Select Committee on Environmental Audit Minutes of Evidence


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.





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 12 May 2004