Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-88)
22 JANUARY 2004
MR RIC
NAVARRO, MR
DAVID STOTT,
MS ANNE
BROSNAN AND
MR ARWYN
JONES
Q80 Chairman: Why not?
Mr Stott: It has individual names
on it; data protection.
Q81 Chairman: But these are cases that
have been before the courts, are they not?
Mr Stott: Yes, but they fall out
of use, do they not? There is a mix of companies and individuals.
I think we probably could put on the Internet the companies, but
we have been instructed that we have a problem with data protection
with individuals.
Mr Navarro: That is certainly
something that we are exploring actively with the Commission.
Q82 Chairman: I think it would be helpful
to magistrates in particular to be able to access this to get
an idea of the scale and nature of offences.
Mr Stott: It does not give details.
It gives the name of the offender, the sentence and the section
numbers under which they were convicted. There is no short synopsis
of the type of offence. What magistrates need is a short comparison
of facts. That database does not cover that.
Q83 Chairman: Is that something you would
like to produce?
Mr Navarro: We do produce those
on individual cases, so would the defence. It would be quite normal
for us to submit the range of sentences which have occurred in
the past; the defence also will submit evidence to the magistrates
so that they have information at that stage in front of them about
past sentencing.
Q84 Chairman: Given the uncertainties
that we have touched on in talking about the difficulties that
exist in sentencing, anything that you could provide that adds
to what is already there would be very helpful. This is something
which you might be able to provide.
Mr Stott: The court is a sentencing
body obviously and we can assist the court with their sentencing
exercise if they wish to have that form of assistance. However,
for every case which is in our favour, as officers of the court
we would be obliged to show them the other side of the coin and
there are a lot of cases going the other way.
Mr Navarro: With an inconsistent
pattern it probably is not of great assistance to the court to
have it exposed to them in even greater detail.
Q85 Chairman: Even an inconsistent pattern
is better than no pattern at all, I suspect, but maybe that is
arguable. I have one final question which goes back to something
we slightly skated over. I would very much like to know your view
of the suggestion that has been floated that there should be a
system of civil penalties. What position do you take on that issue?
Mr Navarro: I think civil penalties
would be a useful additional tool in our armoury which would avoid
the overhead for both regulated industry and ourselves to have
to go to the criminal courts. I think it then comes down to the
level of penalty which Parliament would be prepared to allow the
Agency to impose. We certainly would not shrink from exercising
that. However, if it is going to be a significant penalty I think
we would perhaps need to go to an environmental appeal tribunal
for them to set a high level rather than exercising that power
ourselves. If we did have the power to impose unlimited penalties,
we would expect there to be a right of appeal to such a tribunal.
It would be a useful additional tool in our locker, I think.
Q86 Chairman: Such a system exists in
the United States, I believe. I read of an oil company that spilled
oil and found itself with a civil penalty for $34 million.
Mr Stott: They do not prosecute
to the same extent as we do. They do not take the number of cases,
but in the cases they do take, they are frequently looking to
close the companies.
Q87 Chairman: That would help concentrate
the mind, would it not?
Mr Stott: Yes, it would.
Mr Navarro: It is a completely
different regime. It is quite clear in the United States that
if anything is taken to the criminal courts the penalties are
very significant. Nested below those penalties are the administrative
penalties which in themselves are significant compared to ours.
However, I think you have to have that relationship in order to
encourage the take up of the administrative penalties.
Q88 Chairman: Thank you very much. I
think that concludes our questioning, but if there is anything
else you think we should have asked or you would like to say,
now is an opportunity to do so.
Mr Navarro: I think we have covered
everything we wanted to, thank you very much.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
We are very grateful to you.
| 
