§ 4.12 p.m.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN)My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement made by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in another place. This is the Statement.
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a Statement on the kidnapping of the British Ambassador to Uruguay.
"Her Majesty's Ambassador in Montevideo was kidnapped on his way to his office on January 8. I know the whole House will share my anger and dismay at this barbaric and senseless act and will join me in expressing the deepest sympathy for Mr. Jackson and his wife and family.
"We have been in the closest touch with the Uruguayan Government from the beginning. A Foreign and Commonwealth Office security expert flew 129 to Montevideo on January 10 to help the Embassy. Last night Mr. Oliver Wright, a Deputy Under-Secretary of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, left for Montevideo. He will review the position urgently with the Uruguayan Government and will also assess the needs of the Embassy.
"A communiquéissued by the terrorists on January 11, which is thought to be authentic, stated that all the hostages they hold were in good health. There is no news of Mr. Jackson's whereabouts. As is usual in such cases, various conflicting anonymous messages have been received. We are examining these very carefully but have so far no evidence that any of them is authentic.
"The Uruguayan Government are continuing an intensive search, and have instituted emergency powers for a period of forty days.
"The terms which the terrorists may demand for Mr. Jackson's release are as yet unknown. It would be wrong for me to attempt to disguise from the House the gravity of the situation. Her Majesty's Government will of course do everything they can to help secure Mr. Jackson's safe release."
§ My Lords, that is the Statement.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Marquess for repeating this Statement. I am certain that I am speaking on behalf of noble Lords on all sides of the House when I say that we wish to join with the Government in expressing the deepest sympathy to Mrs. Jackson and her family, and to hope that Mr. Jackson will be returned to his family as soon as possible.
I am quite certain that the Government have made it clear to the Government of Uruguay that the return of our Ambassador there, and his safekeeping, is their responsibility. I have no reason to believe that the Uruguayan authorities do not understand this, and I am sure that they are doing what they can to secure the return of Mr. Jackson. We must face the fact that we cannot provide 100 per cent. security for any of our officials overseas. On the other hand, I really wonder—and I suppose Ministers themselves must be wondering—whether all that could have been done has been done to give security to our officials. I know that there arise questions of costs 130 and other matters. While recognising the fact of growing anarchy throughout the world, and the increasing risk to representatives of all countries serving overseas, I should like the noble Marquess to consider, with his right honourable friend, whether other steps cannot be taken to afford security to our officials, and also to their families. Irrespective of what may be the cost of such security, I am quite certain that Parliament would support it.
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, while sharing the general horror of the latest instance of the barbarity of the young delinquents of Latin America, and expressing the deepest sympathy for Mr. and Mrs. Jackson (who happen to be personal friends of mine), may I ask her Government whether they will consider the possibility of withdrawing our entire diplomatic Mission in Uruguay, with the exception of what I believe is called a chargés des archives? Thus, all business with that country—in which the safety of our representatives clearly cannot be ensured—could be carried on through the Uruguayan Embassy in London, coupled with occasional visits by businessmen on matters concerning specific contracts or other business matters. When and if the unfortunate Ambassor is released—in good health, of course—a resumption of the normal diplomatic relations could be considered, but perhaps on a very reduced scale.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for echoing the sentiments which we all share in this tragic business. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the Uruguayans are fully aware of their responsibility in this matter and are certainly doing all they can to bring about a happy result. As to the matter of security, this is something which the Government are taking very seriously indeed. It is one reason why Mr. Oliver Wright has gone to Montevideo. There are difficulties of cost et cetera, but I can assure noble Lords that the safety of our Missions is of prime importance.
The interesting suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is something which can be considered as a last resort, but I feel he will agree that other measures 131 should be taken first. However, I am grateful to him for what he has said.
§ LORD RATHCAVANMy Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether the kidnappers have made any demands, either for money or for the release of prisoners? Further, is it the case that the Uruguayan authorities refuse to negotiate with these kidnappers?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, the answer so far as Mr, Jackson is concerned is that there have been no demands at all. We have heard nothing from the rebels except what is said in the Statement; namely, that the prisoners in their possession are in good health. It is perfectly true that originally when the first two prisoners were kidnapped the Uruguayan Government refused at that stage to release political prisoners.
§ LORD STRATHCLYDEMy Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether or not it is a fact that the Ambassador was accompanied by guards and that those guards were dragged out of the car and ignominiously hit over the head? If that is so, may I ask whether they were armed; and if not, why not?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly right. That is exactly what happened to the guards. The guards were not armed. Mr. Jackson himself had been very much conscious of the security risks and had decided that he would prefer to have unarmed guards—I think bearing in mind the tragic case of the German Ambassador in Rio, whose guards were armed and two of whom were killed, although even that did not prevent him from being kidnapped.
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, I do not want to labour the point, but with regard to what the noble Marquess said I must say that I do not want my suggestion to be regarded as a matter of last resort. Have we to wait until all our representatives in Uruguay have been captured? A gesture such as I have suggested would have a very salutary effect on the whole situation.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that two other diplomats of different nationalities have 132 been in the hands of the Tupamaros for some five months and it is alleged that it is so long because their sponsoring Governments do not appear to have bothered very much about them; they have not been regarded as of sufficient importance. What extra measures and other pressures are Her Majesty's Government prepared to put on the Uruguayan Government on behalf of Mr. Jackson?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government would prefer to await the assessment and report of Mr. Wright, who has just gone to Montevideo, before coming to any further conclusion in this matter. But I can assure the House that we are taking it very seriously indeed.