Skip to main content

Written Answers

Volume 688: debated on Monday 15 January 2007

Written Answers

Monday 15 January 2007

Agriculture: Scrapie

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What weight they give to the value of the National Scrapie Plan for human health and animal welfare respectively; and [HL1039]

Whether bovine spongiform encephalopathy is not present in the national sheep flock; and whether the National Scrapie Plan is therefore no longer required for the purpose of protecting human health. [HL1038]

The National Scrapie Plan (NSP) was launched in 2001 against a background of concern about the risks from transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in sheep (that is, scrapie) and the theoretical risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Its complementary aims have been to protect both public health and animal health and welfare by increasing the TSE resistance of the national flock, principally through its voluntary ram genotyping scheme (RGS).

The Veterinary Laboratories Agency has tested samples where suitable material has been available from all sheep diagnosed as positive for scrapie, from 1998 to the present time, for the possible presence of BSE. Samples from nearly 3,000 animals have been tested and all have been negative for BSE. Recently, in the light of this testing, and the latest scientific knowledge and research, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee's sheep sub-group was asked to consider the latest science underpinning the RGS. It concluded that the prevalence of BSE in the UK sheep population is most likely to be zero, or very low if present at all, and that consequently the current RGS would have little impact on public health. They concluded that the RGS was still scientifically valid with respect to animal health to protect against classical scrapie. The subgroup's statement is available at http://www.seac.gov .uk/statements/sheepsubgrp-statement131006.pdf.

The voluntary breeding programme elements of the NSP which include the RGS (but not the statutory, EU-required elements including compulsory controls on scrapie-affected farms) are currently under review.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What is their estimate of the proportion of rams of each sheep genotype before the commencement of the National Scrapie Plan; and what is their estimate of the current proportion. [HL1040]

No reliable estimate is available of the distribution of the 15 known scrapie genotypes of sheep in the national ram flock prior to the commencement of the first National Scrapie Plan (NSP) genotype testing in 2001. Relatively few breeds had been commercially testing their rams prior to 2001. Modelling done prior to the NSP(1) estimated that approximately 28 per cent of rams were of the most resistant genotype that carries two copies of the ARR allele(2) (the allele that is most resistant to classical scrapie) and that thus had the “ARR/ARR” or NSP Type 1 genotype.

There are 420,000 rams and ram lambs in the national flock. Since 2001, the NSP has tested over 2.6 million sheep (in all schemes) in Great Britain. Table 1 below shows the genotypes of all those sheep. Table 2 illustrates the change in the allele percentage of ram lambs born in flocks participating in the NSP from 2002 to 2005 (the ARR allele is the most resistant to classical scrapie and the VRQ is the most susceptible in the majority of breeds). The ram lamb data for 2002 are a good starting point as the majority of these animals will have been the progeny of previously untested rams as NSP testing only commenced on a small scale in October 2001.

(1) Arnold et al. Published in Preventative Veterinary Medicine 56, 227-229 (2002).

(2) Gene component derived from one parent and contributing hereditary information from that parent.

Table 1 NSP data as at 29/12/20062001-06 All sheep tested in all NSP schemes

NSP Type

Genotype & Degree of resistance/susceptibility to classical scrapie

Number

Per cent

I

ARR/ARR

Sheep that are genetically most resistant to scrapie.

849,304

32.3%

II

ARR/AHQ

Sheep that are genetically resistant to scrapie, but will need careful selection when used for further breeding.

251,464

9.6%

ARR/ARH

143,612

5.5%

ARR/ARQ

714,617

27.1%

III

AHQ/AHQ

Sheep that genetically have little resistance to scrapie and will need careful selection when used for further breeding.

40,552

1.5%

AHQ/ARH

10,061

0.4%

AHQ/ARQ

139,571

5.3%

ARH/ARH

35,488

1.3%

ARH/ARQ

35,961

1.4%

ARQ/ARQ

237,291

9.0%

IV

ARR/VRQ

Sheep that are genetically susceptible to scrapie and should not be used for breeding unless in the context of a controlled breeding programme approved by the NSP Administration Centre.

90,708

3.4%

V

AHQ/VRQ

Sheep that are highly susceptible to scrapie and should not be used for breeding.

20,236

0.8%

ARH/VRQ

6,039

0.2%

ARQ/VRQ

48,755

1.9%

VRQ/VRQ

4,489

0.2%

Unknown

-

4,940

0.2%

Total tested 

2,633,088

100.0%

Table 2 Changes in allele per cent frequencies of ram lambs 2002-05

ARR

AHQ

ARH

ARQ

VRQ

2002

50.4

7.4

9.9

29.2

3.0

2003

55.6

7.5

7.7

26.9

2.3

2004

62.0

6.5

6.9

22.9

1.7

2005

65.4

5.9

6.3

20.9

1.5

asked Her Majesty's Government:

How many cases have been identified of atypical scrapie and of which genotype were the sheep concerned. [HL1041]

Some 155 cases of atypical scrapie in sheep have been detected in Great Britain. The table below breaks this down by year and genotype. Nearly all (149) have been detected through the “active” surveillance programme launched in 2002. Under this programme, almost 206,000 brain samples from sheep sent for slaughter and from fallen stock have been tested thus far for the presence of a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy. The remaining six cases have been detected through passive surveillance (animals reported as exhibiting clinical signs).

Data as at 3 January 2007

NSP Type

Genotype

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Total

I

ARR/ARR

3

7

4

1

1

16

II

ARR/AHQ

4

11

4

12

11

42

ARR/ARH

-

1

-

-

-

1

ARR/ARQ

2

7

1

3

5

18

III

AHQ/AHQ

4

6

1

2

7

20

AHQ/ARH

-

-

1

-

2

3

AHQ/ARQ

3

14

2

3

12

34

ARH/ARH

-

-

-

-

-

-

ARH/ARQ

-

-

-

1

-

1

ARQ/ARQ

2

5

3

3

6

19

IV

ARR/VRQ

-

-

-

-

-

-

V

AHQ/VRQ

-

-

-

-

-

-

ARH/VRQ

-

-

-

-

-

-

ARQ/VRQ

-

1

-

-

-

1

VRQ/VRQ

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total

18

52

16

25

44

155

British Coal Compensation

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Who are the 30 highest-earning firms of solicitors in the British Coal respiratory disease litigation; and what amount of legal costs was paid to each such firm. [HL1054]

The following table details the claimant representatives earning the most from the respiratory disease litigation:

Claimant Representative

Total Costs Paid (£m)

Thompsons

94.8

Beresfords Solicitors

93.8

Hugh James Ford Simey

75.4

Raleys Solicitors

59.1

Mark Gilbert Morse

48.6

Browell Smith & Co

41.5

Avalon

31.0

Watson Burton

25.0

Union of Democratic Mineworkers

22.7

Graysons

22.1

Barber & Co

19.5

Randell Lloyd Jenkins & Martin

16.0

Corries

14.6

The Legal Warehouse

13.7

Ingrams Solicitors

13.2

Towells Solicitors

11.8

AMS Law

11.5

Irwin Mitchell

11.1

Moss Solicitors

10.7

Delta Legal

9.1

BRM Solicitors

8.9

Kidd & Spoor Harper Solicitors

8.8

Gorman Hamilton Solicitors

8.3

Wake Smith

8.1

Birchall Blackburn

7.7

Atteys

6.3

OH Parsons

6.2

Hilary Meredith Solicitors

5.0

Shaw & Co Solicitors

4.4

Simpson Millar Solicitors

3.9

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Who are the highest earning firms of solicitors in the British Coal white finger litigation; and what amount of legal costs was paid to each such firm. [HL1055]

The following table details the claimant representatives earning the most from the vibration white finger litigation:

Claimant Representative

Total Costs Paid (£m)

Thompsons

11.6

Browell Smith & Co

9.7

Raleys Solicitors

7.7

Hugh James Ford Simey

6.6

Union of Democratic Mineworkers

6.1

Graysons

4.7

Beresfords Solicitors

4.0

Watson Burton

3.5

Moss Solicitors

3.3

Towells Solicitors

3.1

Atteys

2.2

Kidd & Spoor Harper Solicitors

2.2

AMS Law

2.1

OH Parsons

1.7

Irwin Mitchell

1.6

Saffmans Solicitors

1.6

Shaw & Co Solicitors

1.5

Kingslegal

1.3

Corries

1.2

McLeish Carswell

1.2

Oxley & Coward Solicitors

1.1

Latham & Co Solicitors

1.1

T S Edwards & Son Solicitors

0.9

Hickmotts Solicitors

0.8

Mortons Solicitors

0.8

Thompson & Co Solicitors

0.8

Hopkins

0.8

Marrons Solicitors

0.7

Keeble Hawson Moorhouse

0.6

Gorman Hamilton Solicitors

0.6

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether they will assist miners and widows in the British Coal respiratory disease litigation and British Coal white finger litigation to seek redress against those solicitors who charged them success fees, administration charges or union fees; and, if so, whether they will instruct their claims handlers to deliver to past and present claimants advice on their rights. [HL1056]

The department has made considerable efforts to secure repayment of fees taken and to make claimants aware of their options if they have been charged a fee. Ultimately this is a matter for the Regulation and Consumer Complaints Boards of the Law Society with which we continue to work to seek redress. The department’s Compensation for Miners newsletter will continue to provide advice on this issue and the consumer complaints service continues to advertise and to receive and investigate complaints.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What is the total sum of legal costs, including those incurred at trial and paid to solicitors and barristers in the British Coal respiratory disease litigation. [HL1191]

As at 13 December 2006, the total paid in legal costs in the respiratory disease litigation was £821.5 million. In addition, the department had spent £35 million on its own legal advice and representation, although we cannot apportion this between claims types.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What is the total sum of legal costs, including those incurred at trial and paid to solicitors and barristers in the British Coal vibration white finger litigation. [HL1192]

As at 13 December 2006, the total paid in legal costs in relation to the vibration white finger litigation was £102 million. In addition, the department had spent £35 million on its own legal advice and representation, although we cannot apportion this between claims types.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

How many claimants continue to await payment of their compensation in the British Coal respiratory disease litigation. [HL1193]

There are currently about 183,000 respiratory disease claims (31 per cent) that have yet to reach settlement. Many of those claimants will have received interim compensation payments.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

How many claimants continue to await payment of their compensation in the British Coal vibration white finger litigation. [HL1194]

Overall, 31,000 (19 per cent) of vibration white finger claims await settlement. Around 5,000 general damages claims are awaiting offers and 26,000 services claims remain outstanding.

Crime: Gender Balance

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 8 November (WA 197), whether their research into the causes of crime suggests that the disparity of 2:1 in the propensity of males and females to commit crime arises either from social or from biological factors. [HL800]

Home Office research into the causes of crime has not included any exploration of the potential role of biological factors in the increased propensity shown by men or women to commit crime.

Research summarised in The Impact of Corrections on Re-offending: A Review of What Works (HORS 291, 2006) discusses a range of factors, or “criminogenic needs”, predictive of offending in relation to the differences between men and women in the frequency and nature of offending. Evidence suggests that female offenders have higher levels of need in the areas of relationships and emotional well-being, while male offenders had higher levels of need with regard to offending, alcohol misuse, thinking and behaviour and attitudes.

Self-report offending studies have consistently shown that men are more likely to commit offences than women although the gender gap varies according to type of offence. The existing research does not show that the gap is caused solely by social factors or solely by biological factors.

The Home Office has recently published Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System which provides further details of the nature of offending carried out by women (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/s95women0405.pdf).

EU: Constitutional Treaty

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will discuss with the current European Union presidency how member states will proceed with the second phase of a constitutional treaty, now that 18 member states have ratified the proposed text. [HL1069]

According to the conclusions of the June 2006 European Council, the German presidency will present a report at the June 2007 European Council based on extensive consultations with member states. The report will contain an assessment of the state of discussion on the constitutional treaty and explore possible future developments. We expect these discussions to commence shortly. The Government's approach to these discussions was set out in a Written Ministerial Statement to the House by my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe on 5 December 2006 (Official Report, col. 10WS-11WS).

Immigration: Face Covering

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will place in the Library of the House a copy of the current guidance issued to immigration officers on the identification procedures to be applied to persons who have covered their faces departing from or arriving in the United Kingdom. [HL1154]

Specific operational guidance on the examination of passengers wearing veils or other face coverings is available to immigration officers and states that passengers wearing veils or other face coverings are to be asked to remove the covering in order that they may be identified as the rightful holder of their passport or travel document.

A copy of the relevant instructions will be placed in the House Library.

Immigration: Fast-track Procedure

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will provide a breakdown of the number of persons detained under the fast-track system at the latest convenient date, by nationality and length of detention. [HL646]

These data are derived from local management information and are therefore provisional and subject to change.

As at 8 December 2006, the latest date for which data are available, there were 170 claimants detained under the detained fast-track (DFT) process of whom 125 were male and 50 were female (figures are rounded to the nearest five). For details of nationality and length of detention, please see the attached table.

National statistics on the total number of people detained under sole Immigration Act powers are published quarterly and annually. Copies are available from the Library of the House and on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

There were 125 male claimants from 33 nationalities in the detained fast-track (DFT) process. The average period in detention per detainee since date of entry to the DFT process was 45 days.

Nationality

Number of Male Detainees (1)

Average Number of Days in DFT

Afghanistan

15

27

Angola

5

33

Bangladesh

10

44

Dem. Rep. of Congo

5

39

Gambia

5

41

Jamaica

5

33

Kenya

5

58

Nigeria

5

70

Pakistan

15

46

Russia

5

14

Sudan

10

81

Turkey

15

37

Uganda

5

101

Other nationalities

20

35

Total

125

45

(1) Figures are rounded to the nearest five

There were 50 female claimants from 22 nationalities in the detained fast-track (DFT) process. The average period in detention per detainee since date of entry to the DFT process was 21 days.

Nationality

Number of female detainees(1)

Average Number of Days in DFT

China

5

22

Gambia

5

24

Georgia

5

16

Nigeria

10

22

Pakistan

5

23

Uganda

5

31

Other nationalities

20

18

Total

50

21

(1) Figures are rounded to the nearest five

Immigration: Joint Report

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they have made an assessment of the joint report, The Destination Trap, published on 7 November by Refugee Action and Amnesty International; and, if so, whether they will respond to its conclusions. [HL1024]

We understand that the joint report by Refugee Action and Amnesty International published on 7 November 2006 is entitled The Destitution Trap. The Government are aware of the detailed recommendations made in the report, which are directed at a range of government departments and other agencies. It will take them into account when formulating policy on dealing with the legacy of older cases and in dealing with new cases under the New Asylum Model. Failed asylum seekers have had their asylum claims carefully considered by the Home Office and, where appropriate, by the independent appellate authorities. It has been decided that they do not require international protection and they are therefore required to leave the UK.

Prisoners: Deportation

asked Her Majesty's Government:

How they identify prisoners early in their custodial sentences who are European Economic Area (EEA) nationals and in particular long-term resident EEA nationals who enjoy special protections from expulsion; and what steps they have taken to ensure that decisions to deport in weak cases involving those nations are withdrawn. [HL233]

On arrival in prisons, HM Prison Service provides the Immigration and Nationality Directorate with details of all foreign national prisoners, and all prisoners whose nationality has not been established, to enable the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to conduct inquiries and confirm nationality.

All foreign national prisoners have the opportunity to provide representations against deportation and long-term residency in the United Kingdom is a factor that is taken into consideration when assessing whether a prisoner from a European Economic Area (EEA) country is liable to deportation. Consideration to deport prisoners from EEA countries is made in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.

On 9 October the Secretary of State for the Home Department explained that in view of the interpretation given to current provisions in respect of EEA nationals, HMG will seek to bring forward changes in the law in order to clarify and strengthen the link between criminality and deportation. In the mean time we will ensure that only those cases which have a reasonable prospect of success within the current interpretation of the legislative provisions will be given priority, and robustly pursued.

Prisons: Wormwood Scrubs

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What progress they have made in implementing the recommendations set out in Chapter 8 of the Clark report of 15 April 2003 (Report of an investigation into the management of HMP Wormwood Scrubs between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1998); and, if they have decided not to implement them, why they reached that decision. [HL184]

The Clark report made a large number of recommendations on a wide range of issues. Significant progress has been made and action on a number of recommendations is ongoing. No recommendations were rejected. At Wormwood Scrubs robust procedures have been introduced to ensure swift action is initiated in the event of any evidence or allegation of mistreatment of prisoners.

Cameras have been installed in all the sensitive areas including reception and the segregation unit, and management, supported by local staff associations, has consistently emphasised that mistreatment of prisoners will not be tolerated. Recent reports from HMCIP have commented on these improvements.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Why they will not implement certain recommendations set out in Section 4 of the April 2004 report by Peter Quinn and Peter Siddons (HMP Wormwood Scrubs Review of Civil Litigation). [HL185]

Every recommendation in the report was given the most careful consideration. The Government believe that lessons have been learnt, extensive investigations have taken place, and Wormwood Scrubs has changed significantly for the better. At Wormwood Scrubs robust procedures have been introduced to ensure swift action is initiated in the event of any evidence or allegation of mistreatment of prisoners.

Cameras have been installed in all the sensitive areas including reception and the segregation unit, and management, supported by local staff associations, has consistently emphasised that mistreatment of prisoners will not be tolerated. Recent reports from HMCIP have commented on these improvements.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

On what date HM Chief Inspector of Prisons was supplied with reports of internal inquiries on events at HMP Wormwood Scrubs, including the London Area Office review of the criminal litigation, the Hind report (October 2002), the Clark report (15 April 2003) and the report by Peter Quinn and Peter Siddons (April 2004). [HL186]

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether any of the management team at HMP Wormwood Scrubs during the period December 1992 to April 1998 are still employed within the National Offender Management Service. [HL187]

Six individuals who served as members of the management team at Wormwood Scrubs during this period are still employed within the National Offender Management Service.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether any of the management team at HMP Wormwood Scrubs during the period December 1992 to April 1998 faced any form of disciplinary action arising out of the violence against inmates at the prison; and, where relevant, what was the outcome of the disciplinary action taken. [HL188]

Waste Management: Litter

asked Her Majesty's Government:

How many individuals and businesses have been prosecuted for fly-tipping, dropping litter and similar offences in the last five years; how many have been found guilty; and what levels of fines or other sentences have been imposed.[HL896]

Tables showing the information requested are provided below.

Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts, found guilty and sentenced at all courts for certain offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Sections 33 and 34

Offence description

Principal statute

Year

 

Total proceeded against

Found guilty

Total for sentence

Contravening conditions of a waste management licence 

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (6)

2001

 

147

109

109

2002

 

172

121

119

2003

(2)

147

101

102

2004

 

256

185

185

2005

 

315

233

232

Depositing, causing the deposition or permitting the deposition, treating, keeping or disposing of controlled (but not special) in or on land without a licence

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (8)

2001

 

127

107

106

2002

 

178

148

150

2003

(2)

178

139

139

2004

 

184

137

136

2005

 

254

209

208

Depositing, causing the deposition or permitting the deposition of controlled special waste in or on land without a licence 

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (9)

2001

 

22

17

18

2002

 

21

20

20

2003

(2)

25

27

27

2004

 

37

27

27

2005

 

69

56

56

Handling, controlling or transferring controlled waste without taking reasonable measures. Failing to comply with the Secretary of State’s requirements.

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 34

2001

 

129

96

96

2002

 

149

107

107

2003

(2)

157

111

111

2004

 

235

159

159

2005

 

310

186

186

Depositing litter 

Environmental Protection Act 1990 S.87

2001

 

363

271

271

2002

 

280

215

215

2003

 

441

325

325

2004

 

812

586

586

2005

 

1,368

971

971

Sentence breakdown 

Principal statute

Year

Absolute discharge

Conditional discharge

Fine

Average fine (£'s)

Community sentences

Fully suspended sentence

Immediate custody

Otherwise dealt with

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (6)

2001

2

12

92

883

2

-

-

1

2002

4

25

79

1,024

9

-

-

2

2003

-

13

84

1,026

2

1

1

1

2004

-

27

145

722

10

-

2

1

2005

1

26

182

968

17

-

1

5

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (8)

2001

1

12

83

914

6

-

4

-

2002

-

22

113

620

11

-

3

1

2003

1

23

107

820

3

1

4

-

2004

2

22

96

1,086

12

-

-

4

2005

1

29

168

1,481

7

-

1

2

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (9)

2001

-

2

11

905

3

-

2

-

2002

1

6

13

1,477

-

-

-

-

2003

-

2

22

3,425

2

-

1

-

2004

-

2

24

847

1

-

-

-

2005

-

9

44

944

2

1

-

-

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 34

2001

-

19

77

238

-

-

-

-

2002

2

27

78

327

-

-

-

-

2003

-

16

94

354

-

-

-

1

2004

1

31

124

359

1

-

-

2

2005

6

30

148

402

-

-

-

2

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 87

2001

8

20

241

86

1

-

-

1

2002

14

13

184

69

1

-

-

3

2003

13

21

286

114

2

-

-

3

2004

10

23

545

101

3

-

-

5

2005

18

23

926

102

1

-

-

3

(1) These data are provided on a principal offence basis.

(2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by police forces and courts. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

Source: Criminal Justice Systems Analysis, RDS - OCJR.

IOS: 002-07

Number of other defendants(1) proceeded against at magistrates' courts, found guilty and sentenced at all courts for certain offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Sections 33 and 34

Offence description

Principal statute

Year

Total proceeded against

Found guilty

Total for sentence

Contravening conditions of a waste management licence

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (6)

2001

194

138

138

2002

240

170

168

2003

202

138

139

2004

311

215

215

2005

414

283

281

Depositing, causing the deposition or permitting the deposition, treating, keeping or disposing of controlled (but not special) in or on land without a licence

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (8) 

2001

146

124

123

2002

216

177

179

2003

200

158

158

2004

222

164

163

2005

296

245

244

Depositing, causing the deposition or permitting the deposition of controlled special waste in or on land without a licence 

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (9)

2001

30

24

25

2002

30

26

27

2003

33

34

34

2004

56

39

39

2005

86

67

67

Handling, controlling or transferring controlled waste without taking reasonable measures. Failing to comply with the Secretary of State’s requirements.

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 34

 

 

 

2001

171

123

123

2002

196

147

148

2003

224

151

151

2004

319

207

208

2005

412

262

262

Depositing litter

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 87

2001

403

299

299

2002

295

227

227

2003

454

332

332

2004

826

592

592

2005

1,405

985

985

Sentence breakdown  

Principal statute

Year

Absolute discharge

Conditional discharge

Fine

Average fine (£'s)

Community sentences

Fully suspended sentence

Immediate custody

Otherwise dealt with

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (6)

2001

2

12

121

3,581

2

-

-

1

2002

4

27

125

4,121

9

-

-

3

2003

-

14

120

4,124

2

1

1

1

2004

-

28

174

4,548

10

-

2

1

2005

2

27

229

2,741

17

-

1

5

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (8) 

2001

1

13

99

3,278

6

-

4

-

2002

-

22

141

4,017

11

-

3

2

2003

1

24

125

3,503

3

1

4

-

2004

2

23

122

3,283

12

-

-

4

2005

1

29

204

4,726

7

-

1

2

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (9)

2001

-

3

16

2,860

3

-

2

1

2002

1

6

20

7,357

-

-

-

-

2003

-

2

29

9,050

2

-

1

-

2004

-

2

36

4,902

1

-

-

-

2005

-

9

55

6,634

2

1

-

-

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 34

 

 

 

2001

-

20

103

1,555

-

-

-

-

2002

2

28

118

1,395

-

-

-

-

2003

-

20

130

849

-

-

-

1

2004

2

35

168

2,393

1

-

-

2

2005

8

35

217

791

-

-

-

2

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 87

2001

8

21

267

217

1

-

-

2

2002

14

14

195

241

1

-

-

3

2003

14

21

292

304

2

-

-

3

2004

10

23

551

242

3

-

-

5

2005

18

23

940

521

1

-

-

3

(1) Includes companies etc.

(2) These data are provided on a principal offence basis.

(3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by police forces and courts. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

Source: Criminal Justice Systems Analysis, RDS - OCJR.

IOS: 002-07

Background Note

1. The information in the tables is taken from the Court Proceedings Database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform and gives the number of persons and companies proceeded against at magistrates courts, found guilty at all courts and sentence breakdowns, including average fine amounts, for selected offences related to fly-tipping and littering in England from 2001 to 2005.

2. The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.

3. These data are a further breakdown of that published in the Criminal Statistics, Supplementary Volumes for England and Wales for the years 2001-2005.