House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 Jul 1992

Column 687

but I shall be glad to supply that information to my hon. Friend so that he understands the seriousness with which we take such matters. In practice, prosecutions seem to be successful when they concern explicit visual representations, in magazines or on video, of actual sexual intercourse or of such activities as cannibalism, bestiality, buggery, sadism and child abuse. However, it is possible that prosecutions purely in respect of written descriptions present greater difficulties. As my hon. Friend mentioned, ours is a visual society, and the written word is a less direct medium of communication, requiring some intellectual interpretational effort by the reader. The impact of the written word is less immediate than images and there may be problems in persuading juries that the written word by itself has a tendency to deprave and corrupt. When deciding whether to prosecute, the Director of Public Prosecutions must take into account all those matters, in terms of their application in law.

At the heart of my hon. Friend's remarks was the question whether we should reform the Obscene Publications Act. The Government are not complacent about the matter. We believe that there is room for reform of the Act, but, hitherto, suggestions for reform have concentrated on replacing or supplementing the "deprave and corrupt" test, which is at the heart of the Act. I commend a Library note to my hon. Friend, who has considerable knowledge of the subject. It is a useful document and summarises the issues and work and the fate of some of the legislative attempts on this matter.

Mr. Stephen : I have seen it.

Mr. Jack : I am glad that my hon. Friend has seen it ; I found it a useful work when I was preparing for this debate.

Problems have been encountered in previous legislation containing features such as a shopping list of activities or the test of gross offensiveness to a reasonable person. My hon. Friend mentioned that test in relation to the Bill which was introduced by Gerald Howarth but which, sadly, ran out of parliamentary time. If my hon. Friend reads the report of the debate on that Bill, he will find that the Government were supportive and helpful.

In many respects, the difficulties that the Bills encountered reflect the wider problem of legislation on this matter. For example, if one sought to compile a list of activities or subjects that must not be depicted, there would be considerable debate about what the list should contain. One would have to decide whether all depictions of a listed activity should be prohibited, no matter how oblique or inoffensive they were, or whether the restriction should be limited to a portrayal which is regarded as offensive --for instance, because of its blatant or titillating nature.

There would be particular difficulty in applying such a test to the written word. One might think, for example, that it would be right to ban a work which opens with satanism and includes insanity and child murder, or one which includes eyes being gouged out, hanging and suicide, or one which includes rape, cannibalism, murder and mutilation. But, of course, hon. Members will recognise these references as brief descriptions of "Macbeth", "King Lear" and "Titus Andronicus", all by

Column 688

our greatest playwright. I do not think that anyone seriously advocates a return to the days of Dr. Bowdler's edition of Shakespeare.

It could be argued that a work's offensiveness to a reasonable person is an easier test to apply. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage supported Gerald Howarth's Bill. We are also conscious, however, of the potential dangers that some would see to freedom of speech in making something illegal simply because it is offensive to some or even most people, and we would need to be sure that any future legislation did not open the way to an enforced political correctness before we could support it.

My hon. Friend asked why the Government have not acted in that area and he addressed the problems of deficiencies in the law. We did not introduce legislation, because of the difficulties that I described. I spoke about child obscenity and pornography on which we have moved decisively. There has never been a difference of opinion in the House on the need to act in such cases. It appears to be possible to distinguish between attempts to reform wide-ranging obscenity laws in a fundamental way and much more limited measures to deal with specific identifiable gaps in the law.

I hope that what I have said about our attempts to deal with the vile trade of child pornography illustrates the Government's willingness to act where there is a clear reason so to do. Such measures are important because we must ensure that children are not caught up in the production of pornography. As my hon. Friend said, we do not in any way want to fuel the activities of paedophiles. The extension of the obscenity legislation to broadcasting was a recognition of the indefensible situation whereby that most important and pervasive of media was the only one untouched by the law. Legislation to reform the Obscene Publications Act is a different matter. Obscenity legislation is all-embracing and involves difficult questions of balanced priorities, on which there will be genuinely differing opinions about the sort of material that should be prohibited. By contrast, child pornography has no creditable proponents and can never be justified.

Pressure to reform the Obscene Publications Act takes a range of forms and the nature of the demands varies greatly. For instance, most people, thankfully, do not encounter really objectionable material such as "Juliette", but my constituants tell me and I know from my postbag that there is much concern about material widely available in our high streets.

Some people agree with my hon. Friend about the contents of our newspapers. Some of the correspondence that we receive argues that, because of the wide circulation of such material and its easy accessibility, it is a more serious threat to our national life than hard-core pornography because it acts insidiously in reinforcing sexist attitudes, which my hon. Friend mentioned. Other people, while seeking controls over what may lawfully be made available, are also legitimately concerned that any new measure should not oppress the rightly valued freedom of expression on which the vitality of our national cultural life so depends.

The difficulty is, therefore, that there is a wide continuum of possible measures, from the comparatively mild to the draconian, each of which has its own constituency. Unlike the specific measures to which I referred earlier, it is not enough to agree generally that the

Column 689

law needs changing. Any legislation must be based on a clear assessment of what material should be caught and what should be excluded.

There is an understandable but unspecific general concern that the law is inadequate, but there is no identifiable consensus on precisely what changes are necessary in the public interst and on the basis of which a Government would be justified in acting. I am aware of my hon. Friend's personal wish to introduce legislation, but it is from our search for common ground that we draw some of our reasons for continuing to believe that our predecessors' policy was right : legislation in this acutely difficult, sensitive and personal subject is essentially a matter of subjective judgment and personal conscience. We still feel that the traditional prerogative of private Member's business is the right way to proceed.

The fact that the House has so far not succeeded in agreeing on a general reform of the law is proof of the difficulties that we face. It does not mean that the Government have shut the door to reform. On the contrary, as our record shows and as I have sought to show this morning, we remain willing to support attempts at reform, provided that they seem to us to be desirable in themselves, enforceable and likely to commend parliamentary support.

My hon. Friend made his comments courteously, forcefully and clearly. I hope that the debate will continue the dialogue between us so that we can find grounds which might ultimately satisfy him and those whose views he represents.

Column 690

Marchioness Disaster

6.57 am

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : I take no pleasure in raising the issue of the Marchioness tragedy and, in particular, the publication two days ago of the report of the Hayes inquiry. At this stage, it should not be necessary for an hon. Member to raise an issue which it is the Government's responsibility to pursue. I very much regret that the Government have not yet been seen to do so. The Minister was only appointed to the Department of Transport, with particular responsibility for London, in this Parliament. Most of the matters to which I shall refer were the responsibility of his predecessors in the previous Parliament, so I absolve him, but he has a hot potato to handle.

I shall make my own position clear. One of my constituents was unhappily a victim of the Marchioness tragedy, but I raise the issue rather because it is 50 years next year since I first navigated the tidal Thames, and I have been doing so fairly regularly ever since. In politics, emotion has a part to play, and in this instance it has given me the necessary steam. In the mid-1940s when I was a teenager, I brought a small craft down river and moored it to a buoy at Westminster pier. I had my tea alone in that small boat. I looked up at Big Ben and thought, "Goodness, wouldn't it be extraordinary if ever I were in that place." I have been here now for 22 years. I found that I was on the wrong mooring. A boat came along--it was literally a steamer--and a member of the crew shouted, "Come along here, sonny. Moor against us." I did so and chatted to the watermen. That craft was the Marchioness. It was then in its first edition, as it were, as a steamer.

Apart from that specific interest, I have taken a non-political interest in rail and water transport for some years. It is the responsibility of the House and of the Government to have a structure of protection for marine, road and rail transport which helps to provide safety. When things go wrong, we have a responsibility to ascertain why. In the case of the Marchioness, those who are left bereaved and those who are concerned about the matter are determined that those who died so close to the House should not have died in vain.

When the tragedy occurred there was not a great deal of surprise, unfortunately, among the river fraternity. The Bowbelle had been known for some time as a rogue vessel. It and its two near sisters, the Bowtrader and the Bowsprite, were well known on the river. The Bow boats had been involved, so the Hayes report tells us in the appendix, in no fewer than 40 incidents on the river since 1965. It is notable that only the Hayes report, which was published two days ago, has brought out that fact. It could not be inferred from the earlier report of the marine accident investigation branch, which was published in August 1981.

One would think that the purpose of a statutory inquiry--the Hayes inquiry was one because the then Secretary of State for Transport requested that the matter be examined--is to ensure that we pinpoint problems and ensure, as far as possible, that repetition does not occur. That should be the purpose of statutory inquiries. Unfortunately, I do not think that there can be public confidence in the report which has been so recently published. If anything, the position is the reverse of that.

Column 691

There have been three unsatisfactory phases. First, the content of the MAIB report was clearly deficient, as was the manner in which it was produced. Members were not properly notified and it was difficult to obtain copies of it. The report leaves much to be desired, as I shall demonstrate. Secondly, after much agitation the then Secretary of State, in December 1991, appointed the Hayes inquiry, which was popularly supposed to be a follow-up. As I shall demonstrate, its terms of reference were somewhat constrained. Thirdly, one of its principal recommendations has been turned down. The current Secretary of State for Transport welcomed the report, but promptly turned down one of its major recommendations even before some Members had been able to read it and before there had been an opportunity to debate the report in the House. It was thought by some--cynically, perhaps--that the report would be published later next week after the House had adjourned for the summer recess. At least we have had the small mercy of its publication earlier this week.

The statutory side of the procedure has been dealt with in three phases. There is the coroner's procedure, which may not yet have been completed. I think that everyone would agree that a coroner's court is not necessarily the best place to deal with some of the technicalities which arise in transport tragedies. Such a court does not necessarily have the scope to investigate the technicalities. The Director of Public Prosecutions has brought a charge against the master of the Bowbelle. Two court cases ended in the juries failing to agree.

There has also been a private prosecution against the owners of the Bowbelle, but a few days ago the court decided that it could not proceed. There is now no sub judice block on debate in this House or outside. However, as yet there is no sign, other than the completion of the coroner's proceedings, that there can be any further public inquiry. Indeed, so far as I am aware, the Secretary of State's decision earlier this week--taken before there was much opportunity for informed comment or debate--is that there will be no further inquiry. That is is not good enough. The proceedings to date have left as many questions unanswered as were answered during those proceedings.

I shall start with the legal proceedings in the court, and I shall use lay language. The Director of Public Prosecutions brought the marine equivalent of a charge of driving without due care and attention against the master of the Bowbelle. I understand that that was done because bringing any higher charge might not have led to a successful prosecution, as the DPP explained on the radio only a few days ago. Although it might appear not to be a grave charge in view of the results of the tragedy, we can at least understand its nature.

To be successful, however, the DPP had to prove that there was no contributory cause. I understand that, contrary to what may be the public 's impression, only a limited number of witnesses were called in the proceedings. I have some sympathy, as we all have, with the master of the Bowbelle. Despite the traumatic experience, he was not called and he did not volunteer any evidence. The jury disagreed. There was a second case hearing--

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris) : I remind the hon. Gentleman that the jury disagreed, and then disagreed again on the second trial.

Column 692

Mr. Spearing : I was about to say that. If I am inaccurate in my speech, I should like the Minister to intervene again and say so. We want to get the matter right and not have to correct ourselves. We all waited for the MAIB report, which arrived in August last year. Some of us who know the river and know something about that tragic affair read the report with considerable interest. Frankly, I was shocked. I knew--it is in Lloyd's List --that the Bowbelle had been involved in six previous collisions. Only one was mentioned in the report ; the others were not. I wrote to the Secretary of State pointing that out. However, that was only one of a number of matters of concern about the report. There were no quotations from eye witnesses, but there must have been quite a few of them. There did not appear to be the same logical description of events that we found in the two parallel inquiries that everyone has in mind : King's Cross and Clapham.

There was no description of the qualifications, experience or biographical details of the two skippers concerned, or of the background to the instructions of their respective firms. That was dealt with only in outline, if at all. Another matter that the report did not cover was a question which arises immediately, but was not even asked : why did the Bowbelle not stop after the accident? We know from the description that the man was standing by on the bows ready to let go of the anchor. That was one of his duties. It is suggested in the report that he was more concerned with that than with keeping a look out. Why did he not do that?

Fifthly, even if the Bowbelle had decided to proceed for whatever reason, or was instructed to do so, what about throwing overboard some of the floating equipment which must be carried by sea-going vessels, or launching a boat? Could it have moored at Tower pier, only a few hundred yards further downstream? That vessel could manoeuvre easily because it was going against the tide at that point. That was not raised in the report.

Sixthly, we read that the two other Bow boats had arrangements for an officer to be on the fo'c'sle during such a journey, but for a reason which does not carry much conviction, that was not done in the case of the Bowbelle. That was not followed up.

Seventhly, there is not much in the way of description of the Thames navigation service and tapes which I believe were taken by the Port of London authority officials at the barrier controls. That is not gone into. So far as I know, evidence was not taken from those persons either.

Eighthly--this is only a selection of matters which should have been raised --there is the whole question of the considerable time taken for the rescue vessels to reach those still in the water. That is not dealt with in the report either.

So from the time when the report was published until the belated appointment of the Hayes inquiry, there was great concern. In fact, it was rather more than that. I would say that there was evasion on the part of the Secretary of State. I wrote immediately to the Secretary of State to ask about the six collisions. I tabled a question to be answered when we returned on 14 October last year asking what representations the Secretary of State had had relating to facts not in the report and he said that he had had none. After a series of exchanges through written questions, it emerged that the Secretary of State or the Minister thought that the six collisions were not relevant factors.

Column 693

Yet they were clearly relevant to any sort of investigation at that point. It was not until 21 January this year, when I used the device of asking the Minister to refer the six collisions, which I listed, to the Hayes inquiry, that we finally got those on the record at column 157 .

The Hayes report, although headed "The Marchioness", was not just about the Marchioness, as people may have thought it to be. The terms of reference are as follows :

"In the light of the Marchioness/Bowbelle disaster to examine the handling since 1980 by the Department of Transport of its responsibility for the safety of vessels on rivers and inland waters and to report on the effectiveness of the present approach. The enquiry should take account of developments in the field of marine safety at the international level."

In other words, although the Marchioness disaster was relevant, the terms of reference of the Hayes inquiry were not specifically related to that tragedy, or any deficiency in the report already published, but tangential to it. The conditions on inland waterways of the United Kingdom, particularly non-tidal waters, are different from those which pertain on the relatively dangerous tideway of the Thames. After initially being glad to have a proper inquiry, those concerned were perturbed because of the relatively limited nature of the Hayes inquiry.

Having looked at the Hayes inquiry and consulted others, I had the impression that it did a good job, but only within the limits of the terms of reference. I submitted evidence asking Mr. Hayes to send it to the MAIB for its comments on what I considered were deficiencies in its report. He did not feel able to do so, because in his view--with which I sympathise-- the terms of reference did not cover that point.

Mr. Hayes's main recommendation is very germane. Paragraph 2.5.8 on page 5 states :

"There should be an early review of the rescue arrangements and equipment on the Thames which should take account of the Marchioness/Bowbelle disaster and the views of those who witnessed it. The results should be published and it should be undertaken by an independent person. The recommendations from such a review should be disseminated widely and considered as a basis for action by Riparian and Canal Authorities. It will need to be wider in scope than the present POLACAP emergency plan"--

a plan which the Port of London Authority implements when it has problems on the river.

Although I would welcome such an inquiry, it does not seem to amount to what was required following the King's Cross and Clapham disasters--and, indeed, the Marchioness disaster. More than one person may be needed to conduct the inquiry, and it may need to be even more precise than the recommendation suggests. On Tuesday--as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker ; you made some helpful comments, which can be found in column 275--the Hayes report was published, and Lord Caithness, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, made some radio and television broadcasts. A summary of the report was sent to the press, and appeared the next day. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I were not officially informed, although we had been heavily involved in the matter ; we were informed by Thames Television. Even before we were informed, however, the Secretary of State for Transport sent out a press statement, which said

"Mr. Hayes recommended that there should be an early review of the rescue arrangements and equipment on the

Column 694

Thames. The Government has given careful consideration to the recommendation but has concluded that a further review of this kind would not be justified."

I am staggered that in 1992 a Secretary of State, knowing all about the public concern that was felt about this terrible tragedy, and knowing that it had not been examined to the same extent as two rail tragedies which had preceded it, could make such a statement, even before those most closely concerned had so much as seen the report, let alone read or debated it. It struck me as extraordinary behaviour for any Secretary of State. I do not know whether the present Secretary of State could possibly have reached such a conclusion : he is new to the job, but he was a good Leader of the House. Perhaps the Minister can give us some of the background. As I have made clear, many questions have been left unanswered. The Hayes report is good as far as it goes, but it could not go very far. Paragraph 7.10 contains a couple of sentences about the inadequacies of a previous report, mentioning that survivors had not been interviewed. Of course it is difficult to interview survivors and report on the interview, but Hayes merely says :

"They also confirmed the view expressed in paragraph 4.2 of their report that requiring them to rehearse yet again the events of the night would in many cases simply have added to their distress without any gain to the Inquiry'. It is difficult to criticise MAIB for wishing to protect survivors from further anguish but there are a number who still feel that they had material evidence which was not considered during the investigation."

The unfortunate people who were in the water are not the only ones who feel that. It is also felt by those who know something about these matters, who presented evidence to the Department, the MAIB or Hayes and who know that that evidence has not received due consideration.

Now the Secretary of State is apparently putting a stop on any further investigation of any sort. As I understand it, it is still open to the Government to institute a proper inquiry even wider than that recommended by Mr. Hayes, which the Minister turned down. The Minister must tell us why there has been such a degree of reticence. All sorts of wild rumours about what happened on that terrible night are heard up and down the river. I have not repeated any of them. The only question that has been asked is about the relationship, if any, between the ultimate owners of the Bowbelle and any political funds which may have benefited from that firm. That question is in order, and if the answer to it were positive, that would make clarity in such matters even more important. If there were any such connection, it would be unfortunate if people drew the wrong conclusions.

The House has debated the tragedies which took place at Clapham and at King's Cross. Surely it is the duty both of the Government and of the House to ensure that those who died in the middle of our city in such tragic circumstances did not die in vain. Only a proper inquiry, parallel to the other two, can clear the air. It is the Government's duty to set up such an inquiry, and if they do not want to do so it is the duty of the House to insist that one takes place.

Column 695

7.20 am

Ms. Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) : I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on his success in initiating the debate and on its timeliness. I congratulate him, too, on the excellent manner in which he presented his case.

My hon. Friend and I have both had a long involvement with the issue, since the tragic disaster in August 1989 in which 51 people were killed as a result of the collision between the Marchioness pleasure craft and the dredger, the Bowbelle. Since then, I have worked closely with the Marchioness action group and have presented its considerable concerns to the various Secretaries of State for Transport who have been in post since that time.

As my hon. Friend said, that group has consistently called for a proper public inquiry, such as would be established--indeed, such as has been established--for other comparable transport disasters. However, as we have heard, those arguments have always been rejected by the Government, who first authorised the marine accident investigation branch to carry out an inquiry and then set up the broader inquiry into river safety conducted by Mr. John Hayes. As usual in such cases, the Department of Transport made the Hayes report available to the press but not to Opposition spokespeople. The report is welcome, but it is no substitute for a public inquiry into the Marchioness disaster.

Before I comment further on the report, I wish to put on record the continuing distress caused to survivors and to the families of victims of the disaster because of their great sense of injustice. The lack of a public inquiry has prevented those who survived from cross-examining experts and has prevented public scrutiny. Many questions remain unanswered --my hon. Friend listed some of them. Not least among those questions are those about possible negligence on the part of the operators, about the lack of observation of the rules of navigation and the lack of enforcement by the Department of Transport, and--perhaps more significantly--about the lack of a proper analysis of the rescue operation. I remind the Minister, who is new to his post, that on that fateful night more people died in the water than in the fabric of the Marchioness.

The survivors and the families are still pressing for the resumption of the inquest. Part one has yet to be held for seven of the victims, and the holding of part two is still a matter for debate. It is imperative that the proceedings are resumed as quickly as possible.

I apologise to the House, I have lost my place in my notes, due to the late hour and lack of sleep and concentration--or perhaps I should say the early hour rather than the late hour, depending on where one considers we are as between night and morning.

We are deeply concerned that the inquest proceedings should be resumed as quickly as possible. I ask the Minister to state his view of those proceedings, and to comment on the inquest legal expenses incurred by the victims' families. Many of them have been in financial difficulties as a consequence, which adds to their sense of great injustice.

Column 696

The Hayes report is welcome, and it author must be commended for his attention to detail and care. I congratulate Mr. Hayes and strongly support his recommendations for improving river safety. The report's key finding was that the Department of Transport must take considerable responsibility for failing to give a lead on river safety. The marine accident investigation branch report referred to an historic malaise in the Department and listed a number of its failures. They included, in particular, lack of attention to improving the conspicuousness of passenger launches, lack of action to improve visibility from the wheelhouse and the fact that it allowed to remain on the river vessels whose design hindered the task of lookouts. Those are serious charges.

Mr. Hayes supports those statements and draws his own conclusion. He states :

"the Department showed technical competence and dedication but lacked the vision and the drive to lead the river marine industry into accepting that high safety standards and commercial success were compatible."

Mr. Hayes specifically draws attention to the hands-off culture promoted by the Department in the 1980s, which asserted that less regulation was required in order not to fetter business. Although Hayes does not suggest that safety was put at risk, it is clear that the Government's ideological preoccupations at the time meant that the Department did not take the lead that it should have taken in creating a safety culture on our rivers.

Such inactivity is all the more inexcusable when set against the growing awareness of many of the dangers posed by pleasure launches and the problems of lack of manoeuvrability of vessels such as the Bowbelle. The Hayes report states that, despite being aware of the problems and agreeing measures to improve the situation, the Department agreed that the responsibility for enactment should rest with the operators themselves. No checks were made on those operators. That failure to take a more proactive role meant that when incidents occurred no action was taken, when it should have been. In answer to a parliamentary question of mine, the Minister's predecessor admitted that the Bowbelle and her sister ship the Bowtrader had been involved in 14 accidents since 1981. The collision between the Bowsprite and the Bowbelle in 1983 highlighted the lack of a lookout. That failure was to prove critical in the Marchioness disaster. Mr. Hayes comments that, despite that warning, the Department took no action to require lookouts, believing that the company itself would remedy matters.

The Bowbelle has at last been barred from the Thames--presumably in response to Mr. Hayes's concluding question. He asked whether large vessels with limited manoeuvrability and pleasure boats with limited vision could safely remain on the same stretch of water, especially at night. The answer is clearly no.

I echo the concern expressed in the report that implementation of the new regulations from the MAIB that were drawn up after the Marchioness disaster is again being delayed for commercial reasons. The consultation period is to be extended, which will further delay the regulations' implementation. I endorse Mr. Hayes's warning to the Government against going for the lowest common denominator. The regulations cover vital safety aspects, such as minimum standards of visibility and hours of work and

Column 697

giving boatmen's licences statutory status. They must be implemented without further delay and I ask the Minister to comment on that when he replies.

I want to comment on and draw attention to several specific points in the Hayes report. I make no apologies for first reiterating the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South about recommendation 8 which states :

"there should be an early review of the rescue arrangements and equipment on the Thames which should take account of the Marchioness disaster."

Like my hon. Friend, I am appalled by Government's precipitate and negative response. It is extraordinary that, despite all the clear evidence that improvements to the rescue operation are needed, despite what Hayes has said and despite the fact that more people died once they were in the water than died because they were trapped in the boat when it sank, the Government immediately responded negatively to the request for an early review of the rescue arrangements and equipment.

There is no statutory authority responsible for rescue in inland water accidents. That problem is compounded in London by the absence of a Londonwide strategic body. The Marchioness disaster showed confusion between the existing emergency services. The Port of London authority does not deem rescue to be its responsibility. Some person or some organisation should have the responsibility for rescue equipment.

I also want to support and draw attention to the recommendation that the Department of Transport should promote legislation to introduce a breath test for skippers and crews similar to that applied to car drivers. I understand that the Department is considering that idea and we are glad about that.

When the Minister replies, I hope that he can tell us what further steps he intends to take to control the design of craft like the Marchioness. Clearly, if there is insufficient visibility, the passenger certificate should be withdrawn. Repeated concerns have been expressed to me that those boats are totally unsuitable for conversion to their present-day use.

The Marchioness action group has asked me to raise another point which is of concern to the group. The group will shortly publish its own report now that the sub judice rules, which have hung over the case for the past two years, have been raised. The report will contain many issues that will have to be addressed by the Government. One of the group's concerns is that there is still no provision for lifejackets on pleasure boats, nor do those boats have rope ladders or ling rope around the side, which is an important safety issue. The survivors strongly believe that if there had been lifejackets on the Marchioness, some of the victims would have survived. I ask the Minister to comment on that particular point and its relevance to the Hayes inquiry's call for a proper investigation into the rescue operation.

It is time for clear and consistent policy on marine safety and it is obvious that such a policy is long overdue. I hope that the Minister will take up the challenge issued by the Hayes report. It is not good enough to depend on self-regulation and market forces. It is up to the Department to ensure that the highest safety standards for our rivers are formulated and enforced.

Column 698

My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South said in conclusion that it was our wish, desire and determination that never again should river safety on the Thames be so jeopardised that we could have a disaster of such proportions, resulting in the death of 51 innocent people.

7.33 am

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris) : I thank the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for giving us the opportunity to consider the Hayes report this morning. I acknowledge his considerable interest and experience in these matters. I acknowledge also the interest and concern of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who is also present this morning. I hope that the hon. Lady will allow me to call it "this morning". I normally refer to 25 to eight as the morning, but no doubt our clocks, as in so many other matters, are differently arranged.

The hon. Gentleman referred to legal actions that have taken place since the disaster. He will know that it is not appropriate either for me or, dare I suggest, for him to rerun cases which have been heard in the courts. The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to allow me to intervene on his speech. I did so just to confirm that, as he knows, on the first occasion, the Director of Public Prosecutions instituted against the master of the Bowbelle proceedings under the merchant shipping Acts in which the jury failed to agree a verdict. That of itself may or may not be significant. As I have said, it is not appropriate for me to draw any conclusion from that other than to note the verdict.

What is perhaps of greater interest is that, on the second occasion on which the DPP instituted a rerun of the first case proceedings, the jury again failed to reach a verdict. I shall not go over the reasons why I conclude that. The hon. Gentleman will know what principal issues would have been of interest to the jury, but it is worth putting it on record that there has been no lack of enthusiasm by the DPP in bringing appropriate proceedings. On the two occasions when evidence has been heard, the jury have failed to agree. The hon. Gentleman will know also that the private prosecution which was brought against senior officials in the company which managed the Bowbelle also failed.

Mr. Spearing : I assure the Minister that I, too, do not suggest having a rerun of those three cases, but they underline my point about the need for a wider inquiry. In prosecuting the skipper, who may have been under some constraint over which he had no control, perhaps any hon. Member would have come to the same verdict as the jury. To emphasise the personal responsibility of either the officials of the firm or the skipper is surely not the right way to consider the totality of the tragedy, which illustrates the inappropriateness of using the normal courts in respect of such a tragedy. That is why there should be a big inquiry.

Mr. Norris : As the hon. Gentleman will expect of me, I shall refer to the desirability of any further inquiry proceedings. In essence, the hon. Gentleman has raised two issues. The first is his long-standing concern about previous collisions in which the Bowbelle was involved. As my predecessor explained to him last year and as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the MAIB was aware of those

Column 699

collisions but it considered that only one of them was relevant to the collision with the Marchioness. That is why the others were not mentioned in the MAIB report. That is a matter for the investigation board, but it was also for Mr. Hayes to decide what should be included in his report to the Department. Hon. Members have acknowledged that Mr. Hayes produced a good piece of work--one which challenges the Department. He, too, took the view that those incidents, which were related to the disaster and which referred to the history of the Bowbelle had been appropriately treated. I merely leave that on the record.

As for the idea that there should be a further public inquiry, there have been two major inquiries into matters connected with the Bowbelle- Marchioness collision. One was the MAIB report and the other was the report by Mr. Hayes. They are substantial pieces of work. Evidence was collected widely. Advertisements were placed in the press for contributions to the work. In addition, there have been the three prosecutions to which I referred, all of which have been unsuccessful.

Hon. Members will know that the purpose of a public inquiry is to establish what happened and to ensure that the accident or incident does not recur. There is no case for one in this instance because, as far as we are aware, all the facts have been established. An inquiry would therefore serve no useful purpose. It is worth noting that the Hayes report does not suggest that a public inquiry or any other investigation into the cause of the Marchioness disaster is needed. If the hon. Members for Newham, South and for Deptford have any new evidence, they should come forward with it at the first opportunity. Knowing the assiduity of the hon. Member for Newham, South, I am sure that he would have done so if he had such evidence. Although I understand that, for example, some members of the Marchioness action group have called for a public inquiry--a call reiterated by the hon. Member for Deptford this morning--there is no case for an inquiry. It is clear that all the facts have been established.

Ms. Ruddock : I do not believe that the Minister can substantiate his remark that all the facts have been established.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : What facts?

Ms. Ruddock : The hon. Gentleman asks from a sedentary position, "What facts?" If he waits a moment, I shall try to explain my position. I had hoped to make a brief intervention.

Those who survived the disaster, who might have most information on what happened that night, and the eye witnesses have not been given the opportunity to present their evidence in a public arena. Just as importantly, they have not had the opportunity to cross-question the assumptions, presumptions, opinions and judgments of the experts who compiled the reports. For those two salient reasons, the Minister cannot substantiate the assertion that all the facts are known. We are convinced that they are not known. Those who have suffered most--those who survived and the families of the victims--have an on-going sense of deep grievance at the injustice of not having had a public inquiry.

Mr. Norris : I understand the sincerely held feelings of grievance among relatives of those who lost their lives in the disaster and of the survivors. I understand their natural

Column 700

concern. We are in difficult territory when either of us attempts to allege that all the facts are known or not known. However, in support of my proposition, I have the reports of the inquiries which have already been held. Both reports are substantial. On the hon. Lady's own admission, Mr. Hayes's report is challenging. I know that she does not suggest for one second that either inquiry has attempted to cover up information which is available and ought to be in the public domain. Therefore, the onus is on her. If she makes allegations that evidence is available which has not so far been adduced, I suggest in all seriousness that it is for her to bring that evidence forward.

As Mr. Hayes concluded more expertly than I, on the basis of what is currently known, no grounds exist for a public inquiry. That is not to say that many of those who were involved in one way or another in that accident do not have an understandable desire to express their feelings about the actions of some people on that dreadful night. I quite understand that. It is the most natural human emotion in the world. But we are dealing with the proposition that a public inquiry is needed. The basis for that inquiry would be that some part of the affair needs to be investigated because it has not previously been considered and material conclusions relating to it have not been drawn. I do not believe that either the hon. Lady or the hon. Member for Newham, South has made that case.

Mr. Spearing : The hon. Gentleman mentioned me as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). May I draw the Minister's attention, when he reads Hansard, to the six unanswered questions in the MAIB report which I listed. There are many more. Surely it is not merely a question of the opportunity of witnesses to give evidence. For example, witnesses on the Hurlingham are not quoted at all. Questions which have arisen in the informed public's mind should be investigated and answered. I produced some questions that were not answered.

Mr. Norris : Perhaps I may say a few words about the Hayes report, and in that context we may be able to answer some of the detailed questions that the hon. Gentleman asked. I intend to cover much of the ground that he mentioned.

Ms. Ruddock rose--

Mr. Norris : I hope that the hon. Lady will allow me to continue for a few seconds.

Last December, as the House will know, Mr. Hayes was invited to conduct his inquiry into river safety. His precise terms of reference were :

I shall deal with the report first and then come back to the specific matter of the Marchioness disaster.

Next Section

Home Page