Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)
WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2003
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY, MS
SUE ELLIS
AND MR
BRIAN WADSWORTH
Q120 Alan Simpson: Have you given
a date to MARAD when the ships would have to leave?
Mr Morley: Not at this stage,
Chairman, because two of them have not even arrived yet.
Alan Simpson: Can I just make it clear
to the Minister because the Environment Agency just said to us
if they are here for 180 days we then acquire a legal responsibility
to take responsibility for those and that means after 12 April,
Minister, you are stuck with it and so are we.
Chairman: Minister, you can pick up on
that point when you come back.
The Committee suspended from 4.55 pm to
6.03 pm for divisions in the House
Q121 Chairman: I gather we may only
have ten minutes, in which case in fairness to the Minister we
may have to draw stumps. Minister, if you can remember Mr Simpson's
pithy point which we concluded on, would you be kind enough to
respond to it and then we will have Diana Organ.
Mr Morley: I can indeed. The answer
to this in normal circumstances is 180 days is quite right. It
is a condition of the waste shipment licence, however the waste
shipment licence is a transposition of the OECD agreement and
I understand that is to be amended to 365 days. I think at this
point I will ask Sue Ellis to explain the rather technical detail
in a bit more detail.
Ms Ellis: Indeed, Minister. The
2001 OECD decision reflects the fact the 180 days for recovery
was regarded as too short, so it has been extended to 365 days.
The waste shipment regulation transposes that into European law.
The revision to the waste shipment regulation which will incorporate
the change to 365 days is currently being negotiated, being worked
on, at European level and the revised waste shipment regulations
should reflect the change to 365 days.
Mr Morley: I think you can see,
Chairman, these issues are not simple.
Chairman: Indeed, as I think we have
discovered in this whole issue. It is not quite what it seems.
Q122 Alan Simpson: Can I say on that,
if we were playing darts we would all be quite happy with 180,
but since we are not, to have this hanging in the air, in the
process of negotiation and renegotiation, may leave us all in
an almighty mess. I would ask that the Minister agree to come
back to the Committee with legal clarification about whether the
clock is ticking under the current rules and at what point this
180 days would be put in. It would be helpful if a written legal
opinion can be given.
Mr Morley: I think perhaps a written
legal opinion may be helpful to the Committee. I can tell you
at the moment the clock is ticking under the current rules of
180, but they are to be superseded and of course we do have the
agreement with MARAD that if there is not a proper environmental
and legal solution to these ships found by the time we get into
the better weather in the summer, they will take them back.
Q123 Diana Organ: This afternoon's
session has brought up a lot more interesting questions which
we may need to revisit at a future time, but obviously you will
agree, I am sure, Minister, we should not be exporting our waste.
You have said this issue is something where there is going to
be a huge, growing demand both globally and nationally. Could
I ask you two questions. What happens to the UK ships? We know
where the American ships are going. What is Defra doing to build
capacity in facilities like the one proposed in Hartlepool so
we can meet this growing global demand?
Mr Morley: That is a very fair
question. First of all, we are back to this issue there is a need
for capacity. In an ideal world, the ideal solution of course
would be that the US would have enough facilities which would
mean none of these ships would have to be exported. But we do
not live in the ideal world on these issues and it is true our
ships are exported for the same reason we do not have enough capacity.
UK ships are scrapped in the UK, we do have some capacity but
we do not have anything on the scale of the proposed facility
at Hartlepool. You may be interested, Chairman, that I actually
saw today the trade newspaper for the shipping industry which
has the headline, "Great green scrap dream", and this
is a proposal by the Dutch to actually build a facility very much
like Hartlepool. I quote, "Targets include single hull tankers
and others like the US naval reserve vessels currently raising
a scrapping row in the UK." So it appears that the Dutch
are actually planning facilities to take these US ships because
of the demand. Of course the Dutch being Dutch, they want to do
it by applying very high standards, which Hartlepool has. The
editorial of this paper does make it very clear that they feel
Able has been disgracefully treated.
Q124 Mr Mitchell: If their Government
handles it with the same competence as our Government, they will
never get the business, will they?
Mr Morley: It will be very interesting
to hear what the NGOs have to say about a facility like that built
to that standard in Holland.
Q125 Diana Organ: Minister, you did
not really answer my question. What is your Department, what is
Defra doing to build capacity and the facilities which are needed?
Mr Morley: This is an issue, of
course, for the private sector. Defra is not in the business of
nationalised ship dismantling. But I think there is a very strong
argument for a facility of this kind. We want to see it succeed,
we want it to be legal and to comply with the very best environmental
standards, that is part of our role as Defra, but we do recognise
there is a need for this. It is very interesting there was a letter
today from Greenpeace, which was critical of UK ships going abroad,
and the inference was we should have a facility like this and
yet there are other groups who seem hellbent on stopping a facility
like this.
Q126 Mr Mitchell: Peter Mandelson,
in his evidence, suggested to us that the Government should take
the lead and deal with the issue, and that means Defra. Why don't
you?
Mr Morley: We certainly are very
keen to play our part. We recognise this incident has thrown up
all sorts of issues in relation to the regulations, how they apply,
the complexity of the regulations. We accept there are legitimate
concerns about environmental standards.
Q127 Mr Mitchell: Are you going to
sit there and wring your hands for several months while the business
is lost or are you actually going to do something?
Mr Morley: Absolutely not. But
we do not have the role, the powers or the facilities to be in
the business of setting up shipyards for scrapping ships. In terms
of what we can do, we are very willing to play our part, but the
lead for this should be the planning authority, the local council,
the regional development association, the company itself, they
are the ones who should play the lead. Our role is in relation
to ensuring that there are high environmental standards and helping
people facilitate the standards and meeting those standards, and
we are very happy to do that.
Q128 Mr Mitchell: This has been created
by a storm of ill-founded fear which has been whipped up which
has terrified the rudderless Hartlepool Council. It has created
this legal mess which will take months to resolve of whether planning
permission was given, where is it, what it was given for, who
is responsible, who is not, meanwhile the business presumably
goes elsewhere and everybody sits there covering their own backsides
and doing nothing.
Mr Morley: It is now a matter
for the courts principally to decide those issues.
Q129 Mr Mitchell: That is just what
I mean.
Mr Morley: We cannot interfere
with that, we cannot interfere with the process of the courts,
and neither can I comment on it while it is going through the
courts.
Q130 Mr Mitchell: Can you send the
ships back then?
Mr Morley: The ships can be sent
back if there is not a legal and environmental solution found
to it. I do agree that there has been some quite gross exaggeration
about the risks proposed by these ships.
Q131 Mr Drew: I only caught the end
of what Alan was asking about but I think this is a different
point. Is there not a need for some much clearer international
guidance in this whole area? From what we have heard today, there
is a commercial case for who is going to do it but what is the
mechanism for how that happens? Every other nation will be looking
at us with some alarm because they would not want to be in similar
circumstances. Is there not a need for some international conference
to identify how we are going to take this further forward, because
we cannot go through this again, no other nation wants to go through
what we have been through. I would welcome your comments on that.
Mr Morley: I agree with that.
This has been a complex case and it is particularly complicated
by the dispute between Able and the planning authorities in Hartlepool,
because Able are still adamant that they have those permissions;
they are adamant. In the end, the court will decide that. That
is an unusual dimension to this situation but it has demonstrated
how complex it all is. It has demonstrated how there is an interlinkage
between all the different consents and permissions and how, if
one falls down, everything falls down. I think there is a role
to examine the detail of that and I certainly have no objection
to looking at that in relation to what we have to do, which is
to go through this experience and see what we can learn from it
and how we can improve the situation in the future. There may
indeed be lessons from this which other people internationally
may want to look at.
Q132 Mr Drew: Is there any country
in the world which has a system in place yet where they are dealing
with this particular level of sophistication? We know who deals
with the unsophisticated aspect of breaking up ships—India,
Pakistan, Bangladesh. Which developed nation is doing this properly,
or are we all in a learning experience?
Mr Morley: I think we are all
on a learning curve in relation to this. Amongst the OECD countries—and
bearing in mind we are signed up to the OECD agreement and therefore
we would want ships to be recycled in OECD countries which meet
the standards—a lot of ships go to Turkey, but Turkey does
not have facilities for dealing with hazardous waste such as asbestos.
So while Turkey is familiar with such things as transhipment licences
and the various consents, Turkey insists hazardous materials are
removed from ships before they get to their shipyards because
they do not have the facilities.
Q133 Mr Lazarowicz: Are you in a
position to make any assessment of the performance of Hartlepool
Council in this matter?
Mr Morley: No, I am not really
in a position to make any comment whatever.
Q134 Mr Lazarowicz: On the question
of the actual state of the ships themselves, what is the Department's
view as to the state of the ships now they are in Hartlepool?
What is your assessment of the extent to which they contain toxic
materials?
Mr Morley: I will ask Mr Wadsworth
to say a word on this. My understanding is that the ships were
inspected by the Marine and Coastguard Agency before they set
off and they were found to be in a satisfactory condition to make
the journey. They were also inspected by the American authorities
as well. They have subsequently been re-inspected on their arrival
in Hartlepool. They have also been inspected by the Environment
Agency and a range of measures have been put in place, and as
far as I understand it in relation to the general condition of
the ships they are regarded as generally in reasonable condition.
I wonder if you want to expand on that?
Mr Wadsworth: Thank you, Minister.
Yes, that is correct, Chairman. The vessels were subject to a
number of surveys before departure from the United States. The
US administration arranged their own surveys, the US Coastguard
carried out surveys with a view to issuing the loadline exemption
certificates which were necessary to enable the vessels to make
their voyage across the Atlantic. Our own Maritime and Coastguard
Agency appointed two surveyors to check they were satisfied the
recommendations of the Maritime and Coastguard surveys were in
fact being implemented before the ships departed, and to check
whether there were any other issues which needed to be dealt with
which were drawn to the attention of the US authorities and dealt
with before the ships departed. We also appointed an independent
towage expert to advise us on the passage plan for the vessels
and the operational issues relating to the tow across the Atlantic.
Mr Morley: It is fair to say these
ships in relation to the risk they pose are no better or worse
than any other ships of their age.
Mr Wadsworth: That is correct.
Many ships of this generation contain asbestos as a fire prevention
or fire containment material, and also have wiring insulation
et cetera which has PCBs within it. So there is nothing odd really
about these ships for their generation.
Q135 David Lepper: Chairman, I do
apologise for having missed much of this session and this question
may well have been answered in the afternoon. Do the ships contain
cargoes of oil or chemicals or toxic substances of any kind?
Mr Morley: They do contain a range
of toxic substances which are mainly in the engine room and wiring
which you would find in any ship of this age range. As far as
oil is concerned, I suspect the tugs which towed them had more
oil on board than these ships. There are probably ships going
into Tees Port everyday which have far more hazardous cargoes
than these ships contain.
Q136 Joan Ruddock: I wanted to come
in when we were having this discussion about the overall strategy
of Defra and the approach in the future, given everyone agrees
this is a continuing and somewhat new problem. Does the Minister
believe it would be preferable if developed nations which can
develop that capacity were to develop that capacity at home?
Mr Morley: Yes.
Q137 Joan Ruddock: That we were to
deal with our own vessels and perhaps that would give greater
public acceptability if people thought it was a problem we had
a responsibility to deal with here?
Mr Morley: I do agree with that.
As Environment Minister what I want to see come out of this, Chairman,
is the best environmental outcome. The best environmental outcome
is that we have facilities within the UK which are high standard,
meet the very best environmental standards both nationally and
internationally, and that we have a facility here within the UK.
We have to accept that in relation to all these tankers, for example,
a lot of these tankers are flagged out to countries which do not
have these facilities and are not likely to have these facilities,
so therefore there is going to be an international trade. Again,
looking for the best environmental outcome, as developed nations,
we should be developing facilities to deal with the ships we have
ourselves but we should also play our part in dealing with proper
recycling and reuse in top quality environmental conditions for
the many ships which are going to be on the market from countries
which do not have these facilities. I do not think it unreasonable
for those countries who have an established trade and a lot of
jobs in this, which have poor standards, to see whether there
are measures we can take to ensure they have proper standards
of health and safety on environmental management and waste disposal.
That might be an issue we should look at in relation to our development
programmes. But, whether we like it or not, there is demand for
proper facilities. There is an industry which is involved in this
which is perfectly legitimate and I think the outcome we should
be aiming for, and the outcome I want to see as Environment Minister,
is to see those facilities in our own country.
Q138 Chairman: Can I raise a question
with you arising out of a considerable amount of evidence which
has been sent to the Committee by Friends of the Earth on the
question of PCBs? We have learnt on the evidence this afternoon
they are an integral part of the materials that make the ship.
I do not know anything about how you do safely deal with these
materials but what I am aware of from the Friends of the Earth's
evidence is that a lot of people have talked about the carcinogenic
properties of these particular chemicals. Can you, for the benefit
of the Committee, explain to us how you undertake the safe disposal
of these particular materials in the context of dismantling a
ship in a way which would address the kind of line of inquiry
which has been put to us by Friends of the Earth?
Mr Morley: Certainly. The bulk
of these PCBs if not all of them are found in the insulation of
wiring in the ships and, as such, they are not a risk to people
unless you start chewing them. They are normally dealt with by
high temperature incineration in a licensed incinerator for the
disposal of toxic waste. Such facilities do exist within the UK
and Able does have access to them. Such cabling is found again
in all ships of this age. It was up to about the 1970s I think
that it was common to have cabling of this kind. I guess there
is quite a lot of this cabling found in buildings in this country
as well because it was a common use of PCBs in insulation. A Member
of this House came up to me and asked why it was the UK was importing
ships full of PCBs because that was the impression given by some
newspaper reports, and this is part of the distortion which has
occurred. In this case it may have been the way it was reported
but nevertheless it is one of the things which has led to a misunderstanding
and an overstatement of the risk these ships pose. Do you want
to make a comment on that?
Mr Wadsworth: My information is
that the non-liquid PCBs amount to just under 700 tonnes, which
is 0.5%—
Mr Morley: In the 13 ships?
Mr Wadsworth: That is in all 13
ships taken together, which is something like half of 1% of the
weight of the vessels, taking the whole set of materials.
Q139 Chairman: In the Friends of
the Earth evidence there is a question about how this material
would be disposed, whether there would be any going to landfill—
Mr Morley: No, incineration.
| 
