Antares (Hansard, 19 March 1991)

§ 1. Mr. Foulkes
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current estimate for completion of the report of the naval inquiry into the sinking of the fishing boat Antares.

§ The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton)
The naval board of inquiry into the Antares incident was completed in December. Departmental consideration of the board of inquiry report has not yet been completed, but I will make a summary of its findings available to the House in due course.

§ Mr. Foulkes
Can the Minister give an assurance to the House that the report, and his publication of it, will not shirk from any admission of responsibility for the sinking of the Antares? Will he also confirm that there are no technical reasons why the Clyde reporting scheme, which is proving successful, should not be extended to other fishing areas around our coasts? Since there are no technical reasons why it could not be extended, will he agree now to that extension so as to ensure that another Antares-type tragedy does not take place?

§ Mr. Hamilton
On the first question, I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that the Royal Navy will not shirk responsibility for the incident. That is not really the purpose of the board of inquiry, which is to find out precisely what happened in terms of the actions of the submarine. The hon. Gentleman should have no fear whatsoever on that account. On the second question, there are no technical reasons that I know of why the reporting system covering the Clyde should not be extended. We want to see how the Clyde scheme works out, and then we shall certainly look into whether it should be extended further.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Clyde fishermen find the new scheme to their advantage and welcome it? Like the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I believe that the scheme should be extended wherever practicable. Fishermen on the west coast of Scotland would appreciate that move by the Ministry of Defence if it were possible.

§ Mr. Hamilton
I am well aware of my hon. Friend's views on that subject and I am grateful for his remarks. The only point that I would make is on the question of our 146 nuclear deterrent submarines; we do not want it to become clear to the general public when they are transiting out. That is one of the problems with extending the scheme, but we shall consider it.

§ Mr. Kennedy
Following the Antares disaster, as the Minister said, a scheme has been implemented for the Clyde. He will be aware from contacts that I had earlier today with his private office, which has been very helpful, that there was a near-disaster yesterday off the north of Skye. The incident was similar to what happened to the Antares—a submarine almost destroyed a fishing boat—but mercifully there was no loss of life. Can the Minister give details of that incident and the application of lessons learnt from the Antares disaster in the context of the Minch?

§ Mr. Hamilton
We should be very careful not to confuse the two issues. What happened on 18 March was not a near-disaster. A Royal Navy submarine, while making a surface transit near to the Raasay range, passed within 80 to 100 yards of the vessel Swyn-Y-Mor. The incident took place in daylight; the submarine had the fishing vessel in sight at all times and took appropriate evasive action as soon as it became apparent that a close pass was likely. Although the submarine tried to raise the fishing vessel on VHF, it did not receive a reply until after the incident had occurred. There was no physical contact between the two vessels or with the trawler's gear.