| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Environmental Offences
21. Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): How many successful prosecutions there were in respect of environmental offences during 2002. [121687]
The Solicitor-General: There were 795 prosecutions by the Environment Agency in 2002, resulting in fines totalling £3.6 million. There are 50 Environment Agency prosecutors working across eight regions; they work with other agencies, such as the Health and Safety Executive and English Nature.
Mr. Heath : I am grateful to the Solicitor-General. Will she pass on my thanks to the Home Secretary for making good his assurance to the House that he would amend the Criminal Justice Bill to provide better regulation of the trade in endangered species?
Does the right hon. and learned Lady agree that many environmental laws are difficult to prosecute under owing to difficulties of definition, difficulties in the sentencing and arresting procedure, or difficulties of
distinguishing between corporate and individual offenders? Is it not time for a review of environmental law, perhaps in one of the many legislative vehicles that come from the Home Office or the Department for Constitutional Affairs?
The Solicitor-General: I will pass on the hon. Gentleman's thanks to the Home Secretary. I think that he is referring to the amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill to increase the penalty for endangered species trade offences. That would make those offences arrestable, which deals with one of the issues that he raised.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulty of prosecuting environmental offences. We should be clear about the fact that not only do such offences cause people costs, they can also endanger health through water pollution, fly tipping and the like.
There are problems of definition, especially the definition of waste. There are also problems in courts taking such offences seriously, with the right level of sentencing. However, as the hon. Gentleman may know, the theme of the Magistrates Association conference last year was sentencing for environmental offences. The criminal justice system and people in general are waking up to these problems. People must stop committing environmental offences and we are on the case. I work closely with the Environment Agency prosecutors.
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East): In welcoming the work of the CPS on these matters, will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that, when cases are not seen through to prosecution, the complainants and witnesses who support the prosecution are told that it is not going ahead and are given the reasons, so that members of the public who try to co-operate with the prosecuting agencies and help them are kept informed of what is going on?
The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is nothing worse for a victim than to learn only when they open their local newspaper that the case against the person who had committed an offence against them has been dropped. They may not even read it in the paper, but hear of it from a neighbour or someone living in the area. The CPS is addressing that, with a new programme of direct communication with victims and witnesses. When charges are dropped or downgraded, the CPS lawyer responsible will write to the victim to tell them. That initiative is long overdue, but we should do more and build on the direct communication programme to ensure that victims who support prosecutions, in the public interest, are properly looked after by the criminal justice system.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): Does the Minister accept that the abuse of public places by those
who get rid of their chewing gum on pavements, pedestrian areas and market squares is an environmental offence? How many successful prosecutions are brought against those people, who despoil public places to the great inconvenience of so many members of the public? This is a real issue; what can be done about it?
The Solicitor-General: I do not know whether what the hon. Gentleman is referring to really comes within the definition of environmental offences or whether it would better suit antisocial behaviour legislation, but I will undertake to look into it and write to him.
Extraditions
22. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): If she will make a statement on co-operation on extraditions between her office and her opposite numbers in (a) EU and (b) EU accession states. [121689]
The Solicitor-General : The Attorney-General and I have responsibility for extradition cases from Ireland. We discuss these regularly with the Irish Attorney-General. Requests for extradition from EU and accession states are dealt with by the Crown Prosecution Service.
Andrew Mackinlay: Our treaty obligations and those of other European Union countries in relation to extradition are not working. There are 22 requests from France outstanding from the past five years which we have been unable to respond to—one each for 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998. If it was the other way round, some members of our press and hon. Members in this place would be going up the wall. Spain has two requests from 1996. Spain and the UK have a disgraceful mutual track record. Is it not time that we addressed this issue, so that within the European Union there is swift, fast-track extradition, ensuring that people are brought to court in all these fair jurisdictions?
The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If offences are committed here but the evidence is abroad or the defendant is abroad, we want them back here so that we can bring them to justice. Similarly, if people commit offences abroad and the other country wants them, we should ensure that we expeditiously arrange for them to be extradited.
The issues that my hon. Friend has raised are starting to be addressed. Last month I attended the launch of an organisation called Eurojust, which is a network of European prosecutors, and I also discussed these issues with my counterpart Justice Ministers in Europe. The new European arrest warrant, when it comes into effect in January, will ensure that we have fewer hurdles and obstacles and less red tape, all of which delay and frustrate the system.
Business of the House
12.32 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Will the tax-raising Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 30 June—Remaining stages of the Hunting Bill.
Tuesday 1 July—Motions to approve Ways and Means Resolutions on the Finance Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Wednesday 2 July—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on "a fair deal for passengers and motorists", followed by a debate on "a fair deal for small businesses". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
Thursday 3 July—Debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report 2002–03 on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday 4 July—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
Monday 7 July—Opposition Day [13th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Tuesday 8 July—Remaining stages of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, followed by Commons consideration of Lords Amendments.
Wednesday 9 July—Debate on the Convention on the Future of Europe, on a Government motion.
Thursday 10 July—Debate on economic and monetary union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday 11 July—Private Members' Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 17 July will be a cross-cutting questions session on domestic violence.
Subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the summer recess on Thursday 17 July and return on Monday 8 September. The House will rise again for the conference recess on Thursday 18 September and return on Tuesday 14 October. The House will recall that, in last week's business statement, I gave a commitment to outline the provisional dates for the Christmas recess. Again, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise no later than Monday 22 December and return on, or during the week commencing, Monday 5 January.
Mr. Forth: I thank the tax-raising Leader of the House for the business statement.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me, if I may, to pay my own tribute— on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, myself and, I hope, all Members—to Sir Denis Thatcher and to express our profound condolences to Lady Thatcher and to Mark and Carol. I am sure that we all agree that we will probably never
know the full extent of Sir Denis's true contribution to our nation, but I simply wish to record that he will be sorely missed.I should like to refer to early-day motion 1469, which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, refers to the retirement of Sir Nicolas Bevan, whose last day this is with us in the House. The early-day motion rightly records our thanks and gratitude to Sir Nicolas for his service to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House over a long period, and we wish him the very best in his retirement.
[That this House notes the distinguished and committed service to Parliament of Sir Nicolas Bevan CB; thanks him for his wise counsel and unfailing courtesy to honourable Members from all sides of the House; and wishes him and his wife, Christine, many happy years in retirement.]
Does the tax-raising Leader of the House recall saying, last Thursday,
- "I very much share . . . his great respect for Parliament"—
- "I have fought for democracy and liberty all my political life"?—[Official Report, 19 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 501.]
- "We cannot achieve Socialism through Parliamentary channels alone"?
The tax-raising Leader of the House has announced today that three major, controversial Bills will be given only one day each for their remaining stages. I am talking about the Hunting Bill, to which a very large number of amendments have been tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the House and which is very controversial, and the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill—which, again, has been given only one day, even though we have still properly to consider GP contracts and foundation hospitals—to say nothing of the Finance Bill, to which I suppose we must expect an amendment to be tabled in the name of the tax-raising Leader of the House to hold with what he said, or perhaps did not say. Perhaps we will hear from him about that later.
There will be only one day in the House of Commons to debate those enormous Bills with very large numbers of amendments. That cannot be satisfactory. It cannot be the way in which the House should seek to hold the Government to account. So I simply ask the Leader of the House this: why do we not sit on Friday 18 July and Monday 21 July, for example? There is no reason whatsoever—he has also said that such things are subject to the progress of business—why we cannot linger just a day or two longer. Their lordships are doing that to fulfil their duties, and there is no reason whatsoever why the House cannot do so too. I hope that he will give that serious consideration.
When will we have a further statement on Iraq? I believe that the House will have to be told not only about security—certainly in regard to the tragic events of just a few days ago, on which more facts are still emerging—but about post-war reconstruction. I hope that the Leader of the House can assure us that, some time before the recess, we will have a proper,
comprehensive statement on Iraq, so that the House may be updated on developments there and can hold Ministers to account for what is happening there.Does the tax-raising Leader of the House recall the Prime Minister saying, on 23 June,
- "The reason why we have said that we will have a referendum on the single currency . . . is that it does represent a fundamental change in our constitutional arrangements"?—[Official Report, 23 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 721.]
Finally, can we have a debate entitled, "Letting the Cat out of the Bag". I am sure that the tax-raising Leader of the House will recall releasing the text of a speech in which he said:
- "I am saying we face a situation equally where the top rate of tax, the 40 per cent. band, now catches far too many middle income employees including teachers and police officers. This presents us with hard choices. I think the . . . rich might well be prepared to contribute a bit more."
- "The hyper-rich can certainly pay more. I am concerned that under this government inequality is once again growing."
- "The government's policy is clear—we are not raising the top rate of tax."
- "A senior No 10 source branded the Cabinet Minister"—
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |