Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260-280)
21 JULY 2004
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY AND
MS SUE
ELLIS
Q260 Alan Simpson: In so far as (a) you
welcome it and (b) you would support it, since we have a voice
on the IMO, can you give the Committee an indication of whether
that is a proposition that the UK Government are likely to be
piloting in the IMO? Someone has to start the process.
Mr Morley: You are absolutely
right. We are trying to lead by example in terms of the disposal
of ships under our direct control. We would certainly only want
those ships to be recycled in facilities that have the proper
standards. It is important but it is more important I think to
use our influence and resources working through the IMO and the
joint working group in terms of getting an international agreement.
We have a lot of experience of this. We have a lot of influence
in relation to these bodies. That is why we are keen to be members
of this working group and we are keen to do whatever we can to
play a leading role in this.
Q261 Alan Simpson: Is it workable, if
it comes through?
Mr Morley: I think it is workable
because UN agreements by and large do work. By and large, people
do abide by them. Of course, you can get countries which can refuse
to ratify or can ignore them, although it does tend to be the
exception rather than the rule.
Q262 Diana Organ: We have talked with
the Environment Agency and a little earlier on you talked about
the difficulties and confusion about the international laws that
apply to ships. There is the fact that they move around and they
do not necessarily go anywhere near the countries that they are
flagged under. On the basis of that, when do you think a ship
stops becoming a ship and starts to become waste?
Mr Morley: That has been the source
of some very long arguments already. I would have thought a ship
stops becoming a ship when it reaches the end of its working life,
where it is no longer functioning as a ship, and that its final
voyage is to be recycled, not as part of its working life. I can
see right away there are people who would quibble with some of
those definitions but I am sure it gives an indication of how
potentially difficult it is. There are some countries that would
argue that ships are not waste and do not become waste.
Q263 Diana Organ: Given that you have
said there will be some countries that will argue about at which
point it is, the intention of the owner about the journey, whether
it is a real journey or a journey to go as waste, and you have
talked about the only way to do it being through the joint working
group and to have a global United Nations approach, how much consensus
is there so far about that very point?
Mr Morley: I cannot comment internationally
because the contact I have had with other countries is relatively
limited. I have a good idea of the view of the EU because there
have been initial discussions in the EU and it was discussed very
briefly at the last Environment Council when I was there. There
is certainly strong support in the EU for this approach. There
is no doubt about that. Given that the EU supports it and that
the US and the OECD are already signatories to a convention, that
includes a very large part of the world that owns large scale
shipping fleets, but we will have to pursue this through the international
conventions. The Basel Convention itself was a UN convention and
we are parties to that. The Basel Convention will be part of the
joint working group with the IMO and the ILO. We think that is
the most effective way forward and I repeat that we are very keen
to play an active role in this. We are already engaged in the
process.
Q264 Diana Organ: When you say you are
keen to play an active role and you are already engaged in the
process, how many meetings or how much time has Defra had, either
yourself as the Minister or Defra officials, with the working
group?
Mr Morley: The working group is
not actually set up yet and it is not likely to be set up until
February. The members of the working group have not even been
appointed yet. We do not know for certain whether we will be one
of the countries who will be appointed to the working group, although
we hope that we will be. That will be decided in September and
the working group will start work in February.
Q265 Diana Organ: If UK Defra is appointed
into the working group, would you expect as a Minister to take
an active role in that?
Mr Morley: I would certainly take
an active involvement in terms of following the progress but it
is not a ministerial group. It is a technical working group.
Q266 Diana Organ: Lastly, I wonder if
you could say a word or two about waste regulations in ships.
Should they apply to the whole vessels or do you think that just
those materials that should be disposed of should be covered rather
than those that should be recycled?
Mr Morley: It can be argued that
there are regulations now which apply to some components in ships
in relation to asbestos, for example. Turkey, until recently,
had very strict regulations on the importation of asbestos and
we have very strict regulations in relation to the control of
asbestos. There is also the Stockholm Agreement, although it is
not really in relation to the movement of components of ships
but it certainly applies to the disposal of components and of
PCBs within them. There already are a number of regulations which
apply to hazardous waste within ships but you are into quite a
complex argument again: when is a ship a ship and when is it waste?
What is clear is that once you start to dismantle it there are
regulations on how you deal with the different components.
Q267 Chairman: You have answered a question
that arose in paragraph 17 of your evidence where you said, "The
UK hopes to be actively involved in the work of this group."[10]
It is to have another meeting and you do not know whether you
are on the group. I understand the words you have used there but
the analysis that we have received about what is going on in places
like Bangladesh and India and possibly to a lesser extent in China
does suggest an element of urgency here about sorting these matters
out. The normal timescale for international agreements, as your
evidence has indicated, is quite long. If one took, for example,
the agenda of the G8 key players in the world, has any effort
been made at least in principle to get a fast tracking of this
agreed amongst the key maritime nations and particularly the members
of the G8 where more intimate discussions can take place to try
and say we have to sort this thing out now rather than just let
it role on, because all the problems in Bangladesh, India and
China remain untouched.
Mr Morley: The answer is I am
not sure what has been discussed within the G8. It is something
that I can certainly try to find out for you. What I do know is
that there are a number of British based companies who take the
issue of dismantling ships very seriously even if they are not
in the UK and, in some cases, allocate staff to oversee the process
to ensure standards are being maintained. BP is one, I think,
and they deserve great credit for that. I also know that there
are British based companies who are working in partnership with
yards in countries like Turkey, which is an OECD country, and
they are seeking contracts within the UK. Presumably, they know
the kind of standards that we apply here and the kind of standards
that we want to see applied. I am not sure at the moment that
there exist connections with the more notorious areas such as
Bangladesh. I know that there has been this connection with China
and I am not quite sure whether China's standards are quite in
the same category. I also know that there has been some discussion
by other EU companies about working with developing countries
in terms of raising standards there so that they have proper standards
but still have the income in relation to the industry. I think
that is very much in its early days.
Q268 Mr Mitchell: Would you prefer it
to be handled on a European basis? Is it conceivable to handle
this on a European basis?
Mr Morley: Yes, I would prefer
that. There are European yards that can recycle ships, although
they are very limited, as I am sure you are aware as a Committee
from your discussions. You will also know that I feel the proposed
facility at Hartlepool by Able UK, if they meet the required standards
of planning, of environmental impact assessment and permitting,
would be of great benefit both to that local community in terms
of jobs and long term investment as well as the UK, as well as
giving us a good facility within this country.
Q269 Mr Mitchell: Are we not in a sense
competitors? I understood from some of your earlier evidence that
the Dutch have taken a lead in developing this and because of
the stalemate at Able UK were now going to capture the business.
Is this a crude, nationalistic view?
Mr Morley: It is a fair point.
It is a competitive business. It is true that the Dutch are proposing
to build a facility almost identical to what is being proposed
at Hartlepool. Of course, they will be aiming for a very similar
market, including I understand the James Rivers Fleet.
Q270 Mr Mitchell: They will not have
to put up with all the nervous nannying that came from Defra and
from the Environment Agency and almost everybody involved in the
fiasco.
Mr Morley: To be fair to the Environment
Agency, they followed the process as they saw it. There were unknowns.
You know the history to all this. As far as we in Defra are concerned,
what we are concerned to see is the best environmental outcome
to all this. There is also the wider issue in relation to the
international strategy, in relation to dealing with ships properly
and safely and facilities within our own country which this incident
has highlighted and we are trying to address.
Q271 Mr Mitchell: Would you like to see
UK ships scrapped in the UK?
Mr Morley: Yes, I would, as a
first choice. Absolutely.
Q272 Mr Mitchell: That would start presumably
with ships where the government has control or influence?
Mr Morley: Certainly I have been
in correspondence with the MoD following my appearance with the
Committee. I have received letters from the MoD explaining what
they are doing with ships which have reached the ends of their
lives. They have said that they have made a specific point of
going out to UK seeking interests. It makes it very clear that:
"ADM has confirmed that our intention has been to stimulate
interest in breaking ships in the UK by seeking bids for Intrepid
from UK yards and recyclers. Over 30 UK companies are invited
to tender but so far only two have viewed the ship at Portsmouth."
You can take the horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
We have to do our best to encourage UK involvement and UK tendering
but in the end if you cannot get an adequate tender you have to
look at other tenderers who can do the work properly and safely
and they may not be UK based.
Q273 Alan Simpson: I am intrigued because
when we had evidence from Able UK they were saying to the Committee
how difficult they had found it getting access to tenders for
disposal of UK ships. There may in the first instance be a communications
problem that we need to address. You mentioned the Stockholm Convention
and it seems to me that one of the implications of that for our
own ships is that we have to do more than seek to encourage an
expression of interest. We will have a direct responsibility under
that Convention to ensure that we take responsibility for the
dismantling of our own vessels and the non-exporting of PCBs that
are on those vessels. Is it worth going back to the MoD and exploring
with them the obligations that will come with the Stockholm Convention?
Mr Morley: I am not sure that
the obligations as you put them are the ones which apply to ships
in the Stockholm Convention. The Stockholm Convention is primarily
aimed at the movement of PCBs internationally which are liquid
PCBs, pesticides, a range of chemicals. The PCBs in ships tend
to be in things like cabling. My understanding, because I have
been discussing this, is that the Stockholm Convention does not
apply to the movement of ships for recycling.
Q274 Alan Simpson: I accept the broad
brush nature of that point but in respect of the PCBs in vessels
I thought Stockholm was quite clear. The idea of saying, "We
are just exporting the vessel but not the PCBs in it" just
does not sound particularly convincing.
Mr Morley: It is because the Convention
is aimed more at the chemical side, when PCBs are trace elements
within components, within ships.
Ms Ellis: Some of the misunderstanding
around this is because there was a Commission proposal during
discussions and negotiations on the Shipment Regulation which
did provide for some additional controls on waste covered by the
POPs regulation which would have affected waste coming into and
leaving the Community. During negotiations in Council Member States
agreed to delete that particular provision so there was a proposal
on the table at one stage during the negotiations but Member States
did not sign up to that in Council and I think that is where some
of the confusion is arising.
Q275 Chairman: You mentioned "in
September". You would not like to tempt us somewhere between
the first and the end of the month as to when this strategy is
going to appear, apart from giving us the Delphic, ministerial
reply?
Mr Morley: That is when we will
publish the terms of reference as part of the consultation.
Ms Ellis: I would not like to
put my money on it. Early or late September at the moment, but
it will be September.
Q276 Chairman: You are going to miss
out the two weeks when Parliament is back?
Ms Ellis: That would be very unparliamentary.
Mr Morley: We will not be slipping
it out, Chairman. We will make sure people are well aware of it.
Q277 Chairman: The reason I ask is: is
it going to be one of those documents where there are, like Heinz
Variety, 57 different questions that you think ought to be asked
answered and you invite views; or are you going to lay down a
definitive, clear policy? For example, going back to Mr Ballard's
report in paragraph 34 on page 11, he makes some interesting observations
about the role of planning policy and a specific comment on PPG10.
He concludes his observations by saying, "Planning policy
is not however the right place to set out government policy on
whether there is a need in the first place and on the network
of facilities it thinks will be required to satisfy that need."
Are you going to include in this strategy some definitive statement
so that people know where the government stands on these key issues
and then, with the plethora of expertise out there, invite people
to comment and add to it; or is it going to be one of these endless
documents with umpteen questions where we are still no wiser as
to where the government is but people will be happy to send you
even more views for you to digest?
Mr Morley: It has not been published
yet. It is still under development and in a sense I am just giving
you an opinion, but I would not object to making it clear what
the government's preferences are, what we would like to see in
terms of our own country and internationally. I have no objection
to laying that out clearly within the document. There are questions
though that we want to consult people on. Planning is a very good
example and I think John Ballard is probably right in what he
says. There is PPG10; there is also PPG1 at the present time.
There are real issues in relation to the planning process of large
scale installations, not just ship recycling, but there is a read
across on this.
Q278 Chairman: You would like it to be
specific. Are you going to get your way or is that down to the
Secretary of State?
Mr Morley: The Secretary of State
takes the final accountability but perhaps you should wait and
see for the shape and the format. I always, as you know, listen
very carefully to the views of this Committee and I do try to
respond to them.
Q279 Chairman: If this is about the equivalent
of being at the forthcoming attractions section of the cinema,
we have reached that at the end of the inquiry rather than the
beginning but if it means we are going to get some definitive
answers to questions I think that would be good. I think it will
be incumbent on the Committee to try and complete its report before
you write your strategy document.
Mr Morley: That would be helpful,
yes.
Q280 Chairman: May I thank you both for
your answers and for the candour particularly of your last comments?
I wish you well for a rest during August so your batteries can
be recharged for when next you come to see us.
Mr Morley: And you, Chairman.
10 Ev 59 Back
| 
