§ 3.20 p.m.
§ LORD OAKSHOTTMy Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, may I be permitted to express to the 306 noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, my most sincere good wishes on his birthday and to say how much I, for one, envy his youthfulness.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government (i) whether they have yet received from Her Majesty's Ambassador in the Argentine confirmation of the reported statement of the Foreign Minister regarding the Falkland Islands; and (ii) if the statement has been confirmed, whether they will now remove from the agenda of the talks all discussion of sovereignty of the Islands.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT)My Lords, I am really most grateful for that introduction, especially to this Question.
Her Majesty's Ambassador has confirmed that the Foreign Minister said in reply to journalists' questions that an agreement with Britain on the Falkland Hands would be signed only if it conformed to Argentine national interests and if it included recognition of Argentine's sovereignty. So far as the second part of the Question is concerned, there exists no formal agenda of the type which the noble Lord seems to have in mind. The talks are taking place because there is a dispute about sovereignty; therefore the subject of sovereignty can hardly be excluded from them. May I suggest that the noble Lord should now await the Statement which my right honourable friend will make next week in another place and which I hope to repeat in your Lordships' House?
§ LORD OAKSHOTTMy Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for that Answer, which I think takes us rather further than the Answer which he was able to give yesterday to my noble Leader. But is it not the case that what the Foreign Minister has said—and there was a further sentence in the quotation which the noble Lord has given, in which the Foreign Minister said it (that is the future of the Islands) should not now be subject to the will of the Islanders—is so completely contrary to the policy of Her Majesty's Government which has so often, and so rightly, peen represented in this House, and to the assurances which the noble Lord has 307 given, that any question of sovereignty as part of the discussion ought to be discontinued at once?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I think I have answered this question on more than one occasion in your Lordships' House and there is no profit in repeating what I have already said. The official Record is there for everyone to consult, and I suggest that any further information must await the return of my right honourable friend.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, while congratulating the noble Lord on being even younger than I am, albeit only marginally so, may I put two supplementary questions to him? Can he tell us what effect a transfer of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands would have on the Falkland Islands Dependencies? Would the surrender of sovereignty over the one imply a surrender over South Georgia and the other Islands? Secondly, can the noble Lord assure us that the defence implications of a possible transfer of sovereignty have in fact been fully examined, especially in the light of the world-wide expansion of Soviet maritime power?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, the Falkland Islands Dependencies, namely, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, have not been included in the scope of the discussions between this Government and the Argentine Government. So far as the defence implications are concerned, these, like all other implications of this matter, have been in the minds of Her Majesty's Government throughout these discussions, and will remain so.
§ LORD WIGGMy Lords, will my noble friend agree that the exchanges today are of a most agreeable character, and would it not be a good thing that, in both Houses, we should aim to get such subjects as the Falkland Islands or defence, discussed on the same basis, rather than in the rather tendentious manner in which they have been discussed in the Press and in other places—perhaps even in this House over the last few days?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. I agree with him that 308 the calmer the exchanges on this subject can be, the more it will be in the interests of everybody, and especially the Falkland Islanders themselves.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am sorry to trouble the noble Lord again but I should like to be quite clear on this. He said that the possible transfer of sovereignty over the Dependencies has not been brought within the scope of the present discussions. Does that mean that, from the standpoint of International Law, if sovereignty were to be transferred in regard to the Falkland Islands that would involve no change of status for the Dependencies?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, there is a crucial hypothesis there, and I am afraid I cannot answer as to what would take place in these hypothetical circumstances. I can simply confirm that the Dependencies were not mentioned in the United Nations resolution, in pursuance of which the talks are being held, and that therefore these Dependencies have not been included in the discussions. I can go no further than that.