FALKLAND ISLANDS AND DEPENDENCIES (Hansard, 28 March 1968)

§ Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Chigwell)
Earlier today the Prime Minister announced the impending amalgamation of the Commonwealth Office with the Foreign Office. The timing of his statement can only have increased the fears felt in Gibraltar, British Honduras and in the Falkland Islands—already the subject of a breakfast time debate in the all-night sitting—that in future Commonwealth obligations may come second to the expediencies of foreign policy.
I am most grateful for the opportunity of reverting to the question of the Falkland Islands after the ambiguities of the Foreign Secretary in that debate and those of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in another place. Apart from their constitutional future, the security of the Falkland Islands is causing more immediate apprehension. This has just been voiced for example, by the senior elected member of Stanley Town Council, Mr. Goss.
During the all-night sitting, I put some questions to the Foreign Secretary about naval and local protection and the Royal Marine detachment. The Foreign Secretary decided that these vital matters were not for him. I hope that we may find some comfort tonight. The Foreign Secretary said, on that occasion, as he had indicated in a speech in Buenos Aires in 1966, that Britain does not recognise Argentine sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. We have no doubt that Britain is the sovereign Power. What is in doubt is the Government's determination, or even intention, to maintain British sovereignty as long as the Falkland Islands wish to remain British.
The Foreign Secretary went on to specify circumstances in which British sovereignty might be transferred. This was more than an academic speculation. It is admitted that British sovereignty is the subject of discussion in the Anglo-Argentine talks. The Foreign Secretary did not rule out a cession of sovereignty. 1866 He insisted that it be part of a satisfactory agreement, satisfactory, that is, in the eyes of the islanders.
Let us suppose—I regret to have to make this supposition, but there is more than one example in our imperial history of the abandonment of loyal overseas communities—that there is a Minister, or Ministers, eager for the reduction of our country to a little Britain freed from too onerous overseas responsibilities, particularly those which can prove an embarrassment to our commerce and diplomacy, and therefore a decision has been made to surrender at some future moment sovereignty in return for a special privileged status for the Falkland islanders. I do not know if this is the case, but let us suppose that it is. If it became clear to the people of the Falkland Islands that Britain was preparing to desert them, what could they do other than accept the best terms obtainable and any agreement then proferred would have to be considered satisfactory. The decision, in the event, whether the agreement was indeed "satisfactory to their interests" would be made by their British betrayers.
I do not believe that any agreement for the transfer or pooling or adulteration of British sovereignty could guarantee the rights of the Falkland islanders. The Argentine authorities might be acting in good faith, but either they or their successors would find it difficult to exempt the islanders from conscription and to confer other privileges denied to other minorities within their great republic. It is likely that, whatever was written in the agreement, the islanders, or many of them, would seek new homes in Australia, perhaps or New Zealand. That might be regarded as a solution of the problem, but it would be a solution of shame and infamy.
I regret that the Foreign Secretary failed to allay existing suspicions and that Lord Chalfont in another place aroused new suspicions. The noble Lord distinguished between the status of Falkland islanders as British subjects and the future of the territory settled by British folk at the expense of no native population, for when they came there was none. What ingenious constitutional or citizenship device buzzes within that agile mind? We can all have our 1867 guesses. Perhaps the Minister of State will tell us what in fact it is all about.
Strangest of all was the noble Lord's rejection of a request for a plebiscite on the absurd ground "that the community is too small." But democratic processes are most appropriate to small communities of common outlook, and the consultation of a few is all the easier to arrange. When it suits them, the Government treat the United Nations Charter as though it were holy writ, but the Falkland islanders are denied any assurance that they will be free to exercise the right of self-determination enshrined in the Charter.
Of course, good relations with Argentina are most important. There are valuable deals afoot. I am all for reducing the persistently adverse balance of trade between the United Kingdom and Argentina. I will spare the House any reference to the Prime Minister's objection to selling frigates to what he called "fascist" Spain with its design on Gibraltar. The question I put is: how are good relations furthered by the discussion of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands with the power that claims to possess them? Unless—and I prefer not to accept this—the Government are bent on betrayal, they are raising false hopes in Argentina which, if dashed, may turn to sour resentment. The Government might be accused of perfidy, but I do not believe that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen sitting there will be party to so sordid a deal.
Another interpretation is that the present dangerous confusion is the mark of a battered, flabby, divided Administration lacking courage, confidence and conviction. But unfortunately they are the Government of the day, so I beg for their reassurances tonight.
May I ask the Minister of State, when he replies, to give a simple affirmative answer to one question: will Her Majesty's Government undertake that in no circumstances will they transfer or share British sovereignty in and over the Falkland Islands and dependencies unless that is the declared wish of the inhabitants? Let it go forth from this House tonight that those who have trusted us and fought for us and died for us and who desire to live in a British way, 1868 on British territory, under the British flag, will not be abandoned by the country that they still call home.

§ Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison (Edinburgh, South)
I want but one thing: an express undertaking from the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs that there will be no transfer of sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, sovereignty of people or land, to any other country without the express consent of the inhabitants of those islands. Yes or no, that is what I want.

§ Mr. Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)
I intervene very briefly to put one question. It is really the same question that has just been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). I do so, because, since the Foreign Secretary addressed the House early yesterday morning on this subject, answers were given in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, which have, once again, aroused doubt and anxiety about the Government's intentions. My information is that dismay has also been caused in the Falkland Islands. One member of the Legislative Council has already telegraphed his fears to this country on the subject.
We on this side want a straight answer to the question: will Her Majesty's Government make it clear beyond any doubt that there will be no transfer of sovereignty in the Falkland Islands against the wishes of the wholly British population of that territory?

§ The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Goronwy Roberts)
There has been a substantial debate on this subject within recent memory, and the Foreign Secretary then made what most right hon. and hon. Members regarded as a full and admirably clear statement about Her Majesty's Government's attitude on this matter. I want to say at the outset that I see no dichotomy at all between what he said early yesterday morning and what my noble Friend Lord Chalfont said in another place in answering questions on this matter.
I go further. I understand and appreciate the deeply sincere feelings which 1869 animate hon. Members on both sides in regard to the future of the Falklands. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I—indeed I believe everyone—share these feelings full. I do not believe there is any difference of meaning and intention between what my right hon. Friend said so lucidly and categorically yesterday and the requests made by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and others tonight. It simply involves a replacement of considered words which really mean what they say by words which the hon. Gentleman proposes. I stick by the words of my right hon. Friend, which are clear beyond any doubt.
I ask the hon. Gentleman and the House to ponder on this point: hon. Members who are sincerely concerned about the future of the islands might consider whether constantly to cast doubt on assurances such as those given by my right hon. Friend yesterday morning might not recreate the very anxieties it was his genuine purpose to allay. It is quite remarkable that the statement he made should be called into question. Frankly—and I make no partisan point of this—I cannot think of a better way of expressing the intentions which we all share.
The hon. Gentleman raised one or two questions relating to the United Nations. This links with criticisms which have been made about whether these talks should have been started at all. My right hon. Friend gave very cogent reasons why they should have been started and should continue. The first relates to the United Nations. Resolution 2065 of the 20th Assembly, in December, 1965, invited the United Kingdom and Argentina to come together to seek a peaceful solution of the differences between them, and in the spirit of that Resolution we responded and the discussions have proceeded and may well proceed and continue in an effort to compose the dispute between two countries which have long been friends, and, indeed, allies.
There is, secondly, the fact that the Islands have constituted a point of resentment, almost a running sore, in our relations with Argentina for well over a century, and, without betraying our obligations to the population of the islands, we want to do what we can to improve relations with Argentina and with Latin 1870 America as a whole. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, will agree that there is need for good relations with Argentina and South America generally. The hon. Gentleman has said so, and his hon. Friend has made this clear. He knows that this is so. In supporting that cause of the people of the islands, which we all equally cherish, the House will agree that a secure and prosperous future for them rests largely on good relations between them and the mainland.
There is another reason for the talks. More recently there has been an interruption of communications between the Islands and the mainland. This has meant difficulty, inconvenience, even vexation, as my right hon. Friend said. It is right that we should sit down and talk with Argentina about ways and means of solving these practical difficulties.

§ Mr. Braine
Who is causing these difficulties? Are they being caused by the Falkland islanders?

§ Mr. Roberts
They are caused, of course, by the situation in the area. The hon. Gentleman, a former Minister, will understand when I say that, whatever the causes of these difficulties, it is right that we should sit down with the Argentinians and try to resolve them. We believe that if we can get a satisfactory agreement with Argentina this will be in the best interests of the islanders in the end.
For these reasons, while not doubting that sovereignty is legally ours, the question of sovereignty has been included in our discussions. But the question of a transfer of sovereignty can be considered only if certain important conditions are satisfied. The first is that it would have to be, if there were proposals, as part of an agreement which would secure a permanently satisfactory relationship between the islands and Argentina, in which there would be no harassment and no inconveniences for the islanders. There would also have to be the fullest safeguards for the special rights of the islands. I cannot emphasise too strongly that the final right to agree to any cession of sovereignty lies with Her Majesty's Government here in the 1871 United Kingdom. But they would agree to such a transfer, if a proposal were made, only on the conditions I have already mentioned and—I spell this out once more—only if it were clear to Her Majesty's Government that the islanders themselves regarded such an agreement as satisfactory to their interests.

§ Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)
Whilst I can see the good sense of talking to anyone about communications, I hope that my hon. Friend will say that there is not the slightest chance of Her Majesty's Government being conned into a discussion about the future of the Falkland Islands. That does not arise.

§ Mr. Roberts
I am not quite sure what reply my hon. Friend would like to that intervention. If I repeated the words of my right hon. Friend he might find that his anxieties were fully allayed. He said: … only if it were clear to us, to the Government in the United Kingdom, that the islanders themselves regarded such an agreement as satisfactory to their interests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1968; Vol. 761, c. 1464.] Clarity cannot proceed beyond that.

§ Mr. Biggs-Davison
Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman does reply in the affirmative to my question and that there will not be cession of sovereignty if it is not the desire of the people of the Falkland Islands? If he says that he prefers his words, and they mean the same as mine, I am content.

§ Mr. Roberts
The hon. Gentleman is at least as intelligent as I am. He can read; he can hear. What possible lack of clarity can there be in the sentence I have repeated? To go on about words and phrases and to extract from them the substance of continual argument can only re-create the very anxieties we are all anxious to allay.

§ Mr. Braine
I wonder if the hon. Gentleman, before he sits down, would clear up one point, because I must say he is not being very clear or helpful, although I know he is trying to be.
It is simply this—at no stage have the people of the Falkland Islands been consulted about the negotiations. The Legis- 1872 lative Council is in complete ignorance of them. Members of the Governor's Executive Council know about them, but are under oath not to reveal what they know. The people have not been consulted. Yet we all know that the Falkland islanders are British, wish to remain British, and have told the United Nations so. Why cannot they be consulted now? Why cannot the hon. Gentleman say straight out that there can be no question of the British Government ceding sovereignty here over the heads of these people? Why cannot he give a straight answer to a straight question?

§ Mr. Roberts
I have already given a straight answer. The hon. Gentleman wants his own words. I really must remind hon. Members opposite of what I have just said—by this continual questioning of a sincere and carefully phrased assurance by the Foreign Secretary they are in danger of creating anxieties which, as I said, we had hoped to allay.

§ Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles (Winchester)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Roberts
I have given way generously. I am most anxious to make clear to the House what Her Majesty's Government's attitude is, which I am satisfied is an honourable and practical one.
Now consultation must be a continuous process. We are in close touch with opinion on the islands, and will continue to be so. We are certainly in no doubt about their present feelings. For instance, a few weeks ago at a general election on the islands all the candidates expressed themselves as strongly opposed to a transfer of sovereignty. There has been no move towards any change in the present Constitution, and Her Majesty's Government have no plans for any change, as we believe that these arrangements are working satisfactorily.
If and when proposals were made for a constitutional change, then that would be the time to consider any special means of deciding the islanders' reactions. In the meantime consultations will continue, as my right hon. Friend said yesterday, "in such manner and through such channels as seem most useful and appropriate".

§ Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I hope he will understand that none of us who are concerned in this matter wish to add fuel to the flames in any way, quite the reverse. But there have been occasions recently when the Government had difficulty about other foreign affairs, which were previously within the province of Her Majesty's Government, and these have been handed over to the United Nations. Will the hon. Gentleman say that in no circumstances will this problem, which is a specifically British one, be handed over to the United Nations or be considered suitable to be dealt with by the United Nations?

§ Mr. Roberts
This is such a hypothetical question that really I should not be drawn into a hypothetical answer. I can see no prospect of this. One cannot look indefinitely into the future. But the question that has been raised is impossible to answer because there is no evidence of a possibility of this arising.
Reference was made to dismay in the Falkland Islands as a result of the statement trade yesterday. We have no evidence of this. On the contrary, Mr. Barton, of the Falkland Islands Executive Council, who is in London, has said that he regards the Foreign Secretary's statement as satisfactory.

§ Mr. Braine
He may now have said that, but this was before the noble Lord. Lord Chalfont, spoke. I have in my hand a telegram from the senior member of the Legislative Council saying "dismay reply Clark Hutchison". That was the reaction in the islands.

§ Mr. Roberts
I think on reflection and study the hon. Gentleman, and everyone else reading the exchanges in the other place yesterday and relating them to the very clear and full statement of my right hon. Friend yesterday, will see that there really is no disparity. I cannot understand why there should be any anxiety or dismay as a result of what was said in another place yesterday

§ Mr. Biggs-Davison
The Minister of State is being very considerate. Would he think it right to clear the point up and end the discussion by saying that the Foreign Secretary has said, in other words, that sovereignty will in no way be ceded against the wishes of the Falkland 1874 islanders? If that is the significance of the Foreign Secretary's words, it will be a great comfort. Will he please give the answer "Yes"?

§ Mr. Roberts
I can only quote my right hon. Friend. His words are available in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have quoted them four or five times tonight. The hon. Gentleman knows that they are perfectly clear.

§ Mr. Clark Hutchison
No.

§ Mr. Roberts
To try to extract an answer in his own words instead of the Foreign Secretary's words is really not worthy of the hon. Gentleman as a Parliamentary performer.

§ Mr. Roy Roebuck (Harrow, East)
Will my hon. Friend—

§ Mr. Roberts
I really must get on.
A question has been raised about the future security and defence of the Islands. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who told the House on 18th March that Her Majesty's Government are always concerned to ensure that adequate arrangements exist for the defence of the Falkland Islands. At present, our forces consist of a Royal Marine detachment and a small local defence force. Together these are considered adequate to deal with any situation foreseen at the present time. I might add that we do not expect a recrudescence of the unfortunate incident to which reference was made in the debate yesterday morning.
I hope that I have given the House the Foreign Secretary's assurance in a way which will enable us all to accept his words as meaning what they say— … only if it were clear to us, to the Government in the United Kingdom, that the islanders themselves regarded such an agreement as satisfactory to their interests would Her Majesty's Government agree to a cession.

§ Mr. Roebuck
My hon. Friend has spoken of the assessment which Her Majesty's Government have at present made about the feeling of the islanders. What steps have they taken to communicate this feeling to those responsible in Argentina?

§ Mr. Roberts
We have had and are having discussions with Argentina. In the course of those discussions, which 1875 are confidential, no doubt, as occasion demands, such points are raised and made. We are in constant communication with the Governor, who in turn has been authorised to convey to members of the Executive Council what Her Majesty's Government are doing. I understand the difficulties of members of the Executive Council, who are under oath of secrecy not to impart this information to the islanders themselves. But this is inevitable because, in the normal course of diplomacy and international discussions there must be secrecy. Nevertheless, as 1876 I said, if and when proposals are made, possibly for a cession or transfer of sovereignty, there would be ample opportunity for the islanders and the people of this country, for this House—