HMS "Conqueror": Log (Hansard, 3 July 1985)

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

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne)
My Lords, I understand that police inquiries are continuing.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I trust that in answering this Question the noble Lord will not be misled by the degree of support that I received on my first Question from his noble friends behind him. May I remind him—

Noble Lords
Question!

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that on 7th November last, when my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham pressed him to make a further statement when the inquiry had been completed, his answer was: I am certain that the information will be weaseled out of us in one way or another". [Official Report, 7/11/84; col. 23.] Acting as the weasel this afternoon, may I ask him whether he can now, eight months later, give us some information on what has been happening in the search for the log of a ship of Her Majesty's Navy which has allegedly been lost?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I do not think I can usefully add to the answers that I and my noble friends have given to the noble Lord on 20th April 1983, 12th May 1983, 28th June 1983, 13th July 1983, 7th December 1983, 28th March 1984, 29th March 1984, 1st May 1984, 16th October 1984, 7th November 1984, 13th November 1984, 10th December 1984, 12th December 1984, 12th February 1985 and 20th March 1985.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us on how many of those dates the question related to the log of HMS "Conqueror"?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, that is information which the noble Lord can extract from an examination of the Hansard reports for the days in question.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, will my noble friend take note that on this issue it is possible for those of us on this side of the House to return to that state of disagreement with the noble Lord opposite which is both normal and appropriate?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I was getting worried by the earlier exchange. I am reassured by what my noble friend has now said.

§ Baroness Macleod of Borve
My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister give the House an estimate of how much all these Questions have cost the country?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, it is a general convention that Parliamentary Questions cost something like £100 each to answer, so I imagine that my noble friend can do the mental arithmetic for herself.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is it not fair to say that the log of the "Conqueror" was lost, has not been found, the search is continuing and an examining body will ultimately report on whether it is found?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has repeated, more or less word for word, the implications of the original Answer that I gave.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, the noble Lord's answer to my first supplementary question contained a long list of historical dates. Can he say whether that was an answer to the Question on the Order Paper? My Question concerned what had happened to the inquiry into the loss of the log of HMS "Conqueror". Which of the dates that he reeled off related to the Question? I appeal to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. Is it not a courtesy of the House that when a Question is asked, the Answer should relate to that and not to other elements that have nothing to do with the Question?

§ Viscount Whitelaw
My Lords, I think that the House feels that we have had some time on this Question. So far as the courtesy of the House is concerned, I hope that the noble Lord will remember that he had this Question down on a previous occasion—I think it was last week—and he did not appear to ask it. I understand that perfectly well. Many of us have reasons for not appearing to ask Questions from time to time, but there was no apology from the noble Lord; so I think that we should just forget all about courtesies. Perhaps the noble Lord will remember that he should have apologised. I think that the courtesies have been upheld. I do not think the House would wish to go further into the matter on this occasion. I rather hope that this will be the end of the matter so far as the noble Lord is concerned.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I must answer that point.

Noble Lords
Order!

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I must answer that as it is a personal point. I sent an apology to the House that afternoon.

§ Viscount Whitelaw
If I have been in any way in error, my Lords, as the House knows, I am always the first to apologise. I did not hear of that apology by the noble Lord. Perhaps I should have and perhaps there was some mistake. If there was, it is my fault. That is all the more reason why I think that the House will probably want to move on to other business.