Question
I draw the Minister’s attention to the comments that he made about the conversations with world leaders at CHOGM and not being able to engage. Half of the Government’s written statement on CHOGM was about conversations with Navin Ramgoolam around Mauritius and the Chagos deal. The Government are prepared to discuss a shared handover plan before Christmas with regard to Chagos. Last year, they also cited the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as the main and most proximate threat to our ownership of the Chagos islands. Yet today and tomorrow, the Attorney General and six King’s counsel are in Hamburg at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea discussing British sovereignty claims. Why are the Government prepared to defend against ITLOS with regard to the Falkland Islands, but are prepared to give the Chagos islands away due to the potential threat of ITLOS?
Answer
I understand the connection that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I am going to disappoint him and not bite. The reality is that if he wishes to engage in this matter, he should engage with the Attorney General directly and, more importantly, with the Minister for the Overseas Territories, who I am sure would be happy to speak to him.
Verdict: RED (10/100)
The reply acknowledges the link the Member raised between the Government's Falklands sovereignty position at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and its Chagos handover, but it does not explain or defend that position. It refers the Member to the Attorney General and the Minister for the Overseas Territories instead. The core question of why both positions can be held together is therefore left unanswered.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the Government's justification for defending British sovereignty at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in relation to the Falkland Islands, while pursuing a handover of the Chagos Islands given the perceived threat from that tribunal. | Not Addressed | Generic | The reply acknowledges the connection the Member draws but explicitly declines to engage with it and gives no justification for defending Falklands sovereignty at ITLOS while pursuing the Chagos handover. It only refers the Member to the Attorney General and the Minister for the Overseas Territories, so the substantive 'why' is left unanswered. |