| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Electoral Reform
14. Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): What representations he has received on the report of the Jenkins Commission on reform of the electoral system. [108248]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We have received several hundred representations both for and against the proposals made by the Jenkins commission.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Given that our electoral system is used in 62 countries and by no less than 49 per cent. of the world's electors and that there is no evidence of a public demand for change, will the Minister confirm to the House that he will fight, fight and fight again to save the system that works? What better day's work could he do than to slap down Lord Jenkins, the Foreign Secretary
and the people whom his boss, the Home Secretary, has described as the "scavengers of British politics"--the Liberal Democrats?
Mr. O'Brien: The straight answer is that setting up the independent commission on the voting system was a way of offering the people of this country an opportunity to vote on a suggested system. It is part of our manifesto commitment, which we intend to honour.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): Will my hon. Friend admit that we have seen enough of the failures of the proportional representation system and that the best thing to do with the Jenkins proposals is dump them in the waste bin, where they belong?
Mr. O'Brien: I suspect that there are many who share that view on this side of the House. [Laughter.] Perhaps I should say on both sides of the House.
Asylum Seekers
16. Mr. Ben Bradshaw (Exeter): If he will make a statement on progress in relieving the pressure on accommodation for asylum seekers in London and the south East. [108250]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): About 1,000 asylum seekers have been dispersed from London and Kent to other areas of England since the start of the interim dispersal scheme on 6 December 1999.
Mr. Bradshaw: Will my hon. Friend do what she can to expose and publicise the apparent double standards of some political parties whose representatives in London and the south-east make loud demands for dispersal while those in other parts of the country not only resist dispersal but use the issue to fan the flames of anti-foreigner feeling?
Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as has been illustrated once again this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) says one thing one day and another thing the next. She goes to Kent and says that something must be done to relieve the burden and the pressures there, and then she supports an amendment tabled in the other place that would delay dispersal--which would help the people of Kent--and cost our hard-pressed taxpayers £500 million a year.
Thames Safety Inquiry
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about river safety.
The House will recall that a little over 10 years ago, on 20 August 1989, on a fine, warm summer evening, 132 people were enjoying a riverboat party on the Thames. Within minutes, their boat, the Marchioness, would be sunk, struck by a dredger, the Bowbelle; 51 young people would lose their lives and many more would be injured. Many questions about the cause of the collision, the reason why so many died, and the handling of the whole affair following the incident have remained unanswered.
The search for the truth was not helped by the failure of the then Government to institute a full public inquiry. On 18 August last year, I announced a wide-ranging public inquiry into safety on the River Thames and the circumstances surrounding the Marchioness disaster. It was chaired by a senior judge, Lord Justice Clarke. It was an open public inquiry. Its scope was broad and its examination detailed, including written and oral evidence. For the first time, all the relevant documentation was gathered in one place and everyone concerned could make their case.
The inquiry reviewed current safety standards on the river and Lord Justice Clarke's report was published quickly, as I requested, on 2 December 1999. Lord Justice Clarke was also asked to advise
Lord Justice Clarke recognised that the regulation of safety on the Thames is much improved since 1989. This is due in no small part to the efforts of the survivors of the Marchioness tragedy and the relatives of those who died. The Government accept all 44 of Lord Justice Clarke's recommendations; 10 have already been implemented on the Thames, and action is well advanced on implementing the rest.
I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses an action plan on river safety, explaining how my Department, working with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Port of London Authority, intends to implement the recommendations. These include a consultation on the consumption of alcohol by people in charge of vessels; funding a formal safety assessment on search-and-rescue facilities on the Thames; and funding the provision of experimental life-saving equipment at locations along the Thames.
Although the inquiry's recommendations are confined to the Thames, our approach will be to pursue the recommendations on a UK-wide basis. Safety is as important on other rivers as it is on the Thames, as I am sure the House will agree.
In his second report, Lord Justice Clarke considers the case for a further investigation or inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the Marchioness disaster and its causes. He concludes:
The Lord Chancellor has agreed to appoint Lord Justice Clarke to conduct the inquiry, which will have the power to obtain documents, to issue summons for the attendance of witnesses, to take evidence on oath and to order cross-examination. Lord Justice Clarke considers that the scope of the inquiry will be sufficient and that the public interest does not require a further inquiry into the police investigation, the two inquests or the failure to secure criminal convictions. The Government accept his recommendations on those matters.
I recommend right hon. and hon. Members to read Lord Justice Clarke's searching and thorough review. Lord Justice Clarke also addressed the question of the relationship between inquiries, inquests and criminal and civil proceedings. That can be a cause of great frustration and is an issue which concerns me greatly. It can sometimes lead to delays in inquiries, or in the publication of reports. Those problems can extend far beyond transport.
We therefore need to consider Lord Justice Clarke's proposals carefully, across government. The Government will report to Parliament when we are in a position to do so. However, on one issue, I intend to go beyond what he recommends. The bereaved families have expressed forcefully their great distress at the removal of the hands from the victims for fingerprint identification purposes, without advising the next of kin. Lord Justice Clarke looked at that matter in detail but did not recommend that it be covered by the inquiry. However, in consideration of the anguish that that incident caused, I have set up a non-statutory public inquiry into that specific matter under Lord Justice Clarke to run side by side with the judicial inquiry. The full terms of reference will be published today and have been placed in the Library.
On the matter of costs, I shall look favourably on applications made by the relatives of the victims and the survivors for reasonable legal costs to be met from public funds. Such funds need to be used efficiently so that work is not duplicated and the inquiry's timetable is adhered to. Lord Justice Clarke will ultimately decide on the award of costs at the inquiry.
The Marchioness disaster was the last and worst of a series of collisions on the Thames. It raised concerns about boat design, numbers of crew, the readiness of emergency services and the way people were treated after the incident. The Marchioness families and many others over the last 10 years have made representations to this Government and the last Government. The families have felt strongly that no full public inquiry took place and that they had had limited opportunity to express their
concerns. In 1992, I myself condemned the "legal fancy dancing", which caused confusion and stood in the way of a full public inquiry.
"Whether there is a case for a further investigation or inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the Marchioness disaster and its causes."
His second report, dealing with that issue, is being published today. Copies of both reports are in the Library of the House. I am greatly indebted to Lord Justice Clarke and his team for producing such thorough, well- considered and impressive reports so quickly.
"I have no doubt in my mind that if such a tragedy happened today, there would be a widespread public demand for an inquiry. In my opinion such a demand would be entirely justified."
He goes on to say that the tragedy
"cried out for public scrutiny in order to discover how it was that such a terrible event could occur."
To put matters right, I can announce today that I have ordered a judicial inquiry, under section 268 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, into the collision between the Marchioness and the Bowbelle, and the search- and-rescue operations that followed the collision.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |