Falkland Islands: Sovereignty

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on comments from the Argentinian President and President Donald Trump regarding the UK’s sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

As my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary have made clear, the UK remains steadfast in its support for the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination. There can be no doubt that the Falkland Islands are British for as long as they want to be. Falkland Islanders have made their views very clear in a referendum in 2013, at the United Nations year after year and to anyone who makes the effort to engage directly with the community. The UK also supports the right of Falkland Islanders to develop their natural resources for their own economic benefit. That is an integral part of their right to self-determination. This is not the first time that an Argentine Government have made economic threats against the islanders, yet those threats have not prevented the community’s remarkable economic development over the years. The measures announced by President Milei will not change the UK’s unwavering commitment to the islanders. The UK wants to continue to maintain a modern and constructive relationship with Argentina across a range of shared interests. However, there can be no doubt about our commitment to the Falkland Islanders, their democratic rights and the UK’s sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. The Government will continue to work closely with the Falkland Islands Government to defend their rights now and into the future. The US is our closest ally. It, too, is in no doubt about our unwavering support for the islanders.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. As surely as night follows day, another Argentine President facing economic trouble at home has tried to distract attention by threatening British sovereignty. This is a President who, I remind colleagues, was praised by the Leader of the Opposition. When asked whether Britain needed our own Milei, and whether she was such a politician, she replied, “Yes and yes”. Meanwhile, President Trump, so loudly cheered by Members of Reform and the Conservatives, has also declared that the US is considering changing its stance on British sovereignty over the Falklands. The decision of sovereignty over the Falklands does not belong to President Milei or to President Trump; it belongs to the people of the Falklands alone. They have spoken unequivocally and we should support them. The renewed threat to the Falklands should sharpen Ministers’ minds as to the mounting security challenges facing our overseas territories. The world is more unstable now than at any point since the end of the cold war, yet our threadbare Navy and hollowed armed forces are perilously overstretched. Meeting the threats to our sovereign territories requires genuine investment. Can the Minister update the House on what steps will be taken to increase our defence spending rapidly, and on whether the Government are considering Liberal Democrat proposals for defence bonds, investing in our critical capabilities and restoring British deterrence? President Milei has now threatened sanctions and criminal charges on energy companies operating offshore from the Falklands, including British firms. That would be a direct—

Order. Mr Cartlidge, I let it go the first time, but you have just had three goes there. Please, somebody else has to come in and speak, and I am sure your Front-Bench spokesperson will ask the relevant questions without you having to shout down the Member speaking.

That would be a direct economic attack on operations from British sovereign territory. Is the Minister preparing retaliatory measures and sanctions in the event that British companies operating around the Falklands are targeted? The Government must be resolute in defending Britain’s interests and the people of the Falklands. Has the Minister called in both the Argentine and US ambassadors to make it clear that British sovereignty over the Falklands is non-negotiable? If she has not, will she?

The hon. Gentleman is completely right that we are in a volatile world, but one thing is absolutely unchanging: the United Kingdom’s position on the Falkland Islands, which is of long standing. The Falkland Islands are a British overseas territory and will remain so for as long as the islanders wish. As I stated in my opening remarks, we want a constructive relationship with Argentina, but we are absolutely clear, and they are in no doubt, about our position on this question. On defence spending more broadly, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor remain committed to fully funding the defence investment plan and to meeting our NATO commitment of 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The Israeli Minister Ben Gvir has said, “It is time for the state of Israel to publicly recognise that the Falkland Islands are Argentine territory under occupation”, and that we, the British, are not merely occupying the territory but, in carrying out oil drilling there, are stealing money from the Argentine people. Does the Minister think he knows that the Argentine Government agree with him and, as a result, have filed criminal complaints against Navitas Petroleum, which is of course an Israeli company? Does she think he knows that the company was very happy to sign a deal with the UK to explore the Sea Lion oil project in the British Falkland Islands? Or does she think that Ben Gvir was just too busy thinking of new ways to inflict ever yet more cruelty on the Palestinian people?

We completely and utterly reject the characterisation that my right hon. Friend describes. The UK supports the rights of the Falkland Islanders to develop their natural resources for their own economic benefit, because that is an integral part of their self-determination. The decision by the Falkland Islands Government to pursue hydrocarbon production is a commercial decision for them to make alongside the commercial companies involved.

I call the shadow Minister.

Let me say at the outset that we on the Conservative Benches are clear that the Falkland Islands are British, and they will remain British for as long as the Falkland Islanders wish them to be. British soldiers fought and died to defend our sovereignty and the freedom of the Falkland Islanders. That sacrifice will never be forgotten, and we will always stand by the people of the Falklands and their overwhelming desire to remain British. Before the summer recess, the Leader of the Opposition and I met Cheryl Roberts MLA and other representatives of the Falkland Islands Government. We were clear in reaffirming our unwavering support for the islanders and their right to self-determination. Our continued connection with the Falklands is of vital importance, as a matter not just of history but of sovereignty, security and principle. The Government must therefore ensure that they are standing up unequivocally for the Falkland Islands and their choice to stay British. Therefore, what conversations have the Foreign Secretary and Ministers had with the United States Administration to ensure that our position and, above all, the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders are clearly understood? What direct representations has the Foreign Secretary made to the Argentinian Government following President Milei’s latest remarks? Is Argentina raising the future of the Falklands through diplomatic channels with His Majesty’s Government, or is it simply ramping up its language publicly? Argentina has threatened sanctions against companies involved in the lawful development of the Falkland Islands oil resources. What representations has the Foreign Secretary made in response, and what steps are the Government taking to protect those legitimate commercial interests and the Falkland Islanders’ rights to develop their own natural resources? There can be no negotiation over sovereignty unless and until the Falkland Islanders themselves wish it. The United Kingdom must stand with the Falkland Islands and the right of the islanders to self-determination.

I share the right hon. Lady’s conviction that the sacrifices of British armed forces personnel should never be forgotten in relation to this matter. I share, too, her desire to see the UK Government stand up unequivocally for the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination, which is exactly what we have been doing. We are in regular ministerial and senior official engagement with Argentina, which is why I can say with such conviction that it is in absolutely no doubt—and no Member of this House should be in any doubt—about the UK Government’s position. The future of the Falkland Islands is for the Falkland Islanders to determine, and nobody else.

I welcome the Minister’s strong message today, standing alongside the Falkland Islanders in their desire to remain British. We have 14 overseas territories with over a quarter of a million people. May I ask that we take this opportunity to consider how we can better represent all those people for whom we as a Parliament, and as a Government, have a responsibility, for their health and education, and for the relationship between Britain and our overseas territories?

I can reassure my hon. Friend that work is ongoing across Government to ensure that everyone in the British overseas territories retains the full support of the UK Government. We are in regular dialogue with their representatives, and of course we continue to ensure that their rights to health and education and the other matters that he mentioned are uppermost in our minds at all times.

Do the Government accept that in order to deter any possibility of military action against the Falklands, it is important not to send the wrong signals? In 1982 there was the withdrawal of HMS Endurance specifically, but there were also huge anti-nuclear campaigns that sent the wrong message to aggressors around the world. Can the Government confirm that, this time, they will not send the wrong signals—over Diego Garcia, for example—or any suggestion that we do not have the naval and air assets to deter and, if necessary, to defend?

I am happy to confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that we are sending the most unequivocal message imaginable that the Falkland Islands are British for as long as they choose to be. It is also important to reassure the House that our forces in the south Atlantic are maintained at the appropriate level to ensure the defence of the Falkland Islands against any potential threat. The right hon. Member mentioned Diego Garcia, and I want to underscore for the House that that is a key strategic military asset for both the UK and the US. It has protected our shared security for nearly 60 years, and that is precisely why we did a deal to ensure that we could maintain the long-term operational control and security of Diego Garcia.

President Milei has coupled his renewed sovereignty claim with an increase in defence spending and plans to expand the naval base at Tierra del Fuego. In the light of these developments, can the Minister tell us if we have updated our threat assessments, and if the Falkland Islands’ air, land and maritime defences are adequate to ensure the islands’ and the islanders’ security?

I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his service. We are confident that the situation that we have in place with defensive capability is adequate for the threats faced.

When the Government deal with our allies and friends the Americans, they might remind them about the disputed islands that they are in charge of—Wake Island, Navassa Island, Bajo, Swains Island, Guantanamo Bay—all of which have been supported by the United Kingdom. Should we think about not supporting them? Of course not, but we might just mention them. When we retook the Falklands, the British Government had at their hands 52 frigates and destroyers and well over 100,000 soldiers and naval personnel. Does the Minister not think that the best message we could send would be to get our defences back up?

We are in ongoing conversation with our closest ally, as Members will appreciate, and the United States is crystal clear about our position. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that we need to invest in our defence capabilities, and of course that is one of the primary responsibilities of the UK Government. I would gently remind him of the situation that we inherited. It is this Government that have made commitments to invest strongly in our armed forces, and we are proud to have done so.

Like many, I have a close allegiance to the Falkland Islands and the islanders. As a 19-year-old young British soldier, I did my first operational tour of duty in the islands in 1990 and subsequently went back in 1992. Does the Minister agree that while the Falkland Islanders state that they wish to be a UK overseas territory, they will always remain that? To put this into perspective, in the latest referendum, 99.8% of Falkland Islanders voted to support that position, on a 92% turnout. To put it into perspective again, only three islanders voted against.

I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking my hon. Friend for his service. It was an extraordinary sacrifice by him and his family, and we are deeply grateful for it. I could not agree more that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders could not be more clear and must be respected.

I do not know whether this is something I still need to declare, Mr Speaker, but I visited the Falkland Islands in 2003 as a guest of the Falkland Islands Government. They have never invited me back. It was apparent then that the principle of self-determination, on which we fought and for which British service people lost their lives, remained unchanged. I have seen nothing to change that view today. When the Minister speaks with the American ambassador, might she gently remind them that in 1982 the Americans were not exactly full-throated in their support of us at that point? It made no difference then and it should make no difference now.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his direct engagement with the Falkland Islanders—I know that such engagement is always appreciated by everyone in our British overseas territories—and as a direct result he has been able to impress on the House exactly what the Falkland Islanders want, which is their right to self-determination. He mentions our relationship with the United States. Because it is our closest ally, our relationship with the United States is one of candour, and it could not be clearer about our position, which is that the Falkland Islands will remain British for precisely as long as the Falkland Islanders want them to.

People in Portsmouth are incredibly angry about this. We waved those ships off in ’82, and so many families have a connection to someone who served. We know that 255 brave British personnel died defending the Falkland Islands, and 86 of them were from the Royal Navy. This issue is settled. Argentina was defeated and, above all, the Falkland Islanders have made their choice: they want to remain British. Does the Minister agree that the Argentinian Government and President Trump must stop this disgraceful, disrespectful interference and stop treating the Falkland Islands as a bargaining chip?

Can I start by thanking my hon. Friend for her work on the overseas territories, to which I know she is deeply committed? Can she please pass on, on behalf of the whole House, our thanks to her constituents for their bravery, courage and sacrifice? I could not agree with her more: this question is settled, because it is settled in the minds of the Falkland Islanders, who want to remain British, and they will do so with our support.