HL Deb 10 May 1995 vol 564 cc64-6

2.56 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether; in the light of the finding of unlawful killing at the coroner's inquest into the deaths occurring following the collision between the "Marchioness" and the "Bowbelle" they will review their decision not to set up a public inquiry into the disaster.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen)

My Lords, the Government do not believe that a public inquiry is needed. The circumstances of the tragedy were established by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch whose findings were accepted by the inquest jury. We have acted on the recommendations in the MAIB report and on those of the later Hayes inquiry into river safety. The inquest jury welcomed this and put forward 12 further safety recommendations to which we are giving urgent and careful consideration.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, is the Minister aware that his reply will disappoint those who were primarily affected—the relatives of the deceased—by this horrible collision? Is he not also aware that in the recently televised "Dispatches" programme there appeared to be serious conflicts of evidence as to the location of the accident, the supervision and training of crews and the responsibilities of the department itself to ensure safety on the river? The Court of Appeal expressed serious reservations about the situation in saying that a full public inquiry was needed. Will the Minister reconsider this matter in the light of the evidence obtained in that television programme, which was something of an indictment of the situation affecting many parties, including the department?

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, the purpose of any inquiry must be to establish the facts of what actually happened during the accident and also to discover and to evaluate what lessons should be learnt to improve river safety. I believe that the facts have been fully established by the independent Marine Accident Investigation Branch's expert technical investigation into this matter. The lessons to be learnt were followed up by recommendations included in the MAIB report and in the Hayes inquiry into river safety and indeed by the recommendations made by the jury.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, is it not very unusual for a catastrophe of this kind not to be followed by a public inquiry? Is there not a great deal of force in what has been said by the noble Lord opposite about the issues still left uncertain, and is that not somewhat disturbing to those of us who use the river?

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I do not believe that to be the case. It became clear, following the "Herald of Free Enterprise" disaster, that public inquiries were not necessarily the most effective way of establishing what happened and too often they were dominated by those wishing to defend their position. As with investigations into air accidents, in respect of which there has not been a public inquiry since 1972, we believe that this technical and expert manner of investigating such tragedies is the way to go forward in order to produce the lessons which we must learn to ensure that river safety is at the highest standard possible.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, is the Minister not aware that his answer was profoundly unsatisfactory and that when, as in this case, the Department of Transport itself comes under inquiry in connection with the work that it did as regards the supervision of safety on the river, it is necessary to have, in addition to the inquiry that was undertaken, a full public inquiry? It is a different circumstance where the Department of Transport has no direct responsibility in a situation, but is the Minister prepared to accept that in this case they did? Therefore, in the interests of justice being done and being seen to be done, is it not really necessary to ensure that a public inquiry is undertaken?

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the department does indeed have a responsibility—that is why an independent investigation by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch, which is not under the control of the Secretary of State, was taken forward. That was followed by the Hayes Inquiry into river safety. All these investigations have put forward safety recommendations. The Government have acted on them and I believe that the regime that we have in place is wholly superior to that prior to the time of the "Marchioness" incident. We now have a high standard of safety on the River Thames.

Viscount Caldecote

My Lords, are the Government now satisfied with the standard of safety for passenger carrying vessels on the Thames and on other inland waterways, taking account of the many revolutionary changes in design which are taking place?

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, as I said, I believe that we have a satisfactory safety regime. My noble friend talks about revolutionary changes in design. It is worth bearing in mind that many of these small passenger vessels that ply this trade, particularly on the River Thames, are indeed very old vessels that have been modified. It is important to make sure that they carry the necessary modern safety equipment.