Clear light of Daytime

Alan Rusbridger

Hello and welcome. . . . Good news about young Prince Henry. Do you approve of the name? (Cheer). Good, good. Well, today a change of tack.'

Sarah Kennedy, late of Game for a Laugh and Sixty Minutes, is filling in the gap in Thames TV's programme schedul- ing on a Thursday afternoon between Fal- con Crest at 1.30 and Take the Highroad at 3.00. The programme (Daytime) is almost live — it has been recorded just an hour earlier — and here she is greeting the in- vited audience. Last week, funnily enough, the programme was about the Royal Fami- ly. And this week? This week the Belgrano affair. Sarah has slightly under half an hour to fill.

General Haig couldn't make it and Fran- cis Pym has dropped out. But we still have Lord Lewin and Tam Dalyell in the studio and Sir Anthony Kershaw linked up at his Gloucestershire home. Not forgetting of course the audience ('Do join in if you feel like it'), which includes a number of jour- nalists and lawyers as well as a couple of people who have lost close relatives during the Falklands war. What is about to hap- pen is that Sarah and the Daytime team will demonstrate as clearly as anyone could reasonably hope how television can, when it sets its mind to it, manage such a bias against understanding that someone want- ing to get to grips with any of the various facets of the Belgrano affair would be mar- ginally better off waiting for the afternoon racing from Kempton Park. Let us rejoin Sarah and the studio audience and see how it is done.

We begin by getting a bit of the atmos- phere in the control room of the Con- queror submarine through the diaries of

one of its crew members. Then we have a filmed snatch of Dr Owen talking (or 'hog- ging the limelight' as Sarah has it) about the supposed Belgrano cover-up. And then Adam Raphael of the Observer explains why cover-ups are a serious matter. Now we are given the timetable of signals and navigational courses — but without any graphics or maps that might help illustrate what is going on. And television's sup- posed to be so good at that sort of thing.

Back to Sarah: 'Now this timetable has prompted the question: "Was the Belgrano sunk deliberately to scupper the Peruvian- American peace talks?" ' Difficult to say, really, since the timetable omitted any mention of diplomatic initiatives or their timings. Indeed, this is the first we've heard about these talks. Still, let's not lin- 'We don't sell newspapers here any more you'll find them in the Games Department.' ger, because we're about to hear a never- before-broadcast tape of an interview with General Haig in which the General indi- cates that the British Ambassador in Peru, Mr Charles Wallace, knew all about the talks because he was in the same room as the Peruvian President, Belaunde Terry, while he, Pres. Blaunde, was speaking on the phone to Gen. Haig.

Over to Arthur Gayshon in the audi- ence, who has written a book about the subject and whose interview with Gen. Haig that was. What was the significance of the tape? Mr Gayshon says it suggests that Mr Wallace knew what was going on and would have rung home with the news. It might have been thought pertinent here to mention that it also directly contradicts Sir Geoffrey Howe's categorical assurance of last April that Mr Wallace knew nothing of the progress of the peace proposals until he called the Peruvian Foreign Minister three and a half hours after the Belgrano had been sunk. But most of us have already abandoned any hope of having the wider context explained. No matter; over to Sir Anthony Kershaw. Sir Anthony decides not to talk about Mr Wallace, but observes of the peace proposals in general: 'No one else has suggested that the British cabinet knew anything about them at the relevant time and I fear the general's memory is at fault.'

Sarah: 'Thank you, Sir Anthony. I think that's fairly wrapped that one up. Can I come to you, Mr Dalyell? They called you a "Belgrano hero" in the papers today. D° you mind?' Mr Dalyell's look mixes amazement and pity. He recovers, decides to ignore the question and returns to the 'staggering new evidence' contained in the tape which must, he says, show that Mrs Thatcher has been lying. Sarah interrupts to go over to Lord Lewin. He insists Mrs Thatcher was telling the truth, and knew nothing about the peace plans until after midnight. Sarah: `Why did General Haig say that then?, Lord Lewin: 'The right chap to ask surely is our ambassador in Peru.'

We get a little hogged down here. In the absence of Mr Wallace, Lord Lewin tries to help out by showing that the Thames TV timetable is rather misleading: the way to understand it all is to reconstruct who knew what and when. But we're getting a bit pushed for time now, so Sarah inter- rupts again. Lord Lewin switches course to explain why, even if the cabinet had known about the proposals, it would have made no difference. Sarah: 'That makes Mrs Thatcher a warmonger rather than a peace- monger, doesn't it?' Lord L: 'Absolutely not.' He is about to enlarge, but Sarah has switched to Tani Dalyell. Mr Dalyell talks of others — In- cluding Cecil Parkinson — who have, he claims, said the war cabinet did, indeed, know of the peace plans. His complaint is against politicians, not servicemen. Sarah: 'I'll pick you up on that in a minute.'

Back to Lord Lewin. Sarah steers him round to more military aspects of the affair and in no time we are into details of tim- ings and sightings. But Lord Lewin is ever so charmingly beginning to lose patience: Before you start criticising all these events You have got to find out about details of submarine operations.' But there's no time actually to go into that sort of background and so Sarah interrupts once more: 'I take your point. It's not as easy as we think.'

No indeed. But over once more to Sir Anthony, who is struggling resolutely against a wail of feedback as he claims that Galtieri was never interested in peace any- way. Added to which, the peace plan was so vague in the form in which it was in. Probably. We wouldn't know since no one's gone into that. So over to Mr Dalyell again. We haven't yet, we should just say, been told what the basis of the cover-up claim is, but perhaps Mr Dalyell can tell us why he thinks there's been one? And now time's getting really short and, oh dear, Lord Lewin's talking again about going back and analysing the timing once more.

Sarah: 'I'm going to cut you off, Lord Lewin. I'm so sorry. . • . Lord L: 'It's very sad. . .

Sarah: 'But I do want to ask the families who were involved who lost their loved ones. You've heard the debate. What do you feel?'

An unidentified man who lost his son on the Sir Galahad says he thinks Mr Dalyell is simply out 'for personal advancement in Parliament.'

Sarah: 'Thank you. Can I move on to you? You lost your husband on the Shef- field. Was it worthwhile: The woman again unidentified, says she is glad the Bel- grano was sunk because she might have been a threat. Mr Dalyell is trying to reply to the bereaved father but Sarah cuts in to apologise: 'I'm so sorry, but the debate has run out of time.' A special poll conducted before the programme showed that the public was equally divided as to whether there had been a cover-up and whether there should be a public inquiry. It is im- possible to imagine that any aspect of the little afternoon scamper through the Bel- grano catacombs will have done anything to all to disturb that happy balance.