Question: Falkland Islands
Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what their policy is towards the
future of the Falkland Islands; and whether their policy will be
determined by the views and wishes of the Falkland Islanders.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
( of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, the future of the Falkland Islands is one that only the
people of the Falkland Islands should decide. The United
Kingdom’s relationship with the Falkland Islands and the rest of
the UK overseas territories is a modern one, based on
partnership, shared values and the right of the people to
determine their own future. As evidenced by the overwhelming
result of the 2013 referendum, the people of the Falkland Islands
wish to retain their status as a self-governing UK overseas
territory. The UK will always support the Falkland Islanders.
(Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Should we not now
recall the conflict of 1982 and, above all, the 253 British
personnel who gave their lives on that occasion, including 22
from HMS “Ardent”, commanded by the then Commander Alan West?
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, in this poignant anniversary year we will continue to
defend the Falkland Islanders’ democratic rights and celebrate
the modern and diverse community they have built. We remember all
those who lost their lives in the conflict, and those still
affected to this day. These memories are an important reminder of
the long shadow the conflict casts and we remain committed to
working with veterans’ organisations on both sides.
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, , for his kind words. Forty
years ago this week, a task force sailed to the South Atlantic.
Within about 12 weeks, it had managed to expel the Argentine
forces, capture the others and retake the islands. It was an
incredible military achievement, even though it was nip and tuck
at times. The message that had been given to the Argentines by
cuts to our defence forces made them think they could do
something—and we could do this only because we had not yet made
the planned cuts. In the context of what is going on in Ukraine,
we can see that oppressive, dictatorial regimes that invade close
neighbours take note of defence forces. Will the Minister go back
to Cabinet and point out that it is not Ukraine’s health or
social services that are keeping the people going in their
bravery; it is their military forces? Nothing extra has yet been
spent on our Armed Forces and, in the final analysis, no matter
how good all the other things are in your country, if you do not
have those then I am afraid you suffer.
of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord makes an extremely important point. It is worth
saying, as many have said in the past few weeks, that the bravery
being shown by the people of Ukraine, playing out day after day,
is staggering. I am pleased also that one thing that has enabled
Ukraine to achieve what we hope is success—it is hard to know
exactly what is going on—is the contributions made by this
Government. That point was made emphatically yesterday by
Ukraine’s President. On the Falkland Islands specifically, as
noble Lords would expect, we conduct regular assessments of any
military threats to the Falklands on a routine basis. We are
always aware of the need to retain appropriate levels of
defensive capabilities.
(LD)
My Lords, I agree with noble Lords that this is the appropriate
time to honour the 255 British deaths, the 649 Argentinian deaths
and the three Falkland Islanders who also died during the
conflict. But, as the noble Lord has rightly indicated, we need
to be very wary. Has the Minister seen the article by the
Argentinian Foreign Minister stating that, although they wish to
maintain good, strong diplomatic and trading relationships, they
were seeking to make linkage between sovereignty of people who
are in the Falkland Islands and our relationship, going forward.
Will the Minister put on record that we will not link the
sovereignty and the choice of those people with the good
relations we wish to seek to have with Argentina?
of Richmond Park (Con)
I did see the op-ed, and obviously that has been shared around
the FCDO and Government. But the reality is that this is not a
bilateral issue between the UK—or, indeed, anyone—to be
negotiated between our two countries. This is about the
islanders’ wishes, and those wishes are paramount.
I mentioned in my opening remarks the referendum: I cannot think
of a single referendum in the history of referenda where the
result has been as emphatic, with nearly 100% turnout and nearly
100% support. It is very clear what the Falkland Islanders want,
and it is our duty to ensure that that is what they get.
(Con)
My Lords, I endorse that entirely. Should we not take this
opportunity to salute the memory of three exemplary
parliamentarians: the Prime Minister at the time, Margaret
Thatcher, for the courageous leadership she gave; Michael Foot,
Leader of the Opposition, for ensuring that the other place was
as united as possible by his support for the task force; and the
noble Lord, , who adorned this House for
so long and whose resignation was one of the most honourable in
British history?
of Richmond Park (Con)
I am very, very happy to enthusiastically echo and support those
remarks. I particularly point to the support that Margaret
Thatcher received from the Opposition at the time, which made all
the difference. It really showed the importance of politicians
speaking with one voice in the face of an obvious and unambiguous
threat.
(Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the heroic efforts of the
military forces, and other noble Lords have mentioned that, but
Help for Heroes recently warned that, 40 years on, many veterans
of the Falklands War are still suffering from mental health
problems resulting from their involvement in the conflict. Could
the Minister tell us what the Foreign, Commonwealth and
Development Office actions have been in support of the
Government’s veterans strategy action plan—could we have a little
bit more detail?
of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord can certainly have more detail, but I am going to
have to follow up this discussion with a letter providing that
detail—not least since most of the actions that are taken in
relation to our veterans, whether from the Falklands or
elsewhere, are the responsibility of other departments.
(CB)
In the 40 years since the victory in the South Atlantic, the UK
has monitored the state of preparedness of Argentinian forces
much more closely. Could the Minister please tell the House when
was the last time Her Majesty’s Government reviewed the state of
preparedness of British forces in the Falkland Islands in
reaction to that changed threat—and, if he cannot tell us, could
he please write?
of Richmond Park (Con)
I cannot provide a date, but I can say that the MoD conducts
routine and regular assessments of any threats to the Falklands
and it is our policy that we must retain appropriate levels of
defensive capabilities at all times. To my knowledge, that is the
case: that is certainly the position of the Government.
(Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Minister’s confirmation that
the wishes of local people should be paramount in determining the
future of the Falkland Islands. Is this a principle that we
should extend more widely so that, in territorial disputes across
Africa, Asia and elsewhere, we try and give paramountcy to what
local people want? That is not to say other claims are
meaningless—that geography and history have no force—but that the
world would be a better place if people lived in units where they
felt enough in common one with another to accept government from
each other’s hands?
of Richmond Park (Con)
I strongly agree with the noble Lord. I think that the position
of the UK Government, and our historic position, in relation to
countries that are part of our family is a model for the world to
follow. Where those arrangements are based on genuine consent, I
think the relationship will always be a happier one. It is a
model that many other countries would do well to learn from.
(CB)
My Lords, individual overseas territories have differing needs.
Nevertheless, there are similarities, which the Minister, along
with others who have contributed today, has identified in his
remarks. But what is the status of the current negotiations
regarding Gibraltar between the Governments of the United
Kingdom, Spain and Gibraltar, and the European Union? If there is
an agreement, will it need to be ratified by the respective
legislatures?
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his question; I will
follow up with a letter. This issue is obviously associated with
but not directly relevant to this Question. I am confident that
an update will be provided in due course, but I just cannot tell
him when.
(Lab)
My Lords, do the Minister’s remarks about the prevalence and
importance of local people also apply to the future of Hong Kong?
of Richmond Park (Con)
I think I caught the first part of the question; it was a
follow-up to the noble Lord’s question about local democracy. The
reality is that Hong Kong is in a very difficult position, under
the control of a gigantic state whose intentions towards the
people of Hong Kong appear less than benign. It is the view of
the British Government, as it is my view, that local democracy
should prevail and that countries, or even regions, should be
able to determine their own future in the way that our policy
applies to the Falkland Islands—but it is not something that is
entirely in our control.
