§ 3.43 p.m.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to intervene in this important debate to repeat a Statement on the Falkland Islands being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Before doing so, perhaps I might apologise personally to the noble Earl, Lord Limerick. I can imagine that he must think this timing particularly unfortunate, coming as it does immediately before his maiden speech. I hope he will bear with me.
The Statement is as follows:
"On March 26 last I gave a full explanation to Parliament of our reasons for holding talks with the Argentine Government about this question and I also described Her Majesty's Government's policy in these 533 talks in some detail. In their talks with the Argentine Government Her Majesty's Government have been trying to reach an understanding with Argentina with the object of securing a satisfactory relationship between the Islands and the nearest continental mainland. Since that time, the talks have continued and the two Governments have reached a measure of understanding although this is not yet complete. There is a basic divergence over Her Majesty's Government's insistence that no transfer of sovereignty could be made against the wishes of the Falkland Islanders.
"This pledge has been repeatedly given to Parliament by Ministers who have reiterated on numerous occasions the principle that Her Majesty's Government could only consider the solution of this dispute by a cession of sovereignty to Argentina, first, as part of an arrangement which would secure a permanently statisfactory relationship between the Islands and Argentina and second, if the Islanders themselves regarded such an arrangement as satisfactory to their interests and it accorded with their wishes. It is on this basis that Her Majesty's Government propose to continue to negotiate with the Argentine Government in order to overcome the obstacles which now exist to a normal relationship between the Islands and the mainland.
"Her Majesty's Government are very conscious of the close ties between the population of the Islands and the United Kingdom and of their loyalty to the Crown. It is for this reason that Her Majesty's Government have insisted on the paramountcy of the Islanders' wishes. Her Majesty's Government have not exerted any pressure on the Islanders to change those wishes nor do they intend to do so. We shall continue to discharge our responsibilities towards the Islands as a British Dependent Territory. In this context it is particularly relevant that in the course of my right honourable and noble friend's recent visit to the Falkland Islands, the Executive Council accepted that the British Government have been acting in good faith in our talks with Argentina and that our understanding with Argentina, if it is 534 reached, will be fully in keeping with the promise that Her Majesty's Government would not transfer sovereignty against the wishes of the Islanders."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, your Lordships will be obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for repeating that Statement. I do not think it taxes us very much further down the road. May I ask the noble Lord two questions arising from it? In the Statement, he told us that the Government intend to continue to negotiate with the Argentine Government. May I ask him, in view of the statement (which was correctly reported in the British Press) by the Argentine Foreign Minister, that there was no question of any agreement being reached unless sovereignty was transferred to the Argentine, what is the purpose of continuing these negotiations? Secondly may I ask the noble Lord to confirm or deny the rumour which I have seen in the newspapers, and which is circulating in some quarters, that Her Majesty's Government have proposed to the Argentine Government that they—that is, the Argentine Government—should transport, compensate and re-settle the Falkland Islanders elsewhere, and that sovereignty of the Falkland Islands should then be handed over to the Argentine?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's question is concerned, we are continuing these negotiations, as I said in the original Statement, with the aim of coming to some satisfactory situation in regard to the relations between the Falkland Islands and the Government of Argentina. Nothing has changed that. As I said at an earlier stage in your Lordships' House, I cannot be responsible (and neither can Her Majesty's Government) for statements made by foreign statesmen to the Press. We have our own discussions with the Argentine Government; their views are available to us; and those discussions are confidential.
So far as the second part of the question is concerned, really, to ask me to comment on a rumour of this kind is something that I never expected of the noble Lord opposite. I think he will hardly need me to deny such a rumour. There have been so many rumours of this 535 kind in the Press about this subject and some extremely bizarre opinions have been expressed. I can only say that, so far as I am concerned, there is no question of engaging in the sort of activity that he has mentioned, and I am surprised that he should even have bothered to mention this in your Lordships' House.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, I should not dream of pressing the noble Lord about any rumours in the Press. May I ask this question? Have the Argentine Government made the transfer of sovereignty a sine qua non of a satisfactory settlement? That is what we want to know.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, this is a valid question. The answer is that the discussions with the Argentine Government are not yet complete. I have made clear that the divergence which still exists between us is on this very point; that the divergence which remains between the two Governments in the general context of the measure of understanding that we hope to reach is about just that point. Our insistence is that the wishes of the Islanders are paramount. If there is a divergence, I think it hardly needs me to put the Argentine case.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, at the request of the noble Lord I deferred seeking an answer to the supplementary question that I asked earlier until he had made this Statement. May I now repeat that question? The noble Lord said in answer to my original Question this afternoon (as he had said twice previously, on December 3 and December 4) that Her Majesty's Government had no doubts whatsoever about our title to the sovereignty. May I ask him, that being the case, why we continue to encourage the Argentine to hope that we may some day yield to unfounded claims?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, really there is no question here of encouraging the Argentine Government to hope anything. I simply cannot believe that noble Lords opposite would think that in the 20th century we should simply ignore a claim made by another sovereign State because we do not believe it to be valid. That, to my mind, is no way to conduct modern international relations. If the noble Lord wants to know why we have 536 been discussing these things with Argentina and why we are continuing to do so. I will repeat again what I have said on at least two occasions before. The dispute which has arisen has affected our relations with Argentina, it has affected the relations between Argentina and the Falkland Islands and has made relations between them extremely difficult and distressing to the islanders. It has given rise to the United Nations resolution requiring us to discuss this matter with Argentina, and we are so discussing it.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, is the position then this: that the Argentine Government at the moment are insisting upon the transfer of sovereignty? I do not ask the noble Lord to comment on the Press report of what an Argentine Minister has said in the Argentine—unless he is implying that he says one thing in public and another thing in private. Is the position this: that the Argentine Government are insisting upon a transfer of sovereignty and Her Majesty's Government are continuing to negotiate in the hope that they can get negotiations short of transfer of sovereignty? And may I just put this point to him? Is he aware that it is necessary for those of us on this side of the House to ask him either to confirm or deny rumours since the rumours are circulating because there is deep suspicion of the Government's motive?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I can only say, as I said before, that I am sorry that that suspicion exists, but I still do not believe it any justification for believing the wild kind of rumours that the noble Lord produced in the House this afternoon.
§ LORD CHALFONTBut let me get back to this question of why we are discussing this and what we are discussing. The noble Lord really must get up a little earlier in the morning if he wants to put that kind of question. What is happening is that the Argentine Government have claimed sovereignty over the Islands. This is what the discussions are about. And to say that you can discuss a claim that another Government has made on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands without in fact talking about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands seems a most 537 extraordinary suggestion. This is what the claim is about. It is this claim to sovereignty that we are required to discuss with the Argentine Government. That is what we are discussing.
§ LORD BLYTONMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Conservative Party, now that they think that they are on the ascendency, will kick us at every step? Is not the fact this—I put a simple question—that our policy is that we will not abrogate the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands unless the people decide so for themselves?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, yes, I should like to endorse everything that my noble friend has said. We will not transfer sovereignty against the wishes of the Islanders. I say it again and I hope that this may, for a little while anyway, be the last time.
§ 3.54 p.m.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I am not quite clear: may I ask a single question? At one moment the noble Lord has said it is a matter for the inhabitants to decide and at one other moment he says that the whole discussion is over the question of who has the sovereignty of the Islands. If we hold to the position that the Argentine nation have no claim to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, why do the feelings of the inhabitants of the Islands come into it at all? I should have thought the natural thing for us to have said to the Argentine is, "We don't agree, and there is therefore no further basis for any discussion."
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I think that we are likely to get ourselves confused unless we use the words that apply to this particular dispute accurately. I never said the Argentine Government have no claim to sovereignty; that is exactly what they do have. We say the claim is invalid, but for the reasons I have outlined we are discussing that claim with them. Although we believe it to be an invalid claim, we are discussing it with them like intelligent human beings engaged in the prosecution of international relations in the 20th century. So far as the wishes of the islanders are concerned let me make one thing clear, because really 538 there seems to be an almost cosmic amount of confusion in the minds of noble Lords opposite. The sovereignty of the Islands belongs to us. It is we who decide whether that sovereignty can be disposed of and, if so, how. We have said we will not so dispose of it against the wishes of the Falkland Islanders. Surely that must be clear to everybody.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, the noble Lord seems to think that we are silly; we think that he is "shifty"—and very "shifty".
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I am sorry if the noble Marquess—
§ LORD BOWLES"Too clever by half!"
§ LORD CHALFONT—allows his passion in this matter to overcome his good judgment. I do not think that noble Lords opposite are silly: I think that they are confused; and I hope that in saying what I have said I have made it clear that it is for Her Majesty's Government to decide upon the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, which we believe to be ours in law. We shall not make any decision about that sovereignty without consulting the Falkland Islanders and we shall not make any disposition without their consent or against their wishes.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, may I try just once more?—and I am sorry if I am confused, but I do not think it is entirely our fault. The noble Lord has said that the discussions are solely about sovereignty—
§ LORD CHALFONTWill the noble Lord give way? I am constantly being misquoted and, for once, I really must object on the spot. I did not say "solely about sovereignty"; I said they are about sovereignty. They include the question of sovereignty and I asked him how he thought we could discuss an Argentine claim to sovereignty if it were excluced.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, the noble Lord must not get so excited—
§ LORD CARRINGTON—and perhaps when he reads what he said—Does the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, wish to interrupt?
§ LORD BOWLESYes; I should like to see you keep calm.
§ LORD CARRINGTONThe noble Lord will read what he said in the papers—in Hansard—to-morrow, but I understood him to say that the whole of this claim was about sovereignty. If I am wrong I will apologise to-morrow. May I ask him if, as apparently is the case, the Falkland Islanders do not wish for a transfer of sovereignty what there is to negotiate about with the Argentine Government?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, perhaps it is time that everybody got a little calmer, because the noble Lord has now shifted his ground slightly.
§ LORD CHALFONTI did say—we really must be careful about the use of words in this important issue—that what the Argentine claim was about was sovereignty. I did not say that the discussions were solely about sovereignty. I hope at least that that is clear to noble Lords opposite. I hope that the noble Lord, like myself, will read my remarks in Hansard to-morrow, not in the papers, and if he does I think he will see that I made the position quite clear: that we are engaged in these discussions, we have to dispose of the sovereignty and we will not so dispose of it against the wishes of the islanders.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question, entirely without heat, but which I think does properly arise? Are these negotiations entirely confined to the Falkland Islands or do they include the dependent territories?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, they are entirely confined to the Falkland Islands.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, arising out of the reply which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has just given to my noble friend, in which he referred to the United Nations, and in view of the fact that he doubtless now has first-hand knowledge of the attitude of the islanders and there is, to use his own words, some danger of confusion in this matter, would he now be able to reply, or give some elucidation, as to why we must be subject to the dictation 540 of the United Nations on matters of sovereignty? Last week when I asked him this question he said it was not relevant to the discussion; but if questions are raised with regard to other countries' rights of sovereignty, are all these, at the dictation of the United Nations, to be given respect to?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I hope we can confine ourselves to the matter of the Falkland Islands, which is the subject to the Statement. So far as the Falkland Islands are concerned there is no question of dictation from the United Nations. I gave three basic reasons why we were conducting these discussions. One of them is the United States resolution which was passed by an overwhelming majority at the General Assembly. We did not vote for that resolution but we believe it to be right that in pursuit of that resolution, coupled with the other reasons, we should conduct these talks.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, are our representatives at the United Nations challenging the right of sovereignty by Russia over any of her dependent Eastern countries?
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the answers he has already given to me this afternoon and I hope I am not being stupid when I ask for this clarification. He says, as I understand it, that we are discussing sovereignty. We think that we have a complete right to it, but the Argentine has put forward claims. How long will these negotiations have to proceed before it is realised that we cannot agree on that subject? In these arguments about sovereignty, are they trying to persuade us that our view of the law is wrong? If so, is there any suggestion of the question going to some court? Or is it that we are trying to use this sovereignty in bargaining for some other advantage?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, if I may say so, I think that this is a perfectly valid point, but let me first of all dismiss the sting in the tail of the noble Lord's question. We are not using these discussions as any bargaining counter at all. I have already explained our reason for engaging in these discussions. The position is that we believe that we have 541 a just and legal right to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. The Argentine believes the same thing. There are two ways of dealing with this. Either we can throw up our hands and say, "In that case, there is nothing to discuss." Or we can behave like intelligent human beings who hold different views and discuss them, with the hope that we can come to an accommodation. That is what we are doing.
§ LORD CLITHEROEMy Lords, is it not very dangerous to say "Perhaps" when we mean "No"?
§ LORD CHALFONTWell, perhaps, yes.
§ LORD BLYTONMy Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House not think that the Opposition have had a long run on this Statement? I wish the Tory Party would fight against the iniquities in Northern Ireland as much as they are fighting a feud which is non-existent?
LORD WEDGWOODMy Lords, one thing I cannot understand about this present discussion is that the noble Lord has repeatedly said that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of handing over the Falkland Islands to the Argentine against the inhabitants' wishes. Is it not correct that Her Majesty's Government should now consult the wishes of the Falkland Islanders?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, we have consulted the wishes of the Falkland Islanders, and the result of that consultation is that they do not wish this sovereignty to be transferred. So long as they are of that opinion, it will not be transferred.
§ BARONESS HORSBRUGHMy Lords, could the noble Lord say how long Her Majesty's Government intend to continue the negotiations?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, that is a totally impossible question to answer. We intend to pursue the negotiations so long as they appear to give some hope of success.
§ LORD REDESDALEMy Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to explain a little more to us what he referred to in his Statement as "satisfactory arrangements with the mainland"?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I do not want to go into long details of what this signifies, but, generally speaking, satisfactory arrangements would include the restoration of some proper communications between Argentina and the Falkland Islands. At the moment, communications are very bad. There is no air service, for example. There are difficulties over post and over visas, both ways. The whole thing is in a very unsatisfactory state, and we should like, in the general context of these discussions, to make it more satisfactory.