Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
500-519)
HILARY BENN,
MP, MR ROY
HATHAWAY AND
MR ANDY
HOWARTH
4 NOVEMBER 2009
Q500 Paddy Tipping: The courts have
got fairly hefty sanctions they could impose, but my impression
is that this is not top of their agenda. Would you like to see
the courts imprisoning people and maximising the fines?
The Committee suspended from 4.17 pm to 4.28
pm for a division in the House
Hilary Benn: It is, of course,
not for me to advise the courts what to do. You will be aware
that the fine is unlimited, and it is up to two years in prison.
From my point of view, clearly I want the penalties imposed to
help deal with the remaining problem, so that, as you indicated
earlier, Chairman, those engaging in this activity understand
that there is a consequence. Whether there is any difference in
perception about activities in the UK, where the courts may see
more visibly the consequence of that, as opposed to something
that is happening in another country, might be an interesting
point. As with all of these things, to the extent that there can
be fostered a good understanding on the part of all of the people
who have responsibility for trying to deal with this problem,
right the way from constructing the law, enforcing it and then
applying penalties in the court, everybody understands why it
matters and then they hope that the system will produce the right
result to discourage people from doing it again.
Q501 Paddy Tipping: In my constituency,
and I guess in yours, people are pretty fed up about environmental
crime. It is not a victimless crime, it affects us all. Perhaps
I should criticise the courts: I think the courts should take
a tougher line. I do not think they take this seriously. What
can you do to help them?
Hilary Benn: One would be to find
a way of having a conversation with those who give guidance to
the courts, be it the magistrates' courts or the Crown courts,
if a case is taken on indictment, to think about how others see
it in making recommendations about the appropriate tariff for
these particular cases. I am not quite sure how exactly one does
that, but it is something I would happily undertake to take away
and reflect upon in the light of the question you have just put
to me.
Q502 Paddy Tipping: I would be very
happy if you would do that.
Hilary Benn: I will.
Q503 Chairman: We had a discussion
with the Environment Agency about the Use of Proceeds of Crime
Act. Do you think that the use of that needs to be strengthened,
because it strikes me that what really hurts people who want to
do what the people who went to Brazil did, is by taking away as
much of their money, assets and resources as possible. The Agency,
from what we can see, has certainly not been inactive in that
area, using some resources to deal with waste that has to be repatriated,
but do you think it should go further?
Hilary Benn: My understanding
is that the EA has seized assets in two cases under POCA, and
it gets to keep just over a third of any assets seized, which
can then be used for enforcement. That is obviously an encouragement
to the EA because it means they have got more resources to get
on and deal with it. The principle of the Proceeds of Crime Act
is a very, very good one, and it has been used in other respects,
in relation to drug dealers and so on, and it is another way of
making the point, "There is a consequence if you do this".
I think that it is something that should be supported. I do not
know whether the EA says there is any obstacle to them making
greater use of it, but if that was a problem I would be very happy
to look at it.
Q504 Mr Williams: Following up on
Paddy Tipping's questions about the courts and punishments, we
were told by the Environment Agency that they offer and deliver
training to the courts. I am not quite sure how the training is
enforced but that is one way of approaching it, because very often
magistrates will not be aware of environmental crimes or the seriousness
of them. Another way is to establish within the public perception
the idea of the seriousness of the issues you are dealing with.
I think people do not really understand that. Is there any way
in which you can promote the concept of the seriousness?
Hilary Benn: I think it is an
extremely sensible thing to do, to offer training in that way,
for the reasons I set out in answer to Mr Tipping's question a
moment ago. I think that cases like this, unhappy though they
are, are also an opportunity to bring this problem to the attention
of a wider audience, to make people aware of why it is a problem.
If one turns to the most extreme cases, if you think of ship-breaking,
I will never forget as long as I live meeting representatives
of the trade union that was trying to organise ship-breaking workers
in Bangladesh. They painted this picture of a Dantean hell, where
people would line up outside the gates every morning—the
ships, as we know, are driven on to the beaches—and they
decide who is going to get work today. The organiser told me that
about two weeks earlier three men had been found dead in the bottom
of a ship, they had been missing for two weeks and had been overcome
by fumes. He said: "We rip out asbestos, and do you know
what I get given to protect myself? The answer is, a pair of rubber
gloves and I have bought a pair of plastic spectacles to try and
protect myself." I sat there and heard them tell me that
story, well, if you can convey that to people and say, "this
is not a victimless crime if you are breaking up a ship with dangerous
stuff in it", then at that end of the spectrum you realise
why we should take this very, very seriously indeed.
Q505 David Lepper: We have talked
already a little about the resources that are available for this
work, Secretary of State, and mention has been made of an additional
£4 million over the next three years. Do you feel that brings
up to about the right level the resources for doing this work?
Hilary Benn: I am sure those responsible
for doing it would like to have more, but when one looks at what
the EA has been able to do in the first half of 2009: 200 premises
had unannounced visits, I am informed; 600 containers were inspected;
54 notices were issued asking for more information; and 50 notices
ordering a halt to the export of waste; and since 2004 they have
had 19 successful prosecutions. It seems to me that that demonstrates
a good level of activity. Obviously, when we get to the end of
the period that the £4 million additional money has been
given for, then we and the Agency will have to reflect on how
it has gone, what they think the scale of the problem is, what
we think, and take a decision at that time but it has certainly
had a big impact.
Q506 David Lepper: The Environmental
Services Association said in its evidence to us that the Government
should consider resourcing the Agency in this work partly through
funding from landfill tax revenue, but that is not happening at
the moment. Is it something that is being considered?
Hilary Benn: Not as far as I am
aware currently. Obviously, there is quite a lively debate with
the local authorities about landfill tax revenues. I can understand
why everyone has got their eyes on what they think are sources
of finance, but there is a number of different pots into which
that money needs to go.
Q507 David Lepper: One final point
on resources: if we look at comparisons of the funding of enforcement
and inspection work in other areas of Defra's responsibilities,
then how do you feel the funding of this work by the Environment
Agency fares?
Hilary Benn: I just have to be
straight and say that I have not sat down myself and looked at
the resources that are devoted to different kinds of inspection
in the different areas that Defra has got responsibility for—and,
as the Committee knows only too well, they range extremely widely.
As I indicated earlier in answer to your question, Chairman, it
seems to me that the £4 million is being very effectively
used, given the level of activity that the Environment Agency
is able to undertake. The real problem in trying to answer the
question is that we do not yet quite know the scale of the problem
in those circumstances, and it would be jolly helpful to have
that information in order to be able to answer the very fair question
that you put to me.
Q508 Chairman: You have twice emphasised
the important impact that the £4 million extra funding is
having. The Environment Agency said they had put in two temporary
investigation teams. At what point do you have to make a decision
as to whether temporary becomes permanent?
Hilary Benn: We will have to discuss
that with the Agency when we come to an appropriate point in the
third year. Obviously, that has to be looked at in the context
of Defra's budget and all the other pressures there are at a time
when we know that public expenditure is under a lot of pressure.
Q509 Chairman: I appreciate that,
but part of having good quality enforcement is the deterrent effect
it has. If the word gets out on the street that all of a sudden
those two teams are not there any more, it is terribly tempting
for ne'er-do-wells to want to have a go.
Hilary Benn: I take that point
entirely, Chairman.
Q510 Chairman: To be more specific,
when will the discussion take place with the Environment Agency?
Mr Hathaway: The current money
goes as far as March 2011, in other words the end of the financial
year—
Q511 Chairman: There is another financial
year.
Mr Hathaway: There is another
financial year to come, so I would suggest that sometime early
in the next financial year would need to have that conversation.
Q512 Lynne Jones: Is there any prospect
of this becoming self-financing in the sense that the proceeds
of crimes detected could fund continuation of these teams?
Hilary Benn: It would be great
if that was a possibility, because everyone would feel very happy
about that outcome. The difficulty, picking up your point, Chairman,
is obviously you have to plan, you have to employ people and you
have to have some certainty. From the EA's point of view, I presume
they would not be able to say, "We can guess that during
the course of the year we will be able to seize this amount of
assets and therefore generate this amount of revenue, which we
will then be able to use to pay for the investigative and enforcement
teams that we have got." It would be very hard to rely on
that, but maybe over time, depending on how POCA is used and the
level of cases in which it can be used—and that is the other
thing you cannot be sure about—maybe that will give us a
better basis on which to answer the question.
Q513 David Taylor: Can we turn to
waste electrical and electronic equipment, sometimes stupidly
called the WEEE—let us call it W-treble-E—that sounds
a lot better! I remember, Chairman we had an earlier inquiry on
this quite some years ago, when myself and the Honourable Member
for Sherwood went to the Netherlands and elsewhere, and they seemed
to be well established then. We seem to be rather slow to be able
to implement a satisfactory system in the UK. The Environment
Agency, in its submission to us, talks about WEEE being exported
under the guise of non-waste for re-use, but in reality being
dismantled. The Environmental Services Association said right
at the head of its evidence: "We consider that the WEEE regime
is insufficiently robust to prevent damage to the environment
and human health." Your own evidence recognises the reasonableness
of those sorts of comments, so what is Defra planning to do, Secretary
of State, on the back of the provisions to the WEEE directive
to ensure these problems are rather better tackled than they are
at the moment?
Hilary Benn: With respect, I would
not agree that the legal framework governing this is deficient,
because it is very clear. WEEE is classified as hazardous waste,
and there are all of the processes that have to be dealt with.
As you know, hazardous waste can only be exported for recovery
to the EU and the OECD, but if the equipment is working, and that
is the key question: is it working or not? If somebody wants to
buy it somewhere else and it is working, then it is not a problem.
The difficulty is of course, as we know, that some people export
what they claim is E and actually it is WE.
Q514 David Taylor: It is not the
framework, it is the policy enforcement.
Hilary Benn: It is people who
are trying to get round the rules. One of the things the Commission
wants to do, and we are supporting it, is to change the WEEE directive
so it will be a legal requirement if you are exporting what you
claim is E that you have actually tested it to show that it is
functioning, as opposed to saying, "we think it functions".
I think that that would be a helpful change to all of us who are
trying to enforce the regulations properly.
Q515 David Taylor: What scale of
spot checks are you doing?
Hilary Benn: The checking that
is being done by the Environment Agency covers a whole range of
waste.
Q516 David Taylor: In this specific
area.
Hilary Benn: I was just about
to say that I do not have any information, and I will see if the
EA can provide it, about the number of those checks that relate
in particular to WEEE.
Q517 David Taylor: Can you write
to us then?
Hilary Benn: One of the two operations
that I referred to, Operation Boron, which the EA undertook, was
indeed, as I understand it, an intelligence-led operation that
was focusing on WEEE. It involved a number of companies and seven
people were arrested as a result of it. If I can provide some
further information, if it is available, I will gladly do so.
Q518 David Taylor: This question
is possibly one for Mr Howarth, and again it is drawn from the
evidence given to us by the Environmental Services Association.
They invited us to suggest that the WEEE regime be tightened to
ensure that it is properly directed into a legitimate treatment
system and that the re-use sector is subject to proper controls
to ensure that only fully functioning equipment is exported. Is
that a practical proposition, and how might it be enforced, Mr
Howarth?
Mr Howarth: I have responsibility
and look after the controls that govern the movement of waste,
and as far as we are concerned, they allow free movement of waste
for recycling, and there are generally only limited controls you
can put on that. If it is hazardous waste, as the Minister said
you cannot send that to non-OECD countries. In terms of the difficulties
here, it comes down to the definition of what is working equipment
and what is what we call e-waste, which is another term you can
use. In that regard the European Commission, together with the
Member States, has drawn up quite clear guidelines for the regulators
and what is working equipment and what is e-waste. That is the
piece of guidance that the Commission is now taking forward and
putting within the WEEE directive, if it is agreed.
Q519 David Taylor: I am sorry to
interrupt, but can it really be that difficult to define what
is meant by fully functioning equipment? It seems to be a relatively
unambiguous description.
Mr Howarth: The guidance is clear,
and that is that it has to be tested; it has to be labelled that
it has been tested; and it has to be properly packaged—in
the same way that a product that you buy from a shop will be similarly
packaged. If it has not got that information and that packaging,
then the direction of the legislation is that that is presumed
to be waste and therefore subject to the controls here, which
can then be applied, and all the enforcement controls we have
been talking about then come into play.
| 
