There’s not much that gets cheaper each year in modern Britain, as anyone facing household bills, rent and mortgages knows only too well. But the new millennium is bargain time for the anti-social criminals polluting our environment on a grand scale.

The Environment Agency prosecuted 478 organizations and individuals for serious pollution offences in 2001. The average fine was £6,410, down from an average of £8,532 during 2000. No wonder the polluters are having a field day. That sort of penalty is no deterrent to a small back-street outfit, let alone a major private company or public body. Commenting on the figures, Environment Agency chief executive Baroness Barbara Young said: “Often the level of fines does not reflect the negligence involved and the environmental damage done. The fine must match the crime.”

Although the level of fines is a matter for the courts, the courts are influenced by ‘public opinion’. The Environment Agency can do a lot to influence public opinion about environmental crime, but it has done just the opposite in recent years

Name and Shame: no more
Under pressure from Environment Minister Michael Meacher, during 1999 the Environment Agency uniquely ‘named and shamed’ the more than 700 polluters it prosecuted during 1998. This produced massive coverage on the television and radio and in the press. For example, one paper published an illustration of the top five polluters for 1998. In addition there was massive regional coverage for the polluting companies in the local media. Yet, the average fine was a pitiful £2,786. Commenting on this, the then chief executive of the Environment Agency, Ed Gallagher, said: “Clearly this is not sending out a strong enough message to deter large businesses that have the potential to seriously damage the environment.”

This ‘naming and shaming’ caused a massive backlash from industry. Although many who were named also cleaned up their act – after all, they were environmental criminals – company pressure forced the Environment Agency to back down on its naming and shaming policy. It got the rather more ‘acceptable’ new ‘Spotlight on Business Environmental Performance’. The 1999 report started with the ‘Good Performers’, so that the top 30 companies listed by amount of fines were relegated to a table at the back of the report. The report featured 28 companies as ‘good performers’ and 48 as ‘bad’; nine companies even managed to feature in both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ tables! Predictably the report made no impact and received little publicity.

By the 2001 report the overall league table of fines and the list of 30 top polluting companies had disappeared altogether. They were replaced by some ‘sector’ tables buried with generally positive case studies in a 28-page report. It was difficult to find the highest fine, but the average fine at £6,410, remained as pathetic as ever. Again, the report got no publicity. Industry was showing, yet again, how it dominates the Environment Agency from the Board down.

Waste Criminals
Waste management companies have always featured high in the list of environmental criminals, ever since the Environment Agency’s unique 1999 ‘name and shame’ report. Then, there were three in the top five polluters:
1. ICI Chemicals, £382,500.
2. Tyseley Waste Disposal Ltd., £95,000.
3. London Waste Ltd., £38,500.
4. Wessex Water Plc, £36,500.
5. Alco Waste Management, £30,000.
In the ‘Pollution Incidents in England and Wales 2000’ report, there was a more detailed break-down of waste management pollution incidents. Of 36,406 reported pollution incidents in 2000, some 2,909 (8%) were due to waste management companies. Of these incidents, a massive 1,157 occurred at landfills, with the others spread over waste transfer stations, recycling operations, scrapyards and other ‘waste management facilities’.
In the 2001 report, the Environment Agency stated that it was responsible for regulating waste at over 8,000 sites, such as landfills and incinerators. The waste sector was responsible for more than one in eight of all pollution incidents in 2001 and more than a quarter of the most serious (categories 1 and 2). There was an amazing rise of pollution incidents between 2000 and 2001, from around 150 to 350 and this was said to be mainly ‘from household waste sites and non-inert landfill sites.’

Environment Agency Prosecutions and Fines 1998 – 2001.

year xx xprosecutionsx averagex xxhighest finex xxx xxx xxx xxxtotal fines
xx xx xx xx xx xx xxx xxfines

1998 xxxx744 xx xx xx£2,786 xx x£382,500 (ICI) xx xx xx xxx£2m.
1999 xxxx566 xx xx xx£6,800 xx x£80,000 (SARP) xx xx xx xx£1.95m.
2000 xxxx694 xx xx xx£8,532 xx x£288,000 (Thames Water) x£3.1m.
2001i xx1,517 xx xx xx£6,410 xx x£? (?) xx xx xx x xx xx xx ix£2.7m.

Table of waste criminals fined more than £10,00 during 2001.

Criminal xx xx xx xx xx xx xxx xxxx xx xx xx xx xx xiixiifine

Southern Refining Services Ltd xxxx xx xx xx xx xx xxi £76,000
Severn Waste Services Ltd xxxx xx xx xx xx xx xxx xxi £60,000
Circle Britannia Ltd xxxx xx xx xx xx xx xxx xx xxxx xi £32,500
Sita (GB) Ltd xxxx xx xx xx xx xx xxx xx xxxx xx xxii ii£28,500
Jeweks Trading Company Ltd xxxx xx xx xx xx xx xxx i£20,500
G Walker & Son Waste Disposal Ltd xxxx xx xx xx xx xi£18,500
3C waste Ltd xxxx xx xx xx xx xx xxx xx xxxx xx xx xi£15,000
Watford Waste (2000) Ltd xxxx xx xx xx xx xx xxx xx i£15,000
Viridor Waste Hampshire Ltd xxxx xx xx xx xx xx xxx x£10,000