Question
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his comments. The reason I asked about the vote in the Lords is this: there seems to be a real problem with the way that we approach this debate. The will of Parliament, as expressed in the Lords only last week and in treaties signed in the ’60s and ’80s, is being superseded by courts that have no mandate over the issues that are being debated. I ask him again: does he accept the will of this Parliament—the elected will of the British people—or does he instead seek to accept the now politicised will of courts that have Russian and Chinese judges, and are fundamentally mis-shaping and distorting agreements that were signed decades ago? We have seen what China has done, from locking up Jimmy Lai to threatening the Marine reserves that he claims to champion. Whose side is the Foreign Secretary on?50% point-scoring
Answer
I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman that the House of Commons has primacy in our legislative arrangements. That is a long-standing convention, I would say. On his point about the courts, at a time when international law is under threat across the world, we should be defenders of international law, and we absolutely believe that maintaining a base at Diego Garcia is consistent with that.25% vibes
Verdict: AMBER (30/100)
The reply only partly answers this exchange. It states that the Commons has legislative primacy, but it does not say whether the Foreign Secretary accepts the Lords vote or the court rulings, which was the either/or the question put. The response to the point-scoring challenge consists mainly of general statements about defending international law, with little clear position against the opposing view. A member of the public would probably need to ask again for a direct answer on which side the Government takes.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Foreign Secretary accept the will of Parliament, as expressed in the Lords vote on the Bill in the name of Lord Weir and in the treaties signed in the 1960s and 1980s, or does he instead accept the rulings of the courts on the Chagos arrangements? | Partially Addressed | Direct | The reply asserts that the Commons has legislative primacy, a concrete position on the status of the Lords vote, but it never says whether the Foreign Secretary accepts the Lords vote or the court rulings, sidestepping the either/or the item poses. The 'defenders of international law' line gestures toward the courts without committing to either side. |
| Whose side is the Foreign Secretary on? | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The item is a rhetorical point-scoring question, and the reply answers it only with a broad stance ('defenders of international law', base at Diego Garcia is 'consistent with that') that is largely platitude rather than a clear statement of where the Government stands against the other side. |