During the past year both the government and the Environment Agency have been exhorting the courts to 'impose fines which reflect the gravity of offences which damage the environment, and the seriousness with which society views them'.

It is understood that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has had discussions with the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Judicial Studies Board and also the Magistrates' Association to this effect.

The Environment Agency, which is also having discussions with the Magistrates' Association, has provided it with an information pack on environmental issues.In general, fines for environmental offences are too low.

The courts should be educated to take environmental pollution more seriously.

Notwithstanding the recent fine of £4 million imposed on Milford Haven Port Authority in relation to the Sea Empress disaster, the average current fine for environmental pollution is in the region of £4,500 for England and Wales although the current statutory maximum for the magistrates' court is £20,000 and unlimited for the Crown Court.A 'going rate' of £2,000 per tonne of pollution cited by the Environment Agency in September 1998 was based on a £300,000 fine imposed on ICI for a spillage of chloroform.

However, more recently ICI was fined just £2,500 for an escape of some 200 tonnes of naphtha which caused major disruption of the neighbourhood, warnings to residents to remain in their houses and pollution of sensitive water courses.

This level of fine brings the 'going rate' down to £12.50 per tonne, and has been referred to in subsequent court hearings to reduce penalties imposed on other polluters.

The Sea Empress fine is still viewed as an aberration.Concern at persistent low fines being imposed by magistrates is reflected in health and safety matters where in the recent case of R v F Howe & Son (Engineers) Ltd the Court of Appeal judgment held that fines are too low.

The court sets out factors which should be taken into account when considering sentencing in the future.

They are (amongst other things): 'a fine must be large enough to bring home to those who manage a company, and their shareholders, the need for a safe environment for workers and the public;' 'while a fine should not generally be so large as to imperil the earnings of employees or create a risk of bankruptcy, there may be cases where an offence is so serious that the defendant ought not to be in business;' 'that magistrates should always think carefully before accepting jurisdiction in health and safety at work cases, where it is arguable that the appropriate fine may be greater than they have the power to impose, or where death or serious injury has resulted from the offence;' and 'the standard of care imposed by the legislation is the same regardless of company size'.For health and safety matters this judgment is likely to lead to major fines being imposed by the magistrates, or more referrals to the Crown Court.

Two developments which would be welcomed in the environmental field.There is a 'third way', of course, and that is by raising the statutory maximum for environmental offences in the magistrates court, which would give a strong signal to magistrates by the government of the importance it gives to this area and persuade them to impose higher average fines.

This has already happened in the marine pollution area where the statutory maximum for summary conviction under the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1996, which recently increased from £50,000 to £250,000, was imposed for marine oil pollution in a case brought by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.Why marine pollution should be regarded as more than ten times as serious as other forms of environmental pollution - and for that matter health and safety offences - remains a mystery.