HL Deb 04 May 2004 vol 660 cc989-91

3.3p.m.

Lord Methuen asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether recent reports on the seaworthiness of HMS "Trafalgar" are justified, particularly in the light of three or four safety specialists refusing to sail in her.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)

My Lords, HMS "Trafalgar" recently completed a major repair at Devonport. Rigorous checks were undertaken to validate all aspects of her seaworthiness prior to sailing. Recent press reports alleging that the vessel was in an unfit condition to proceed to sea were completely unfounded. Further claims that safety specialists were among those crew members left ashore for medical assessment were also untrue; none of those personnel can be described as safety experts.

Lord Methuen

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, can he confirm: that the ship sailed with more than 250 defects; that the nose cone, which had to be replaced after the ship was grounded, was not replaced correctly; and that the radiation limits in the reactor compartment exceeded those permissible?

Lord Bach

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot confirm what the noble Lord says. However, I insist that no Royal Navy ship or submarine would sail after a maintenance period without satisfactory completion of rigorous safety checks, a process that is always fully documented. Of course it is not unexpected for there to be minor defects following a period of maintenance. It is the purpose of the testing and training phase to ensure that all the equipment is functioning correctly, but I cannot agree with the noble Lord that there were that number of defects or that they were of the kind to which he referred.

Lord Renton

My Lords, is the Minister aware that HMS "Trafalgar" has been in Portsmouth Harbour for nearly 200 years, and is a magnificent memorial of a great victory and a fine museum? Why should it be exposed to the peril of going to sea when there is no need for that to happen?

Lord Bach

My Lords, I am afraid that I was not aware of the ship that the noble Lord mentioned, with its distinguished history. For the moment, I do not see its relevance to the Question.

Lord Astor of Hever

My Lords, following the Minister's point about minor defects, can he confirm that the crew members were specifically concerned about the safety of the nuclear reactor and the safety-hatch covers?

Lord Bach

No, my Lords, I cannot confirm that. The 12 of the crew who went to see the commanding officer were concerned about a number of issues. He thought that, in most cases, they could be suffering from some sort of stress and wanted them properly medically examined. One of the 12 stayed on board. The rest were medically examined, and five are now back on board, four have been medically downgraded for a month, and the remaining two are under investigation for disobedience to orders. However, they are not under investigation for mutiny.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, the Minister does not seem to be answering many questions about some of the problems with the submarine "Trafalgar"—I do not believe that HMS "Victory" had a nuclear reactor on board—so will he say whether there was a problem with one of the control rods in the nuclear reactor? How minor was that? It has caused a great deal of concern. Are the numerous faults that my noble friend highlighted so minor? Last week, three crew members were treated after diesel fumes entered the sub's ventilation system during an exercise at Devonport. Also, breathing masks had to be worn when Freon, a refrigeration gas, escaped in another incident.

Lord Bach

My Lords, there was a minor problem with the single control rod. That is a minor defect, and the design authority that originally designed the reactor plant—Rolls-Royce, which I am sure that the House agrees is a fairly respectable UK company—agreed that the submarine was safe to sail. That decision has been agreed by the Ministry of Defence experts and, to put the cherry on the cake, independently assessed by the MoD's independent nuclear auditors. No country in the world takes more care to make sure that, when its ships sail, they sail safely.

Forward to