|
Mr. Evans: As I have already intimated to the Minister, I can see that the current law is fairly ineffective. I imagine that, if we left the law as it is, every time someone was caught putting waste somewhere where they should not, they would plead that they were operating under orders and there was nothing that they could do, and therefore no one would ever be convicted of the offence. I therefore understand why the Minister is advancing the clause, and I am fairly sympathetic towards it. However, we shall discuss sentencing later, and there are hefty fines in relation to clause 40. Indeed, the end result could be
Column Number: 179
a jail sentence. The clause could lead to someone getting a custodial sentence. That is why we must get the provision right.
I hope that the Minister will give us some assurances. I heard what he said about the licences under which people operate and the fact that there is a duty on the employer to ensure that everyone knows exactly the law under which they operate and the things that they ought not to do. The Minister is one of the more commonsensical Ministers in the Government—a rare breed—and knows the reality of the world in which certain businesses operate. Indeed, we are all realistic enough to know that there are unscrupulous employers and some businesses will say that they are under pressure to turn a profit. Given that the costs of disposing of waste legally are quite high, there may be temptations for unscrupulous employers and businesses working on the margins to dump waste where they ought not to do so. Clearly, however, that should not be allowed.
I therefore hope that the Minister will give us an assurance this morning that, despite the fact that there the employer has a duty of care, sufficient publicity campaigns will be provided. For instance, if an employer had to employ somebody, they would have to have a certificate on the wall to show what they were doing. Health and safety require posters to be displayed in relation to certain practices that have to be followed in a business. I hope that the Minister will assure us that there will be a requirement for publicity campaigns for businesses that deal with any waste, so that employers and employees know where they stand under this clause and clause 41. They must know what breaking the law will entail, what the conviction rate is likely to be, what likelihood there is of imprisonment and what fines will be imposed.
9.45 am
I feel for employees who are put in an almost impossible position because they come under pressure from unscrupulous employers. They risk losing their jobs, or never getting overtime because extra work goes to people who are prepared to dump waste. When employees who know what is going on decide to become whistleblowers—when they blow the gaff, which is what we want to encourage—they should know that they will have some protection, and not end up in the dock themselves. If the employer then decides to give information that the employee—
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the clause.
Mr. Evans: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. I will end now. I am looking for an assurance that when clause 40 becomes law there will be protection, that there will be sufficient publicity, and that guidance will be given to employees about what they should do if they are told to do something that contravenes the clause.
Mr. Morley: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we regularly meet trade associations for the waste companies; they take a very responsible
Column Number: 180
position on these issues. The hazardous waste forum includes the Federation of Small Businesses and many small and medium-sized enterprises. It is true that some companies may not be part of a trade association, but the Environment Agency has programmes for ensuring that people are well aware of the law. I will talk to the hon. Gentleman about ensuring that people are aware of the changes that we are discussing today.
Whistleblowing is not within the remit of the Bill, but measures are being taken to protect the rights of whistleblowers.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 41
penalties on conviction
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Ruffley: This is an important clause, creating increased penalties on conviction for the unlawful disposal of waste. The clause proposes to increase the maximum fine on summary conviction from £20,000 to £50,000, and to increase the maximum term for imprisonment on conviction for the unlawful disposal of non-hazardous waste to five years.
The Opposition welcome action in the clause to curb the unlawful disposal of waste, as do all those who suffer the ill effects of this ghastly, antisocial and often dangerous practice. We hope that the new penalties in the clause will be a deterrent. However, we are worried that the penalties will be unenforceable because the courts will think that the penalties are a tad too draconian and will not be so willing to convict or to impose the maximum sentences.
The need for what, on the face of it, seem draconian penalties is understandable. I understand that Ministers have taken that route because this illegal practice is on the increase. It is regrettable that there is no fine-grained, detailed national data on the scale of fly-tipping, but I believe that the Government have acknowledged that there is evidence that it has increased in recent years. To understand the need for the serious increase in the penalties, we need to understand that it is a policy response to a burgeoning problem.
The scale of the problem can be gleaned from Environment Agency prosecutions and anecdotal evidence at local authority level.
Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend believe that it would be helpful for the Minister to tell us exactly what advice he has been given by the courts, the police or the Environment Agency in setting the fines as high as they are? I am not saying that the fines are not appropriate, but I want to know what advice was received.
Mr. Ruffley: My hon. Friend anticipates my point. Like him, I do not necessarily oppose the level of the fines. We need to test the proposition and understand what advice was received and from whom it came that
Column Number: 181
led the Minister and his ministerial colleagues to set the penalties at these high levels. My hon. Friend's question is very much the point, and I will reiterate that before I sit down.
The Environment Agency collects information on prosecutions that it has handled, and it has noted a 19 per cent. increase in levels of prosecution in England and Wales between 2001 and 2002. In the calendar year 2002, there were 252 prosecutions for fly-tipping, resulting in total fines of approximately £228,000. From January to October 2003, there were 210 prosecutions, totalling fines of £225,000. Prior to that, the number of successful prosecutions relating to a variety of waste offences rose significantly from 141 in 1999, to 225 in 2001—a 60 per cent. increase. The trends that the Environment Agency is recording show that the problem is on the rise.
Many local authorities are also noticing and recording more incidents of fly-tipping. In 2002, the London borough of Lewisham counted 13,600 incidents, which cost more than £500,000 to clean up. That figure was 50 per cent. higher than in 2001, which in turn was 50 per cent. up on the year before that. That is an example of an inner-city area in which fly-tipping is one of many challenges and problems, but this antisocial and illegal practice also takes place in rural areas such as my constituency.
When I first became the Member of Parliament for Bury St. Edmunds in 1997—by the skin of my teeth, in that dreadful year for the Conservative party—one of the first things I noticed was how clean and tidy it was and that there were virtually no instances of fly-tipping in any parts of the town. Over the past year or so, in Eastgate street—an attractive part of an attractive town centre—there have been cases of fly-tipping, with prams and all sorts of rubbish left lying around what was formally waste ground and public land. From anecdotal evidence, it seems that more examples of fly-tipping are occurring in councils up and down the land—not just the Lewishams but places such as the beautiful, pastoral idyll that is Bury St. Edmunds town centre.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley made a point about the higher level of fines and the higher maximum term of imprisonment. It is important to know whom the Minister has consulted in setting these fines. Why have they risen from £20,000 to £50,000 rather than to £30,000 or £40,000? Why has the maximum term of imprisonment been increased? Has he spoken to prosecuting authorities or any of those responsible for the exercise of the judicial process, rather than simply the Environment Agency?
Are magistrates using the existing legislation and the fines and maximum sentences to the full? It does not make much sense to pass stricter penalties if the existing penalties are not being used in all their force and majesty by magistrates or higher courts. Any statistics that the Minister has on the existing regime and how it is being utilised would help us to understand how effective the clause might be.
Does the Department have an automatic procedure for reviewing the utilisation of new criminal penalties? Could it carry out a review after a year to see whether
Column Number: 182
the new penalties were being utilised by the courts? Many laws are little used. For example, there are powers to impose orders on parents with unruly children: the law is there, yet the magistrates courts simply do not use it. Unless the Department reviews how the new regime is working, the law will be seen to be an ass. The powers will be there, but they will not be utilised. A bad set of new penalties will be passed in the clause. None of us want to see that happen. We are all in the business of passing good law. I hope that the Minister will answer my three questions on the important point of increased penalties.
| 
