§ 3.56 p.m.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, yesterday, referring to a Question on the Falkland Islands, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition drew attention to a tape report. As a consequence of his observations I undertook to keep the House informed. Therefore with permission, I would now repeat a Statement that has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I will use his words:
"As I informed the House on the 11th of December, 1968, discussions with the Argentine Government have continued. In accordance with the practice for several years past, letters will be sent by the Argentine Government and ourselves to the Secretary-General of the United Nations describing these discussions.
"The text of these letters will be made public tomorrow at 7.30 p.m. Falkland Islands time, a time agreed by all parties and convenient to the Falkland Islanders.
"With the permission of the House, I will make a fuller statement on Monday. Meanwhile, I can assure the 1081 House that the undertakings which Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly given both to Parliament and to the Islanders remain unchanged; namely, that the Governor and his Executive Council have been kept informed and that there can be no transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the Islanders."
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for repeating that Statement, and of course I shall defer any substantive comment until we have seen the text of the letters. I hardly need remind the noble Lord, however, of the very great interest which this House has taken in this matter, and of the considerable disquiet which has been aroused in the past. In view of that, I should like to ask the noble Lord this question: would it not have been better to arrange for these letters to be published at a time which would have permitted a simultaneous announcement to be made to both Houses of Parliament?
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, since presumably this House will not have an opportunity of questioning the Minister on Monday, as we shall not be sitting, may I ask him whether we are now approaching the moment when we shall have to ascertain what the true views of the Falkland Islanders are? If that is so, what opportunity will Parliament as a whole in this country have of deciding what is the best way of doing that?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, since I have already been reproved once for giving a lengthy answer, I will say to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that he will find, on Monday, his question to be hypothetical; and to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that there is nothing sinister about the fact that this is to happen on a Friday. The reason for it is that four parties are involved and that was the most convenient date possible.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, when the noble Lord says that my question will be found to be hypothetical, may I ask him whether that means that we are never going to find out what the views of the Falkland Islanders are?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, if the noble Lord will look at Hansard to-morrow he will see that he put that 1082 question in the light of the letters which are being sent to the United Nations on Friday. To that extent, as I said, the question was hypothetical.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, how are these letters going to get into Hansard to-morrow, if they are not going to be published until to-morrow night?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord reads the paper, and if he looks at what I said about Hansard, he will see that it was in the terms of his question.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, may I assure the noble Lord that I was not putting forward a sinister interpretation? All I was suggesting was that the convenience of one of the major Parties here, and the convenience of Parliament, surely is an important consideration.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, when I used the word "sinister" I was perhaps suspicious of what might have been behind the noble Earl's question.