§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
10.20 pm§ Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston)I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the important subject of the loss of the motor vessel Derbyshire. I am sure that the 44 bereaved families will be as grateful as I am for this opportunity.
This matter has been the subject of numerous parliamentary questions and of an early-day motion tabled by me and signed by more than 100 hon. Members. Sad to say, they were all members of Opposition parties, including Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland—despite the fact that some of the bereaved families are constituents of Conservative Members.
The fact that 102 right hon. and hon. Members signed the early-day motion, however, is a sign of a degree of interest and concern which has been expressed and which continues to be expressed about the way in which the tragedy has been dealt with by this House and by others who have been involved.
In September 1980 the largest ship lost to the United Kingdom registry disappeared with the loss of 44 lives—42 men and two women. The tragedy happened during a typhoon in the China sea which a vessel of this size should have shrugged off with great ease. I speak not as a layman but as a person qualified to make statements of this kind. I went to sea at the age of 15, was caught up by the war and spent all the war years at sea. I had sailed in almost every kind of vessel, from a scow to liners such as the Queen Elizabeth and the Queen Mary, trooping during the war from the United States to the areas of conflict. So I have some understanding of what happens to a vessel caught in that type of typhoon. In the Indian ocean and in the north Atlantic I have experienced such seas in what might be called rust-buckets of ships. Yet they overcame those tremendous seas, continued their voyages and returned to their ports without damage.
The Derbyshire was a modern ship, the length of three football pitches, which suddenly vanished in the China sea. There are clear signs that vessels of similar construction and design have faults which, it has been pointed out, could have been the cause of the sinking of the Derbyshire. When she was sinking she sent no distress messages, although her aerial system was of a particularly reliable type. The lifeboat from the ship was found in the Luzon straits some weeks later and it carried its own broken boat falls, indicating that a sudden and catastrophic failure had occurred.
The last message transmitted from the Derbyshire was on 9 September, but an air and sea search was not started until 15 September. A helicopter pilot sighted oil bubbling to the surface and forming a slick about a mile long. An analysable quantity was recovered four days later and at the Maritime Agency's research centre in Yokohama the sample was found to be identical to the fuel oil known to have been in the bunkers of the Derbyshire. On the strength of that, the ship's owners—Bibby Line—considered the ship to have been lost on 9 September due to the severe weather conditions created by Typhoon Orchid.
556 The Derbyshire had five sister ships which could have been inspected for clues and there were many men with experience of the Derbyshire and its construction. However, against the norm and despite the massive loss of life, the Government decided against holding a formal inquiry, apparently taking the view that there was nothing unusual in a 169,000 tonne deadweight bulker floundering in a typhoon which far smaller ships in the area at the same time had survived. The noble Lord Trefgarne conceded that that decision would be reconsidered if other evidence came to light. An abundance of evidence has since appeared, but the Government have persistently failed to hold an inquiry into the sinking of the Derbyshire.
There is evidence of a relationship between the Derbyshire's structural faults and those of her sister ships. In March 1982, the sister ship Tyne Bridge left Hamburg in ballast and started to crack in an area just forward of her accommodation superstructure. Most of the crew were airlifted to safety and the vessel returned to the yard of Blohm and Voss in Hamburg. It is important to note that the Italian Classification Society diagnosed the damage to the Tyne Bridge as being caused by the method employed by Swan Hunter to effect construction in the region of frame 65.
The Tyne Bridge was restored to the intentions of the original design which, presumably, had been departed from to facilitate ease of building after problems encountered during construction of the first of the six ships in the series, the Furness Bridge. Perhaps the "as built" plans for five of these massive ships were on board the Derbyshire. At any rate, they have vanished—the original building plans for the vessels have not been sighted and no one knows where they are. The original build of the Kowloon Bridge and the Derbyshire was altered and the original plans have not been brought forward as evidence that such a change had taken place.
Inspection of the Tyne Bridge showed that the hatchside girders, which were also the inboard sides of the upper wing tanks, were carried through the bulkhead at which they had originally terminated. That was to strengthen the vessel which was inspected by the Italian authorities. Secondly, the metal in the affected area was thickened. Thirdly, a superior grade of steel—grade D—was replaced by grade A. Fourthly, to avoid connected members of different sizes setting up stress points, scarfing pieces and gradual integrating reductions were employed.
Those are highly technical words, but in simple terms they mean that having found faults in the vessel the Italian authorities recommended some alterations to make the point at plate 65 safe. Those alterations were carried out. In the opinion of those aware of the situation, they were part of the original plans for the building of this type of vessel.
Lloyd's was present at the time of the diagnosis and treatment and agreed with us. On the strength of what had been revealed by the damage to the Tyne Bridge, it suggested to owners of two sister ships—the Cast Kittywake and the Sir Alexander Glen—that they have the corresponding area of their vessels inspected. As a result, the vessels were given the same strengthening treatment as the Tyne Bridge. Further research showed evidence of damage in the area of frame 65 in all those vessels, even the strongest built and designed—the Furness Bridge. Yet the Government would not accept this as sufficient evidence to precipitate the inquiry which had been denied in 1980.
557 The Department saw fit to warn off the Liberian Maritime Authority when it sought information on the World Pathfinder, which used to be the Furness Bridge. I am sorry about all the complications, but for some odd reason the companies keep changing the names of these vessels, possibly to make it even more difficult to trace where a vessel is, the origins of its ownership and what voyages it has made.
The Department of Transport report of 1986 mentioned that these ships could fail in the region of frame 65. That report was circulated to interested parties. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) asked a question about this, after which I wrote to the then Secretary of State for Transport asking him why, if the report was circulated to interested parties, that group did not include the most interested parties of all—the families of those who lost their lives on the Derbyshire. It is a scandal that they were not regarded as interested parties. Although we made numerous efforts to get the Secretary of State to circulate that report, the Government would not do so. When a report was finally released, it was different from the original one—and can only be considered to be a whitewash.
This case has aroused strong feelings, not only among the families of the bereaved but in the National Union of Seamen, and the later integrated rail workers and marine workers trade union, which have urged the Government to come clean and open an inquiry so that the evidence from Professor Bishop, a highly respected naval architect, can be considered. His paper was not before the original inquiry, but it shows that it is highly probable that the vessel was structurally defective, and this could have led to its loss.
§ Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East)The hon. Member has maintained a keen interest in this matter on behalf of those who lost their lives when the MV Derbyshire sank. I am sure that he will agree that, as well as the relatives wanting to know the truth, it is in the interests of the shipbuilding industry internationally to establish through a reopened public inquiry whether the MV Derbyshire was lost as a result of structural failure. There is now sufficient evidence to suggest that that possibility must be faced.
§ Mr. LoydenThe hon. Gentleman raises an important point. One reason why the Government are resisting an inquiry into the loss of the Derbyshire may be that it raises the question of whether this type of vessel is safe. There is a belief that the design of vessels today is based purely on economic factors, or certainly largely influenced by them, and that some of the safety elements in their design are being overlooked for economic and other reasons.
One of the most important aspects of this relates to the Kowloon Bridge, another sister ship of the Derbyshire, about which Tyne Tees television made a programme. The Kowloon Bridge went aground on the west coast of Ireland, eventually sank, and underwater photography has shown that she split all the way round frame 65. Again, all concerned—including, I am sorry to say, the Irish authorities—have resisted pressure to release information brought to light by the survey of that vessel.
There is undoubtedly grave suspicion among the families, within the union and also among the public. A petition launched recently by the unions about the sinking of the Derbyshire has already attracted more than 20,000 signatures. It is not confined to one area of the United 558 Kingdom—families from all over the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, lost loved ones in that tragic event in 1980.
I hope that the Minister has not come here today with a civil service brief which will prevent him giving thought to my comments and those of others on this issue. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has made representations in the past and no doubt will do so again in the future, and he has given an undertaking that a future Labour Government will have an inquiry into the sinking of the Derbyshire. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take into account the 10 years of pain suffered by the 44 families of those who died in the Derbyshire. I hope that he will also consider the complicated technical arguments which have raged backwards and forwards, but they in no way overshadow the human interest of the 44 families who continue to suffer the pain and anguish of having lost their loved ones. I attended a memorial service in Liverpool recently, and those families are still banded together. Almost all of them were at the service in St. Nicholas's church, known as the sailors' church, at the pierhead in Liverpool. Those families, every waking hour of their lives, suffer as a consequence of that tragic day in 1980.
I hope that the Minister will not disregard that aspect, and I hope that he will give an assurance that every possible consideration will be given to what the Royal Institution of Naval Architects has said—and, more importantly, to the evidence of Derek Ramwell, a sea captain, and Mr. Ridyard, who worked on vessels in Swan Hunter's, and to all those others who have knowledge of the vessel and what preceded its loss—and thus come to the conclusion that an inquiry would be in everyone's interests.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin)I have only 10 minutes in which to reply to the very important Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), and to speak about a tragic event which, although it occurred more than 10 years ago, is still uppermost in the minds of the victims' dependants, who, I appreciate and respect, still feel deeply and sincerely about the incident.
It might be helpful to the House if I gave a brief history of the issue. The oil/bulk/ore carrier MV Derbyshire set sail on 11 July 1980, from the port of Sept-Iles, Canada with a cargo of iron ore concentrates, bound for Japan. The last radio message from the Derbyshire was received on 9 September 1980. The ship tragically never arrived at her destination, and was presumed lost at sea with all 42 crew and two wives.
No material evidence as to the cause of the loss came to light at the time, and it was thought then that a formal investigation under the Merchant Shipping Acts would serve no useful purpose. However, the Department commissioned extensive research into the ship's structural design and investigated reports of defects in sister ships.
In 1986, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, a sister ship of the Derbyshire, the Kowloon Bridge, ran aground on rocks near Baltimore, Republic of Ireland. In December that year, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) announced to the House that a formal investigation into the loss of the Derbyshire would be held.
559 The formal investigation was held under the chairmanship of a wreck commissioner, Gerald Darling QC. He was assisted by three technical assessors—eminent experts in the nautical and naval architecture fields. The inquiry began on 5 October 1987, and concluded on 10 March 1988. It was one of the longest shipping inquiries in modern times. Besides the Secretary of State and the Department, the other parties represented at the inquiry were the ship's owners, the builders, the Classification Society, and the dependants of those lost in the tragedy.
The inquiry was independent, wide-ranging, and thorough. The report of the formal investigation was released in January 1989. The court concluded that the Derbyshire was properly designed and properly built and that materials of approved standards were used in her building. The inquiry considered a number of possible causes of the loss. They included, principally, failure at frame 65—I will not attempt to deal with the technicalities—failure due to fatigue, torsional failure, brittle fracture, structural failure of hatch coverings, flooding, cargo liquefaction, loss of propulsion, explosion, and/or loss of steering.
The court's main conclusion was:
The MV Derbyshire was probably overwhelmed by the forces of nature in Typhoon Orchid, possibly after getting beam-on to wind and sea, off Okinawa in darkness on the night 9th/10th September 1980, with the loss of 44 lives.The report made three principal recommendations, and with the leave of the House I will set out the present position concerning follow-up action taken by the Department.The first recommendation stated that consideration should be given to ensuring a more immediate starting of marine searches when they are properly requested, wherever they occur. I can tell the House that that recommendation was examined carefully by Her Majesty's Coastguard. It considered that present arrangements in the United Kingdom are adequate, and also took the view that the International Maritime Organisation's search and rescue manual contained arrangements that adequately covered incidents involving overdue vessels.
The second recommendation stated that consideration should be given to revision of the guidance to mariners for avoiding tropical revolving storms. I can tell the House that, of the two publications referred to in the report of court—"Meteorology for Mariners", and the "Mariners Handbook"—the latter now incorporates revised advice on the avoidance of revolving tropical storms.
The third recommendation relates to the investigation of water drainage from ore cargoes. I can tell the House that research in this area is currently under way. An initial series of tests has already been conducted, on the Department's behalf, to assess the drainage and strength of a typical iron ore concentrate. A sample of concentrate has been distributed among the laboratories participating in the research. In addition to examining the concentrate's stability, the research should identify those tests which are best suited to predicting cargo behaviour, and lead to practical recommendations being made on methods whereby the risk of cargo shift can be reduced. I should add that further research is currently under active consideration.
560 The hon. Gentleman referred to new material. The loss of the Derbyshire has never been, and will probably never be, far from the public eye, partly due to the huge size of the vessel, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out.
The apparent new material relating to the loss of the Derbyshire came to light earlier this year. When any apparently new and important evidence comes to light after a formal investigation, it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Transport to consider whether it is important enough to warrant the reopening of the formal investigation. An underwater film of one of the Derbyshire's sister ships, the Kowloon Bridge, and a research paper produced by the late Professor Bishop and his colleagues are currently being examined by the Department of Transport's marine accident investigation branch.
I am sure that the House will want to know the latest position. I am advised that the marine accident investigation branch is hoping to put its report on the apparent new material to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport shortly. He will consider that report and then decide whether or not the apparent new material is important enough to warrant the formal investigation being reopened.
I cannot go any further than that this evening. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that we would like to come to a decision as soon as possible, but obviously we must wait for the report from the marine accident investigation branch. We shall give the House a decision.
The hon. Member has been very diligent in the way that he has questioned Ministers about the issue.
In his speech, the hon. Member for Garston mentioned the Bishop Price report and the formal investigation. It is said that the wreck commissioner excluded the earlier Bishop Price report. However, the transcript of the hearing shows that the wreck commissioner did not have a closed mind to the report's introduction. It was open to any party at the inquiry to seek to introduce it, at any stage in the formal investigation, if they considered that it might assist their case.
That is an important point, and it is in the records. It was a formal inquiry, and we have to rely on that, rather than reports that were made previously. But earlier reports were readily available.
§ Mr. LoydenI cannot understand why the Government, if they are certain of their ground, do not allow that decision to be challenged by an inquiry. That is all we are asking. We are not talking about the conclusions of the inquiry, but we think that it would be proper for the Government to say, "Yes, we have this evidence", and that they are prepared to put it to be challenged by those who are justified in doing so.
§ Mr. McLoughlinI hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. The deliberations of this Adjournment debate will be shown to my right hon. and learned Friend, so that he can bear that in mind.
I thank the hon. Member for Garston and the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) for their contribution to what is undoubtedly an important debate. As the debate has shown, considerable concern remains—I have had letters from hon. Members on both sides of the House—about the circumstances surrounding the loss of the Derbyshire. The marine accident investigation branch is examining two apparent new pieces of material 561 that have recently come on the scene, but I am not in a position to comment on the outcome of its consideration. Whatever the outcome, the scars of the tragedy that afflict those who lost loved ones will unfortunately remain for ever.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Eleven o'clock.