THE FALKLAND ISLANDS (Hansard, 3 December 1968)

§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a Statement on the Falkland Islands. My right honourable friend the Minister of State is making a similar Statement in another place.
I visited the Falkland Islands from November 23–28 to establish direct ministerial contact with the people of the Islands and to explain to them Her Majesty's Government's policy in their talks with the Argentine Government. During my stay in the Colony, I was able to meet a large part of the Islands' population both in Stanley, the capital, and in the settlements, and I repeated to them the assurances that have been given in both Houses on many occasions this year; namely, that it is not the policy 25 of Her Majesty's Government to transfer sovereignty over these Islands against the wishes of the Islanders.
I also had a number of meetings with the Islands' Executive Council which was enlarged for the duration of my visit to include the unofficial members of the Islands' Legislative Council. On November 25 the Executive Council told me that in my meetings with the general public they would wish me to state first, that I had discussed in detail with the Executive Council the present position reached in the talks with Argentina and the position which we hoped to reach soon, and, second, that the members of the Executive Council accepted that the British Government had been acting in good faith in the talks with Argentina, and that the agreed position, if it is reached, would be fully in keeping with the promise that Her Majesty's Government would not transfer sovereignty against the wishes of the Falkland Islanders; and accordingly I was able to give this additional assurance.
As my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary explained in another place on March 26 last, and as I have explained in your Lordships' House, following the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2065 of December, 1965, we have had talks with Argentina with the object of securing a lasting and satisfactory modus vivendi between these Islands and Argentina. In particular we are concerned to restore and improve communications between the Islands and the nearest mainland, since this would be of great benefit to the Islanders.
We have made clear throughout these discussions, as the House has been informed on many occasions, that no transfer of sovereignty can be made against the wishes of the Falkland Islanders.
I hope it may shortly be possible to conclude the present stage of the discussions whose outcome will then be reported to the House.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, may I first of all apologise to the noble Lord for not having been here when he began his Statement? But perhaps I might ask the Chief Whip whether, on 26 another occasion, he would get right the order in which the Statements are to be made, because he said that the Statement on Whitehall was coming first and then the Statement by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. While I am making a few complaints, perhaps I might suggest that on the next occasion is an open secret, as we know, that we are given a copy of Statements in advance) I might have a copy of the Statement and not the "Notes for Supplementaries" with which the noble Lord has been supplied. Useful though these tray be, they are not perhaps so definitive as the original Statement.
I must thank the noble Lord for having made the Statement. But is he aware (there is nothing personal in this at all) that his activities and the motives of Her Majesty's Government are very suspect and cause grave concern to a large number of people and not only those of us who sit on this side of the House? Will he say whether the statement made by the Foreign Secretary in January, 1966, that sovereignty was not negotiable with the Argentine, still stands? Can he tell the House whether, in point of fact, he did discuss the question of sovereignty with the Argentine Government on his recent trip?
May I also ask him whether he or Her Majesty's Government have brought any economic pressure on the Falkland Islands; and whether he said, as is reported, that Britain would no longer be able to continue to defend the Islands? Will he further give an undertaking that no pressure, whether economic or of any other kind, will be brought to influence the Falkland Islanders with regard to their status as British subjects? Finally, is he aware that a transfer of the sovereignty of the Falkland Island s without the express and free wish of the people of those Islands is totally unacceptable, and that we on this site shall oppose any proposal to the bitter end?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, perhaps I might, in turn, apologise on behalf of this side of the House if it should be any fault of ours that the noble Lord was not here at the beginning of the Statement. I am surprised that he should look a gift horse so firmly in the mouth as to complain about having a copy of the notes of supplementaries. However, I apologise that there was this confusion.
27 May I answer in order the points which the noble Lord has made? First of all, I am sorry if noble Lords opposite believe that the motives of Her Majesty's Government in this matter are suspect. I can only repeat that they are not. We have acted in good faith, and I can only repeat what I said in my opening Statement: that I have now explained to the Executive Council of the Falkland Islands the details of our discussions. I have taken them fully into the confidence of the Government, and they have said in return, and have authorised me to say to their Islanders, that they believe that the British Government is acting in good faith. I am sorry, therefore, if noble Lords opposite do not agree.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS
Why?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I can only repeat that there will be no transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the Islanders. We have no doubt about our legal title to the sovereignty, and I think the best way in which I can reassure the House, as I hoped to reassure the people of the Falkland Islands, is to say that their wishes in this matter are paramount. There has been no economic pressure brought to bear upon the Falkland Islands to cause them to change their minds about anything. If at any time in the future the people of the Falkland Islands wish to change their minds about this matter for any reason at all, we shall not stand in their way.
The noble Lord referred to some alleged report that I had said that Great Britain could no longer defend the Falkland Islands. I am not entirely sure where he read this report, but I am glad to take this opportunity to deny it categorically. I did in fact say that so long as the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands resided with Britain their defence was our responsibility, and that responsibility we should discharge.
To take up the last point made by the noble Lord, when he said that his side 28 of the House would oppose any transfer of sovereignty against the expressed wishes of the Islanders, there has indeed been no pressure of any kind. I can assure him that there will be no need for noble Lords opposite to resist this, because, as I have said three times in my opening Statement—and perhaps I may say it again for the fourth time to-day, and for the umpteenth time in the course of this discussion—it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to transfer sovereignty of these Islands against the wishes of the Islanders.

§ LORD OGMORE
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that Statement, and I would only hope that if on toe next occasion the Opposition Front Bench have a copy of the Supplementary Notes, we may have the same privilege. However, I make no complaint of that to-day. I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to one fact about the Statement: that while he has given a full explanation to the Executive Council of the Falkland Islands, he has not given any full explanation to this House, and we are very much in the dark as to what is the nature of these conversations. Is it not a fact that the declaration, the resolution by the United Nations, plus the visit to the Argentine and to the Falkland Islands by the noble Lord in themselves are pressure brought upon the Falkland Islanders? Can he undertake, not only that there will be no transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the Falkland Islanders but that no pressure of any kind will be brought to bear upon them to this end—either subtle pressure or obvious pressure?
For example, are the present Government doing all they can to develop the Falkland Islands? The noble Lord will remember that he has had a letter from Alginate Industries Limited offering a big plan for the development of the Falkland Islands, and it is said by the Managing Director, Mr. Merton, that he has not had a reply from the noble Lord to his letter. This, if true, does not indicate any great desire on the part of the noble Lord to put the Falkland Islands into a position where they are able to maintain their economy in a proper and flourishing manner.

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, may I take up first the comment that although I have made a full explanation to the Government of the Falkland Islands I have not made it to your Lordships' House? I think the difference is that if I were to make in your Lordships' House a statement of the details, it would be a public statement. The statement I made to the Government of the Falkland Islands was made under the oath of secrecy which members of that Government take. I regret that it should sometimes be necessary to carry out diplomacy in secret or to carry out diplomacy confidentally, but I am afraid it is necessary, and it would certainly not be in the interests of intelligent foreign policy always to conduct diplomacy in public. There has not been, and I can assure the noble Lord there will not be, any pressure of any kind, whether direct or indirect, on the Falkland Islanders to change their mind.
May I take this opportunity to reply to what was implied in the noble Lord's question but put more explicity in the question of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and to say that I do not agree that my visit to Argentina can be taken in any way to be pressure on the Falkland Islanders. My visit to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Buenos Aires was purely a courtesy visit, paid as I spent a night in Buenos Aires on my way home, and I can assure the noble Lord that no negotiations of substance at all were entered into with him or with the Argentine Government by me.
So far as the question about Alginate Industries is concerned, I think this might be an opportunity to put this matter in its proper perspective. I have received a letter from the managing director of this organisation. I received it in Chile the day before I left for the Falkland Islands, and perhaps it is not surprising, therefore, that he has not yet received a reply. Secondly, I think it should be made clear that the same firm were in touch with the Government of the Falkland Islands long before they were in touch with me. Therefore, to say that the Falkland Islanders, as has been suggested, have been kept in ignorance is very wide of the mark. May I make another point? It is that when this firm contacted the Governor of the Falkland Islands to tell him about this scheme, they indicated that it was not likely to take place in the 30 near future. In fact, they said that their supplies of seaweed—for the information of your Lordships' House, this is a firm that processes seaweed and makes industrial products from it—would be sufficient to make it unnecessary for them to go outside Europe for their supplier, for at least another five or ten years. The Governor of the Falkland Islands therefore replied to this letter saying that he was sorry that there did not seem to be anything but a remote possibility of even a pilot scheme for this kind of industry. I think it important to put all this in context and to acquaint your Lordships' House of the position, in view of same of the reports that have appeared in the Press.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, I am sure we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord for the explicit assurances he has given to-day. It will do a great deal, I am confident, to relieve the minds of many people in this country. I have one question and it is about, not the negotiations, but the talks with the Argentine Government. I wanted just one item of explanation. First of all, the noble Lord, as I understood it, said that there were talks and that the subject of sovereignty was mentioned. Then afterwards he said that the visit was merely one of courtesy and that there were no negotiations. I do not quite see how those two fit in together.

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, may I thank the noble Marquess for the comment that he made upon my original Statement. I am glad he thinks that this will go far to reassure the Horse and the people of this country. I think that it has also gone a good way to reassure the people of the Falkland Islands. Perhaps I could explain where I think the misunderstanding has arisen about talks, negotiations and courtesy calls. We have for some time been engaged in talks with the Government of Argentina at the official level in pursuance of the United Nations resolution. However, when I myself passed through Buenos Aires two days ago on my way from the Falkland Islands I contented myself with paying a courtesy call upon the Foreign Minister, and I did not pursue those negotiations.

§ LORD CONESFORD
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lorfd whether he can clear up one point? Do the Government 31 interpret the resolution of the United Nations as requesting them to transfer sovereignty in these islands, even if the Argentine has no legal claim of any kind to have that sovereignty transferred? If they do not so interpret the resolution of the United Nations, why are they discussing the transfer of sovereignty? If, on the other hand, they do so interpret the request of the United Nations, is it not the fact that such a request of the United Nations has no basis whatsoever in the Charter?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I think I can best answer that somewhat involved question by saying that we do not interpret the United Nations resolution as a requirement to us to hand over sovereignty in any circumstances at all. The United Nations resolution requires us to engage in discussions with the Argentine Government about this question, taking into consideration the interests of the people of the Islands. That is what we are doing.

§ BARONESS HORSBRUGH
My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether Her Majesty's Government have made it quite clear to the Argentine that in no circumstances whatsoever has the Argentine any right over the Falkland Islands?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I think that this is ranging rather far. In the talks with the Argentine Government we have made clear what I have made clear publicly in your Lordships' House, that whatever may be the basis of these discussions there can be no question of transferring sovereignty against the wishes of the Falkland Islanders.

§ LORD CACCIA
My Lords, while wishing to join with what the noble Marquess has said about the good effect that these statements by the Minister should have, may I ask him one further question? Perhaps this illustrates the difficulty of the United Nations. Would not much the simplest statement to make have been that these Islands will not be transferred to the Argentine Government and that this issue does not arise? If, instead, the Minister says that they will not be transferred against the wishes of the Islanders, is not this a different statement altogether and putting the onus on the Islanders? Surely the onus is on the British Government to say that 32 this is not transferable territory and that we do not accept the legal claims of the Argentine Government.

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I must confess that I am surprised to hear such a suggestion coming from a distinguished diplomat with the record of the noble Lord, Lord Caccia. To say that in diplomacy we should use the word "never" I take to be a very doubtful proposition indeed. I must make it clear that if a time were to come when the Falkland Islanders themselves were to decide that their interests lay in some change, then we certainly should not want to stand in their way. This is precisely the point of view which we have taken over Gibraltar. Simply to say, when a sovereign State has made a claim of this kind and when we have been required by the United Nations to discuss it, that we will never transfer sovereignty would not be a very intelligent form of diplomacy. We have throughout made it clear that we have no doubt about our legal title to the sovereignty over the Islands.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, the difficulty—and I do not think I accept what my noble friend Lord Salisbury says—is that what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, says will not, I think, reassure people, because he has not this afternoon said anything different from what he has said before. He has before made the pledge about the wishes of the Islanders. The only thing different he has said today is that no pressure is being brought upon them. But he and I know that there is still a very great deal of disquiet, and the reason is that we do not know what is happening. We do not know what is going on, or what the Government are saying to the Argentine Government; we do not know what the noble Lord said to the Executive Council. The sooner he can make public what he is doing, the more we shall believe what he says. But until what is being done is made public, I am very sorry to say that I do not believe your Lordships will be entirely reassured with what the Government are doing.

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I am. sorry to hear the noble Lord say that. As I said in the original Statement, I hope that it soon may be possible to conclude the present stage of the discussions so 33 that they can be reported to the House. I am sorry to hear the noble Lord say that there is still a great deal of disquiet about this matter. It may be that these doubts will not be fully cleared up until a public statement can be made. I would remind him that I was able, under the oath of secrecy, to tell the Executive Council a good deal more than I have been able to tell your Lordships. I took them fully into our confidence. I would repeat that the Executive Council (and I imagine that they have the interests of the Falkland Islands as much at heart as anybody) accepted that the British Government have been acting in good faith in their talks with the Argentine. If I cannot reassure the House, I hope that the statement by the Government of the Falkland Islands will go some way to reassure them.

§ LORD CACCIA
My Lords, I should like to put one supplementary question, and say that I, too, am a little surprised that a Minister should not follow the line which we follow in Parliament. If there has been no request by the Falkland Islanders to be transferred, then any question of what would arise about their transfer against their wishes is a hypothetical question which does not arise.

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I think that we are getting a little wide of the mark. The noble Lord will know, from his long and distinguished experience of foreign affairs, that this kind of discussion between sovereign States does go on. We are engaged in these discussions, in pursuance of the United Nations resolutions, and what we have been able to do throughout is to make it absolutely clear that the wishes of the Islanders are paramount. I do not know what more reassurance and guarantee the noble Lord wants.

§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE
My Lords, I should like to ask one question on a somewhat different point. Can we have an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will, now and in the future, continue to give the Falkland Islands all the economic help necessary for the development of the Islands and also that if we are willing to give a large amount of aid to underdeveloped countries which have the most unfriendly relations with us that we shall be thoroughly generous to the Falkland Islanders in all schemes for 34 their future development under the British Crown?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I need hardly say to the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government—indeed, British Governments of all corn plexions—have never failed to stand by their Colonies and dependent territories when they were in need, financially or otherwise, but I cannot enter into any commitments on this point beyond saying just that. However, I should like to point out to the House two statistics which may be relevant in considering the question of future aid. The first is that the per capita income in the Falkland Islands is £500 per head, only marginally smaller than the per capita income of the United Kingdom. The second statistic is that the highest rate of income tax in the Falkland Islands is 5s. 9d. in the pound, which is rather different from the highest rate of income tax in this country. I think that those two points may be relevant in considering the question of future aid.

§ LORD STRABOLGI
My Lords, I would ask my noble friend whether it is true that he is the first British Minister ever to have visited these Islands?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, yes, that indeed is the position. Throughout all the history of our contacts with the Falkland Islands a member of a Labour Administration was the first Minister to visit the Islands.

§ LORD MERRIVALE
My Lords, the noble Lord has said that there has been discussion between himself and the Argentine Government on the question of sovereignty. He has also said that there would be no transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the Islanders. Can the noble Lord say what economic or communications "bait", if I may put it that way, has been put forward by the Argentine Government possibly to tempt the Islanders to transfer their sovereignty?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, let me make one thing clear. I have said that talks have been going on at an official level. I have not said that I have had negotiations with the Argentine Government. That should be made absolutely clear. So far as any "bait", as the noble Lord puts it, is concerned, it is an unfortunate way of phrasing the 35 question. All I can say is that the Argentine Government have recently and publicly expressed their readiness to improve communications with the Islanders in various ways and I believe that an improvement of communications, an improvement in economic and cultural links between the mainland and the Falkland Islands could only be in the interests of the Islanders.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, from what the noble Lord said to the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, am I to understand that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to enter into negotiations for the transfer of any British territory without any request for that first having come from the inhabitants of the territory, and secondly without there being any legal claim whatsoever by the country which is seeking to acquire sovereignty? If there is thought by Her Majesty's Government to be any legal claim by the Argentine to this territory, could the noble Lord explain what it is? If there is no legal claim, does it mean that whenever there is a United Nations resolution the Government will be ready to enter into negotiations about the transfer of a territory? It all seems odd to me

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I am not surprised that it seems odd to the noble Viscount, if he thinks that that is what I said. I said nothing of the kind. I merely said that we had had a claim to sovereignty made by the Argentine Government which they believe to be a valid claim. We have said that we have no doubt about our legal title over the sovereignty of the Islands. But first of all, in pursuance of the United Nations resolution and, secondly, because we believe it to be in the best interests of the Islanders, we have entered into discussions about this matter. All I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, was that on any subject at all, whether it was to do with sovereignty or anything else, I as a Foreign Office Minister should be very careful about using the word "never".

§ LORD ROYLE
My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend is aware of the fact that some of us on this side of the House are getting the impression that 36 some noble Lords opposite are trying to place in the minds of the people of the Falkland Islands some doubts which do not exist.

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. I hope that everything we do—and I am sure this is true of both sides of the House—will be done in the hope that it will be in pursuance of the real and lasting interests of the people of the Falkland Islands.

§ LORD CONESFORD
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can supplement the information that he has given to this extent? When he says that the Argentinians claim sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, does he mean simply that they say, "Sovereignty is ours", or have they given some particulars of the basis of their claim? If they have given any particulars of the basis of their claim, can they be made public?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I think it would be wrong for me to make public anything that has not yet been made public, until we have completed this stage of the discussions. As I promised in my Statement, when we have done that—and I hope it will be soon—the full details will be made known to the House.