Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-164)
WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2003
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY, MS
SUE ELLIS
AND MR
BRIAN WADSWORTH
Q160 Mr Lepper: Obviously there may
be legal issues.
Mr Morley: It is a letter to a
third party. In principle, I do not see why not but you will appreciate
I will have to take some advice.
Mr Lepper: Dr Lucas has copied her letter
to us.
Q161 Mr Lazarowicz: You described
the polite terms of a letter from the Environment Agency to MARAD
on 3 October, and we are told the Environment Agency also were
in touch with MARAD on 8 and 10 October. Were those letters increasingly
strident in their tone, to get their message over?
Mr Morley: I do not think I have
copies of those letters, Chairman. I think that is one for the
Environment Agency to deal with.
Ms Ellis: They are letters from
the Environment Agency.
Q162 Chairman: There is one thing
which you put before the Committee which we would appreciate further
guidance on, and that is what happens next. You said earlier you
were talking to lots of different parties.
Mr Morley: Yes.
Q163 Chairman: We have not time now
to go into a forensic examination of what comes out of that, but
it would be helpful if you could write to the Committee and spell
out in clear terms where those discussions are going and if there
is any emerging timetable as to when decisions are going to be
taken in the light of what comes out of those discussions?
Mr Morley: I am very happy to
do that, Chairman, but I can tell you that the legal situation
is clear. Under the EU Directives, the transhipment licence is
void, therefore the ships are here classified as illegal waste,
and it is part of the wording of the Directive that the ships
must be returned unless there is a legal and environmental solution.
I think that is part of the wording of the Directive. So the legal
situation is quite clear, unless a better solution is found, the
ships will have to go back.
Q164 Mr Drew: I received my first
letter on this issue about three months ago. You can imagine in
Stroud this is something you would get letters on. I wonder what
was the press strategy which you adopted with the Environment
Agency. Obviously you were very much on the back foot. In a sense,
what would you now do differently to try and catch up with this
issue? There seems to be a consensual view around this table there
may be a good reason for doing what the company is doing but it
was absolutely turned over very quickly in terms of not just a
national NGO but international media coverage.
Mr Morley: Of course this has
a great deal of attraction as a press story with phrases like
"Ghost Ships", "Toxic Time Bomb" "Toxic
Ships", it is a wonderful story for newspapers. They may
not be precisely accurate but they are wonderful stories, and
once they start running it is difficult to counter them. At that
stage the Environment Agency was dealing with it as the regulator.
I have already explained to the Committee we have confidence in
the Environment Agency, we cannot secondguess all our various
regulatory authorities, we leave it to them to deal with it. It
was only when the real problem started arising, it became a big
national story, and, as I said to you, Chairman, of course it
would be irresponsible for us as a department not to get involved
at that stage, and we were. But when people approached us, as
they did, about the issue of course the main point of contact
was the Environment Agency and they deal with press inquiries
because they are the competent authority, but if people asked
us for the details then we gave them the details to put the issue
in perspective, as I have outlined to the Committee, about what
is the real situation and the real level of risk for these ships
which is not as great as it was being portrayed.
Chairman: Minister, thank you very much
indeed. Your patience is much appreciated by the Committee. I
am most grateful for you coming at relatively short notice to
give evidence. Thank you very much, we look forward to your further
written contributions.
| 
