The "General Belgrano" (Hansard, 28 June 1983)

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, the first intimation that the Government had of the existence of any proposals from the President of Peru came in a series of conversations between the then Foreign Secretary, Mr. Pym, and Mr. Haig in Washington on 2nd May. After necessary clarification of Mr. Haig's ideas, Mr. Pym telegraphed a report to London at just after five o'clock in the afternoon, Washington time—that is, 2215 GMT. The attack on the "General Belgrano" took place over three hours before that.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether or not she agrees that, in view of the fact that the then Foreign Secretary was in Washington in order to try to preserve the peace and that he had had breakfast with Mr. Haig, the then Secretary of State, it would have been a normal and much more constructive procedure if the instruction to torpedo the "General Belgrano" had been taken only after the Prime Minister had consulted with Mr. Pym in Washington?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I would not agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has to say. I am quite sure that, as he has studied the question so carefully, he will have read with great care the statement that my right honourable friend Mr. Pym put in a letter to the Daily Mirror on 20th May.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is it not a fact that the sinking of the "General Belgrano" and the panic which this induced in the Argentine Navy contributed to saving many hundreds of British lives?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, it is the case that the "General Belgrano" was sunk for military reasons.

§ Lord Bishopston
My Lords, in fairness to the noble Lord's point, could it not also be claimed—as, indeed, some do claim—that because the "General Belgrano" was sunk, this scuppered the peace talks and led to a campaign which was costly and which will continue to be costly? Out of fairness, will the Prime Minister and the Government consider setting up an inquiry into this matter so that the facts can be known on all sides?

§ Baroness Young
No, my Lords. I am afraid I cannot accept the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston. This ground has been gone over many times before and the facts are perfectly clearly set out. Furthermore, the Government see no need for an inquiry.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, when she says that this ground has been gone over many times before, she is quite correct but that on each occasion when this ground has been gone over new facts have been brought out, many of which have contradicted previous statements by members of the Government? May I ask the noble Baroness to take back to her colleagues the proposal of my noble friend Lord Bishopston, that there is sufficient dubiety about the facts concerning what happened on 1st and 2nd May of last year to warrant an independent inquiry into the actual procedures and events of those two days, which undoubtedly made the Falklands war inevitable and caused the deaths of servicemen on both sides?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, is making the most absurd allegations. The whole of the history of this matter has been set out in Parliamentary Answers both in your Lordships' House and in another place. I have already given a statement of the facts this afternoon, about which there can be no argument. The fact of the matter is, as I have already indicated, that my right honourable friend Mr. Pym was given no impression during his conversation with Mr. Haig that anything approaching an agreement was at hand. Mr. Haig himself agreed that more time was needed for detailed work. My right honourable friend was therefore in no position to have the ideas transmitted to London before the end of the afternoon of 2nd May—and by that time, the "General Belgrano" had been sunk.
The Government see no reason at all to have an inquiry. As the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has studied this matter so thoroughly, I am sure that he will have read the letter that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has sent to the secretary of the National Union of Seamen setting out the position fully.