HC Deb 30 November 1983 vol 49 cc897-8 4.25 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

I beg to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, new evidence relating to the timing of the Peruvian peace proposals during the Falklands war, in relation to the timing of the Prime Minister's order to sink the Belgrano. I have to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is definite. I refer to yesterday's Wall Street Journal. This is the first opportunity that we have had to consider the statements in that paper. Fifty-seven days after an article was printed in the Asian edition of the Wall Street Journal, we saw yesterday the very unusual occurrence of a serious paper prominently reprinting an article.

The article makes three specific statements. It says that the Prime Minister had the Peruvian peace proposals before her on the morning of Sunday 2 May. Yet she tells the House that she did not know of the Peruvian peace proposals until late that evening—three hours after the Belgrano had been sunk.

Secondly, the Wall Street Journal asserts that the Prime Minister had in front of her the reports of an important junta meeting that Saturday night, which came to certain definite conclusions.

Thirdly, the article says that the Prime Minister had in front of her the orders from Admiral Allara for Argentine surface route ships to return to the port of Uschaia. The reference is to orders given at 8.7 pm, and confirmed by the naval command in Buenos Aires at 1.19 am. Those orders were intercepted by the Nimrods with their AD470 Marconi transceiver equipment, decoded at Cheltenham and reported to the Prime Minister. The orders were also intercepted by an American satellite and reported to the British. According to the Americans, they were before the Prime Minister shortly after she awoke at Chequers on the morning of Sunday 2 May.

The matter is urgent, because this is the only opportunity that we have to draw attention to an article published yesterday which, if true, is enormously damaging by implication to the credibility, prestige and reputation of the British Prime Minister.

The matter is important, because few subjects are of more concern to the House than the probity of a Prime Minister. There are two possibilities. The first is that the Wall Street Journal report is not based on fact. If that is true, there should be a call for an apology and, if none is forthcoming, I would expect the Prime Minister to take legal action. Alternatively, the report is basically true, in which case it would appear that the Prime Minister has misled the House knowingly on important matters of substance. It is one or the other. It is in that spirit that I believe that the debate for which I have asked should be granted.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, new evidence relating to the timing of the Peruvian peace proposals during the Falklands war, in relation to the timing of the Prime Minister's order to sink the Belgrano. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about the article in the Wall Street Journal, but I have to say that the matter he has raised is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.