| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley): I recognise the difficulty facing my hon. Friend the Minister in putting his case. However, I remind him that there have been spending adjustments in Departments--an extra sum has been found in the Department of Health to try to avert the crisis that may be imminent in the health service this winter. I think that most people recognise the injustice--which was again drawn to our attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) this morning--of what happened to people last year. Although I recognise that that action was taken by the previous Government, surely some adjustment can be made in the Department of Social Security to take account of the injustice that has been done to the people whom we represent.
Mr. Denham: I have made it clear that that injustice is not the subject of today's debate. We must take account
of the pressures on Government spending and the importance of those commitments in all our decision making. We would all welcome decisions to increase investment in the health service this winter, but not every pressing demand on the Government can be met within the prudent spending limits that we have quite rightly adopted.
Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney): I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend. He continually rests his case on the election manifesto commitment on public expenditure, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) reminded us, the Secretary of State, when shadowing this responsibility, said very clearly to a deputation of hon. Members that this was an issue on which a Labour Government really could make a difference.
Mr. Denham: We have followed through that discussion by keeping our commitment to have a review--the announcement that I made in June. If I may, I would like to make some progress to explain the action that we have taken.
We estimate that to restore REA to all those people affected would cost around £45 million a year gross, about £40 million after allowing for offsets. This could be found only by cutting support for others in need. The overriding need for prudent public spending and to meet our priorities to improve education and health services means that we are not in a position to tackle every hardship and injustice caused by the previous Administration. We have concluded that it would not be possible to restore REA or provide retrospective transitional protection.
However, as I have said, many of the 24,000 REA recipients who transferred to retirement allowance following the March 1996 changes were treated very
badly by the previous Government. It was harsh that they received very little warning of the reduction in their income of about £30 a week. That caused many pensioners considerable financial hardship. We are determined that REA recipients who transfer to RA in the future are better prepared than those who transferred under the previous Government. We have arranged for the Benefits Agency to write to all REA recipients to give them sufficient warning that they will suffer a reduction in their benefit when they attain pension age if they are not working. This will enable them to plan for their future.
As my hon Friend said, there may be individuals who have received a notice that an award of REA would continue to a particular date or for life who can show that the Benefits Agency made a mistake in giving them a further unconditional assurance that the award would continue for that period. In such circumstances, the individual may be able to get help under the Department's special payment arrangements, which offer financial redress in cases of maladministration. As the unconditional assurance should not have been given, an exgratia payment can be considered in these cases if the individual can show that he or she has undertaken an on-going financial commitment based upon the unconditional assurance.
On resuming--
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan):
Four weeks ago to the day, the Sapphire--Peterhead-registered fishing boat 285--was lost about 12 to 15 miles from its home port. My constituents Adam Stephen, Robert Stephen, Bruce Cameron and Victor Podlesny lost their lives. Our proceedings are being heard by representatives of those men's immediate families and by the only survivor of the tragedy, Victor Robertson. These are people who are united in grief and also united in a campaign to have the bodies of their loved ones returned to their families, if that is humanly possible, to allow a family burial.
The campaign, which is being conducted with the most enormous dignity, is supported by the local mission, by local councillors, by the wider community of Peterhead and by every fishing community the length and breadth of the country, there being a special bond that unites people facing tragedy.
I want to do three things in this brief debate. First, I want to set out an argument as to how we should deal with people in the circumstances that I have outlined, including the right attitude to adopt, and the modern and correct attitude towards family burials instead of services of remembrance.
Secondly, I want specifically to focus on what I regard as a huge anomaly within our system of public administration, which is that no one has any public responsibility for recovering the bodies of men lost at sea. It is extraordinary that there should be no such responsibility, and it is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue.
Thirdly, I want to present to the Minister information that I made available to her yesterday evening on the results of a feasibility study commissioned by the families, which shows beyond any reasonable argument, I think, that it is possible to recover the Sapphire and to have a good chance of recovering the bodies--all or some--of the lost men.
The traditional attitude in fishing communities was towards sea graves, but there has been a substantial change in recent years. The reason above anything else is that we have seen 25 years of new technology in the North sea. We have an oil industry that daily uses techniques and technology to recover many things from the sea bed, from oilfield debris to second world war mines. Millions upon millions of pounds are expended in that process. It is now technically possible to locate, survey and raise fishing vessels that are lost at sea. That was not the position in the past.
Over the past few years--I know this from speaking to inspectors privately in the marine accidents investigation branch--in virtually every instance of a fishing boat being lost, there has been a real and passionate demand from the families involved to have the bodies of the lost men recovered.
Seven years ago, there was a well-publicised campaign, supported by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, including many hon. Members whom I see in their places today, to raise the Antares, a boat which
sank in different circumstances but which was the subject of a vociferous campaign by Clyde fishermen over several weeks before the Ministry of Defence agreed to do what I believe it was duty bound to do, and raise the Antares--from deeper water, incidentally, than that in which the Sapphire is lying. The exercise resulted in the bodies of three men being recovered. One body was later recovered in the estuary.
I was speaking recently to Patrick Stewart of the Clyde Fishermen's Association. He was in no doubt that the recovery of the Antares greatly assisted the grieving process, and that the recovery of the men's bodies was of substantial comfort to the families involved. I therefore think that feelings within the fishing community and in the wider community have changed.
The attitudes that have changed in the fishing community, as so clearly demonstrated in recent tragedies, are mirrored in the general attitudes of society. For example, in past conflicts, men lay as they fell. In more recent conflicts, such as the Gulf war and the Falklands, service families have had the option of having the bodies of their lost ones returned for family burials, and rightly so. Our attitudes as a society are changing, and because of improved technology, the change of attitude has been especially rapid within the fishing community.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray):
As my hon. Friend knows, I have already written to the superintendent of the mission in his constituency expressing the condolences of the fishing communities of Moray on the loss of the Sapphire, which has recalled for many of us the loss of the Premier. My hon. Friend might care to extend the debate slightly further, because there are instances of fishermen being lost at sea without the loss of the boat on which they were sailing. There is a strong case for investigations to be undertaken in all losses of life at sea in such circumstances, and I refer particularly to the loss of my constituent, Neill Wood.
Mr. Salmond:
Only too tragically, my hon. Friend and other Members who represent fishing communities will have similar experiences. Many Members--some of whom are in the Chamber today--have written to me and my constituents over the past few weeks expressing their sympathy and condolences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) brings me to my second point. It is remarkable that no public agency has any formal responsibility for recovering the bodies of men lost at sea. As a society, we spend millions of pounds recovering second world war mines, which are a danger to oil installations. One was recovered quite recently at a cost of several million pounds, and rightly so. But there is no agency with responsibility for recovering the bodies of lost men. The remit of the MAIB is confined purely to determining the cause of the incident.
My constituents and the wider fishing community are acutely concerned to ascertain the cause of the sinking of the Sapphire. There is also concern that the bodies of the lost men should be returned. That concern is not answered formally by any public agency.
The Sapphire sank on 1 October. On 19 October it was located and surveyed by a remotely operated vehicle. It is arguable--it is almost definite--that the boat would not have been found if it had not been for the intervention of
one of the widows, Isobel Podlesny. She was able from her knowledge of the fishing community to determine new co-ordinates from where an oil slick had been seen. The surveying vessel proceeded to these co-ordinates, and found the Sapphire just before the contract expired. I mention that because it shows the determination of the families involved, including their relatives, to have their men returned if humanly possible.
The Sapphire was located and surveyed. It is lying in 83 m of water--270 ft, for those who still think in "old money". It is lying on its starboard side and is intact, as if it had been placed on the sea bed. Determining the cause of the accident is the responsibility of the MAIB, and I am sure that it would be greatly assisted by having the physical evidence that would come with the return of the vessel. Even within the narrow bounds of present public responsibility, I submit that the Minister can ask for that to be done.
The Minister should institute a review and give an agency the responsibility--whether the MAIB or another public body--of examining the feasibility of recovering boats lost at sea. No one would argue--certainly not my constituents--that recovery is possible in every case. In many instances, the boat cannot be found. In some, the boat will be so badly damaged as to make its recovery impossible. In others, there will be a huge element of danger, making it impracticable to recover the boat. However, someone should have responsibility--with the onus on recovering the bodies of lost men, if that is possible--to examine feasibility and to come to a considered judgment.
It is totally unsatisfactory that no one had that responsibility. Investigations proceed on a time scale that is designed purely for the official investigation into the cause of an accident. It is now four weeks to the day since the Sapphire sank, and that time scale has been painfully slow for my constituents.
I do not blame the inspectors or the management of the marine accidents investigation branch, who are working to a remit in determining the cause of the accident. But we, as the people who frame legislation, should fill this public responsibility vacuum, ensuring that some agency has such a function and remit, and answers the call of these families in their grief.
I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity at least to consider that wider element, so that no families in future suffer the agony of uncertainty that my constituents and many constituents of other hon. Members have suffered in recent years.
The Minister has written a letter to the relatives in which she sets out the reasons why the boat cannot be recovered. She argues that informal advice from the MAIB shows that a dive to recover the bodies would involve an element of danger to the divers concerned. Quite properly, she considers that such a dive would not be justified and could not be undertaken. All my constituents agree with that.
The families, passionate and determined though they are to recover their lost relatives, would not argue that any human life should be placed in jeopardy in that enterprise. These are fishing families, so they are aware of the dangers of the sea, and would not argue for anyone to be put in that position.
Fortunately, and overtaking the Minister's correspondence, we have available a feasibility study--I faxed a copy to the Minister last night, after she had written the letter to the families--which was published a few minutes ago in its full terms.
This study into the feasibility of lifting the vessel from the sea bed and recovering the bodies of the lost men was conducted on behalf of the relatives by Dronik Consultants, the company employed by the MAIB to survey and locate the vessel. It agrees with the informal advice given to the Minister that a pressurised dive at that depth to a vessel lying on its starboard side would be dangerous and unjustified. It would also be a costly operation: the cost is estimated to be £800,000.
Luckily, there is an alternative. The feasibility study sets out how that alternative can be carried through. The technology of lift barge vessel recovery is available, and would be cheaper and totally safe, because it does not involve the use of divers, but merely a remotely operated vehicle.
Luckily also, by coincidence a vessel with the capability to lift the Sapphire from the sea on to its deck and bring it back to port is at present in Scottish waters: Tak Lift 4 is available from today for the next 21 days, with no schedule of work. A plan to lift the Sapphire could be carried out by that vessel at an approximate cost of £380,000. It would involve no danger, no pressurised diving and no jeopardy of any other human being, and would enable the bodies of these men to be returned to their grieving families.
I hope that the Minister will take careful note of this new information, and agree to consider her position. This information has come to light through the initiative of the Sapphire families. I accept that this is a difficult question, as do the families, but we must have a considered public response.
1.30 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |