§ Mr. Hugh D. Brownasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has completed his consideration of the Second Petition which the Mercantile Marine Service Association submitted to him on 4th March last about the loss of the "Titanic"; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. CroslandI have considered this further Petition very carefully in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General.
When the first Petition was submitted by the Mercantile Marine Service Association in 1965, the Board of Trade concluded after a full examination that there was no reason to believe that there had been a miscarriage of justice. The Board also considered that, having regard to the time which had elapsed and the death of the great majority of the persons concerned, the Board's discretionary power to order a re-hearing should not be exercised. The Board's views on these two aspects of the matter remain unchanged.
The only new question arising from the second Petition is whether the evidence referred to in the Petition is such that I am required to order a re-hearing under the provisions of Section 475(1)(a) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. I am advised, however, that the provisions of the Act do not impose upon me an obligation to order a re-hearing, primarily because the evidence submitted is not evidence which could not have been produced at the Inquiry but also because that evidence is not "important" within the meaning of the Section. In these circumstances I see no reason to depart from my predecessor's view that a re-opening of the Inquiry would serve no useful purpose.