| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks and words of support and very much endorse what he said about the role of the relatives. I also thank him for giving evidence to Lord Justice Clarke. Along with other Members, he gave evidence on the improvement of Thames safety.
My hon. Friend asked about the role of the PLA and about a possible conflict of interest. The PLA is responsible for navigation on the river and my Department is responsible for the administration of that. Lord Justice Clarke took account of my hon. Friend's remarks and has dealt with that point in his final report. He did not find the conflict of interest that my hon. Friend is concerned about, but I suggest that my hon. Friend
reads the report to see what is said about it. There is a difficulty of duplication and Lord Justice Clarke raised the issue of democratic accountability on the river. Consideration of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 raised the question of whether greater responsibility could be handed to the new authority for London. At present, direct responsibility is with my Department, but I ask my hon. Friend to consider what Lord Justice Clarke's report says about the specific issue of a conflict of interest.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey):
First, I join others in thanking the Secretary of State for his commitment and consistency on the issue, his private office for its work and Lord Justice Clarke and his officials. The right hon. Gentleman's commitment has ensured that we have arrived at this day and I thank him on behalf of not just the relatives and survivors whom we both know, but my constituents and Londoners as a whole, who have waited far too long for this day. The right hon. Gentleman's determination to have an inquiry is in marked contrast to the approach of Baroness Thatcher and her transport Ministers, who did not deliver one.
The right hon. Gentleman will receive all-party support if, with his colleagues in the Home Office, he is minded to introduce legislation to deal with alcohol regulation on vessels before the end of the Parliament or in the next parliamentary Session. Such legislation is urgently needed.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to join me and others in finding a way to honour those who helped in the rescue. I single out those who were on the Hurlingham and who risked their lives to save lives on that terrible night 10 years ago last August.
Finally and slightly more controversially, I follow the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond). When the Secretary of State considers the recommendation on who should have responsibility for search and rescue, will he take account of the strong case for making that body publicly accountable? Can we not at least have an open debate about that and ensure that, in future, we do not have the secrecy surrounding such issues that, I am afraid, has been the way of officials and, indeed, the wish of some officials? We must put that behind us in legislation and in practice in the future.
Mr. Prescott:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of support and for acknowledging the role played by the relatives. I thank him also for his encouragement, because this has not been an easy time. There are people who felt strongly that we should not have a public inquiry and who had genuine doubts. I have arrived at my judgment, and I am grateful for the support that I received from the hon. Gentleman and others in the House. It is always difficult when relatives feel for a long time that they have not had justice, and people do not always get what they want.
I should have said before that the Home Office intends to produce in March a White Paper on licensing matters, which will deal with the differences between licensing laws onshore and on the water.
Great courage was shown by many people on that evening, particularly by those on the other boat, the Hurlingham, in providing assistance in those difficult circumstances. One of the rewarding factors of reviewing such matters, after the heat of the moment, is realising
that there are many people who are prepared to do a great deal to help others in such circumstances, whether in a train accident or a boat accident. We should acknowledge the emergency services, whose members play a wonderful part in dealing with those difficulties.
Search-and-rescue matters have been considered and are in the action plan. We shall consider the important issues that the hon. Gentleman raised of democratic accountability and openness, which were missing in this case and caused such grievance, and decide whether they should be dealt with by London's new elected authority. We shall be able to find a satisfactory solution. In the meantime, responsibilities lie with me, and I can delegate them.
Mr. John Cryer (Hornchurch):
I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I was not a Member of the House when the tragedy occurred, 11 years ago, but I represent a Thameside constituency and many of my constituents work on the Thames and use it daily. My right hon. Friend will be aware that many craft are plying the Thames with no qualified personnel whatever. Will he assure the House that the inquiry will consider that issue?
Mr. Prescott:
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. If he looks at the action plan, he will find that the earlier report on the safety of the river dealt with that point and made a number of recommendations for the various bodies involved in qualifications, including not only the Department but the PLA, which has responsibility for navigation. Some recommendations have therefore been made, but the inquiry will consider performance and other factors that contributed to the loss of the Marchioness.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire):
As one who was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on the fateful evening of the accident, I realise that the right hon. Gentleman will have had many difficult meetings with the relatives. I, too, had meetings with relatives, along with Secretaries of State for Transport, Lord Parkinson and Malcolm Rifkind.
One reason why it was decided not to hold a public inquiry was that the marine accidents investigation branch had been set up. It is worth noting that the air accidents investigation branch has long been accepted as an authoritative body, and there has not been a public inquiry into an air accident since 1976, although there have been serious incidents involving great loss of life. Is it the Secretary of State's wish that the MAIB should be held in the same regard and respect as the AAIB, and that he would therefore look to the MAIB to carry out future inquiries?
Is the Secretary of State considering the problems that arise when a public inquiry takes place immediately after an accident, when necessary legal proceedings may also be in the melting pot? That was certainly one of the great impediments to faster progress in this matter.
Mr. Prescott:
I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's involvement in the matter. There were difficult decisions to make at the time. I was involved in transport matters on the Opposition Benches at the time and I know that there was a hope that the MAIB, the maritime body, could get the same reputation as the aviation body. Unfortunately, the Marchioness was the MAIB's first case
I hope that the MAIB will get the same reputation as the aviation body and develop in such a way that people can have confidence in it to carry out such inquiries, but people want public, open examination. Lord Justice Clarke is absolutely right. It is part of the proposal. If we do it in private, it will be extremely difficult. All the MAIB does is take evidence from people and make a judgment; it is like a court of experts, if you like, that gives its opinion. That is not the proper way in which to do it. In a matter as serious as the Marchioness accident, a mistake was made.
I understand that the number of court cases that was pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service made such action much more difficult. I was critical of that at the time, because it complicates the matter. When a long time passes, people say, "You cannot hold an inquiry now because it is so long after the event." I am doing it 10 years after the event. I think that it is right because the circumstances surrounding whatever investigations took place denied the relatives the opportunity to put their case. That is what made it more difficult.
In the meantime, we have to build on the safety bodies that we have, ensure that they can do a good job, and get proper terms of reference, so that we can decide how inquiries take place. After all, relatives who are watching the debate will have said to themselves after the Paddington rail crash, "A public inquiry has been automatically announced. Why has one not been announced for us?" They will have been right to ask that question. I am answering it today.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York):
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement and for the opportunity to demonstrate to the bereaved that our thoughts continue to be with them. I think that we are all mindful of the fact that, with the dome, there is probably more boat traffic on that stretch than hitherto.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |