| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Archie Norman (Tunbridge Wells): First, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement to the House and for providing me with an advance copy. We join him in his objective of ensuring that everything possible is done to contribute to transport safety in general and safety on our rivers in particular, and to ensure that there is no repetition of that appalling incident. I also join him in expressing sympathy for the families of the 51 victims, as well as the 80 survivors of that appalling disaster.
The Marchioness action group and the families have fought a longstanding campaign on the issue and we pay tribute to their vigour and resolution in pursuing the matter. We recognise, too, that the accident and its aftermath raised several aspects of deep concern. For instance, it is clear that one of the vessels involved, the Bowbelle, had been involved in half of the 18 collisions on the Thames in the previous 20 years, but no steps were taken after the collision to investigate why that was the case. It is reported that the captain of the Bowbelle was under the influence of drink at the time and yet, to date, there are no restrictions on so-called drink-driving on the river.
In the light of the circumstances surrounding the tragedy, in 1995 a coroner's court decided that the 51 people killed had been unlawfully killed, yet no successful prosecution subsequently proved possible.
The Deputy Prime Minister also mentioned the very worrying specific incident of the removal of the hands of 27 victims--a bizarre episode that has caused understandable further distress to the families and to the bereaved. We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's inclusion of this within the scope of the inquiry.
Despite a series of thorough investigations, there has never been an opportunity for all the issues to be aired in public, and for witnesses and relatives to satisfy themselves that no stone has been left unturned in the pursuit of justice and a proper explanation of the background to the incident.
For all those reasons, particularly in the light of the conclusions of Lord Justice Clarke's report, we welcome the public inquiry and hope that it can be conducted thoroughly and expeditiously to resolve finally the remaining questions surrounding the disaster. It is, however, important that the initiation of the inquiry does not give rise to a general lack of public confidence in river transport. This will not be the first time that the disaster has been investigated, although it will be the first time that it has been investigated in a public inquiry.
The Deputy Prime Minister has described the various investigations as "fancy dancing". However, the disaster was substantially investigated at the time, albeit not in public forum.
The day after the accident, for instance, the then Secretary of State for Transport, now Lord Parkinson, announced two measures to improve passenger safety, and they came into force on 12 April 1990. In addition, within two weeks of the accident, an interim report by the marine accidents investigation branch published a series of recommendations to improve river safety. However, in April 1990, the Director of Public Prosecutions announced that the master of the Bowbelle was to be prosecuted. This meant that the report of the chief inspector of marine accidents, due at the same time, could not be published as it was sub judice, but the then Secretary of State for Transport accepted all 27 of its recommendations and made sure that they were published at that time.
A further inquiry carried out by John Hayes, Secretary of the Law Society, which made further proposals in July 1992 for improved safety, was implemented and the then Secretary of State for Transport acted upon the conclusions.
In June 1993, the first annual summary of the progress made on the recommendations following the disaster showed that recommendations had been implemented in all 27 cases.
The House will also recognise that the marine accidents investigation branch was set up specifically with the purpose of providing thorough, prompt and definitive investigations of marine accidents, along parallel lines to the air accidents investigation branch. It is important that the public and the Government recognise the good work undertaken by both organisations since that time.
Since the implementation of the MAIB recommendations, the safety record of the River Thames has been encouraging. In a period of more than 10 years, eight incidents have required investigation, of which only one, very unfortunately, involved a fatality. Therefore, although there are exceptional circumstance surrounding this case, and we accept the understandable and proper demand for an inquiry in which all the issues can be publicly aired, it is important to keep in perspective the fact that the river remains a safe place to travel. That was confirmed by the report of Lord Justice Clarke. The issues were, for the most part, thoroughly investigated at the time, and although that is no reason for complacency, the recommendations published were acted on properly and comprehensively when they were made.
In conclusion, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to clarify various aspects of his statement? First, will he take this opportunity to express in full his confidence in the MAIB, its structure and its operations, and to confirm that the decision to instigate a public inquiry in no way reflects poorly on its standard of work and professionalism?
Secondly, how soon will the inquiry begin, and how long does he expect it to take?
Thirdly, will he elaborate on his own serious point about Lord Justice Clarke's recommendations on the relationship between inquiries, inquests, and criminal and civil proceedings? In his statement, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the Government will report to Parliament on that matter when they are in a position to do so. How long will it take them to form their conclusions?
Fourthly, why does he feel that further consultation is needed on consumption of alcohol by people in charge of vessels when there is a strong suspicion that that was a determining factor in the Marchioness disaster? The case for introducing legislation on that matter is, on the face of it, clear.
Finally, given that the Deputy Prime Minister promised in 1991 that the
Hon. Members:
Shame. Outrageous.
Mr. Prescott:
The hon. Gentleman's last comment was, indeed, completely outrageous. I have tried to approach this matter impartially, and I thought that he was right in what he said about safety and in welcoming our inquiry and our investigation into the removal of hands from the bodies for identification. The hon. Gentleman's tone on those matters was absolutely right, and I was grateful for his support.
The hon. Gentleman asked for reassurance that confidence in river safety would not be undermined. That is one of the reasons why I ordered the first part of the inquiry to be into river safety. Indeed, that report was produced in only a few weeks because I was concerned about the increase in river traffic, particularly with the millennium celebrations. Lord Justice Clarke produced an excellent report, and there has been considerable improvement in safety on the river since 1989, partly because of the Hayes report, as the hon. Gentleman said.
The hon. Gentleman is new to his job, and he will find out that the Hayes report was not about the sinking of the Marchioness, but about river safety. Hayes was unable to investigate the Marchioness, and one of the greatest problems with that matter was that relatives were ruled out of giving evidence in various forums, including inquests and public and private inquiries, which caused great dissatisfaction. Many conclusions were not properly drawn, and a lot of the evidence was not even given.
I said in 1991 that I believed that there should be a public inquiry. If we had been elected, I would have hoped to implement that promise, but that was not to be. I said what I said in 1991, but it is a bit much of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that it has taken us so long to implement an inquiry that, frankly, should have been carried out immediately. He would do himself a favour by reading Lord Justice Clarke's report. Lord Justice Clarke found it confusing that the Government at the time did not set up an inquiry; he did not understand that. The reason given was that the investigation had been referred to the MAIB. Frankly, the MAIB did not do that job properly and did not conduct a full investigation, which is why we are setting up an inquiry.
When the hon. Gentleman reads Lord Justice Clarke's report, he will find that one of the gravest limitations of the previous inquiry was that it could not take public evidence. It was believed at the time that such inquiries could adopt the same procedures as those used in aircraft investigations, but that did not work out well. It has taken us 10 years to clear up the mess.
I am proud to announce that an inquiry will take place. The procedures that I have adopted are correct. First, I asked the Clarke inquiry to investigate the safety of the river. Secondly, Lord Justice Clarke was asked to look into the circumstances surrounding the loss of the Marchioness. His report is detailed and thorough, and I advise the hon. Gentleman to read it before he reaches any conclusions. The investigation process has taken time, but such a thorough approach should have been taken by the previous Administration, who could have prevented a lot of damage and grief among relatives who felt that their concerns were not properly addressed.
We are consulting on alcohol, as is proper. There are differences of opinion, and the Port of London Authority feels that it does not have enough powers in certain circumstances to enforce fines. Several bodies are involved, and it is right that we should consult, as Lord Justice Clarke points out.
"next Labour Government will grant a public enquiry immediately"
on the Marchioness, why has it taken the Deputy Prime Minister nearly three years to deliver on that commitment?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |