Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-65)
30 JUNE 2004
MR MARK
BROWNRIGG, MR
EDMUND BROOKES,
CAPTAIN NIGEL
PALMER AND
MR TOM
PETER BLANKESTIJN
Q60 Alan Simpson: Okay. Can I just come
at it from a different angle. You have talked a lot about the
Basel Convention. What impact do you see the Stockholm Convention
having on the industry because in a sense that was one of the
points that we had started from, the implications that that Convention
will have, particularly in relation to the disposal of hazardous
substances that you will find on ships, including PCBs?
Captain Palmer: I cannot give
you an answer to that.
Mr Brownrigg: Do you want us to
consider it and come back?
Q61 Alan Simpson: Yes. It would be really
helpful since the Convention will apply from this year. It would
be helpful if we could get clarification. Just coming through
to the question of where the responsibility should lie with the
dismantling of ships at the end of their lives. You took us through
a picture which I just want to be clear I have got right. The
IMO set the guidelines in terms of the standards and responsibilities
that you have. Those guidelines only become legally enforceable
when they are adopted by governments, but in terms of the changing
of the guidelines you were saying that that is also open to governments
to change because governments are the driving forces in doing
so?
Mr Blankestijn: Yes.
Q62 Alan Simpson: So would you be in
a position to come back to us as a Committee and say what exactly
would be the guidelines that you would want a UK Government to
be advocating to be adopted, incorporated or changed in relation
to that IMO framework?
Mr Brookes: We were very much
party to the development of the International Chamber of Shipping's
guidelines which have been taken through to IMO and are now in
place there. There are only a few tweaks and whistles and bells,
there is no fundamental difference. So that is what we would be
happy to see go forward in the way you have said.
Captain Palmer: Just to clarify
the process that the IMO works under and how these guidelines
came about, the guidelines originated back in the mid-90s by us
and a number of other companies getting together who were concerned
about the issue and clearly the pressure that then came on the
industry from about 1997 onwards with the NGOs getting interested
in the issue resulted in those guidelines being finally produced
in the form they are in. They were then lodged with IMO, who have
adopted them as guidelines. Now, if they were to become international
legislation they would have to go through the IMO process of a
proposal being put forward at one of the committees of IMO by
one or a number of nation states, who are the only people who
can actually put forward proposals. If IMO as a whole chose to
go forward with it—and that is on a one country, one vote
system—then it would go ultimately to a diplomatic convention,
a diplomatic convention would argue over it and they would produce
a piece of international legislation with certain requirements
around it of how it should be ratified and it would then go through
that process, at which point it becomes international law and
then the member states of IMO are obliged then to enact it in
their own legislation. So that is the full international legislative
process.
Mr Brownrigg: I think I would
put a slight gloss on that. That was referring to the development
of conventions. This is already an IMO instrument. It is already
an international legislative instrument but it is in the form
of guidance and the guidelines are issued in a recommendatory
fashion very often because that is the nature of the substance
they are dealing with. But this has within it, as we have said
before, a direct request to the IMO committees in question to
keep this under review, with a view to further developing the
guidelines in the future: to consider the appropriate means to
promote the implementation of the guidelines including a review
of the progress made in achieving their intended purpose; and
to continue cooperating with the International Labour Organisation
and the appropriate bodies of the Basel Convention in this field
and to encourage the involvement of other stakeholders. So what
is in process here is a system of taking what has been adopted
in guidance form at this stage and looking forward in the light
of practical experience, and that is a positive way of looking
at it.
Q63 Alan Simpson: Let me just get you
to run that through again against one of the comments that Joan
Ruddock made earlier. You threw in an answer that a vessel is
not like a car and where did old cars go, and Joan said, "They
get dumped at the end of my street." If you can picture a
scenario of a vessel abandoned at the end of her street and you
ran that checklist past her or any other resident, "This
is being kept under review. We urge people to come out with appropriate
guidelines," they would tell you to bugger off. They would
say, "Get this bloody thing off my street, find out who's
responsible and charge them." In a way, I think what as a
Committee we have a right to ask of you is, if we are to address
the problems globally presented by those who would dump end of
life vessels on beaches in poor and powerless countries or pull
the plug on them in deep waters, how does the responsible part
of the shipping industry want governments like our own to take
effective action now that is interventionist?
Mr Brownrigg: Just to take a second
take on the comparison you have just made, this is not a fly-tip
that is under a single council's or a single county's jurisdiction.
This is a piece of legislation in guidance form which is adopted
for 160 countries. It is at a different level than your comparison,
if I may say, and I think you have to be guided by practical experience
on this. The fact is, there was nothing in place four years ago.
There is now guidance that was developed by the international
industry, with the breadth that I have mentioned beforehand. The
international industry took that to the international maritime
legislative authority and said, "Please do something with
this," and that has happened. So I think we are in a process
and there is a process of review into the future to learn from
experience and I do not think that should be downplayed.
Q64 Alan Simpson: No, I am not downplaying
it. I understand that. As a Committee, we are having this inquiry
partly because all of a sudden we have been presented with the
reality of the recycling issue in relation to the ghost ships.
We then realised that in fact the numbers in the pipeline are
far greater than any of us had been aware of and that we need
to have guidelines in place that essentially are able to take
action against not the most responsible part of the industry but
against the irresponsible part of the industry. My question to
you is still the same, what action would you be asking this Committee
to recommend to the UK Government that it takes forward again
into the IMO guideline or legislative process?
Mr Brownrigg: I will give a one
sentence answer and then others can jump in because they clearly
want to. I think we would want strong support by the UK Government
for the international guidance that has been adopted. Now, that
may sound trite but for 160 countries to be looking at this with
a view to implementation is something that will take time. So
I think what we want is essentially a strong line from the UK
Government in support of what has been achieved to date.
Mr Brookes: Could I add, Mr Simpson,
you mentioned about pulling the plug, obviously to sink it at
sea. That is not in the commercial interests of anyone because,
as Captain Palmer has said, ships have value, tens of millions
of pounds, even as scrap steel. If they go to a land beach. We
have talked about land beaching in India now. So the answer is,
we then want this guidance to ensure that we maintain the high
standards we have outlined to you and persuade people to raise
their standards to those of China, to which both P&O Nedlloyd
and BP Shipping send their ships.
Q65 Alan Simpson: Okay. My final question
on that then is, recognising that even at that end point there
is economic value of the material that can be salvaged, we are
left with questions about the liability for hazardous waste that
is contained in abandoned ships and I think given that we can
very easily identify a situation where a ship was built in the
UK for a US company that is operating from the Philippines and
registered in Liberia, who should have the liability for the hazardous
wastes that are illegitimately recycled in an abandoned vessel?
Captain Palmer: I will just reinforce
the point that Edmund made, that I do not think anybody abandons
ships. Ships are sold to recycling facilities. They are not abandoned.
When people refer to them going on the beach in India, they are
not just dumped on the beach, these are actual yards. They just
use the beach as their bit of land that they dismantle on. So
they are not abandoned. Who is responsible? At the end of the
day, if you are operating a recycling facility which is going
to do that job properly then if there is a process of licensing
recycling facilities as exists, as Tom has described, in China
then clearly it is the responsibility of the regulatory authorities
in the country where that is taking place. As a shipowner, it
is my responsibility to make sure that I actually give it to a
place that actually does manage it properly and that I am satisfied
that I go through a due process of audit to ensure that they have
done their job in the way that they professed they were going
to at the time we agreed they could have it. So I believe that
the simple answer to your question is that it is a joint responsibility.
I think it is the responsibility of whichever is the country that
has that recycling facility to ensure that it is done properly,
safely and in an environmentally sound manner and it is the responsibility
of owners, certainly it is my view, to make sure that they only
sell it to places that can do it properly and that they do do
it properly. Does that answer your question?
Alan Simpson: Yes.
Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much
indeed. You have given us a comprehensive overview and a good
formal start to our inquiry in this area. We thank you very much
indeed. If there are any subsequent points which occur to you
that you would like to respond to—I think the one on the
Stockholm Convention was the key point and we would be grateful
for a further response from you in due course. Thank you very
much indeed for coming before the Committee.
| 
