HL Deb 29 July 1985 vol 467 cc9-10

3 p.m.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

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

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they now agree that is was unwise not to give fuller information to Parliament regarding the events of lst-2nd May 1982.

Baroness Young

My Lords, the matter to which I assume the noble Lord is referring is discussed in the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in another place, published on 24th July. It would not be right to anticipate our considered reply to this report, but the House will be aware that the report states that the House of Commons was not misled on the main issue: that the attack on the "General Belgrano" was authorised for legitimate military reasons.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree with the statement that it would have been preferable if Ministers had volunteered a comprehensive statement on those events, including much of the material which has been extracted from them so painfully over the last three years?

Baroness Young

My Lords, I am not prepared to comment further than to say that the Government's considered reply will be given to your Lordships' House and to another place at the appropriate time.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether she would agree that this controversy, which to some of us has seemed a bit unrealistic from the beginning, has now lost something of its original freshness, and that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, would be well advised to seek other material with which to interest your Lordships' House?

Baroness Young

My Lords, I am delighted to respond to my noble friend's supplementary question. This is in fact the seventeenth occasion that this matter has been raised in your Lordships' House; there have been 12 Parliamentary Questions; two debates, and three other supplementary questions on matters raised by other of my noble friends.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, does the noble Baroness think that attempts by Governments to stop the public finding out what they are up to never lose interest, no matter how long ago the events to which they refer, and that it is fortunate in the extreme for the Government that they can shelter behind the excuse that they will in due course reply to the Select Committee's findings, and thus they do not have to reply to questions in this House?

Baroness Young

My Lords, there is no quest ion at all of my sheltering behind producing a reply later. That is the proper constitutional position with regard to Select Committees of another place. But in case the noble Lord should think that the Government might be concerned, the report makes plain that the House of Commons was not misled on the main issue; that the attack on the "General Belgrano" was authorised for legitimate military reasons and not out of political design.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the statement I quoted in my first supplementary question was taken directly from the words of the majority report signed by her friends in another place, and not from the minority report? Is it not the case that her friends in the other place also agreed that the request by Members in another place and by one or two of us in this House for certain material was perfectly legitimate, and that the Government would have been wiser to give that information rather than to mislead us as they had done in the past?

Baroness Young

My Lords, the answer to the first point of the noble Lord's supplementary question is, yes. The answer to the second point will be considered in our response.

Forward to