| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Norman Baker (Lewes): I welcome the agency's decision to take action to protect the environment, albeit belatedly. On 29 October an answer from the Minister indicated that the agency was happy with the arrangements, but clearly that is not the case. The main question is how it can be that rusting hulks were allowed to set sail from the US when there was no extant planning permission. Why was that not checked in the first place?
Does the Minister accept that, as a general policy, developed countries should deal with their own waste, both for reasons of producer responsibility and in the interests of minimising the transportation of hazardous waste, particularly when it is in the form of clapped-out 50-year-old ships?
I understand that the Department for Transport is today meeting with Able UK. Will the Minister assure me that the message from the Department, particularly in light of the agency's advice, to which the Minister referred in his initial answer, is that these rusting hulks will not be allowed to enter UK waters or travel through the busiest shipping channel in the world, the English channel, and that if they need to refuel, they should do so at sea, as apparently they already have?
Does the Minister agree that the Government should state clearly that, except in an emergency where there is risk to life and limb and the situation is obviously different, the ships should be turned round and sent back to the US for disposal, or does he think that it is appropriate to perpetuate the image of rubbish-dump Britain?
Mr. Morley: I do not know whether it is Liberal Democrat policy to send out the gunboats on this issue, but we must keep things in perspective. I do not think the hon. Gentleman was listening when I said that the ships have been inspected and classed as seaworthy. If they had not been, they would never have been allowed to sail. They would certainly not be allowed to enter UK waters if they were considered unseaworthy. Let us be clear about that. I also want to make it clear that the decision on the ships' return is based not on an immediate environmental risk but on the fact that the consents are not in order. If the ships go back and the consents are met, the contract can be fulfilled, but, at present, the consents are not in order and, until they are, the Environment Agency's legal advice is that the ships should return. On the hon. Gentleman's last point, ships can be refuelled and reprovisioned in coastal waters and estuaries without coming into port.
Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool): As the constituency Member of Parliament most directly concerned, I am satisfied that my hon. Friend's Department and the Environment Agency have dealt with the matter responsibly and conscientiously throughout—it has not been easy. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the original reason for choosing Able UK's facility in my constituency for the work is its high standards of environmental and employee safety protection? Is it not the case that the world would be an environmentally cleaner and less hazardous place if such ships had a safe disposal in which they were expertly and professionally dealt with, as Greenpeace itself has observed.
It is obviously important for all the necessary permissions and licences to be granted before the work starts, but will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no reason in principle why that work should not be carried out in future by Able UK? Finally, will he give my constituents a clear reassurance that in the meantime, while all these permissions and requirements are being put in place, the safekeeping of the ships, should they be unable to return to the United States quickly, will not pose any threat to our home coastline or their own safety and interests?
Mr. Morley: Yes, I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that, whatever the arguments about the licence and consents, not one group or person has cast any doubt on the quality and ability of Able UK to deal with such work or, indeed, the skills or expertise of his constituents involved in that work. We need high-quality facilities of this type. This country has rightly pressed the EU to speed up the phase-out of single-hull tankers, which appears to be going ahead, and is likely to lead to 2,000 redundant tankers in the not too distant future. They will have to be dealt with by yards with the proper facilities, and we believe that we have that expertise in the UK. As for my right hon. Friend's final point, I can certainly say
that there is no reason in principle why that contract should not go ahead, as long as it fulfils all the terms of the various licence conditions. We also want to ensure the safety of our coastline and other shipping, so the environment and risks to it will be paramount in guiding our decisions on the issue.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey): It is not the reputation of Able UK that is on the line, but that of the Environment Agency. How is it conceivable that the ships were under way and that Friends of the Earth was threatening judicial review before the Environment Agency's announcement of its discovery that planning permission has not even been granted? That seems an extraordinary state of affairs. Can the Minister explain how that came to pass? Will he also tell the House what powers he has to enforce the return of those ships under EU law?
Mr. Morley: On the latter point, a range of treaties and legislation deals with the return of waste in such circumstances. The hon. Gentleman will know that it is open to different parties to contest decisions in the courts if they feel that those decisions are incorrect. That facility applies to anybody dealing with such matters, and it is not unique to this situation.
On the Environment Agency, I repeat that in the time it had to comment on the consent, its principal duty was to decide whether the application for a licence to be issued was valid. At that time, crucial issues such as planning permission—of course, there are other matters in that regard—were thought to have been resolved, but it now turns out that they were not.
Mr. Michael Weir (Angus): The Minister said in his statement that planning permission had not been granted for the dry dock. In his reply to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), however, he also said that the ships would not be turned back. Will he accept that the closer the ships get to UK waters, the more difficult it will become to resolve the matter quickly? The Government's position should be that the ships will be stopped or turned back until the question of the dry dock has been satisfactorily resolved. The matter could take some time to resolve—we all know that it can take some time to sort out planning permission problems.
Mr. Morley: That is exactly the Government's position, and the Environment Agency is the competent authority in this case. The Environment Agency's clear legal advice is that the ships should return to the United States. We may need to take into account circumstances such as weather or emergencies, but those circumstances have not yet arisen, and the advice stands. MARAD, the responsible agency in the United States, should take serious note of that.
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk): Will the Minister accept that he has not really answered one of the key points—that there has not been proper liaison between different Departments—in the urgent question, which was well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington)? Does he agree that we should not be taking a nimby view? We should be doing
all that we can to help British companies secure lucrative overseas contracts, but public confidence is vital. Because of the incompetence of his and other officials a lot of damage has been done to Able UK, which is a good UK company. Why was a proper environmental impact assessment not implemented at the earliest possible opportunity?
Mr. Morley: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman's point about the environmental impact assessment refers to. The necessary environmental impact assessment for the dry dock has been carried out, but it was done as part of the original planning application and has not been implemented. That is the root of the current complex dispute.
I do not accept the argument that there has not been proper co-ordination between Departments. The Environment Agency is the competent authority and DEFRA's direct role is limited, although we are aware of what has been going on. We have also liaised with the Department for Transport, particularly in relation to the condition of the vessels before they set out. If the hon. Gentleman wants to go into it, we have also discussed the issues with the EU, various embassies and MARAD. We are well aware of what has been going on in relation to the actual applications. The problem is that there seems to be a question mark over the consents that the company had obtained and thought were in place. The Environment Agency believes, not unreasonably, that while there is a question mark, the terms and conditions of the licence have not been met, which is why it believes that the ships should return to the United States until those matters are sorted out. As I said, if the terms and conditions are met in full, there is no reason in principle why the contract cannot go ahead.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland): First, may I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), inasmuch as this is a matter of such importance that it should be the responsibility of one Government Minister, rather than being split between the Minister for the Environment and the Department for Transport? In the meantime, however, will he speak to his colleagues in the Department for Transport and impress upon them the important point that the current confusion surrounding the transportation of the vessels must not be used as an excuse to change the route that is currently proposed to bring them through the Pentland firth, which, as the Minister will know, is one of the most notoriously difficult tidal races around our coastline?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |