison Hume I thank the hon. Member, right hon. Member, for his for his comments. And the answer to that is has been set out and I will that is has been set out and I will be laying it out has been set out as well by Lord Coaker. The answer is the answer is yes. And and it is is the answer is yes. And and it is has been set out by Lord Coaker as well in the House. And I will be well in the House.

And I will be coming on to that in my in my remarks as well. But I will just say there has been questions from the, the opposition today, Mr. Speaker, about the legal matters behind this treaty. It is important to say that Mauritius. Mauritius 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 an issue in the advisory opinion delivered in February.

I will give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. I understand further to my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I understand further to my hon. Friend's point that the Prime Minister of Mauritius has made it clear yesterday that he would not clear yesterday that he would not allow or agree to the placing of any nuclear weapons on the islands. Now, can she please answer? Then

**** Possible New Speaker ****

how can they reassure the USA that? I. I will be coming on to this in my in my remarks. I will be coming on to this in, in in my remarks as, as well. And that is important. I will be coming up just in my remarks and in relation to, in relation to the. I do want to finish the point on the legal points that have been raised, that what that what was said in relation to this by the International Court of Justice in the advisory opinion, is it does carry significant weight and in particular, it's likely to be influential on any subsequent court or tribunal considering the issues arising out of disputed sovereignty and whose judgement would be binding in international law.

The ICJ, I will finish my remarks on this. The ICJ concluded that the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its advisory, its administration of the Chagos, Aki Lago, as rapidly as possible. The. You might want to listen to the next bit. The. 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 which ruled that Mauritius sovereignty was inferred from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ICJ determination. To give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Who is just? Who are you giving way to Minister? There's three of them

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister? There's three of them thinking it's them. Minister. Specifically on this point, that 2021 judgement did not have any 2021 judgement did not have any British representation and rested on the UN's non-binding judgement. on the UN's non-binding judgement. We also know from the 2015 ruling that that court cannot preside over sovereignty. So how does that stand up to the scrutiny that she's saying there is a dire need to hand these islands over. there?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I, I thank the hon. Member for his comments. He will know that his comments. He will know that these these matters have been shared before in the House, but I perhaps may remind him I perhaps perhaps may remind him I perhaps may remind him what US Secretary Hegseth has said as well, that the UK's very important deal with UK's very important deal with Mauritius secures the operational

**** Possible New Speaker ****

capabilities of the base and key. Travelled. No doubt travels. Just to keep wondering, you've
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page