| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.10 am
Mr. Bill Etherington (Sunderland, North): First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) on being so succinct in his summary of the subject of this debate. I also appreciate the efforts made by my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who have pressed this matter from the outset--long before I was elected as a Member of Parliament--and have kept it alive. I also echo the tribute paid to Jim Slater, who was conscientious and sincere in trying to get a good deal for his members and their families.
The former National Union of Seamen and the International Transport Workers Federation have accomplished something that the Government have failed to do. It is quite reprehensible that the Department of Transport has had to be dragged every inch of the way. This debate has been made possible only because of the endeavours of people who accomplished what the Department of Trade and Industry and its inspectors thought was impossible. Paul Lambert, chairman of the MV Derbyshire Family Association, has also been a stalwart in this matter.
I have two constituents who lost people on the Derbyshire, and I hope that they realise--as I hope that the DTI and Ministers realise--that this matter will not go away. The fact that 16 years have elapsed makes no difference. The matter must be pursued until a satisfactory conclusion is reached, regardless of what that conclusion might be.
It is interesting to note that when the Derbyshire was built in 1976 it was described as an "innovative design". One of the most important aspects when dealing with a new design is to ensure that it is built absolutely and entirely to specification. We have evidence that these ships were not built to specification. Even worse, perhaps, is the strange disappearance of the ships' plans made by Swan Hunter's naval architects. The plans should have been registered with Lloyd's, but they were never presented there and no one has had sight of them since. On the balance of probability, it is reasonable to assume that the Derbyshire was not built to specification, and that that was a paramount factor in what happened later. Apparently the MV Furness Bridge complied with the specifications, but it was the only one that did.
The failure to conduct a formal investigation in 1980 shows that the Government do not rate the loss of 44 lives very highly. It is a matter of fact and of history that
seafarers' lives have always been relatively cheap, not only in this country but all over the world. They receive inadequate compensation and often work in appalling conditions for some of the worst employers the world has ever seen.
There has been much talk about frame 65. My right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow mentioned that the longitudinals should have staggered joints. He used the analogy of building with bricks. To take the analogy a little further, when one builds a house one does not build four separate walls and then join them at the corners with cement. One interlocks them, for strength. If one built a house with one brick on top of another, there is automatically a line of stress that is almost guaranteed to fail.
It is also interesting to note that the shipbuilder had to send out warnings to the owners. Again on the balance of probability, that shows that the design was inadequate and that the ships had not been built properly. That is no reflection on those who worked in the yards. For those who do not know, I should say that shipwrights and shipyard workers work to drawings. If the foreman is satisfied with how the drawing is executed, that is how the job is done.
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) for sending me a copy of the book, "A Ship Too Far". I read it with great interest and learned much from it. It is one of the best books I have read, and I think that everyone should read it. All credit is due to those who wrote it.
The inquiry was appalling. Although we hear so much about open government these days, knowledgeable people--naval architects and others with great knowledge of shipbuilding and the effects of storms on ships at sea--were not allowed to give evidence as they wished. Such proceedings make an inquiry no more than a charade, and completely humiliate those trying to present their case.
It is deplorable that the most anti-union Government in the western world have had to rely on the trade union movement to further this investigation. That is an appalling indictment. I hope that not only the MV Derbyshire Family Association but everyone in Britain will take note of the way in which the Government have acted on this issue.
Hon. Members have mentioned Brunel university's investigation and the photographic evidence produced by the International Transport Workers Federation. That evidence should be seen by all hon. Members. One significant fact shown in the photographic evidence is that the load of iron ore reached the sea bed before the parts of the ship's structure. I always thought that steel was heavier than iron ore. I leave hon. Members to decide for themselves the implications of that, but it tells me--again on the balance of probability--that the ship broke up at or near the surface.
I ask the Minister to make resources available so that parts of the ship's structure can be raised from the sea bed. It can be done. We can land men on the moon. We have space probes. We live in an era in which we have the technology to accomplish that task; all that is required is the political will. I believe that the Government owe such an investigation to the 44 citizens of this country who perished. It is important for the families to be allowed, once and for all, to have some peace of mind
and some rest. They have had 16 years of bashing against a brick wall with no worthwhile response from the Government. It is time to put that right.
It must not be forgotten that another ship, within a very short distance of the Derbyshire, managed to get through the "storm of all storms"--which we are now told was only an average storm for that part of the world. That should signify something.
Sir Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale):
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) for raising this matter. He represents the constituency in which I was born, and I have many happy memories of that area.
I also wish to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman publicly for the work that he did on the Committee of Selection, where he served with great distinction. Last Wednesday, we had a rather ill-tempered debate in which the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) made some very unpleasant remarks about the Committee, which shows their wilful ignorance. If every Committee worked as amicably as the Committee of Selection works, the House would be a happier place. During the time he was on that Committee, he was always completely fair and always kept his word. I am grateful to him.
I became involved in this matter because of a constituent called Captain Dave Ramwell, who has made the Derbyshire a cause celebre. He has spent I know not how many days and weeks delving into the matter and finding out an enormous amount of information. He deserves praise for his efforts. His work has always been painstaking, and whenever he has written to me he has been extremely polite. I pay tribute to him because, but for his work, much of the information that has been gleaned about the incident would not have come to light.
The Derbyshire sank without trace way back in 1980 near Okinawa. In 1982, the sister ship--the Tyne Bridge--started to crack during a storm in the North sea. The Tyne Bridge sailed under the Italian flag and went to Hamburg, where it was inspected by an Italian surveyor who decided that the damage was caused by the method of construction at frame 65, a point to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) referred. I understand that Lloyd's Register of Shipping agreed with the Italian surveyor's decision and that the owners were warned about the difficulties that such ships, faced. At that time it also said that, of the four sister ships, only the first to be built--the Furness Bridge--had been built correctly. That brings me up to date and to the main thrust of my comments.
We are now to have the first forensic investigation of a ship that had hitherto disappeared. I believe that the information obtained must be disseminated as widely as possible. In this respect, I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North.
Mr. Robert Atkins (South Ribble):
In view of the time available, I will make a short intervention rather than a
Sir Fergus Montgomery:
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's intervention.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |