HL Deb 13 December 1983 vol 446 cc103-6

3.2 p.m.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government for how long they have kept documents relating to the question of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, borrowed from the Public Record Office; when they intend to return these documents, and why they have refused either to publish a list of the papers abstracted or to allow access to them in the Foreign Office where they are now being held, notwithstanding the fact that none of the documents was classified.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)

My Lords, matters relating to the question of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands continue to require the detailed study of records. To publish a list of records as requested would involve disproportionate expense. When records are no longer required they are returned to the Public Record Office.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, if it would involve disproportionate expense to publish a list of the records, does that mean to say that there is a vast number of them held in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Is the noble Baroness aware that when I spoke to the records administration office of the PRO yesterday I was told that a number of documents were still being retained but a decision was expected to be made shortly on their continued retention by the Foreign Office, depending on the political situation? Will the noble Baroness say what changes in our relationship with Argentina have to be accomplished before these documents will be returned to their rightful place?

Baroness Young

My Lords, on the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I can confirm that in any one year about 5,000 documents are withdrawn from the Public Record Office by the Foreign Office and up to 1,000 may be held at any one time. To keep a record of all that would involve disproportionate public expense. As I have indicated, the documents are returned when they are no longer required.

Lord George-Brown

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Question relates to documents which the Government have borrowed from the Public Record Office and the reply that she has just made refers to documents in the Foreign Office? Therefore, am I not right in saying that there is no reason to borrow from the Public Record Office documents of which there are copies in the Foreign Office? As one who as a Minister was involved in all this over the years, may I ask her seriously to represent to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs—who was erroneously referred to in the Daily Telegraph this morning as "Mr. Howe"—that the Foreign Office could return to the Public Record Office the documents borrowed from there and rely upon the documents in its own department?

Baroness Young

My Lords, I am sorry to tell the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, that he has misunderstood the position. The documents to which I have referred were originally in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. They were sent to the Public Record Office and have subsequently been withdrawn from the Public Record Office because they are required in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. When they are no longer required, they will be returned to the Public Record Office.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, will the noble Baroness be good enough to say, first, whether these documents are at the present time classified? Why are they not being returned? What is the reason? Secondly, will she be good enough to clarify what she said about sovereignty in reply to the original Question? Did she intend to convey the fact that the question of sovereignty is now being considered by Her Majesty's Government against the background of those documents which are at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?

Baroness Young

My Lords, all the documents that are referred to in the Question are documents which are not classified. The answer to the second part of the noble Lord's question is that, on a subject as complicated as the history of the Falkland Islands, it is inevitable that individual officials will have differing and, in some cases, conflicting views. Successive British Governments have made it clear that they have no doubts about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, would the noble Baroness be good enough to go a step further and say why, then, are Her Majesty's Government considering the question of sovereignty? What does she mean when she says that different officials have differing views? Is she saying that officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have differing views on the question of sovereignty? It is absolutely essential that she makes this matter abundantly clear at this time. Otherwise, there could be great difficulty. If there are differing views, is it the view of Her Majesty's Government now that the matter should go to the International Court for arbitration? Would the Government consider finding out from the new Argentine Government whether they are prepared to join in going to the International Court to find out whether it is possible to achieve a solution?

Baroness Young

My Lords, I gave the original Answer that I did in reply to the terms of the Question asked. Secondly, I cannot go wider than what I have already said.

Lord Monson

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that in a civilised world self-determination should be the main consideration to be taken into account when determining sovereignty, and that whatever happened or did not happen 150 years ago does not alter that principle?

Baroness Young

My Lords, this Question is being widened into something quite outside its subject, which is the matter of records.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that a lot of misunderstanding can be created by the answers given to the original Question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury? Does she realise that the implication of her answers might be that the documents that are being retained at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are not being released because they are harmful to the case that we wish to present on sovereignty? Does she realise that the Government might be accused of taking up a position of deception? Does she therefore wish to clarify her response in order to make it quite clear that we have nothing to hide and are not trying to deceive?

Baroness Young

My Lords, I have nothing further to add to the supplementary answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, may like to know that as early as January 1983 a similar answer was given in a Foreign and Commonwealth Office memorandum.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us who has the right to remove records from the Public Record Office? Do all Ministers have the right to remove these records? If so, should we not know which Ministers have removed which records?

Baroness Young

My Lords, other departments withdraw and return records to the Public Record Office in the way that I indicated in my original reply and my first supplementary answer.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, would the Minister not agree that with as few as 5,000 records withdrawn from the Public Record Office it would not be a very significant job, with the aid of computers, to keep an up-to-date list which would be available for inspection by any member of the public who is unfortunate enough to trundle all the way out to Kew only to find that the documents are missing? Is this not an occasion which the Government are using for reclassifying documents that have already been released to the public, in some cases many years ago? Since documents such as document 371/134635324 have been withdrawn in this manner by the Foreign Office, does that not indicate that our case is not as strong as we should like the world to believe?

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, I am sure your Lordships would wish me to remind the House that we are very nearly a quarter of an hour over the length of time which our own Companion recommends should be taken for Question Time. Therefore, I should like to suggest that after my noble friend Lady Young answers the noble Lord, we should perhaps proceed to the next business.

Baroness Young

My Lords, I could not comment on one particular document on the basis of its reference number. As I have indicated, around 5,000 records are withdrawn for one reason or another in the course of a year, and it would be expensive—and disproportionately expensive—to keep a list as described. In answer to the noble Lord's last point, I would confirm what I have already said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.

Forward to