HL Deb 16 October 1984 vol 455 cc881-4

3.5 p.m.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My 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 Prime Minister knew of the change of course of the Argentine cruiser "Belgrano" when she announced on 4th May 1982 that the ship was closing on the task force at the time that it was torpedoed.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, as I told the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, on 29th March, the Argentine cruiser "Belgrano" was attacked because it posed an unacceptable threat to units of the British task force and for no other reason. Its various headings during the period preceding the attack were not relevant to that consideration.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that since this Question was tabled a number of revelations have been made, elicited solely by questioning in this House and in another place and by certain organs of the press? In view of those revelations, will he answer two specific questions? Am I correct in understanding that the answer to my question is that the Prime Minister was informed of the change of course of the "Belgrano" in November 1982? If that is so, why was that not specifically referred to in the White Paper published the following month; and, secondly, why was it that the Prime Minister gave a completely contrary answer to a member of the public in the view of the nation as a whole during the 1983 general election, more than six months after she had been told of the change of course?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I am afraid that I have now lost count of the number of questions on that matter which the Government have answered both in reply to the noble Lord and to right honourable and honourable Members in another place. If the noble Lord would like to have the latest information. I suggest that he refers to the letters recently sent by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to various right honourable and honourable Members in another place. I will place copies in the Library.

The Earl of Lauderdale

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that changes of course are normal in naval tactics?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I am not an expert in naval tactics but I imagine that my noble friend may be, and I am sure that he is right.

The Lord Bishop of Peterborough

My Lords, would the Minister like to draw the attention of the noble Lord who asked the Question to a letter in The Times today from a Mr. Measures, which I think sinks the "Belgrano" question forever?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I have not yet seen the letter to which the right reverend Prelate refers, but I shall draw it to the attention of the noble Lord.

Lord Boston of Faversham

My Lords, does the Minister agree that whatever the merits of the argument that it was necessary to sink the "Belgrano" because she posed a threat to our task force—and there is much to commend the argument that that had to be the overriding consideration at the time—nevertheless, the matter cannot simply be brushed aside on that basis, and that the Government should have been more forthcoming much earlier about the information surrounding those circumstances? Would he like to comment on a report that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Levin, said last week that it is highly likely that Her Majesty's Government were informed verbally at the time that the attack took place that the "Belgrano" had changed course? Is not this an argument at the very least for a supplementary Falklands White Paper to be issued?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, no, I do not think that the noble Lord's suggestion is one which we ought to follow. The observations of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, to which the noble Lord refers, I think were made from his memory, and I have to say that the documentary evidence does not support them.

Lord Boston of Faversham

My Lords, I am sorry to pursue this point with the noble Minister. As he has said, and as has been reported, his point about documentary evidence appears to be correct; but my question and the noble and gallant Lord's observation was directed to his recollection of a verbal communication to the war Cabinet.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I understand that the noble and gallant Lord's recollection of the verbal communication is confined to the noble and gallant Lord.

The Earl of Kimberley

My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that if a warship is carrying surface-to-surface missiles with a range of several hundred miles, it really makes not the slightest difference in which direction it is steaming—it is a threat to our forces?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, again, my noble friend's knowledge of these matters is a good deal greater than mine. I am sure that my noble friend is correct. It is perhaps worth recalling that units of the Argentine air force had attacked units of our fleet the previous day.

Lord Renton

My Lords, is this matter not now best left to the judgment of history. which will be that the whole of the Falklands effort on our part was a remarkable success?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I wholly concur with his view.

Viscount St. Davids

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that as a student of naval history I have never yet seen a single plan of a naval battle in which every single vessel on both sides did not frequently change course? Is he aware that these changes of course have never made anybody think that any such vessel had ceased to be hostile? Is he aware that nobody previously has ever thought that there should be any possible reason to communicate all these changes of course to the Prime Minister?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, that is the view of the Government.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, if I may add a word of support to my noble friend on the Front Bench—

Noble Lords

Question!

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that not only was the steamship apparently steaming away and towards its home base, but it was 150 miles outside the exclusion zone? What is the purpose of having an exclusion zone if one attacks warships outside it?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the position of the "Belgrano" inside or outside the exclusion zone had nothing to do with the threat that she posed to our task force.

Lord Paget of Northampton

My Lords, a question to which we are entitled to an answer here is why this action was discontinued while two Argentine destroyers remained afloat?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, that is an interesting question but outside the scope of this one.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, would your Lordships not agree that this discussion has now gone on long enough?

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, is it not the case that on 4th May, in her answer in another place, the Prime Minister asserted categorically that the conduct of the war was in political hands? Is it not also the case that since that time there has been a constant and premeditated cover-up of the facts of the sinking of the "Belgrano?" In view of the loss of life on the "Belgrano" and the loss of life two days later in the retaliatory bombing of the "Sheffield", if the Prime Minister did not know the course of the "Belgrano" at the time that she ordered its torpedoing, should she not have asked?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, it is indeed the case that the conduct of the war was the responsibility of the war Cabinet under my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. But the conduct of the battle was not; that was the responsibility of the commanders on the spot. There is no truth in the suggestion that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister telephoned the commander of the "Conqueror" and ordered him to fire the torpedoes.