Claims that the US can wash its hands of legal liability for the mess left behind on the old baselands were yesterday dismissed by the two Government Ministers at the centre of negotiations on compensation.

Environment Minister Arthur Hodgson and Development and Opportunity Minister Terry Lister joined forces to rubbish Bermudian lawyer William Cox's view that the US Navy and Government were in the clear over the clean-up.

Mr. Hodgson, a veteran lawyer and Rhodes scholar, said: "I don't think he is correct in law. There are a number of violations of US law to begin with.

"What they were doing on the bases is not permitted under US law or Bermudian law.

"Even if they were still on the bases, they would still be breaking the law because of contaminants.'' Mr. Hodgson added: "And they have certainly broken international law.

"When you look at the lease in its entirety, one may well conclude they were in violation of that as well.'' And he pointed out: "It's a fundamental process of common law that the lessee leaves the property in the condition they found it.

"That's accepted, whether it's in the lease or not.'' He was backed by Mr. Lister who maintained the US was responsible, both legally and morally, for pollution on the former US Naval Air Station in St.

George's and the US Naval Annex in Southampton.

Mr. Lister said: "That's our position and we're not going to move away from it.

"We're very satisfied with our legal position.'' But he said it was still hoped that the US would stump up without Bermuda having to get involved in a court case which could drag on for years and cost a fortune.

Mr. Cox said quitting the bases was only mentioned once in the 1941 contract between Britain and the US and he said the terms made clear that the US could leave at any time "without thereby incurring any obligation...''.

And he added that the "assets and benefits'' from the bases "outweigh the liabilities many hundredfold''.

But Mr. Lister said: "That's an ill-informed statement that does not reflect the damage done to Bermuda in environmental terms.'' The US built and operated the civil air terminal free of charge until it pulled out of Bermuda in 1995 and contributed $50 million a year to the local economy.

When it left, the US also claimed that it had left behind an estimated $50 million in "improvements'' which were dismissed by the then-UBP Government as being mostly old buildings scheduled for demolition.

Mr. Lister, a former top accountant, said accepted accounting practice virtually wrote off buildings as worthless after 40 years and added that some of the base buildings were as much as 50 years old.

Among the damage left behind were tons of old oil in caves under the Naval Annex, tons of asbestos from old buildings and heavy metals and other pollutants at the air station.

The US has claimed it will only pay up where risk to health is "imminent'', which it insisted was not the case in Bermuda, and also dismissed reports prepared by independent experts for the Bermuda Government which said the risk to the public's health was real.

And Mr. Lister said reefs were destroyed as well as islands being joined with landfill to create the bases.

He added: "Every time we look at an area we want to use we are having to pull down buildings. We're not using them, we're tearing them down.'' And he said that caused even more expense to Bermuda in terms of demolition costs.

Mr. Lister added that Canada was compensated with $100 million for bases in Newfoundland under agreements very similar to Bermuda's, although the United States made the payment as a one-off and without admitting liability.

And he said he did not care how the US covered itself, as long as it paid up the estimated $60 million-plus or did the work needed.

Mr. Hodgson added that the fact that awareness of pollution was limited and the risks of certain materials were unknown in the 1940s could now well have a legal bearing on the case.

And he said: "They had permission to operate bases. They didn't have permission to damage health.'' Lawyer William Cox: `Terms made it clear the US could leave at any time without incurring any obligation.' Environment Minister Arthur Hodgson: `I don't think he is correct in law.

There are a number of violations of US law.'