Grenada: Intelligence Advice (Hansard, 17 July 1984)

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

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne)
My Lords, our reply to the Second Report from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs was published as a White Paper (Cmnd. No. 9267) on 20th June. The White Paper explains why we do not accept the criticisms in the report of our actions during the Grenada crisis.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is an all-party Select Committee and that its all-party membership found that in the days before the invasion of Grenada Her Majesty's Government had: been reacting passively to the events unfolding in the Caribbean and basing its reaction entirely on the advice received from Washington, which in the end proved to be unreliable advice"? Can Her Majesty's Government state whether they accept that criticism, and if not, why not, considering that it comes from some members of their own party?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am not certain that the fact that this was the report of an all-party committee, as the noble Lord rightly says, necessarily gives it a monopoly of wisdom on the matter. But I can say that in the Government's view the committee's description of the process of assessing information and formulating policy in a fast moving situation is oversimplified and relies heavily on hindsight.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the House fully understands that he has to defend the department against the committee's charges? But is he also aware that in the report it was stated that the United States Government recognised that it would have been better if they had consulted the British Government much earlier? Can he therefore say what steps have been taken to improve the consultative procedures between the two countries so as to avoid that sort of thing in the future?

§ Lord Trefgarne
Yes, my Lords, the noble Lord is quite right that the Americans have indicated that it would have been better if we had been consulted earlier. We are of course in constant touch with the 1328 United States on a whole range of matters. It was unfortunate that on this occasion we were not consulted more fully at an earlier stage. But the United States is our principal and closest ally, and I am not sure that the wide-ranging review, which I think that the noble Lord is calling for, is necessary.

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that we owe quite a few of our victories in history to having received and acted on the wrong information? Is this not another example? Should we not be grateful that we did not get the right information or we might have frustrated one of the West's few successes?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord has it entirely right. The actions that the Government took at the time are not ones that we would now wish to have changed, even with the benefit of hindsight.

§ Lord Sainsbury
My Lords, does the Minister agree that many of the smaller islands in the Eastern Caribbean welcomed the American action because they feared possible revolts against their own governments by extreme Left-wing Marxist groups?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to suggest that there was a wide range of views as to the merits or otherwise of the American action. If I may say so, I think that it is in our interests in maintaining the two-way flow between our countries that not only do we seek to persuade the Americans of our views, but we listen to their views as well.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, may I put one further point to the noble Lord which concerns intelligence sources in the Caribbean? As he recalls, there has been considerable criticism of the way in which we have neglected to develop, or to continue, the intelligence contacts that we had in that area since most of the territories gained their independence. Can he say whether we have improved our intelligence contacts in the area?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, it is, I fear, the case that a country such as ours and of the size of ours is not able to have the facilities in every part of the world for which the noble Lord is calling; but we take what steps we can to ensure that the arrangements are the most appropriate that we can make.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, I apologise again, but may I ask whether it is not the case that this is an area where we have particular interests and where we still maintain close relationships? In those circumstances, is it not a retrograde step to neglect our intelligence contacts?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I certainly agree that it is a retrograde step to neglect intelligence matters anywhere. But, having said that, there is a limit to what we can do. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not go into details.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that in this case the lack of intelligence was 1329 not lack of intelligence in Grenada but lack of intelligence between the Foreign Office here and Washington? That is where the intelligence link was needed. I do not cast aspersions on the noble Lord, but is he not aware that he has been briefed to give answers which give the impression of a great deal of complacency? Is it not the case that our Queen was Queen of the island of Grenada, yet a foreign power, albeit an ally, invaded the Queen's territory without her knowledge? Is this not a very grim commentary on the advice that the Foreign Office was able to give to Her Majesty's Government and that Her Majesty's Government gave to Her Majesty? How did it come about that on 24th October, less than 24 hours before United States paratroopers landed on the island of Grenada, the Foreign Secretary was able to tell Members in another place that no United States invasion was imminent?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we do not for a moment wish to be complacent about these matters, as the noble Lord suggests. We were informed in advance of what was proposed; but, as I said just now in answer to an earlier question, we certainly would have wished that the consultation had been earlier and more full.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, if Her Majesty's Government were informed in advance, how did it come about that the Foreign Secretary, less than 24 hours before the invasion, told Members of the other place that no invasion was imminent?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, that seems to be a matter of elementary arithmetic.