§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
§ 10.2 pm
§ Mr. Michael Marshall (Arundel)I am especially grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to outline some of the problems and concerns that have arisen following injuries sustained by Weapons Engineering Artificer Apprentice Jonathan Mills from the efflux of a Seacat missile on board HMS Fife off the Falkland Islands on Saturday 28 January. [Interruption.] This is a matter of serious concern, and I would be grateful if I could have a period of quiet.
As I was saying, this tragic incident occurred on 28 January this year and my constituent subsequently died as a result, at the age of 18, on 1 February.
I shall not spell out the facts, because I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will give as much background as he can to the incident. I stress that my concern for the problems that have arisen since the end of January, when these terrible injuries were sustained, takes account of the situation in which the Commander-in-chief, Fleet, has, I believe, ordered a full board of inquiry which, together with the coroner's inquest, adjourned in Oxford on 8 February, rules out any consideration of the circumstances leading to Jonathan Mill's death under the sub judice rules which govern the procedures of this House.
In any case, my comments about the events that have taken place since the end of January relate, above all, to the concerns expressed to me by Jonathan Mill's parents who, in turn, reflect the anxieties expressed to them by many other naval families. I am therefore glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will reply to this debate.
I have been able to give the Minister some advance warning of the things I intend to raise. I know there will not be time to cover all the issues that I had hoped we might discuss. However, I have previously referred to a number of the issues that I intend to raise on behalf of Jonathan Mills' parents and myself. I know that the Minister will want to take this opportunity of giving as much reassurance and comfort as he can. I recognise that detailed responsibilities for handling this matter have previously been with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces who, for obvious reasons, cannot answer the debate in this House, but with whom I had extensive correspondence, and whose offer to arrange a meeting with the family was much appreciated.
I am also aware, following approaches which have been made by members of the Mills' family or myself, of the interest shown in these matters by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has written in helpful and supportive terms to Mr. and Mrs. Mills, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. To conclude my preamble, I am especially grateful to my hon. Friends who are present here tonight to support me. If I single out my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), it is because he is an old friend of the Mills' family, and of course he takes a deep interest in all matters affecting the welfare of the Royal Navy, as do my other hon. Friends who are present. I am also appreciative of the 1084 fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) has written to me to express his concern, following approaches made by one of his constituents, who is one of Jonathan Mills' uncles.
As to the concerns I wish to put to the Minister, I wish to specify these into three brief areas. First, there were problems of communication and travel after news was received of Jonathan Mills' severe injuries. Having visited the Falklands myself, I am aware of the major problems posed in trying to get communications between Port Stanley, the Royal Navy in Portsmouth and other parts of the United Kingdom. I also appreciate the logistical difficulties in arranging swift travel to the Falkland islands via Ascension island. The tragedy in this case was heightened by the fact that by the time Mr. and Mrs. Mills reached Port Stanley, their son had died some hours earlier. From the full account that they have given me, and in which, incidentally, they express the view that every possible kindness and consideration was shown to them from the time they left this country until the time they returned, I am nevertheless worried about the fact that their Falklands visit was arranged at their own suggestion when news of their son's medical condition proved sparse and difficult to obtain. I put it to the Minister: would it not be appropriate in such cases for an immediate option to be given to next of kin for such a visit?
Second, I have to say that. I am further concerned about what appears to be a complete lack of written formal advice to families in such cases. It was only as a result of detailed questions, which Mr. and Mrs. Mills submitted to me, and which I put to my noble Friend, that such basic information as the processes for registering death, the issue of a death certificate and arrangements with the coroner in Oxford were made known to me by a letter from my noble Friend dated 1 March, a month after the death of Jonathan Mills. It should surely be standard practice in a situation such as this for guidance notes to be made available to families at the earliest possible moment. It would also have been helpful, and, I believe, more sensitive, to have arranged for some form of personal caller to make contact with Mr. and Mrs. Mills, rather than the repeated use of the telephone by a number of differing contacts and telephone callers.
Thirdly, the period awaiting further advice has caused anxiety of an even more profound kind. I refer to the rumours which perhaps inevitably come with uncertainty, in this case to the effect that the Seacat missile and launching system, which had been in service for many years, are inherently unstable. Such suggestions were put to Mr. and Mrs. Mills, riot by those serving in the Falklands, but by other naval families including, I am bound to report, some with direct Royal Navy experience. The anxieties of Mr. and Mrs. Mills in recent weeks can well be imagined, and, while some judgment must be reserved until the naval inquiry is complete, I believe that the Minister and I have an opportunity tonight to try to set at rest the minds of not only Mr. and Mrs. Mills, but also of other naval families by a re-statement of established facts relating to this missile system.
First, I give in evidence the comment that my noble Friend Lord Trefgarne made in a letter that I received on 29 February, in which he confirmed that there was no truth in the suggestion that the Seacat was to be phased out due to instability. Secondly, during a public hearing yesterday of the Select Committee on Defence, of which I am a member, I was able to establish from Ministry of Defence 1085 officials and serving Royal Navy officers that there was no other examples of any serious injury or loss of life since the Seacat came into service in the early 1960s until this recent tragic event. While there is evidence of a small proportion of misfirings over the period and also of Seacat circuitry problems in service with the Brazilian and Swedish navies, about which I shall be seeking further information, the complete absence of previous serious accidents or fatalities gives considerable reassurance. I am also bound to say that public disquiet could have been allayed earlier by reference to such facts. I hope that my hon. Friend will take this opportunity to re-emphasise the assurances and facts that I have put before the House tonight.
I cannot conclude without asking the Minister for his help in two other matters. First, I realise the constraints on my hon. Friend and myself because the naval inquiry makes the matter subjudice. However, there are certain matters of fact with which my hon. Friend could assist me. If he cannot answer tonight, perhaps he will undertake to write to me. Will my hon. Friend give as much information as he can? Am I right in assuming that there was an immediate inquiry on HMS Fife which was superseded when the full naval inquiry set up by the Commander-in-chief, Fleet, began its work? Can my hon. Friend describe the composition of that inquiry? Has it already begun its work, and what is the latest estimate of when it will complete its deliberations?
My hon. Friend will be aware that the latest estimate that my noble friend gave me in a recent letter was some time in April. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that that inquiry is of the greatest personal significance to the Mills family. He will know of press reports saying that its findings will not be made public. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the representations and questions that I have put to my noble Friend will be taken into account by the board of inquiry and by Ministers? Further, will he reiterate the assurance given by my noble Friend that he would return to the outstanding questions when
the promised full account of the accident is provided for you and the parents"?I am sure that my hon. Friend, and indeed all hon. Members, will wish to join with me in offering sincere condolences to Mr. and Mrs. Mills and their family. They have told me of their son's total dedication to the Royal Navy and of a remark which he made shortly before leaving for service in the South Atlantic. He said that if he had to die for his country he could think of no better way than in the service of his country in the Falklands. His death is a tragedy, but I know that his family's chief concern now is to ensure that death in this way will not be repeated and that the anguish that they have experienced will not be unnecessarily shared by other naval families.It is in that sense that I pay tribute to the memory of Jonathan Mills and I invite my hon. Friend to reassure the House and the country with his answers tonight.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee)I am sure that the House will join me in expressing to the parents of Jonathan Mills our profound sorrow at the tragic death of their son. He is reported as having been a cheerful, lively young man, and popular on board his ship HMS Fife, where he will be greatly missed. It must be a terrible shock for parents to 1086 lose such a fine young son in an accident in a faraway place, and a terrible experience to know that he was lying seriously ill in a place where they could not get quickly to his bedside.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) for securing this debate. Even in peace time there are special risks for the men of our Armed Forces, not least because they often have to work with weapons, explosives and missiles, but it is always a matter of grave concern to my Department, and, I am sure, to the House, when a service man dies or is seriously injured in an accident of this kind.
I assure the House that full inquiries into the cause of this incident are well advanced. However, the coroner for Oxfordshire has opened and adjourned an inquest and is actively investigating the circumstances and cause of this young rating's death. My Department is in close touch with the coroner and is giving him all the assistance he needs so that he may determine the issues that are his legal responsibility and enable him to complete his inquisition. I am sure that, in the circumstances, the House will appreciate why I cannot comment on matters that the coroner will wish to determine for his purposes, or anticipate the results of our own inquiries. When all these inquiries have been completed we shall make available a full summary of the events and the conclusions of our investigations.
I can, however, say something about the way in which our own investigations are being conducted. On 1 February, the day Jonathan died, the Commander-in-chief, Fleet, immediately convened a board of inquiry. Its members included as professional experts a medical officer and a weapons engineering officer. They sat on board the MV Bar Protector in San Carlos water, starting a few days after the accident, and completed their report in the middle of February.
That was only the beginning of a comprehensive investigation. The advance copy of the report has already reached the Commander-in-chief, Fleet, and the full proceedings, including transcripts of statements by all witnesses and records of the technical data, are expected to reach him in the next day or two. He will study it with his professional advisers, consulting the Commander-in-chief, Naval Home Command on matters related to casualty reporting and arrangements for the next-of-kin, and will forward his complete report and recommendations to my Department.
Technical and other professional aspects must then be studied by specialist staffs within the Ministry of Defence, and all the reports will be submitted to the Admiralty Board, including a Minister. When the Admiralty Board has formed its opinion and given the necessary directions for future action, my hon. Friend — I give him this assurance—will be given a full account of the whole affair, and an opportunity to discuss the case with the Minister concerned. Before then, if they attend the inquest, Mr. and Mrs. Mills will hear evidence for themselves. There is nothing at present to suggest that security will inhibit the account that will be presented.
I cannot say for sure how long this process will take. If all is straightforward, we should receive the commander-in-chief's report in two or three weeks. However, sometimes additional information has to be obtained and analysed. It will all be done as swiftly as possible, but we must balance speed with thoroughness, to be sure we get at the root cause of the accident. 1087 Meanwhile the chain of command will take any interim action considered necessary to reduce the risk of accidents. When the inquiries are complete and the Admiralty Board has made its judgments, any final arrangements for the future will be put in hand.
I had not intended to say anything that might touch upon the accident itself. But, lest the House should fear from what has been said that there might be some widespread defect in the Seacat system—a matter of importance to defence, and hence to the House—I ask your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be allowed to say that the Royal Navy's stability requirements for explosives and missiles are at least as stringent as those in any other navy of which we have detailed knowledge.
Any rumour that Seacat was or is about to be withdrawn from service because of instability are without foundation.
The Seacat missile system has been in service with the Royal Navy since the early 1960s. Its first sea trials were in 1962. During its long period of service, my Department has had no occasion to harbour doubts about the inherent safety of the missile. Apart from this one tragic case, there have been no accidents resulting in loss of life or serious injury.
The House will appreciate that it has not been possible to check back over every incident in over 20 years. But I can say that in the past five years there has been no history of accidental firings. It is a weapon the stability of which has given no cause for concern and is planned to stay in service until the 1990s.
The Navy has a combination of safety measures in the design of systems and of correct procedures by maintainers and operators which prevent accident in normal circumstances. When there is an immediate operational problem, some safety measures have to be modified, but special procedures are introduced to replace them. Although safety receives a very high priority in design and in procedures for maintaining and operating, such a missile system is there to be fired, and, when engagement might be needed, the firing procedures must be simple and swift.
As the House will appreciate, however remote the threat may seem, our forces in the Falklands must maintain a high state of operational readiness, with Seacat missiles normally on the launchers. Coupled with their high state of operational readiness there must be a regular routine of maintenance and checks of the weapon systems. That is the context in which the accident occurred; a force in constant readiness, constantly testing the efficiency of its weapons.
I come to the question whether the family was kept properly informed and why the parents were not flown out before Jonathan died. These matters are being studied by the Commander-in-chief, Fleet, in consultation with the Commander-in-chief, Naval Home Command. It would be premature to make judgment until we have studied their reports.
But I can give the House a summary of the system and explain the nature of the problems affecting this case. It is, of course, a fundamental principle in the Royal Navy, as with the other services, that they take particular care to look after their casualties and to keep next-of-kin fully informed when a service man is injured.
Within a short time of the accident, Jonathan was on his way by helicopter on the 150-mile journey to Stanley. The helicopter was met by an ambulance, and Jonathan was quickly in the British military hospital at Stanley. The 1088 commanding officer of HMS Fife sent one of his chief petty officers, whom he knew to be a close friend of Jonathan's parents, ashore to Stanley to be with Jonathan. The commanding officer wrote immediately to Jonathan's parents giving an account of the accident and what followed. Since then, the coroner has opened his inquest, and I cannot now comment on what was said by the commanding officer.
When naval personnel are injured overseas, a signal is sent to the appropriate shore establishment, in this case HMS Nelson at Portsmouth. Among its many duties is the sad and always difficult one of informing next-of-kin of service men killed or injured. Within a few hours of the accident, the duty staff on HMS Nelson telephoned Jonathan's family to let them know what had happened. They were in touch several times that day and kept Mr. and Mrs. Mills informed whenever they had information during the days that followed.
If a service man is seriously injured overseas he will normally be flown back to this country when his condition permits. If he is so seriously ill that he cannot be flown back, there are special arrangements under which he can be visited by next-of-kin flown out at public expense. That system is known as DILFOR.
One of the criteria laid down for DILFOR is that, for obvious reasons, there must be little possibility of the casualty being evacuated to the United Kingdom before the visitors arrive, and no likelihood that he will die before they arrive. This creates special difficulties with the Falklands because the total journey time is over 30 hours.
A decision was made to fly out Mr. and Mrs. Mills. Whether the decision should have been made earlier is a matter we will be looking into. They left Brize Norton early on 31 January and arrived at Stanley at 1500 hours local time on 1 February. Sadly, Jonathan had died while they were flying there.
Mr. and Mrs. Mills were met at Stanley by Jonathan's divisional officer and the chaplain from the ship, who accompanied them during their two-day stay in the Falklands. They were also attended by the chief petty officer who had been landed to be with Jonathan, and the commanding officer of HMS Fife released him to fly home with them to provide comfort.
On their return to England the commodore of HMS Nelson wrote personally to Mr. and Mrs. Mills and offered his assistance. He appointed an officer to assist them, particularly with any problems connected with their son's estate, and the chaplain of HMS Collingwood—where Jonathan had recently served—made several visits to the family to provide comfort and offer help. Sadly, at such a time of loss it can never be enough.
When my Department has studied the reports we shall know whether all that could reasonably be done was done. What I have said should, I believe, show the House that the Royal Navy does take trouble to look after its families. If the final analysis shows anything wrong, I believe that it will not be through failure to care.
My hon. Friend has raised a number of other detailed points. I assure him that I shall be covering in writing those that I have not been able to deal with in this short debate. I assure him once again that he will have a full account once all the inquiries have been completed and when all the reports have been studied. My Department is as concerned as he is that the possibility of accidents is reduced to a minimum. That is why we have these very thorough inquiries, and why such boards of inquiry are 1089 studied so carefully by commanders-in-chief and by my Department. However, a balance must be struck between speed in remedying any faults found, and thoroughness of study to be sure we have got at root causes.
It is a matter not of looking for scapegoats—though where there is personal responsibility that is dealt with as necessary—but of finding the root causes, remedying 1090 any faults found, and if necessary introducing new arrangements or new procedures or modifications to equipment, for the future safety and operational efficiency of the Royal Navy. I give my hon. Friend my assurance on that point.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o' clock.