Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-166)
29 JANUARY 2004
MS RACHEL
LIPSCOMB AND
MS ANN
FLINTHAM
Q160 Sue Doughty: If you
are able to increase the options of sentencing—put in tougher
sentencing, tougher fines, use a harder range of remedies—would
you welcome that?
Ms Lipscomb: I
think we would always welcome sentences that involve reparation:
community sentences where people are actually cleaning up things
that they have messed up. Long term, that has a good effect. Rather
than sentences, what we would go back to is this business of higher
quality information and the ability to check an account or go
to the Benefits Agency to get addresses and information, and for
people actually to have to produce to the court documentary evidence
about what they have already done in the past in complying with
the regulatory rules.
Ms Flintham: I
think it is a knowledge of anything that they might have done
in terms, for example, of training for their staff, whether it
is a half-hour, quick training session or a proper half-day course,
that type of thing. Again, anyone can claim that they have done
training, but what was the nature and what was the quality of
that training? Did it make a sufficient difference perhaps to
help prevent something?
Q161 Sue Doughty: That
is really looking at the issues behind what you have on the table
and adding up what the behaviour is now?
Ms Lipscomb: Yes.
Q162 Mr Challen: Looking
back at corporate responsibility, is the law sufficient at the
moment to allow directors to be prosecuted for the actions of
their company, or is it simply the company itself that faces the
penalty? Put it in the context of the corporate manslaughter debate,
which clearly is quite an issue.
Ms Lipscomb: That
is one that is really outside our remit. It would go to the Crown
Court. I do not think we would hold a view on that.
Q163 Mr Challen: If it
goes to the Crown Court, presumably it is a more serious offence,
but even for cases lower down, the less serious offences, do you
think that perhaps people should be held accountable?
Ms Flintham: I
was thinking about other areas of law, for example noise. There
are, for example, certain streets where lorries are not allowed
to go before 6 o'clock, or whatever. In those cases, I think both
the owner and the driver are charged and both have a responsibility.
In terms of the owner again, you would be looking to see what
he had provided the driver. Did he provide the driver with a proper
map of where to go? Did he provide the driver with instructions
of where exactly he was not to go? What training was the driver
given? That is a classic example of where you would look at the
responsibility of the owner as well as the driver who had actually
committed the offence of going into an area which he was prohibited
from entering.
Q164 Mr Challen: If a
director of a company allowed a junior member of that company
to go and dump some stuff somewhere—and there have been
cases of this happening, particularly with clinical waste—can
the director or the manager be prosecuted or is it the person
who actually is caught handling it, as it were, or is it simply
the company as a corporate body that is held responsible?
Ms Lipscomb: In
these cases I think it is the corporate body but obviously a director
would have to answer for that. Coming back to the others, there
would be an advantage in that. Overloading is a classic and it
can be very dangerous offence. Most frequently it is the driver
of the day and the owner of the company who is prosecuted, and
the owner will face a much greater fine than the driver.
Q165 Mr Challen: Just
very finally, going back to Costing the Earth, why does
it take so long to get this advice out? Why did we have to wait
for the 21st century? Was there anything at all back in the 1980s
or 1990s of guidance here for environmental offences?
Ms Flintham: You
will be surprised perhaps to know that guidance for the average
criminal offences has not been with us for that long, and Costing
the Earth came out of discussions between the Environment
Agency and the Health and Safety Executive and ourselves, and
it kicked off probably about four years ago when we first started
talking to them. We did produce some very general guidelines but
then we felt that we wanted to get environmental crime higher
up the agenda, so two years ago we decided to dedicate our AGM
to a special session in the afternoon; we dedicated our magazine
to it; and we started thinking about bringing about some sort
of information and making it available for magistrates, because
it became clear that there would not be availability for specific
training on this as it covers too wide an area and there are too
many pressing issues and priorities. So we looked at ways of trying
to get information out to magistrates and of raising awareness
against a background of environmental crime coming into a public
arena anyway, and it did take quite a considerable time to put
that together. It was launched over a year ago and we have updated
and added to it so it is a living document; and we intend to do
that again next November, so because it is living we can continually
update it with new types of crime, new times of offences and case
law that comes through. It is also available on our website, so
I think technology has helped us to get it out and about.
Q166 Chairman: Thank you
very much. Your oral evidence has been a great deal more helpful
than your written evidence, if I may say so. Is there anything
else you would like to add based on the conversation that we have
had today?
Ms Lipscomb: No.
I think it comes back to the same message: that it is the question
of getting the information across to the court that lies at the
heart of it.
Chairman: Thank you both
very much indeed.
| 
