HL Deb 23 March 1982 vol 428 cc941-3

3.48 p.m.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will now repeat the Statement being made by my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign Office in another place. The Statement is as follows: Mr. Speaker, I will with permission make a brief statement on developments in South Georgia, a Falkland Islands dependency. We were informed on 20th March by the Commander of the British Antarctic Survey Base at Grytviken on South Georgia that a party of Argentines had made a landing at Leith Harbour nearby. The Base Commander informed the Argentine party that their presence was illegal as they had not obtained his prior authority for the landing. We immediately took the matter up with the Argentine authorities in Buenos Aires and the Argentine Embassy in London and, following our approach, the ship and most of the personnel left on 21st March. However, the base commander has reported that a small number of men and some equipment remain. We are therefore making arrangements to ensure their early departure. My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Statement, so far as it goes. I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell us, as reported in the press, that this particular group of Argentinians were in a ship chartered by Salvesen and that no permission was sought from the governor or the Foreign Office, or indeed from the base commander who represents the governor and has, I think, the status of a magistrate? Could the noble Lord say how far this was recognised? Was the Argentine flag substituted for the Union Jack because the ship was in British waters? Is it true, as reported on the radio, that a British patrol ship—which I take it to be HMS "Endurance"—has been asked to remain? Does this not strengthen further the case for the retention of HMS "Endurance" so that the White Ensign can fly in these waters?

Lord Gladwyn

My Lords, I understand that the party, or at any rate the bulk of the party, which landed from an Argentinian ship has now been withdrawn together with the Argentinian flag, with only a small party of a few men remaining. If the Argentinian Government were to ask permission for that small party to remain, I imagine that request would be granted, while, if permission were not sought, I suppose a constitutional issue would arise and that conceivably in certain circumstances it could become acute. In the circumstances, would the Minister agree that there is a case for referring the whole question of sovereignty to the International Court and abiding by its decision?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, a number of points have been raised by noble Lords and I am obliged to them for their response to the Statement. It is true that a flag was hoisted for a time while the party, or the bulk of the party, was ashore. I cannot confirm that it was or was not an Argentinian flag—although I imagine it was. The vessel, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, pointed out, was chartered by a company operating in the area. I understand that the company informed the British Embassy in Buenos Aires that they were sailing for South Georgia, but it had been made quite clear to them that they had to seek clearance from the British authorities at Grytviken before landing on British territory. As for the small number of personnel who are still there, as the Statement said, we are making arrangements to ensure their early departure. The question of their remaining does not therefore arise.

Lord Aylestone

My Lords, do the Government view this as an official Argentinian Government action or perhaps the over-zealous action of a few individuals?

Lord Trefgarne

No, my Lords. It appears that the personnel involved represented an Argentine commercial company run by a Mr. Davidoff which has a contract to remove equipment from disused whaling stations on South Georgia.

Lord Morris

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to consider the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, which he chose to ignore; namely, whether Her Majesty's Government would reconsider the question of reinstating HMS "Endurance" in the light of these events? Indeed, these events were forecast in the debate of HMS "Endurance", when it was said that such a thing was likely to happen. In addition, bearing in mind that the West Germans have built an ice patrol ship which will be patrolling these waters in the very near future, may I ask my noble friend whether that signifies anything to the Government regarding their decision on HMS "Endurance"?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, plans for the future of HMS "Endurance" are for longer-term consideration in the light of developments. We are of course committed to support and defend the Falkland Islands and their dependencies to the best of our ability.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, I am extremely encouraged by the Minister's last remarks, as he will realise that it is a matter for further consideration; and if the case needed strengthening, it is this particular incident. Is it the Minister's view that we should not play the incident up too much in that it is a minor one? The fact remains that the ports in South Georgia, like Stromness, Leith and Grytviken, are ghost towns. I have seen a great deal of extremely valuable equipment which other people sometimes use without permission, and I take it that that is the incident in question. I take it that the emphasis of the Statement is with regard to our sovereignty over South Georgia. After all, the Falkland Islands are 300 miles from the Argentine and South Georgia is 700 miles from the Falklands, as I know to my cost, over a fairly stormy sea. At no time has it ever been owned or, I think, claimed by anyone except the British. The Argentines launched a claim a long time ago but they have never had any occupation there. Will the Minister or somebody complain to the British company concerned, who may be trying to take their own equipment back through an Argentine company, and tell them that they are in danger of causing an incident? After all, it is not so many years ago since shots were exchanged between the Argentines and members of the British Antarctic Survey.

Lord Trefgarne

We have made clear to the Argentines, my Lords, that this situation is not of our seeking. Our hope is that this unfortunate incident can be surmounted with the least possible consequences for our political relations.