Memorandum from the Local Government Association
INTRODUCTION
The Local Government Association (LGA) represents
local authorities in England and Wales. Public discontent about
the quality of public spaces and the street environment is recognised
as one of the highest concerns for people in their locality. Raising
awareness of the seriousness of environmental crime is essential
in supporting local government work to ensure the local environment
is safe, clean and green.
TRANSFORMING THE
LOCAL ENVIRONMENT
The Local Government Association has a Shared
Priority with the Government on Transforming the Local Environment.
The Shared Priority includes work with Government, Pathfinder
councils and other partners, to improve local environmental conditions
by developing and testing new ideas and sharing good practice
on tackling and preventing fly-tipping, abandoned vehicles, littering,
graffiti and pollution. Tackling environmental crime and deterring
offenders, whether criminal gangs, businesses or individuals,
is central to meeting national and local objectives on sustainable
development and safer communities and is of particular relevance
to local authorities.
The Pathfinder councils involved in the Shared
Priority project are developing a proactive approach to improving
the local environment. This includes partnership work with a range
of local agencies, businesses and the community, backed up by
high profile education and enforcement campaigns, including programmes
of education in schools.
By establishing strong partnership arrangements
with other agencies, a commitment to promote responsible waste
disposal and enforcement against offenders, Pathfinder councils
are seeking to engage all sectors of the community in taking responsibility
for the local environment. Different ideas are being tested in
different Pathfinders and findings will then be showcased by the
Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) for dissemination to
all local authorities. These ideas, together with existing good
practice identified by the project, will help all councils see
what is possible in improving local environmental quality.
Work with Pathfinder councils and other partners
will also identify if there are any freedoms, flexibilities or
legislative changes that are needed for councils to be more effective
in improving and safeguarding the local environment. The LGA will
then use opportunities such as the Queen's Speech or a possible
Environment Bill, to lobby Government for any necessary legislative
changes.
One of the aims of the Shared Priority work
that the LGA is currently engaged in is to raise awareness of
the seriousness of environmental crime, amongst magistrates and
also amongst the local community. It is planned to work with DEFRA
and the Environment Agency to establish facts and figures on crime,
sentencing and behavioural change, and to identify opportunities
to incorporate environmental crime into citizenship classes. It
is also planned to meet with the Magistrates Association soon
to discuss ideas for raising awareness, training and skills development.
EXAMPLES OF
GOOD PRACTICE
The LGA is happy to contribute views and examples
from our member authorities, advisers and councillors to aide
the committee in this Inquiry. We have requested examples from
authorities, some of which are included here. Due to the short
timeframe for this Inquiry there has been a limited amount of
feedback from authorities, but the views expressed below reflect
anecdotal evidence going back over a long period of time that
fines imposed on offenders are not usually sufficient to act as
a deterrent against a growing industry of commercial fly-tippers.
A recent LGA survey on Abandoned Vehicles attracted
a large number of responses and some good examples of how authorities
are dealing with an environmental crime that has a serious impact
on many communities. Many authorities have developed proactive
policies to tackle abandoned vehicles and other environmental
crime quickly. This helps to avoid particular areas becoming environmental
crime "hotspots", and so attracting further fly-tipping
and littering. Examples of good practice include partnerships
with the police, fire, education, housing and other agencies to
quickly identify and remove abandoned vehicles. Vehicle amnesties,
whereby the council will remove unwanted vehicles free of charge,
are now widespread, as are good practice guides and procedures
to cut the cost and time involved in dealing with this problem.
Southampton City Council run "Project Clear",
a free collection service for unwanted vehicles. The council have
also developed "Cleansweep", a partnership with the
DVLA, Police, DfT and DSS, targeting different areas of the city
to identify abandoned vehicles, clamp, notify and remove within
24 hours. "Crime Reduction and Environment Weeks", which
run every two months, involve many departments and agencies, including
DVLA and the Police, in reducing crime and improving the environment
by removing vehicles, traffic enforcement, tree planting, road
cleaning and re-painting, targeted arrests, play-area repainting,
steam-cleaning shop fronts, graffiti removal, bulk rubbish removal
and more.
Poole Borough Council have been running a multi-agency
partnership for 18 months, involving the Police, Parking Attendants
and Housing Officers, all of whom carry statutory notices which
they place on abandoned vehicles as soon as they are spotted.
The details are faxed or emailed to the enforcement officer who
can then make one visit 24 hours later and remove, thus reducing
administration and the number of visits, leading to speedier removal.
Welwyn Hatfield District Council have staged
several operations to clear a number of abandoned vehicles from
private land, by co-ordinating volunteers from a national vehicular
rights of way association, The Green Lanes Association (GLASS)
and local farmers. The farmers have machinery which can pick up
and move the abandoned vehicles to points where conventional recovery
vehicles can take over. This is part of on-going work with Hertfordshire
County Council Rights of Way section. Other innovative projects
run by this authority include environmental clean-up days, run
in partnership with the Police and Fire authorities and DVLA,
where a variety of environmental problems are tackled and a Vehicle
Amnesty is offered. These projects are backed up by revised policies
on Abandoned Vehicles, which are now more robust and have significantly
reduced response times.
FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
Recent and future impositions of landfill taxes
and imminent European directives on waste look likely to increase
the temptation for individuals and businesses to avoid rising
charges for disposing of waste responsibly by fly-tipping their
waste instead. It is imperative that sentencing guidelines are
revised to take account of the danger that more stringent regulations
will lead to a significant increase in both the amount of waste
dumped illegally and the dumping of dangerous substances. Charges
for disposing of both cars and fridges were immediately followed
by a major increase in abandoned cars and fridges. The forthcoming
European directives on Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment
and Hazardous Waste could also be accompanied by a similar rise
in illegal dumping of these materials, with the subsequent danger
that this would pose to local land, water and air quality and
possible harm to local residents and wildlife. Tougher sentencing,
including a system to adequately cover the costs of clearing and
cleaning up the damage caused by environmental crime, are essential
in sending a clear message to individuals and businesses that
environmental crime is a serious, criminal offence and that responsible
disposal of waste is both a duty and a cheaper option than fly-tipping.
ANSWERS TO
INQUIRY QUESTIONS
We have structured our submission around the
questions prompted in the Committee's press release, followed
by brief answers to each question. Evidence from London Borough
of Southwark is presented separately under these headings, as
this includes a number of examples and witnesses from Southwark
will be present at the Inquiry on 5 February to elaborate on their
views and examples.
1. Are the scale and nature of sentences
for environmental crimes commensurate with the seriousness of
the crimes themselves?
Most authorities who responded would like to
see higher fines imposed. Fines for commercial fly-tippers are
seen as paltry and easily covered by the value of the next load
that they fly-tip. Authorities communicate with local magistrates
and are aware that guidelines restrict their ability to impose
bigger fines. Some feel that the guidelines do not take account
of the serious local impact of environmental crime. They are disappointed
that unpaid Fixed Penalty Notices of eg £50 only attract
fines of £50 plus limited costs. There is little incentive
to pay if the courts do not increase the fine. Some schemes have
reduced rates for early payment, with substantial increases after
21 days. Examples of inappropriate sentences include unconditional
discharges for fly-tipping, which authorities feel sends the wrong
message to offenders.
EVIDENCE FROM
LB SOUTHWARK
If we are to tackle envirocrime effectively
sentences need to be tougher. However, thought needs to be given
to effective sentences and this may not always be a fine. For
example a major fly tip that costs approximately £15,000
to clear has led to a fine of only £500 with £500 costs
due to the perpetrator pleading guilty and claiming no means to
pay an excessive fine. Whilst a larger fine may be a deterrent,
£500 does not reflect the costs local authorities incur in
clearing the problems that are caused by major fly tips.
Incurring a small fine is sometimes seen as
a risk worth taking by people who continually commit envirocrime,
as every time they are caught they may get away with a number
of other incidences. It would be useful if magistrates made the
link between grime and crime. In particular the effect it has
on local residents in terms of the fear of crime generated from
an area that has the appearance of being run down generated through
envirocrime.
2. Are sentences appropriately set to act
as a deterrent?
Authorities report a significant problem with
catching habitual fly-tippers who tip as a business. A two or
three thousand pound fine is insignificant when they may be making
hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.
Views include the observation that successful
cases do not seem to significantly reduce the number of offences.
Fly-tipping is seen as a by-product of a poorly regulated waste
disposal industry. Authorities are frustrated that they cannot
force commercial fly-tippers out of business.
EVIDENCE FROM
LB SOUTHWARK
In many cases sentences are viewed as just "a
risk of the job". An example is that a fly poster fined £500
plus £700 costs was caught again a few weeks later and given
exactly the same fine and costs, which demonstrated that the original
sentence had not deterred them in any way.
Additionally, there seems to be no great urgency
in chasing fines once levied and no real system in place for local
authorities to liase with the courts to chase fines and costs.
This again sends out the wrong message that you can get away with
not paying even when convicted. Sentences need to prevent further
offences occurring. For example, why give a fly tipper their vehicle
back only for them to re-offend using the same vehicle.
3. Is environmental sentencing sufficiently
flexible to ensure that offenders, whatever their means, are punished
appropriately?
Views from authorities include a call for magistrates
to be given more discretion on sentencing.
EVIDENCE FROM
LB SOUTHWARK
The use of fines whilst a deterrent to some
if levied at an appropriate level, do not deter all for re-offending.
Consideration should be given to changing the law to allow the
use of community service orders to those (a) who are unable to
pay fines of appropriate levels and (b) those who see fines as
a risk of the job.
Likewise, a greater use of section 146 of the
Powers of Criminal Courts (sentencing) Act 2000 should be applied.
This allows courts to remove someone's driving licence for related
offences and could be used against fly tippers, fly posting companies
etc.
4. Is the guidance currently available to
magistrates' and other courts appropriate and sufficient to ensure
that sentences for environmental crimes are set at a level which
properly reflects the damage caused by the crimes and the need
to deter future crimes?
Views on this question tend to suggest not.
EVIDENCE FROM
LB SOUTHWARK
Courts are too lenient and the sentences imposed
are not enough of a deterrent to prevent others from committing
similar offences.
Remediation costs are not levied as part of
the sentence for envirocrime and therefore the costs for clearing
up incurred by local authorities is effectively picked up by the
local residents.
Sentences do not seem to reflect the scale of
environmental damage caused, only the ability of individuals to
pay.
5. Are magistrates' and other courts following
any guidance available?
Local authorities are probably not best placed
to answer this and there are mixed views about this.
6. To what extent are courts sentencing on
the basis of broad environmental principles, including the principle
of sustainable development?
Environmental crime is seen as very serious
at the local level and there is evidence of frustration by local
people at the inability of police and authorities to deal swiftly
and strongly with offenders. If the burden of proof were to be
shifted more in favour of the local authority this might help
to get cases before the courts.
Views include a call for the Home Office and
Police authorities to prioritise environmental crime because it
is seen as so important at the local level.
EVIDENCE FROM
LB SOUTHWARK
The principle of sentencing seems to be on the
basis of ability to pay rather than any environmental principles.
Whilst each form of envirocrime causes particular
problems in the community the reality is that envirocrime degenerates
an area and effectively raises the fear of crime.
If we are effectively to reduce the incidences
of envirocrime sentences need to be fair, proportionate, but above
all robust enough to act as a deterrent not only to the perpetrator
but also to others who may think about committing envirocrime.
February 2004
| 
