Supplementary memorandum from the Home
Office
1. I am writing to offer further information
as promised in my evidence to the Environmental Crime Sub-Committee
on 12 February. I am sorry to have overshot slightly your deadline
of 27 February.
2. At Q241, Mr Challen asked for a note
on exceptional summary maxima. Paul McGladrigan is replying on
the difficulties of enforcement, but I thought it might be helpful
to the Sub-Committee if I were to provide some examples of exceptional
summary maxima:
— there is a maximum of £250,000
for discharge of oil from a ship into certain UK waters contrary
to section 131 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1991 as amended by
section 7 of the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997;
— failure to comply with directions
of authorised persons following a marine accident (generally to
avoid or minimise pollution) can attract a maximum fine of £50,000
under section 139 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995;
— offences contrary to section 11 of
the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, as severally amended, have
a maximum fine of £50,000; and
— offences of depositing control waste
in improper ways contrary to section 33 of the Environmental Protection
Act 1990 attract a maximum fine of £20,000.
3. All of these offences attract unlimited
fines in the Crown Court; and they also carry penalties of imprisonment
(and, by extension, community sentences). DEFRA is at the moment
consulting on whether the summary maximum under the last of the
offences mentioned should be increased to £50,000.
4. In my answer to Q249, I promised to provide
a figure for the percentage of cases that end in absolute or conditional
discharge. Mr Flynn suggested that 14% seemed high. In fact, it
is slightly lower than the average for all indictable (including
triable either way) offences, which is 15%. The percentage varies
for different groups of crime and ranges from 21% for criminal
damage down to virtually nothing for robbery.
5. At Q252, Mr Flynn asked about remediation.
I said that I would need to consult DEFRA, and they have now kindly
provided the following advice about remediation on licensed waste
disposal sites. Every site that deals with waste should be licensed
or register as exempt with the Environment Agency. The Agency
has various powers to act against licensed sites that are operating
against their licensed conditions. Normally DEFRA would encourage
any pollution or illegal disposal of waste to be prosecuted. There
are powers to make sure that the pollution or waste is cleared
up but then, as a crime has been committed, DEFRA would also expect
the authorities to prosecute where sufficient evidence existed.
6. Other powers are available to help deal
with the illegal disposal of waste. Under section 33 of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990, local authorities and the Environment Agency
have power to issue a notice on the occupier of the site requiring
him to remove the waste from the land within a specified period
and to take within that period specific steps designed to eliminate
or reduce the consequences of the deposit of the waste. If the
notice is not complied with, the Local Authority or the Agency
can enter the land and clear the waste themselves and recover
the cost from the occupier. As part of their fly-tipping strategy,
DEFRA are proposing to amend the powers to issue notices so that
they apply to land owners as well as to occupiers.
7. Finally, at Q256, Mr Challen asked how
many cases there may be that were resolved without prosecution.
I have checked with DEFRA, as I undertook to do, but no information
is currently available. From April 2004, there will be a "flycapture"
database that will collect information with regard to the actions
that local authorities and the Environment Agency take to deal
with incidence of fly-tipping. It will therefore pick up numbers
of investigations, notices served and prosecutions in respect
of fly-tipping.
8. I trust that this information will be
helpful to the Sub-Committee.
March 2004
|
