§ 2.43 p.m.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what caused the breakdown of their attempts to get a multilateral fisheries arrangement round the Falkland Islands through the FAO, and what was the role of the Soviet Union and Bulgaria in those discussions.
§ The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne)My Lords, far from having broken down, negotiations have not yet begun. The delay in the publication of the FAO's technical study of the South-West Atlantic fishery compelled the Government to declare an interim conservation zone around the Falklands in order to protect fish stocks in the 1987 fishing season. The Soviet Union and Bulgaria have provided the FAO secretariat with some statistical information on the fishery.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that helpful and, on the whole, optimistic reply. In asking my supplementary, I hope that the noble Lord will not tell me that I am going too wide. This morning I applied to the Leader of the House for leave to ask a Private Notice Question and was told that the matter was not of sufficient urgency or public interest. The supplementary is this: yesterday the Government of Argentina made a proposal to this country that it would finally declare a cessation of hostilities in return for the withdrawal of a zone. The question is: What zone is it that they want us to abandon? Is it the 150-mile Falkland Islands military protection zone? Is it the 150-mile interim fisheries conservation and management zone? Or is it both?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord's Private Notice Question, had he been allowed to ask it, would have borne a striking resemblance to the supplementary that we have now heard. Be that as it may, I do not wish to duck the question that the noble Lord has put. If he asks me for a short comment on the declaration made by Argentina yesterday, I would say that it smelt of old wine in new bottles.
§ Lord ShackletonMy Lords, while recognising the tolerance of your Lordships for questions that go far beyond the scope of the Question on the Order Paper, may I return to that Question? Is it not a fact, and can the noble Lord confirm, that the Government made every effort to talk to the Argentine and bring it into discussions, pursuing the multinational system which many of us thought would not work because of the attitude of the Argentine? Is it not a fact that the Argentine itself had declared and had sought to enforce claims in Falklands waters without any 128 discussions with Her Majesty's Government? Is it not correct to say that it is only the belated action of the Government that has brought the Argentine to produce what appears to be a new proposal but, in fact, is the old one that we have heard so often before?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in what he says in the latter part of his supplementary. I emphasise that the interim fisheries protection zone that we have declared around the Falkland Islands is, indeed, interim. We would much prefer a multilateral solution to the problem. If a multilateral solution is to emerge, we shall hasten to reconsider our position.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his response to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was offensive and unhelpful? Is he aware that here may be the opportunity for constructive bilateral talks with the Argentine on a matter that affects the future of the islands and is very close to the interests of this noble House? Will the noble Lord say whether or not Her Majesty's Government are giving careful consideration to what President Alfonsin said? Or is the noble Lord saying that the Government have dismissed what he said out of hand? Furthermore, would the noble Lord not agree that this may well help towards achieving the kind of multilateral settlement in relation to fishing rights that the Government themselves have said they wish to see?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, if the noble Lord is asking me to comment further upon the declaration made by President Alfonsin—yesterday, I think—I would say that it seems to me that there is no fundamental change in the Argentinian position, or even any detailed change in the Argentinian position, which is that it requires, first and foremost, to discuss the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, added to which it appears to have prejudged the outcome of such discussions. That is not a position that the British Government can accept.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, is it not the case that the word "sovereignty" was not mentioned by President Alfonsin? Is not the approach by President Alfonsin the most constructive made by the Argentine Government since the Berne talks fell two years ago? Should it not be the duty of Her Majesty's Government in all the circumstances to seek to achieve constructive talks? Is it not also the case that the Government of the United States support such talks?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, if it is the position of the Argentine Government that talks may now proceed in a number of detailed matters, then the United Kingdom will be very willing to take part in such talks. What we cannot agree to do is to discuss sovereignty with the Argentinians. That is a position we have repeatedly made clear on a number of occasions. Of course the position was different in February 1982, but then the Argentinians, in the midst of those negotiations, chose to invade the Falkland Islands.
§ Lord AveburyMy Lords, was the issue confined to the matter of the exclusion zone? Was the statement not offering to declare an end to hostilities on one condition, and one condition only: that the zone which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Kennet—whether it be the 150-mile military exclusion zone or the 150-mile fisheries zone—be abandoned by the United Kingdom Government? From where does the noble Lord the Minister get his reference to sovereignty? If there were no reference to sovereignty in President Alfonsin's statement, does it mean that the Government are now prepared to accept this offer to put an end to hostilities, to discuss the ending of the exclusion zone and all these other matters which are covered in the Question?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, in the past the Argentinians have made it clear that "all aspects"—as they call it—of the Falkland Islands problem include sovereignty, and all aspects of the Falkland Islands problem are apparently what they now wish to negotiate.
Whether or not we can raise the Falkland Islands protection zone—and I believe it is that to which they are now referring, which was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, earlier—will of course depend inter alia upon an Argentinian declaration about the cessation of hostilities, but will also depend upon other matters. We shall have to be satisfied that the threat to the Falkland Islands has indeed gone away.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that their present government had nothing to do with the invasion, with the dramatic loss of lives of both our countrymen and theirs? That is a matter that has always to be borne in mind. It does not matter how crass or witty the reply involved. It is not witty to those who gave their lives or to those who remained, and the relatives of those who gave their lives. Can the Government not at least try to find out the situation, as this is now a beginning, by saying, "On all other occasions you have mentioned sovereignty. This time you have not. Can we now make a beginning so that we shall possibly, and we all hope probably, never have another confrontation of force again"?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I cannot think that the Argentinians are under any misapprehension about the British Government's position. It has been made clear to them time and time again. Indeed, on one occasion two years ago we went to Berne to open negotiations with the Argentinians and a formula had been agreed which would have dealt with the sovereignty position with regard to those negotiations. The Argentinians torpedoed those negotiations in the first breath.
§ Lord GladwynMy Lords, if I am right in thinking that the Soviet Union does not recognise the recently proclaimed fisheries protection zone, are we to assume that in the event of violation of that zone by Soviet trawlers it will result in a confrontation between us and the Soviet Union?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I understand that the Soviet Union have made it clear that they will respect the British position as far as the fisheries protection zone goes.
§ Lord ShackletonMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord: have the Government had any direct communication from the Argentine Government?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I understand that the declaration which was the subject of the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was conveyed to the British Government.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, will the noble Lord recognise that he is digging his feet in on behalf of the Government? Will he admit that there may be dangers here? Will he distinguish, please, between several factors about which he might be digging his feet in? Is the noble Lord aware that if he is digging his feet in about the issue of no early transfer of sovereignty he will have those of us on these Benches with him? Is he further aware that if he is digging his feet in about there being no discussion of any modification of sovereignty, such as shared sovereignty, or a sovereignty pooled through a United Nations trusteeship under Article 83 of the Charter, he will not have those of us on these Benches with him, and that he may indeed be assisting in a process of running this country into an extremely isolated and dangerous situation?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the noble Lord opened his remarks by saying that I was digging my feet in on behalf of the British Government. Not so, my Lords. I am "digging in", if those are the right words, on behalf of the people of the Falkland Islands.
Lady Saltoun of AlbernethyMy Lords, if we are prepared to discuss the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands with Argentina, why did we bother to fight the Falklands war?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, that is a question which the noble Lady may care to address to other Members of your Lordships' House.
§ Lord GlenamaraMy Lords, in all his replies today the noble Lord has not addressed himself to the terms of the latest note. The latest note proposed the ending of the exclusion zone—or whatever it is called—and in return, the end of formal hostilities. That was the proposal. Does this not at least form the basis for discussion?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the Government have always said that they would be prepared to consider the lifting of the protection zone in appropriate circumstances. The principal circumstance is of course that the threat to the Falkland Islands has disappeared.