§ Mr. SpearingTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the main differences in terms of procedure, public access, conduct and report adopted between the inquiries into the Zeebrugge and Marchioness disasters.
Preliminary inquiry (PI) Formal investigation(FI) Inspector's inquiry procedure Ordered under S.55 of MSA 1970 (now repealed). In 1987, as PI (now amended to S.56 of MSA 1970). Ordered under regulation 6 of MS (accident investigation) regulations, made under S.33 of MSA 1988. public access No provision. (Usually)1 held in public Public invitation to make representations. No other provisions before report stage. Conduct Peripatetic. No rules of con-duct laid down. Inspector's powers set out in S.27 of MSA 1979. Quasi-court procedures, laid down in MS (formal inves-tigation) rules 1985. Peripatetic. Governed by MS (accident investigation) regulations. Inspector's powers as for PI. Report No provisions laid down. Practice was for report to be regarded as confidential to Department. Report of court to Secretary of State, usually1 published. Report by chief inspector to Secretary of State, usually' published. Any parties who are criticised must see the report in draft and may make representations to the chief inspector. 1 The usual procedure was followed with both the Zeebrugge and River Thames accidents.