---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified--

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of--


(1) charges to which returning officers are entitled by virtue of that Act, and
(2) sums required by the Secretary of State for expenditure on the provision of training relating to functions conferred on returning officers by virtue of that Act.--[Ms Bridget Prentice.] Question agreed to.

25 Nov 1997 : Column 878

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community Documents. Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Landfill of Waste

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6692/97, relating to the landfill of waste; and welcomes the intention to set high regulatory standards for landfill sites.

Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies: Controls on Cattle, Sheep and Goats

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10040/97, on the prohibition of the use of material presenting risks relating to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies; and supports the Government's position that such controls are necessary for the protection of public health and to avoid the risk of undermining the Single Market.

Draft Budget for 1998

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10153/97, the draft general budget of the European Communities for 1998, and PE262.699, the European Parliament's proposed amendments to the draft general budget of the European Communities for 1998; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the Community.--[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.


That the draft Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.

Civil Aviation

That the draft Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Fourth Amendment) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.--[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Question agreed to.

25 Nov 1997 : Column 879

MT Gaul

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

10.16 pm

Mr. Alan Johnson (Hull, West and Hessle): This debate will deal with an issue that is of great concern to the people of Hull. As I discovered this week, however, the issue strikes a chord across the country, particularly in seafaring communities.

In this very short debate, I shall try first to make a case for reopening the inquiry into the loss of the Hull trawler the MT Gaul, which disappeared in February 1974 without trace and without sending any sign of distress. I shall argue also that the inquiry should be extended to cover the arrangements that were made to find the wreck of the Gaul. Finally, I shall ask the Minister to meet representatives of the families of the 36 men--the entire crew of the Gaul--who were lost. I know that the Minister appreciates that those families are the other victims of the tragedy.

The Gaul was a so-called super-trawler, and it was state of the art in every respect. Its design and safety features included automatic steering, a dual radar system and high-quality radio and telegraphy equipment. It was almost the first trawler to have safety equipment that 50 people could use in automatically inflatable life rafts. It substantially exceeded recommended stability criteria, and was thought to be unsinkable. It was less than two years old, and it had an experienced skipper and crew. Like all Hull trawlers, it fished in Arctic conditions, and was built to withstand such extreme weather conditions.

The Gaul disappeared in the vicinity of the North Cape bank in the Barents sea. There were fierce storms when it disappeared, but such storms were common. There were 17 other trawlers in the area, all of which rode out the storms on that dreadful evening.

In November 1974, the formal investigation in Hull--I make no criticism of its conclusions--determined that there was no trace of the Gaul. There had been no distress calls; no oil had been found on the surface; and no wreckage had been discovered, other than a lifebuoy that appeared three months afterwards--posing another mystery, which I do not have time to explore in this debate.

The inquiry, dealing with a hypothetical situation, did the best it could. It dismissed the theory that water had accumulated on the Gaul's factory deck--perhaps because a door had been left open, as tragically happened some years later on the Herald of Free Enterprise. Such an explanation for the Gaul sinking was dismissed because, had it happened, there would have been time to send a distress signal.

In the end, the inquiry concluded that the Gaul capsized and foundered as a result of being buffeted by heavy seas, when it was broadside in the midst of a turning manoeuvre against the oncoming weather. A subsequent two-year study by the National Maritime Institute concluded that the ship was so stable that that could not be the only reason it sank. It concluded that there must have been a contributory factor, such as damage being caused to the bridge by a large wave, affecting the steerage and radio contact.

25 Nov 1997 : Column 880

Those were the results of an inquiry and subsequent examination that had only supposition and theory to guide them. I do not criticise that work, but I wish to draw attention tonight to a significant development.

The wreck of the Gaul has now been found,270 m down on the seabed and 60 miles off the coast of Norway, by a film crew working on a Channel 4 documentary. Using a remotely operated vehicle, the film proved three important facts. First, it established that the wreck was, beyond any doubt, that of the Gaul. Secondly, it established that there was no damage to the bridge--and, indeed, its windows were still intact.

Thirdly, there appeared to be no damage to the superstructure of the ship, which would have been expected if it had taken a buffeting from heavy seas and fallen 1,000 ft to the bed of the Barents sea. One other fact emerged from the documentary--the wreck was facing almost directly into the weather rather than broadside, as the inquiry had concluded.

We should be grateful to Channel 4 for finding the Gaul, but it is now the Government's responsibility to ensure that it is fully and properly surveyed. The new evidence that necessitates the reopening of the inquiry appeared in the Channel 4 documentary, and there is no good reason for delaying the announcement of its reopening.

I turn now to the subject of the search for the Gaul, which should be part of a reopened inquiry. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for replying so quickly to my written questions on the subject. I asked how many reports had been received about the possible location of the Gaul, and in particular I asked whether the fishing protection frigate, the Mohawk, had made a report. The Minister replied that the Mohawk reported only on her involvement with the search and rescue operation, but that 13 other reports were received about the Gaul's location and they varied widely.

It was on that basis that the Government refused to launch any search for the wreck of the Gaul. Indeed, least year, the Ministry of Defence stated:

"because of the limited information about the Gaul's position when she went down it would be necessary to search hundreds, probably thousands, of square miles of sea bed."

At the heart of the debate is the belief that the only thing that was limited in the search for the Gaul was the authorities' determination to find it. It has now been revealed that a Norwegian trawler, the Riaro, had reported a sonar reading showing an obstruction on the seabed some 60 miles off the coast of Norway, shortly after the Gaul was lost. Testimony has also been produced from crewmen on the Mohawk, who reported that they found the wreck in the original search but were ignored.

How did Channel 4 track down a wreck that the full might of this maritime nation could not discover in 23 years? What time and expense was involved for the film crew? I can tell the House that the television producer involved, who has no seafaring experience, sat at home with naval charts that it is open for anybody to look at, and, using the sightings that had been reported to the authorities and the charts, established the likely location of the wreck. He then hired a boat that used to be a ferry but which had been turned into an underwater survey vessel, and found the wreck. It cost less than £50,000, and took only two days. That is very disturbing for the families of those who were lost on the Gaul. It is not true

25 Nov 1997 : Column 881

to argue that side scan sonar technology has only recently become available. Side scan sonars were available to the military before the tragedy. They have been in widespread use since the discovery of offshore oil in 1980. The lack of available technology cannot be used as an argument.

---