HC Deb 29 March 1972 vol 834 cc816-24

12.53 p.m.

Mr. John Hannam (Exeter)

I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity of raising a serious matter relating to the procedures of inquiry following the disappearance at sea of a crew member of a merchant ship. I became aware of some deficiencies in the existing systems following the tragic death on 17th August, 1970, of a young constituent, Mr. Jeffrey Keith Wills.

This young man, in his teens, had served happily in the local sea cadets and had recently joined the Shaw Savill cruise liner s.s. "Northern Star" for a Mediterranean cruise. His letters, which I was shown by his mother, who is here today, were enthusiastic and happy and stated how much he was looking forward to the voyage and to taking the various seamanship examinations which would advance his career as a merchant seaman.

It therefore came as a great shock to Mr. and Mrs. Wills when on 20th August, 1970, a letter was received from the shipping company informing them that their son had been lost overboard on 18th August. Subsequently on 25th August a further letter was received from the Cardiff office of the Registrar-General of the Board of Trade shipping office. This informed the parents of the loss of their son, and this time the date quoted was 17th August. This letter told them of the procedure whereby an inquiry would be held at the port of discharge of the ship's crew.

On 3rd September Mr. and Mrs. Wills came to me and told me of their extreme disquiet at the lack of information which they, as parents, had been able to obtain concerning the circumstances surrounding their son's disappearance. They had visited the ship on its return to Southampton on 14th September and found to their dismay that various items belonging to their son had disappeared. They also found that members of the crew who might have helped them in finding out the true facts had been paid off.

They were told by the captain that two days out in the Bay of Biscay Jeffrey had gone on watch from 8 p.m. to midnight but at 10 p.m. had been taken off watch and sent to No. 2 deck of the "Northern Star" with three others to scrub decks. At five minutes past 10 he stated that he felt ill and went below to the toilet. There was then a complete blank, and it was not until 8 a.m. the next morning that his bed was found to be unslept in.

Mr. and Mrs. Wills asked why no one had checked his absence from duty between 10.5 p.m. and midnight and why a signal had not been sent out to other ships and a search made. The weather was good and the sea calm. No satisfactory answers were given by the master of the ship, and, understandably, these disturbed and deeply distressed parents looked to the Board of Trade inquiry for some answers and an explanation of their son's death. They had been informed also that the statements taken on board the ship by consular staff at Madeira were private and confidential and that they could not see them. One can understand their feeling that a wall was being erected between them and the truth. There was still a doubt even that a public inquiry would be held.

On 10th September, 1970, I wrote to the Registrar-General calling for a full inquiry and asking that certain questions put to me should be asked. An inquiry was held on 10th October under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. The following week Mr. and Mrs. Wills came to see me and, in a very distressed state, complained at the form of the inquiry and the lack of cross-examination of the witnesses. They were con- vinced that false evidence had been presented, yet were not able to ask certain questions themselves at the inquiry. Subsequent inquiries substantiated their fears, as I will explain later.

They then wrote to the Registrar-General asking for a copy of the proceedings and were informed that these were available at a fee of £2 4s. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade immediately countermanded this and arranged for a copy to be sent to the bereaved parents. This was received on 1st December, 1970.

The President of the Exeter Sea Cadets, Mr. Steele-Perkins, also a lawyer, examined the transcript of the inquiry proceedings and agreed that there were several inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the crew. These inconsistencies related to the last time that Jeffrey was seen by the crew members. One of the crew, a Mr. Arnold, stated that he had not seen him after 9 p.m., whereas the bosun, who was in charge of the watch, stated that he had seen him at 10 p.m. with Mr. Arnold and had chatted to them. This leaves a gap of one hour in the key evidence—and yet no cross-examination.

Another discrepancy occurred concerning Jeffrey Wills' shoes. These were hard-soled shoes, unsuitable for deck work. These were found near the swimming pool, under a lifeboat. An experienced 55-year-old crew member, Mr. Murphy, when questioned, stated that he was asked by the bosun whether he knew who owned the shoes and he replied that he did not. Yet the bosun, in his evidence, stated that Murphy said they were the deceased's shoes—again no cross-examination.

These facts were put to my hon. Friend and also reported to Scotland Yard, and on 23rd June, 1971, I was pleased to receive an extremely helpful letter from the Under-Secretary informing me that the Hampshire and Isle of Wight police were carrying out further investigations.

In the meantime, it was noticed in various Press reports that several other serious incidents of missing crew members had occurred. In fact, between January, 1970, and June, 1971, four persons had been reported missing from the two sister ships, "Southern Cross" and "Northern Star". No wonder that we were all extremely concerned. I am happy to say that subsequent inquiries established that there was no connection between these four missing persons.

Police inquiries continued during last summer, and in October the parents were informed personally by the police officers that their investigations had produced new evidence to the effect that heavy drinking had taken place on the afternoon of 17th August when the ship called at Vigo. This drinking continued on board right up until duty commenced at 8 p.m. The extent of this drinking was not revealed at either the inquiry held on board ship or the Southampton inquiry. It is obvious that there are serious flaws in the present system of statutory inquiry procedures into death at sea, because the truth does not necessarily come out.

My experience in assisting the parents of the boy lost in this tragic case convinces me that there is a need for tightening up discipline and supervision on board and the procedures of the inquiries, and I should like to put forward some constructive suggestions for my hon. Friend's consideration.

First, I believe there should be a regulation that when any man on duty on board ship is known to be missing and absent from his post, as Jeffrey Wills was from 10 p.m. to midnight, that fact should be reported at once to the senior duty officer and thence to the captain so that the ship can be turned about immediately and inquiries set afoot. In this case there was a delay of over 10 hours, and even then only flimsy inquiries were made.

Secondly, the formal inquiry on board ship should have particular regard to the state of health of the missing person. It seems reprehensible to me that on a properly disciplined ship the crew should be allowed to go on duty in a drunken state.

Thirdly, I believe that there should be a procedure whereby the next of kin of anyone missing at sea should be notified immediately after the event becomes a fact and should be kept informed of the exact timing of the docking of the ship at the next and nearest English port, when the next-of-kin and, if necessary, a solicitor and the local C.I.D. should be allowed to go on board before anyone concerned with the incident or who was a witness at the inquiry with the ship's captain is allowed to go ashore.

Fourthly, the board of inquiry procedure on land should be overhauled. All evidence should be taken on oath and the witnesses should not be in the room at the same time as any of the preceding witnesses, and the next-of-kin of the missing person should be allowed to be represented by a lawyer. But in any event either the next-of-kin or the lawyer on his or her behalf should have the right of cross-examination in the normal manner. Likewise, the solicitors or next-of-kin should have the right of address to the court before the inquiry makes its findings.

Finally, a copy of the findings and all the evidence should be submitted to the solicitors for the next-of-kin or to the next-of-kin themselves immediately after the hearing so that any appeal can be lodged immediately while the evidence is fresh in the mind of all concerned.

This is an extremely tragic case of a young man of happy disposition and keen seafaring interest who, two days out from home, disappeared whilst on duty. Some of his belongings disappeared and no alarm was given for 10 hours. No search was made and no evidence was forthcoming as to the circumstances of his death. It is a truly distressing and long-drawn-out agony for the parents, who will never know exactly how their boy died, but who, I know, will feel happier if steps are taken to prevent such distress being caused to other next-of-kin. I hope that my hon. Friend, who has been of great assistance during this 18-month ordeal, will be able to give an assurance that the fullest possible consideration will be given to the points raised today.

1.2 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant)

In replying to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. John Hannam) in connection with the inquiries made into the circumstances of the disappearance at sea of Jeffrey Keith Wills from the "Northern Star", I should first like to express my deepest sympathy with his parents on their very sad loss. I also wish to pay tribute to the diligence and energy of my hon. Friend, who has pursued the interests of his constituents in their sad circumstances in accordance with the highest traditions of a Member of Parliament.

It might be helpful if I were to explain briefly the statutory requirements which apply when a death takes place on board a British ship or a person disappears from a British ship whilst at sea. Section 690 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, provides that the superintendent at the port at which the crew of the ship is discharged shall inquire into the death and endorse the entry in the ship's official log as to the cause of death either as being, in his opinion, a true statement or the contrary, according to the result of the inquiry.

If, in the course of the inquiry, it appears to the superintendent that any such death has been caused by violence or other improper means he is required to take steps to bring the offender or offenders to justice. In practice, in any case in which there is suspicion of violence or other improper action superintendents notify the police authorities who then are able, if they consider the circumstances so warrant, to carry out independent inquiries, and they can also be represented at the statutory inquiry.

The present procedure is considered to have many advantages and to operate in the best interests of all concerned. The superintendent's duties keep him in constant touch with shipping and seamen and he can arrange expeditiously the holding of a death inquiry at a convenient time and place when the ship reaches port and before the witnesses disperse. The superintendent invariably notifies the next-of-kin and other interested parties in advance so that they may have the opportunity of attending the inquiry and asking questions. Experience has shown that these arrangements have in general proved to be effective over a long period.

For that reason similar provisions to those currently applicable under the 1894 Act were incorporated in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1970, with the important different that provision was made which enables the statutory inquiry to be held by a superintendent or proper officer at the next port where the ship calls after the death, where there is such an officer, instead of awaiting its return to the United Kingdom where the crew is usually discharged. One of the reasons for this was to have evidence taken while the witnesses' memories of the events were still fresh in their minds. Nevertheless, there may be occasions when it is con- sidered desirable to defer the holding of the statutory inquiry until the ship reaches the United Kingdom if no serious delay is involved.

One question which has been considered in the past is whether the law should be altered to provide that death inquiries should be replaced by coroners' inquests. This would give rise to many practical difficulties, and it is of interest to note that the Brodrick Committee on Death Certification and Coroners which reported in September, 1971, considered the possibility of inquiries into deaths at sea being carried out by coroners but decided against recommending such a change.

Perhaps the most difficult situations facing superintendents in establishing the full facts are those cases in which a person has disappeared at sea unseen, as in the case of Jeffrey Wills. These cases average about 30 a year. There is a good deal of speculation in some of them as to precisely what happened at the time of disappearance and it is inevitable that at times one cannot be absolutely certain that the full facts have been established. An important factor, however, is that the superintendents notify the police authorities concerning any case where there appears to be any suspicion of foul play so that, apart from the statutory inquiry, they may investigate the situation if they consider it appropriate to do so.

In the Wills case, I am satisfied that the superintendent at Southampton carried out the inquiry in a proper manner in compliance with the provisions of the Act and his departmental instructions. The police authorities at Southampton were notified at an early stage. They not only carried out their own investigations on the ship when it reached port, but they were also represented at the inquiry when the superintendent, in the light of the inquiry, reached the conclusion that the entry in the official log of the "Northern Star" recording that Mr. Wills was Missing at sea, presumably killed or drowned was correct. Although it later became apparent from subsequent investigations carried out by the Hampshire Constabulary that some of the witnesses at the statutory inquiry had not revealed the full fact or the full extent of the drinking which took place among some of them, including Jeffrey Wills, prior to the latter's disappearance, the police expressed the view—which I share—that had this information been revealed at the time of the inquiry it would not have altered the findings.

This is not to say that I condone the action of the witnesses, but clearly it is difficult to see what changes could be made in the instructions to superintendents to enable them to elicit information which witnesses may decide to withhold even when on oath. What was more important in this case, however, was that the police reached the firm conclusion that there was no reason whatsoever to suspect foul play.

My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter raised the question of standards of discipline on board merchant ships. These are a matter for ships' masters, often within the framework of company regulations, but it should be borne in mind that there is a significant difference between the environment of employment on a merchant ship and service in, for instance, the Royal Navy. The professional officers of my Department have considered this case very carefully and have formed the opinion that there was nothing lax about the discipline on the "Northern Star" as regards the arrangements for coming on and going off watch.

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the undesirability of allowing drunken persons to go on watch. This must be a matter for those in charge. In his statement at the Southampton inquiry, the bosun in charge said that in his opinion Mr. Wills was fit to stand watch. He also made a statement subsequently to the police in which he said that, at the start of the watch, although three seamen, including Mr. Wills, had had a fair amount to drink, they were not drunk and he felt that they were capable of doing their job. The statements made by witnesses at the statutory inquiries are always made on oath. Any interested person can attend and be represented and may put reasonable questions to witnesses.

I should like now to turn to the question of the alleged missing items of Jeffrey Wills' effects. It is the responsibility of my Department to deliver to the person legally entitled to receive it—in this case Mrs. Wills, his mother—property received from a ship's master and belonging to a deceased seaman. The superintendent at Southampton on 2nd September, 1970, received a duffel bag and two padlocked grips containing Jeffrey Wills' effects and arrangements were made for her to receive them at the Southampton office, where they were opened in her presence on 14th September, 1970. I am satisfied that my Department took all possible steps to ensure that these effects were delivered to her as received.

I also note my hon. Friend's point about Mrs. Wills not being advised of the exact time of arrival of the "Northern Star", but my Department's responsibility is to hold inquiries into deaths at sea and to give due notice of the inquiry to the next-of-kin and any other person known to be interested. I am satisfied that this was done.

On careful investigation, I am satisfied that the circumstances of Jeffrey Wills' death have been fully and properly investigated and that every effort has been made to deal with the points subsequently raised with my Department. I have no doubt on the information before me and the advice that I have received that he died as a result of falling overboard on 17th August, 1970, and that the findings that he was "missing at sea, presumed killed or drowned" are correct. I can fully understand that the position is less than satisfactory for his unfortunate parents in the absence of a full explanation of a most tragic death. But, regrettably, it is not always possible, because of their nature, to reach a fully proven conclusion in cases of unwitnessed disappearances at sea.

However, I note carefully the helpful and thoughtful comments of my hon. Friend on the general position of inquiries in cases like this. I assure him and the House that we are carefully reviewing the current procedures for carrying out death inquiries, particularly the instructions to superintendents, in order to see what improvements, if any, can be made in the present arrangements.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly on Thursday afternoon at fourteen minutes past One o'clock till Monday, 10th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.