| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): My hon. Friend kindly referred to me as an ex-shipwright. Let me say, as one former shipwright to another, that the fact that the longitudinal ended where it did indicates a distressing design fault. I do not think that that has anything to do with the way in which the ship was built by the lads at the yard.
Mr. Dixon: I agree, and I hope that some of my hon. Friends will elaborate on that. The ships were built to specifications laid down by law, and that is one of the reasons why I believe that there was a certain amount of cover-up over the sinking. The deck should have been at least 30 per cent. thicker, and the metal should have been D and E grade.
A question that has never been answered is this: how do those who claim that the hull of the Derbyshire was up to specification reconcile that claim with the fact that many thousands of pounds needed to be spent on strengthening and repairing that part of the hull on her sister ships? Only one other of those similarly built sister ships was not restored to the intended design; that was the third in the series, originally called the English Bridge and later renamed the Kowloon Bridge.
On 25 November 1986, the Kowloon Bridge, in an abandoned condition, struck Stag rocks, off the southern coast of Ireland, and gradually sank, splitting at frame 65. Following the loss of that ship, early in 1987, it was announced that there would be a formal inquiry into the loss of the Derbyshire. A report was published in 1989, stating:
Many people in the maritime industry believe that that formal investigation was a whitewash. It came about only because of the structural damage to the Kowloon Bridge, which finally embarrassed the Minister into calling the investigation. Some matters were not raised. The history
of cracking throughout the fleet was virtually ignored. Even the evidence from the Kowloon Bridge, which gave rise to the investigation, was ignored.
Crucial witnesses such as Professor Bishop, an expert in ship science, were not called. David Swift, the Lloyd's Register of Shipping surveyor at the shipyard at the time of the "design change", wanted to give evidence, but was prevented from doing so. The wreck commissioner refused to consider reports that pointed to construction failure at frame 65. The "rule of bias" was broken as one of the assessors had already sat on the executive committee of Lloyd's Register of Shipping when its technical arm investigated the loss of the Derbyshire--the register has a vested interest in the outcome of the case. Some members of the MV Derbyshire Family Association were treated disgracefully when giving evidence at the inquiry.
Forty-four lives were lost on the Derbyshire. Many other seafarers' lives have been lost in bulk carrier tragedies and many more are at risk. If the accident had happened in any other mode of transport--in aviation, for instance--all aeroplanes would have been grounded and unlimited money would have been spent to identify and to rectify all the problems, but that is not so in the maritime industry. It seems that seafarers' lives are not counted in the same context as those lost on aeroplanes or trains.
I support and agree with the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the MV Derbyshire Family Association, which believe that the second survey should be a joint and open investigation--a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)--including representatives of the Ministry of Defence, the association's advisers, and appointed experts of the European Commission, under the control of an independent chairman. That would ensure that all parties accepted the second survey. After all, the association's advisers provided all the technical input for the first and successful wreck survey. It seems that Government Departments, having gleaned information from the association, have slammed the door firmly in its face.
Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston):
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) on securing this debate on the Floor of the House. His comments show the understanding in the House among those who either have worked in the shipbuilding industry or, like myself, were seamen. I first became involved in the MV Derbyshire case in the 1980s, through one of my constituents, who lost her husband in that terrible tragedy. Had there been no MV Derbyshire Family Association, the loss of the Derbyshire would have been long forgotten and none of the important things that have happened since then would have taken place.
I shall concentrate on my right hon. Friend's point about the way in which the MV Derbyshire Family Association has been treated over 16 years. We must remember that the first visit to the site of the Derbyshire disaster took place without the Government's assistance.
It was the association, the people who gathered around it, and people who know the business and come from the maritime world, who took the initiative and, against great odds--some said that it was an impossible task--found the Derbyshire. That was the first breakthrough for the association.
We must understand that, in times of war, when ships are sunk by enemy action, the families of the people involved suffer as much distress as the families of those who lost their lives on the Derbyshire, but they know how and why their brothers, sisters, husbands and fathers died. The Derbyshire families do not know how or why the Derbyshire crew died. Their determination has ensured that the matter has stayed on the agenda for 16 years.
It does the Government no credit to exclude the MV Derbyshire Family Association from the next visit to the wreck. There is no logical argument that convinces me--or any fair-minded person--that it should not be part of the return visit to the wreck site. It has assisted and constantly argued the case. It found the wreck, the first great breakthrough.
About two or three weeks ago, I attended a meeting in London. Up to that time, the MV Derbyshire Family Association was firmly of the view that it would be part of the team to visit the wreck. There was no reason to think otherwise. At that meeting, the bombshell was dropped that the association was not to be included. The view that that is an absolute scandal is shared across the political parties in the House. Those families have been tortured for the past 16 years. We must understand that only the bonding of those people has led to the matter staying on the agenda.
The ship was not rusted up or an old tramp steamer. It was built to a modern design, with all the technology available to man. A big question mark hangs over not just the Derbyshire, but bulk carriers in general. As my right hon. Friend said, that is why the issue goes far beyond the MV Derbyshire Family Association and the United Kingdom. Throughout the world, there is concern about bulk carriers. People who have lost relations on those ships are not satisfied. The Government have a clear responsibility to open the door for the families to ensure that nothing is hidden. The Government should have nothing to hide, but there is a suspicion, which is founded on fact, that decisions have been taken to exclude the families from the next visit.
As my right hon. Friend said, I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will reconsider the position. Only yesterday, in an another place, Lord Dean of Beswick and Lord Clinton-Davis raised the matter again with the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, who will still not concede the point that the MV Derbyshire Family Association should be represented at the next visit to the wreck.
I hope that the House will recognise that this is no longer a single Member echoing the wishes and desires of the MV Derbyshire Family Association, but a cross-party matter. Between 60 and 70 Members of Parliament have signed a motion formally supporting the association. That support will be ever-growing in the other place and in this House.
Mr. Matthew Banks (Southport):
I am pleased to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this important Adjournment debate. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) for persevering with his colleagues in seeking to be successful in the ballot for this debate. I am conscious of the fact that, because of his responsibility as a former deputy Chief Whip, the House has not had the pleasure of listening to contributions from the right hon. Gentleman. Towards the end of this Parliament, I am sorry only that we have had that particular pleasure now, on such a deeply upsetting subject.
"The Derbyshire was probably overwhelmed by the forces of nature in Typhoon Orchid",
and adding:
"the evidence available does not support any firmer conclusion".
I have a letter from Mr. J. F. Ibbotson, leader of the Australian branch of the MV Derbyshire Family Association. He writes:
"One of our Group, in command of an Australian registered Bulk carrier and taking the same course and the same cargo to Japan, heard no distress signal from Derbyshire because her end may have come too quick--in seconds.
So much for the forces of nature.
The same member did not consider the Typhoon to be much different from the 30 or 40 each year which occur in the Typhoon season in which he has made safe passages for many, many years."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |