The "General Belgrano" (Hansard, 29 March 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, as has been fully explained on many occasions, the "General Belgrano" was attacked because she posed an unacceptable threat to units of the task force, and for no other reason.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, has the noble Lord the Minister read the assertion that, when the then Chief of the Defence Staff, the noble Lord, Lord Lewin, (to whom I gave notice that I was raising this Question) heard that the "Belgrano" was under visual observation, he proceeded to Chequers where the War Cabinet was meeting, and stated: Here was an opportunity to knock off a major unit of the Argentine fleet"; and the Prime Minister then told him to go ahead? Secondly, will the noble Lord confirm that, before the sinking of the "Belgrano", no British serviceman had been killed, whereas after the sinking there were 255 British deaths and over 800 Argentine deaths?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, reminded your Lordships yesterday, he was not consulted by the authors of the book to which I think the noble Lord is referring, but would have been willing to talk with them had they approached him. I cannot therefore comment on the suggestions which the noble Lord makes. As I said in the main Answer, the "General Belgrano" was attacked because she posed an unacceptable threat to units of the task force, and that remains the position.

§ Lord Bishopston
My Lords, does the Minister recall that on 13th July last in this House, my noble friend urged the Government to have an independent inquiry into the circumstances of the sinking of the "Belgrano" with the loss of 368 lives? In view of the continuing disquiet—quite apart from the book which has been published and to which reference has been made—do the Government not consider that it would be helpful to their reputation to reconsider their decision on that day?

§ Lord Trefgarne
No, my Lords.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that many British lives were saved by this timely action; and so far therefore from there being any disquiet in this country on this matter, the reverse is the truth?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I entirely share my noble friend's view.

§ Lord Annan
My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that on 1st May there was an engagement between aircraft of the Argentine forces and aircraft of the British forces? Is not that in itself sufficient justification for the continuation of hostilities? Does not the Minister think that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, ought to give thanks for the fact that the submarine which was tracking the Argentine aircraft carrier, "Venticinco de Mayo", lost sight of her?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, as I have said, the "Belgrano" was attacked because she posed an unacceptable threat. What your Lordships' view would have been had that threat developed into an attack upon our task force, I do not care to speculate.

§ Lord Monson
My Lords, will the Minister agree that nothing is more likely to encourage Argentina to renew hostilities, thereby putting our Armed Forces and the population of the Falkland Islands in considerable danger, than the constant stream of pro-Argentine propaganda emanating from certain quarters in this country?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord. Much has been made of the peaceful intentions of the Argentine at this time; but your Lordships may recall that on 4th April, I think it was, the Security Council passed a resolution calling for Argentine withdrawal from the Falkland Islands, with which it did not comply.

§ The Earl of Cork and Orrery
My Lords, do not Her Majesty's Government, and my noble friend in particular, entertain a certain sense of gratitude towards the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for giving them so many opportunities to justify the sinking of the "General Belgrano"?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I hope there can no longer be any doubt on the matter.

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, in case a feeling is forming that views about the sinking of the "Belgrano" fall along party political lines, could I make it clear that I and I believe many of us—

Noble Lords
No! Question!

§ Lord Glenamara
May I make it clear to the noble Lord that I and many others feel—

Noble Lords
Question!

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I and many of us feel that in the context of an entirely unprovoked war. however regrettable and 344 tragic the loss of life may have been, the sinking of the "Belgrano" was entirely justified?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister explain how he justifies his claim that the "Belgrano" was a threat to the task force when it has now been established, first, that it was sailing away from the task force; and, secondly, that for 25 hours it had been under observation by HMS "Conqueror"? If it was a threat to the task force, why was it not sunk much earlier than 2nd May? Secondly, will the noble Lord answer the assertion that has been made, in view of the new revelations about the Peruvian peace initiative, that either the War Cabinet authorised the sinking of the "Belgrano" knowing that the Peruvian peace initiative was on the brink of success or in ignorance of that fact, in which case the Foreign Office was in dereliction of its duty?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, as has been said on many occasions, the Peruvian peace proposals did not arrive in London until some three hours after the "General Belgrano" was sunk. As for the direction in which the "General Belgrano" was sailing at the time, that ship had changed its heading on a number of occasions during the day in question and it was not therefore possible to say that she was sailing in any particular direction at the time.

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the picture that the noble Lord. Lord Hatch of Lusby. paints is one totally dissimilar to anything I saw in the Ministry of Defence at the time of this crisis? Would my noble friend also confirm, in addition to what he has said, very succinctly, as to the one reason why the "Belgrano" was sunk, that every piece of advice to the Prime Minister from our military experts was that it did, without question, pose a threat to the task force and to British lives?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, certainly the "General Belgrano" did pose a threat to units of the task force and that is why the rules on engagement were changed as they were.

§ Viscount Montgomery of Alamein
My Lords, having listened very carefully to what my noble friend has said, would he not agree that, having won the conflict, what is now much more important is to win the peace?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I hope that will be possible.