Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
John Hayes
Main Page: John Hayes (Conservative - South Holland and The Deepings)Department Debates - View all John Hayes's debates with the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory
John Hayes Excerpts(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Falconer
To be clear about the current position, there was support from the US Administration for this treaty, which has not changed. There clearly has been a statement from the President of the United States more recently that is very significant, and, as I told the House, we are now discussing those concerns with the United States directly. We have a process going through Parliament in relation to the treaty. We will bring that back to Parliament at the appropriate time. We are pausing for discussions with our American counterparts.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Whatever Members across this House might say, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has done a service to us in raising this matter today, because this is a dodgy deal founded on a bogus basis, as I shall explain. When this was introduced to the House, we were told that the Government were doing so on the basis that they would be sanctioned internationally, and, in particular, they described the most proximate and potentially serious as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. In the answer to a subsequent written question, I discovered that, far from that, the stance on article 298 remains unchanged from prior declarations of 2003 and 2020. That means we can opt out. There was no obligation and no necessity.
I use these words cautiously because I know and like the Minister and I know and like the Secretary of State for Defence, but it seems to me that this House was inadvertently misled in the original statement, as is proven by subsequent answers to written questions. Will the Minister clarify that urgently, because it is a very serious parliamentary matter and a matter of national significance?
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Member is a Lincolnshire colleague, so I do not like to disagree with him, including on the value of the weekend trip taken by the hon. Member for Clacton. On the question of article 298, I can hear the strength of views across the House. As I understand it, this is a particularly complex and contentious area of law. I hear the House’s desire for further clarification from the Government, and I am sure that the relevant Minister will be very happy to write—