British Indian Ocean Territory

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Iain Duncan Smith

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

Claims that there were no legal necessities to negotiate are absolutely wrong; they misunderstand the legal jeopardy and immediate operational challenges that the base faces. [Interruption.] I will come on to that; I am well aware of that. Ever since the legal certainty of the base was called into doubt, its ability to operate in practical terms, as it should be able to operate, given that it is such a critical facility, has been undermined. I know that the right hon. Lady is aware of that.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Anneliese Dodds]

The 2019 International Court of Justice advisory opinion might be the most eye-catching of the legal developments in recent years—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Is the Minister going to give way or not?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I will happily give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Okay, excellent. I want to bring the right hon. Lady back to her statement that there was an imperative to resolve the situation. She knows very well that in the original advisory opinion by the ICJ it is very clear, as has been made clear by the ex-Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), that nothing regarding the Commonwealth falls within the directive, so by definition it is advisory. At the bottom of that agreement, the Government have a waiver that says that if they want to dismiss the advisory opinion, they can go ahead on that basis, so I ask the right hon. Lady: have this Government issued a waiver on the provision that nothing has to be a directive from that court? Have they issued a waiver?

[Anneliese Dodds]

The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that of course we know about that ICJ carve-out in relation to the Commonwealth. That is common knowledge. I find it slightly strange that he is presenting that as something that the House is not aware of—that is very peculiar indeed. He would have done well to wait for the rest of what I was going to say in relation to legal jeopardy, because this is by no means—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

We are short of time and other Members wish to speak, so I will try to be as brief as possible. I follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), whom I know and respect very much. I do not agree with him fully on this, but he made his point forcefully. I want to come back to legal uncertainty. The point is whether it is unclear if the original ICJ judgment stood as an absolute judgment. We know very well that the agreement said clearly that any dispute with a Government of any other country that has been a member of the Commonwealth is therefore beyond it.

When the court made its ruling, it was clear from the very beginning that it was an advisory judgment and not based on a legal position. I remind Members of what I said earlier: many of those who were part of that judicial process are not the long-standing judiciary in the sense that we would understand it here in the UK. Many of them are political. Vice-President Xue wrote this from the word go. She has been heavily engaged with the Chinese Government for some considerable time. The Chinese are not so stupid as to publicly welcome something, to give us an excuse to say that it is terrible—I say that as someone who is sanctioned by them—but the reality is that they are the major threat. China watches and knows that it is in a far better and stronger position if there is considerable doubt here about what is going on with ownership. We faced that problem from the word go.

I asked the Minister a very important question. I do not believe that the last Government, when they entered into discussions, waived the requirement that Commonwealth issues cannot be touched by this court. Under that agreement, they have to waive submitting themselves to the judgment of that court. I ask her again, and I will happily take an intervention—[Interruption.] Before she starts giving us that lecturely look, let me say to her—[Interruption.] No, she does. Instead of putting on the “tut-tutting” face, could she just answer this question? Did this Government, at any stage during these negotiations, waive their right for the ruling to be seen as anything other than advisory? Have they waived that exemption?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I have made that very clear previously. That carve-out for the Commonwealth is very clear within the ICJ. I think I looked at the right hon. Gentleman with a smile. If that is somehow looking at him in a “lecturely” way, I am terribly sorry.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

If she is not careful, I might ask her to share a drink with me later. [Interruption.] I know, it’s irresistible, isn’t it? The main point is that she did not. That is as clear as mud. I asked a very specific question: did they waive their right over this particular agreement? That makes this, from the word go, not inconclusive and not, therefore, a mysterious judgment. It is an advisory judgment and the Government are under no pressure to accept it.

Jailing of Hong Kong Pro-democracy Activists

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Iain Duncan Smith

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I have sat watching both Governments on this one, and I do not think that any Government have the right to accuse the party that was formerly in power and talk about what it got wrong, because that Government got it all wrong and this one are getting it all wrong as well.

The key point is this. The Minister has referred to all those who have been incarcerated but particularly to Jimmy Lai, who is in solitary confinement. Yesterday, when the Prime Minister rightly started to raise the issue of Jimmy Lai and human rights, all the journalists were cleared out of the room straightaway because the Chinese Government did not want them to hear what he was saying. Just before that meeting, President Xi said that China would “brook no interference” when it came to democracy and human rights, and that is one of his four red lines. I put this question simply to the Minister: does she not think that without some kind of sanction, China will go on and on? America has sanctioned many senior officials in Hong Kong for these abuses, and we have sanctioned none. Does she not think it is time for us to say, “We will sanction someone if you do not stop”?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I believe it is appropriate to make relative judgments so that we can assess the right way forward for the UK’s relationship with China. That is why the UK Government are conducting an audit of our relationship with China so that we can have a consistent approach. We believe that is incredibly important, so I am afraid that I respectfully do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I had a ringside seat for some of the actions of the previous Government during the golden era, and for what was suggested then around trade protections. We need to move forward with a more clear-eyed approach, and the UK Government could not have been clearer on these matters of human rights, including the Prime Minister himself, as the right hon. Gentleman just acknowledged. On sanctions, he will understand, of course, that I will not speculate on future designations, as to do so could reduce their impact, but I can reassure him that the FCDO continues to keep potential sanctions designations under close review.