§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. ]
§ 10 pm
§ Mr. John Farr (Harborough)I rise to address the House on the problems surrounding the Falkland Islands. I gave notice that I would do so about 10 days ago, when my hon. Friend the Minister of State made a statement on his possible plans for the Falkland Islands and those who live on them. This is the second debate within three years that I have initiated on this subject. That indicates that my hon. Friend must not believe that I am singling out the inactivity of this Government towards the Falkland Islands. Unfortunately, inactivity has been a characteristic that has been all too apparent in the handling of the Falkland Islands by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for a number of years.
Some of my hon. Friends have indicated that they think that there is a wish in the Foreign Office not to be troubled by the Falkland Islands. I do not believe that that is the wish of those in the Foreign Office. However, it must be said that there has been a remarkable lack of initiative by Ministers in both Labour and Conservative Governments towards the Falkland Islands and their prosperous future. That was true before the previous debate that I initiated and has been true since then.
I stress "prosperous future" because their present position is one with which no one can be thoroughly satisfied. They are existing as they have existed for many years, but their future is uncertain. It is difficult for sensible development plans to take place on the islands as matters stand. I lay the blame for the present situation squarely at the door of successive Governments and, hence, successive Foreign and Commonwealth Secretaries.
In 1975 the then Government commissioned a first-class report on the Falkland Islands that was undertaken by Lord Shackleton. It has been referred to in many debates on the Falkland Islands. When I have attended those debates, the report has never been faulted. It dealt in great depth with the historical factors and the delicate political position of the islands, being situated so close to the Argentine. It dealt also in great detail and depth with the possibilities of improving the economy and life of the people on the islands—for example, the feasibility of developing the huge fishing potential in the waters off the islands and the possibility of farming in a meaningful way the many thousands of square miles that are virtually undeveloped on the islands. It recommended that research officers should be appointed and it set out the task on which they should concentrate.
The report has been debated by the House, but, unfortunately, nothing has come from that. Sections of the report dealt with important allied subjects such as tourism and forestry. The report was most definite, as in relation to certain other prospects for the islands, that there was no prospect of tourism being developed until the airport runway was lengthened to international or semi-international standards. It recommended that steps be taken straight away to retain the existing staff of engineers who were on the Falkland Islands to make that necessary extension. As the Shackleton report said, the islanders 648 could not decide their future without fear or favour when they were disadvantaged by having all their communication with the outside world through the Argentine.
One of the strongest recommendations of the report was the establishment of a longer runway to make the islanders independent of communications with the Argentine so that they could communicate with whatever country they wished and, hence, encourage tourism. Obviously, most of the tourists would probably be South American, Central American and North American for geographical reasons.
The tragic thing is that I can trace nothing of this illuminating Shackleton report that has been put into effect, not even the tiny schemes calling for the spending of a pitiful amount of money—for example, the various research projects that were suggested by the noble Lord which would have cost a pittance, perhaps a research officer for a couple of years and a few laboratory facilities. As far as I can determine, absolutely nothing has been done in relation to the report. As a result, successive Governments, both Conservative and Labour, are reaping the fruits of their own inactivity and lack of endeavour.
Only today, in The Guardian, a report showed one of the first fruits of the failure of the Government and their predecessors to declare a 200-mile limit for the territorial waters of the Falkland Islands. We have done absolutely nothing. Suggestions have been made in the House on more than one occasion, but what has happened? The Guardian reports that the Argentine Government have declared a 200-mile limit, which encroaches within the 200-mile zone of the Falkland Islands that has not been claimed. I understand that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has protested to the Argentine Government but that the Minister has rejected the protest and declared that Britain has never gone through the process of issuing a formal declaration defining such a zone around the Falkland Islands. As a result, where the two zones conflict the Argentinians will license fishing and oil exploration. That is just one example that typifies the lack of activity of successive British Governments.
The runway should be extended, although it is almost too late to do it now. In the view of many of my hon. Friends, and probably some Opposition Members, it should have been extended when the Shackleton report was first produced. Many of us would have grave doubts about accepting any decision that the islanders might make about their future as a result of any plans put to them by my hon. Friend the Minister while they remain as tied as they are at present for their external communications to the Argentine. Because of the shortness of the runway, long-range aircraft fly only to the Argentine. That means that external communications must be through the Argentine. There is no indication that the British Government intend to do anything to change that. That factor would be taken into account by the islanders in considering their future. It would hinder them in making a correct and proper decision.
I should like my hon. Friend to mention another point. I raised it in an Adjournment debate two years ago. I did not get a satisfactory reply then; I do not suppose that I shall get one tonight. What has happened to the situation in Southern Thule? My hon. Friend will recall that four or five years ago an Argentine expedition landed on that island in the Falkland Islands dependencies and has remained there ever since. I do not expect my hon. Friend to announce any good news—that he is even writing a letter to the Argentinian Foreign Minister to say that they 649 should go. But are the Government accepting this illegal presence? Have they entered into an arrangement with the Argentinians for them to stay there? If so, are they paying a rent for the base? What are they doing with the base? Or is it something about which my hon. Friend would rather not be reminded?
There is another point which I stress to my hon. Friend in relation to what he said the other day, which prompted me to ask Mr. Speaker to permit me to raise this vitally important matter on the Adjournment. That is in relation to the arrangement which my hon. Friend had suggested might be considered by the islanders with a view to transferring sovereignty eventually, after a long period of 100 years or so, to the Argentine Government. I think that my hon. Friend will accept that on all sides of the House repugnance was felt at this deal. I have no doubt that if the islanders felt that that was to their best advantage the House of Commons would help them in whatever way it could. But, initially, I think I am right in saying that the approach was not greeted with favour on either side of the House.
We look upon the Falkland Islands as a valuable territory with tremendous potential—as the Shackleton report outlines—both in the sea and under it for mineral resources. We look to Her Majesty's Government energetically to have those resources developed for the use of not only the Falkland Islands people but the people of this country, because in a few years' time the present reserves of minerals and fish in the North Sea could well become exhausted.
What upset many of us during the short statement on 2 December was my hon. Friend's statement that a leasing arrangement might be made with the Argentinian Government whereby we held the leasehold of the Falkland Islands for 99 or 100 years. I and, I think, nearly all my colleagues would regard that as totally unacceptable. For a start, we do not like the idea at all. The Falkland Islands are in British ownership at present. Our right to them is good and sound by international law. We see no reason whatsoever for forfeiting that right.
Secondly, if we are to enter into any form of leasehold agreement, I ask my hon. Friend to be very careful in his choice of partner. If he looks up and down the whole length of the South American coastline, he could not find a nation which is more dictatorial, more Fascist and less democratic than the present Argentine regime, which is controlled by a military junta. I counsel my hon. Friend to bear in mind the fact that any leasing arrangement which is likely to be entered into between Her Majesty's Government and the Argentine Government will last just as long as it suits the military junta in the Argentine for it to last, and not a moment longer.
The people of the Falkland Islands and of Britain have been linked together historically and, I hope, will be so linked indefinitely. We have a common ancestry. One of the difficulties at present is the fact that the population of the islands has been declining in recent years. I am sure that if the British Government can find a solution to the Falkland Islands' problems which will enable sensible development to take place, enable the runway to be extended, enable tourism to be expanded and enable hotels to be built, the population problem will take care of itself.
I ask my hon. Friend to take the Shackleton report out of the cubby hole in Whitehall, where it has been lodged, 650 to see whether he can arrange this year to have a 200-mile exclusive zone established around the Falkland Islands and extend the runway to cater for international-size jets so that they are no longer dependent on access through the Argentine. If he takes those steps, a fresh breeze of enterprise will blow through the islands, the population will start to grow again and the link between this country and the islands will flourish and bloom to our mutual benefit.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Nicholas Ridley)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for raising this important subject and for the measured way in which he put his argument. I respect and entirely share the great care and concern that he showed tonight for the Falkland Islands and the islanders. I was struck by the large amount of common ground between us. We share the same responsibilities, and we are determined to exercise them in respect of the islands. He and I and the islanders share common objectives. Let me set out the common ground between us.
First, we want to maintain the British link, British rule and the British way of life, of which my hon. Friend and I are so proud. We desperately want to develop the economy of the islands. My hon. Friend mentioned improved farming and markets for farming produce. A great deal of credit is needed to open up those possibilities, and we must get commercial banks to perform their functions in the islands. There is also the question of revenue from the rich harvest of fish and the possibility—there can be no certainty—of finding oil. My hon. Friend wanted us to exert our undoubted rights over the fishing zones and the economic zones that surround not only the islands but our dependencies.
My hon. Friend mentioned the vexed question of Magellanes Este, the oil block that straddles the median line. Nothing would give us more pleasure than to be able to say that we had agreed the median line and that we and the Argentine respected that median line, so that oil exploration and exploitation could go ahead. That is also common ground. We hold the same view about control of the seas. There have been two incidents recently, when seas that would have been in the Falkland Islands maritime zone were subject to harassment by Argentine vessels.
My hon. Friend was right to raise the question of Southern Thule. At the talks in New York in April, I protested again to the Argentine Foreign Minister about the presence of the Argentine mission on Southern Thule without the permission or consent of the British Government. It is impossible to establish any of these things because the Argentine Government have never conceded our sovereignty over either the Falkland Islands or the dependencies, nor have they agreed that we should declare the various zones of the seas around them to which we would normally be entitled.
We also believe that there is a need for good communications. The airport, the supply of fuel, the air and sea services, education and advanced health services are all adequate at present, but they depend on Argentina for their provision.
The difference of interpretation between my hon. Friend and myself is over how we achieve these aims. That must be made more particular by asking what is the effect of the long-run dispute with Argentina on these questions. 651 At present, the relationship between Great Britain and Argentina is good and friendly. We are still negotiating in a series of talks with the Argentine Government, as we were for many years before this Government took over. In spite of that, it is still not possible to declare those 200-mile fishery zones, to get the licence fees from foreigners fishing in those zones, to explore or exploit oil or to legalise the position of Southern Thule. Even the commercial banks are unwilling to set up in the islands because of the political risks.
These hazards are real. It must be recognised that solving these problems requires an overall political settlement. The economy of the islands, even at this time of relative peace, co-operation and good relations, is still in decline. The population declined last year from about 1,800 to about 1,700. It must be apparent to my hon. Friend that even with the status quo these problems cannot be solved, and they are leading to a worsening economic condition in the islands.
To fail in any negotiations or to refuse to negotiate would run the risk of exacerbating the dispute. I leave it to the imagination of the House to calculate what that might mean. Whatever it meant—and I hope that it would be handled sensibly and peacefully—it could not mean unlocking these economic opportunities or increasing the prosperity and stability of the islands.
My hon. Friend seemed to believe that, in spite of these political difficulties, which I assure him are very real, there was a solution which consisted of pumping more money into the islands. My hon. Friend quoted the Shackleton report. I can can tell him that a very large number of the recommendations have been implemented—49 out of 90. Of the remainder, 14 have been rejected, 20 are in train and seven are undecided. I concede that the bulk of the recommendations in terms of money have not been implemented because we come immediately to the question of the runway, and the vast proportion of the work that has not been done is the new runway to the airport.
There are two reasons why it has not been done, both of which seem equally valid to me now. The first is that a runway to take large jets would require the existence of some commercial demand. With 1,700 people in the islands, it is unsurprising that the demand is very small. No commercial airline has expressed any interest in running long-haul jet services there because they frankly and rightly believe that the traffic would not be available.
I must mention also the question of cost, beause the Falkland Islands far and away receive per capita a greater amount of aid from the United Kingdom than any other country in the world. Over the last five years, British aid has averaged£850 per head per annum, which is more than many countries receive as a total income. It would be totally unfair to many of our other dependencies and to many other countries, where the need is provenly very great indeed, if we spent additional large sums of money. For those two reasons, the runway has not been built.
The reason why the islands' economy is not taking off and why there is not the demand to build the runway is not economic, nor is it reluctance, stinginess or failure on the 652 part of the Government. It is political. It is the dead hand of the dispute which stands in the way of all these things being done. My hon. Friend cannot hope that I am wrong and that the dispute will go away. It is real. He must not behave as if the problem did not exist. Whatever one may think of the solution, the problem exists. I can assure him that that is so.
§ Mr. FarrThis is an important point. Is my hon. Friend saying that the runway has not been extended because of the dispute with the Argentine?
§ Mr. RidleyI gave the reasons at length. There is no economic demand for it because of the dispute with the Argentine.
The options are either to seek to negotiate a total solution or to decline to do so. At some stage, we must decide which we are to do. But the consequences of a decision in the matter are absolutely vital to the interest of the islanders. This is the most important thing that can happen in their lives. Therefore, those options are more important to them by a long chalk than they are to us. It must be right to seek their views first, and that is what I did.
I consulted them without duress or pressure. I said that the Government would accept whatever decision they came to—either way—and that we would support them. I am sure that the House will do the same. I was particularly glad to hear my hon. Friend say that, much though he disliked the concept of lease-back, if at any stage that turned out to be the solution to the dispute he would have to support them in choosing that.
I do not want to anticipate what the islanders will decide, nor do I want to put any pressure upon them. I spoke to about half the inhabitants at the end of November, and I simply await their reply. No date has been given about the time by which they must give me a reply.
If they ask us to proceed, it is only the beginning of a long road. We would then have to seek to negotiate with the Argentines. Who knows whether that would be successful, particularly as the conditions which the islanders and the Government would attach to any negotiation are stiff indeed. The consent of the islanders would then be sought—either in a referendum or a general election—to any possible negotiated settlement that was achieved. That final package would then have to come to this House for approval. I am sure that my hon. Friend will feel that there are adequate safeguards there to make sure that the wishes of the islanders are respected, as well as to ensure that this House would always have the final say.
If the islanders do not wish the Government to proceed to negotiate, I am equally certain that the House will support them in that decision. I am sure that we will do whatever is necessary, within our power, to help them in that course of action. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with me that, whatever they decide to do, it would be right for this House not to overrule their wishes.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.