§ 2.59 p.m.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Wall Street Journal was correct in reprinting on 29thNovember the statement that the Prime Minister had before her on 2nd May 1982 reports of the Peruvian peace proposals and of the Argentine junta meeting on them, together with copies of the order that the "Belgrano" return to port.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)No, my Lords. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place on 1st December, the information in this article is totally and utterly wrong.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that she herself, on behalf of her right honourable friend in another place, stated that the news of the Peruvian peace plan did not appear before the Prime Minister until three hours after the "General Belgrano" was sunk? If the noble Baroness, on behalf of her right honourable friend, is now saying that the Wall Street Journal was wrong in both its Asian edition on 3rd October and in its European edition on 29th November, then is her right honourable friend going to take the Wall Street Journal to court and sue for defamation of character—or is she going to leave the record as it is?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, I will confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, and to the House, what I said at some length on an earlier occasion on 13th July. I said then that news of the Peruvian proposals did not reach London until more than three hours after the "General Belgrano" had been sunk in the evening, London time, on 2nd May 1982. On the noble Lord's second point, the Wall Street Journal is a reputable newspaper and it is entitled to publish what its editors wish. However, I am bound to say that I was very surprised that they chose to publish an article which included malicious, totally unsubstantiated and offensive allegations about my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, is the noble Baroness not aware that the article was first printed in 1089 the Asian edition on 3rd October, when no comment was made from the Government on this side? The article was then deliberately reprinted 59 days later in the European edition. Are the Government not taking any action against the Wall Street Journal for what is defamation both of the character of the Prime Minister and of the British Government?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, I have indicated what my response is. The fact that the article was printed twice does not make it any better, and we regard the whole matter with a sense of surprise and outrage.
§ Lord Nugent of GuildfordMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that Her Majesty's Government, although responsible for many things, are not responsible for the Wall Street Journal?
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, but will the—
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyWill the noble Baroness please answer the second part of my question? Will the noble Baroness answer whether the Government intend to take any action against the Wall Street Journal for printing what is alleged to be a pack of lies?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, I have already answered that question and I am not going to add anything further.