Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence

Debate between Seema Malhotra and Julian Lewis

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

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

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

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

[Seema Malhotra]

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

British Indian Ocean Territory

Debate between Seema Malhotra and Julian Lewis

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to respond to this debate.

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

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

On that point—

[Seema Malhotra]

Let me make a few remarks before I give way.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

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

In November 2022, the former Foreign Secretary said that

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

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

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

[Sir Julian Lewis]

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

[Seema Malhotra]

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

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

Proposed Chinese Embassy

Debate between Seema Malhotra and Julian Lewis

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend is right that we must not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate or harass. He has highlighted some examples that have caused great concern and that we take extremely seriously. We continue to assess potential threats in the United Kingdom, and the protection of individual rights and freedoms is a matter of great concern for the Government. Indeed, freedom of speech and other fundamental rights of all people in the UK are protected under domestic law. The police and security services monitor these issues closely.

The UK has a broad suite of powers available to counter foreign interference, including acts that amount to transnational repression. We continue to implement measures in the National Security Act 2023, which strengthens our legal powers and makes the UK a harder target for states that seek to conduct hostile acts. The Security Minister announced last year that counter-terrorism policing is offering training and guidance on state-threats activity to all 45 territorial police forces across the UK. This will enhance the ability of frontline police officers and staff in the identification of state-directed crimes and the actions that can, and must, be taken to escalate matters and mitigate such activity.

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

The Intelligence and Security Committee was set up specifically to fill a gap in oversight whereby this House could not directly look at highly classified and sensitive information. Having chaired that Committee throughout the previous Parliament, when we undertook our very detailed and sensitive inquiry into China—the published version of which was quite well received, to put it mildly—I can assure the Minister that absolutely no aspect of this matter could not be shared with the ISC. Can she tell the House whether the National Security Adviser has discussed with the ISC and briefed it on the security aspects of this proposal, the proceeding of which enjoys such hostility on both sides of the House?

[Seema Malhotra]

I recognise and acknowledge the right hon. Member’s deep experience in the House and from chairing the ISC. Matters of security and intelligence continue to be the first priority of this Government. In relation to national security and in respect of the National Security Adviser, our partners abroad and Five Eyes—which was included in the urgent question—it is important to recognise that we continue to have conversations about security and intelligence in respect of all areas of concern to the United Kingdom and, indeed, in relation to China.

Myanmar: Religious Minority Persecution

Debate between Seema Malhotra and Julian Lewis

Thursday 8th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Member is right to highlight what the junta continues to try to do. That is why it is incredibly important that we are continuing to work to make sure that humanitarian aid is not prevented from reaching where it needs to go. It is also why it is so important that we continue to work with local organisations and actors on the ground, so that we are able, as much as possible, to reach the frontline through trusted organisations with deep community ties. I am happy to continue dialogue with the hon. Member on how we are working in Myanmar on these very difficult challenges.

I also want to mention the incredibly important role that Bangladesh is playing, and to commend Bangladesh for the accommodation of 1 million refugees. We know the challenge that has been. The UK is the second largest donor to the Rohingya crisis response in Bangladesh, contributing £447 million since 2017, including an additional £27 million announced in September, just a few months ago.

My colleague Baroness Chapman was fairly recently in Bangladesh, talking to the Government, visiting Cox’s Bazar and looking at what more can be done to support further skills development and other productive activity for those in the refugee camps. She also looked at how we can keep alive the hope that it will one day be safe for return, and how we continue to work as an international community towards that future.

Over 150,000 Rohingya in Myanmar, however, have been confined to camps for over a decade, with no freedom of movement, no civil liberties and limited access to services. Since 2017, the UK has provided £57 million in assistance to Rohingya communities in Rakhine, delivering water, food, cash, sanitation and health support. We continue to press the regime to stop attacks on communities and places of worship.

Sanctions have been raised by a number of colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), who I want to thank for catching me in the House in relation to this issue. Since the coup, we have imposed sanctions on 25 individuals and 39 entities, including those responsible for human rights violations. We are using our role at the United Nations Security Council to keep this firmly on the agenda. At our last meeting, we condemned attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure.

We also continue to keep all evidence and potential designations under close review. It would not be appropriate to speculate in this debate about potential future sanctions and designations, as to do so could reduce their impact. However, I say to my hon. Friend and other Members that we are clear that sanctions remain an important tool to maintain pressure on the Myanmar military. Since the coup, the sanctions that I mentioned have targeted the regime’s access to finance, arms and equipment.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

The Minister mentioned the UN Security Council, and we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) about what he perceives to be a potential weakness in the regime, which is being propped up by outside forces. Is it true that Russia has been most supportive of the regime, has supplied most of its aerial capability to bomb, strafe and kill civilians, and has been blocking moves against the regime on the Security Council? What assessment have the Government made of the survivability of the regime without military support from Russia?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. I will make some references to the UN Security Council in my further remarks, so I will hopefully be able to address some of his points.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Seema Malhotra and Julian Lewis

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter, and I am very happy to meet her. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is working to ensure that those who need to leave Gaza, and are able and eligible to do so, are supported in that. I am very happy to look at this matter with my hon. Friend.

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

The Home Secretary was asked a question about Lord Hermer of Chagos, as he perhaps ought to be known. Why did she not answer it, and will she do so now?

Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Joint Committee

Debate between Seema Malhotra and Julian Lewis

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

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

That harrowing account by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) puts me in mind of what happened to my family in Nazi-occupied Poland for 20 months during the second world war, when they could come out from a bunker under a barn only at night, to be fed by the Polish family who risked their lives to save them. This debate ought to be about what the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), rightly summarised when he said, “Get people out and keep people safe.” That is why I am a little disappointed that I do not feel that I can concentrate on cases such as the ones I have raised before, those of the 16 academics being supported by the Council for At-Risk Academics. These people have places—visiting fellowships and research studentships—in British universities. A dozen of them are still in Afghanistan, three of them have made it to Pakistan and one has even made it to the Netherlands, preparatory to coming here. I do not feel that I can concentrate on that because, unfortunately, the Opposition motion is framed in terms of setting up a:

“Joint Committee to Investigate Withdrawal from Afghanistan”

I am reading from the Annunciator there.

With the greatest respect to the Opposition, may I say that that was a mistake? Late last month, it was announced on the website of the Intelligence and Security Committee—that is the hat I now have to wear—that we had

“requested from the Government any intelligence assessments which covered the outlook for the regime with regards to the final withdrawal of US and coalition forces from Afghanistan”.

When such assessments are received, we shall consider them carefully and then determine any future action to take. Until that has happened, the ISC will not be commenting on what such intelligence may contain, as it is not our role to prejudge the situation on the basis of media speculation and in the absence of primary factual material.

In recent months, the official Opposition have been very supportive of the right of the ISC to fulfil its role, set out in statute and in an associated memorandum of understanding, as the only Committee of parliamentarians cleared and equipped properly to deal with highly-classified intelligence material. If other Committees seek to do this, they will, for a start, require secure premises and specially vetted staff comparable to our own. There are very good reasons for safeguarding the role of the ISC against such interference, and they were spelled out in detail and strongly supported by the Opposition parties during the lively debates in both Houses on the National Security and Investment Bill. Colleagues will be relieved to know that I do not propose to reiterate those arguments today, but the argument for letting the ISC get on with its work steadily and objectively, without being undercut by other bodies not equipped to do it, is as irrefutable now as it was when it was deployed in the context of that Bill earlier this year.

It is entirely up to Select Committee Chairmen to decide whether they want to mount a joint inquiry or join a Joint Committee, but what cannot be part of any such joint inquiry is the adoption by another Committee of the ISC’s raison d’être: namely, scrutiny of the activities of the intelligence community and the classified material on which those activities were based.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution and for the advice he has given me about cases. On intelligence and security, one of my constituent’s relatives is in Afghanistan. He worked for the intelligence services and has information on intelligence and the armed forces here, but he has not been supported to leave Afghanistan and is now being sought by the Taliban because of what and who he knows. What is the right hon. Gentleman’s view on how we should handle that situation from the point of view of our own security?

[Dr Lewis]

I would have thought that it should come within the compass of the existing Government schemes to classify someone, providing the Government can satisfy themselves that what that person says he has to offer is genuine, and to activate a plan to take advantage of any real intelligence material that someone in that position might be able to offer. Unfortunately, of course, as a result of the chaotic departure that has been forced on America’s allies by successive American Presidents, the wherewithal to secure the safety of anybody inside Afghanistan, and particularly someone whom the Taliban are actively hunting, will be very difficult through any overt scheme. It would have to be done by some form of covert means, on which I hope the Government are working but on which I would not expect them to comment publicly.

To conclude, the position is perfectly clear, according to law, and we shall continue, gently but firmly, to hold the Government and the intelligence agencies properly to account.