SS Richard Montgomery: Masts

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jake Richards.)

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am really grateful to you and the House for this opportunity to discuss something that is of immense importance to residents in Sittingbourne, and especially on the Isle of Sheppey. It should also be of real concern to Members of this House, since the wreck that I am about to talk about, which lies at the mouth of the Thames estuary, also presents a danger to the physical wellbeing of the Houses of Parliament themselves.

For those who do not know, the Richard Montgomery, which lies just beneath the water at the mouth of the Thames, contains potentially the largest amount of explosives that could explode in peacetime anywhere in the world that has not been a nuclear test. This amount of explosives could, if they all went off at the same time, throw a plume of water 3,000 metres into the sky, setting off a tsunami that would obliterate vast swathes of the Kent and Essex coastline and shoot all the way up to London to flood all our colleagues who might be drinking on the Terrace of the House of Commons. This is obviously a real concern. I have to say that that was based on calculations done in the 1970s. More recent assessments of the wreck are not quite as dramatic. Nevertheless, there is a significant amount of munitions on the floor of the sea, just at the mouth of the most important river in our country, the River Thames.

The Richard Montgomery came over during the 1940s. It was full of munitions that were being given to Britain to fight the Nazis in the second world war. Tragically, it lost its anchorage and drifted on to a sandbank. When the tide fell, it broke the back of the ship, leaving it marooned in the mouth of the Thames. Since then, it has been a major landmark that is used by ships to navigate their way up and down the River Thames and a warning to people not to get too close to the explosives. It can be seen from Sheerness, where it is only about a mile and a half out to sea. People who have grown up on Sheppey know this story. It does not just connect them to the second world war and the support we got from our American allies at that time; it also has a powerful story, because of the threat of the explosives, as people grow up around it and feel that they might be in danger of a catastrophic explosion occurring.

In recent years, the wreck, which is a steel vessel, has been gradually deteriorating and corroding. Concerns have been raised about what would happen if the vessel should disintegrate completely and scatter the explosives across the sea or, even worse, if any of them were to be triggered. I have spoken to explosives experts and bomb disposal experts in the Royal Navy and the general feeling is that, when vessels such as this were set to sea, all the explosives and munitions on board were made safe. The detonators would have been kept separate from the high explosive charges and the risk is comparatively low, but we cannot say that there is zero risk.

One of the concerns that has been raised in recent years is that, as the three masts that stand proud of the water erode and rust away, they could fall on the wreck and destroy what is left of the Richard Montgomery, either triggering an explosion or scattering the explosives. Over several years, the Government and the previous Government looked at what could be done to make it as safe as possible, and the decision was made to remove the masts. The Government have finally now signed a contract with the removal company that will dismantle the masts. This landmark will be lost forever to people from Sheerness, and the emotion and those stories are at risk of being lost locally.

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. He has illustrated the issue and the concerns over the explosives, although the second and up-to-date assessment seemed to indicate that maybe the threat is not the same. I want to ask him about marine and maritime history and the three masts. Does he agree that the ultimate goal is to protect local maritime history by creating a lasting public display for locals and tourists alike? Does he not further agree that our maritime history—my constituency of Strangford has incredible maritime history—should be promoted in schools across the United Kingdom and that schools should be encouraged to visit these masts, as we do in Northern Ireland with the Titanic museum in Belfast, to gain a better understanding of our strong history? He should be congratulated on bringing this issue forward. None of us—not me—would have known about it but for his knowledge.

I congratulate the hon. Member for creating a link back to the topic.

Yes, for any community that has strong links to the sea, the stories of the sea run deep in everyone’s veins. As I was about to come on to, there is an amazing mural in the middle of Sheerness of a fairly mean-looking mermaid who has her hands gripped around the plungers of a TNT detonator, threatening Sheerness. People have a sense of pride about that mural and the stories, and it matters to all the communities that surround the area where the Montgomery is laid to rest.

It is important that we ensure that the masts are preserved for the future and, building on what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, people locally are keen that if these masts are removed, they come to land. The Government, as I say, are removing the masts. We do not know what condition the masts will be in when they come off the ship, but certainly people in Sheppey would love to have one of the masts, at least, returned to the mainland.

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this debate forward. The SS Richard Montgomery is equally as visible from Southend, and my residents in Southend and Leigh on the other side of the estuary share all the same stories as his residents. They have an affinity to these masts and the stories of the ship that they hear—as well as a little bit of fear. While he calls for a mast to be preserved and placed in the Isle of Sheppey or somewhere in his constituency, I too would like to see a second mast saved and placed somewhere within Southend or Leigh across the estuary opposite his constituency.

Absolutely. As I have talked to people on Sheppey, some people have gone, “The masts are all ours! We have to have them all.” There are three masts—we can share. I know that it matters to people in Southend; I have had communications from some of my hon. Friend’s constituents, and also from people more generally.

There is one extra snag in this project. Currently, the masts are the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. There was an Act of Parliament in 1973, largely pulled together for the Richard Montgomery so that we could take on what has been described as the most dangerous wreck in Britain. Although for decades the United Kingdom Government have been responsible for ensuring that the masts are safe and that shipping transits around them safely, as soon as anything comes off the wreck, it reverts to its original owners, which are the United States Government. Although I know that people locally would like the masts, and I am sure that the United Kingdom Government would be happy for them to come to Sheppey and to Southend, we will have to ask the United States Government for one of the masts. There are three masts; Southend could have one, Sheppey could have one, and maybe one could go into the ballroom that Donald Trump is building at the moment—they would look great covered in gold leaf. Beyond that, this means that we must engage in a bit of diplomatic discussion with our American allies. It would be a massive testament to our partnership with our American friends during the second world war, and since then through NATO. It is a way of bringing that story to life for people. We could use this to bring us together, as it would bring people in Southend and Sheppey together. It could reignite—not literally; that would be terrible—the bonds with our American allies.

I have a few questions for the Minister, some of which have been raised by my constituents. A no-fly zone has recently been extended around the wreck of the Montgomery, including bans on drones. Several constituents would like to know why and what has changed. Are the changes reflective of any additional concern about the explosive nature of the Montgomery’s cargo? People would also like to know what this would involve, and what we need to do to ask the Americans if we can have the masts. Do the Government still believe that the masts should be kept in the United Kingdom? I would also like some general evaluation of the Government’s ideas about a timeline for the removal of the masts and what it would involve.

The most dangerous wreck in Britain—respond to that, Minister!

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am responding on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather), who is responsible for maritime matters and has led this work within the Department but is not available this evening. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) for securing this Adjournment debate and for the constructive way in which he has continued to engage with the Department on this long-standing and sensitive matter.

Frankly, it was fascinating to read the briefing for today and to see the photograph of the masts sticking up from the surface of the Thames. My hon. Friend has consistently articulated, on behalf of his constituents, the importance of safety and the strong local attachment to the SS Richard Montgomery as part of the area’s history. Those views are obviously shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) and his constituents.

It is entirely right that these matters should be discussed in this House, and I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s approach. As we have already heard, the wreck has been the source of intrigue, speculation and concern for a number of years, both regionally and nationally. I understand that it is even the subject of a Bollywood drama. I reassure hon. Members that my Department monitors the SS Richard Montgomery 24 hours a day, every day of the year; carries out annual surveys; and publishes reports detailing its condition. I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased to hear that those reports show no significant worsening of the wreck, and there is no reason to suspect that there will be any increase in risk.

None the less, the SS Richard Montgomery has spent more than 80 years lying on the bed of the Thames estuary, and will corrode over time. That is why the expert advisory group recommended in 2018 that the three masts should be removed to reduce stress on the overall structure and avoid the risk of heavy material collapsing on to the cargo of munitions.