Asked by: Anna Turley (Labour (Co-op) - Redcar)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many prosecutions under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 resulted in a prison sentence in (a) 2014, (b) 2015 and (c) 2016.
Answered by George Eustice
The numbers of prosecutions, those which were found guilty and sentenced, and those which resulted in prison sentence under section 4 and 9 of Animal Welfare Act 2006 can be viewed in the table below.
Court proceedings data for 2016 are planned for publication in May 2017.
| Animal Welfare Act 2006 Section 4 | Animal Welfare Act 2006 Section 9 | ||
Outcome | 2014 | 2015 | 2014 | 2015 |
Proceeded against | 1,016 | 775 | 391 | 302 |
Found guilty | 800 | 612 | 266 | 208 |
Sentenced | 801 | 614 | 263 | 208 |
of which | ||||
Immediate Custody | 78 | 55 | 10 | 21 |
The table includes the following offences:
Animal Welfare Act 2006 Section 4(1)(2), 32(1)(2), 9.
The figures given in the table 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 it 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.
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 the courts and police forces. 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.
The numbers of offenders sentenced and found guilty in the same year may differ due to some being sentenced the following year.
Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. PQ 60104 & 60113
Asked by: Anna Turley (Labour (Co-op) - Redcar)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many prosecutions under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 were heard at magistrates' courts in England and Wales in (a) 2014, (b) 2015 and (c) 2016.
Answered by George Eustice
The number of proceedings heard at magistrates’ courts, and those which were found guilty, sentenced and had a fine imposed under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in England and Wales, 2014 and 2015 can be viewed below.
Court proceedings data for 2016 are planned for publication in May 2017.
Outcome | 2014 | 2015 |
Proceeded against | 1,433 | 1,103 |
Found Guilty | 1,080 | 831 |
Sentenced | 1,078 | 833 |
of which Fine | 219 | 143 |
The table includes the following offences:
Animal Welfare Act 2006 Section 4(1)(2), 5(a)(b)32(1)(2(40), 6(1)(a)(b)2,8,9,12, 7(a)(b)2, 8(1)(a to i),(2), 9, 11(1)(3), 13(6), 18(12),34(9)
The figures given in the table 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 it 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.
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 the courts and police forces. 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.
The numbers of offenders sentenced and found guilty in the same year may differ due to some being sentenced the following year.
Asked by: Anna Turley (Labour (Co-op) - Redcar)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in how many cases under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 a fine was imposed in (a) 2014, (b) 2015 and (c) 2016.
Answered by George Eustice
The number of proceedings heard at magistrates’ courts, and those which were found guilty, sentenced and had a fine imposed under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in England and Wales, 2014 and 2015 can be viewed below.
Court proceedings data for 2016 are planned for publication in May 2017.
Outcome | 2014 | 2015 |
Proceeded against | 1,433 | 1,103 |
Found Guilty | 1,080 | 831 |
Sentenced | 1,078 | 833 |
of which Fine | 219 | 143 |
The table includes the following offences:
Animal Welfare Act 2006 Section 4(1)(2), 5(a)(b)32(1)(2(40), 6(1)(a)(b)2,8,9,12, 7(a)(b)2, 8(1)(a to i),(2), 9, 11(1)(3), 13(6), 18(12),34(9)
The figures given in the table 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 it 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.
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 the courts and police forces. 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.
The numbers of offenders sentenced and found guilty in the same year may differ due to some being sentenced the following year.
Asked by: Anna Turley (Labour (Co-op) - Redcar)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether there are any remaining staff on the former SSI site responsible for environmental management; what estimate she has made of the number of staff responsible for environmental management who are no longer employed; and what assessment she has made of the minimum level of environmental staffing required.
Answered by Thérèse Coffey
The Environment Agency has been working closely with the Official Receiver in order to ensure that the site is being safely overseen by staff under his direction. Whilst staffing matters are for the Official Receiver to decide, the Environment Agency are in regular contact with staff overseeing the former SSI site and do not have any concerns with regards to their environment management.
Asked by: Anna Turley (Labour (Co-op) - Redcar)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 15 July 2016 to Question 42347, what assessment she has made of the public health implications of slag and metal contaminants in surface and ground waters at the former SSI site; and if she will make an assessment of the (a) likely cost and (b) timetable for remediation of those contaminants.
Answered by Thérèse Coffey
Government Officials continue to work with the Official Receiver to maintain a ‘safe state’ position for the SSI site, including managing risks to human health and the water environment.
Government has committed to fund site assessments to understand the scale and complexity of the SSI site, which will help inform future decisions about the site.
Asked by: Anna Turley (Labour (Co-op) - Redcar)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the effect of the closure of the SSI site in Redcar on (a) the natural environment and (b) Teesmouth national nature reserve.
Answered by Rory Stewart
Currently, the SSI site is being maintained in a ‘steady state’ which prevents any potential contaminants from entering the natural environment as well as keeping the public safe and the site secure. Teesmouth National Nature Reserve is not directly affected by the closure of the SSI site.
Natural England and the Environment Agency are working together with local business leaders, the Tees Valley Combined Authority and a range of non-government organisations, to explore and identify how existing operations, new economic developments and a series of ambitious environmental enhancements can be taken forward in combination with each other on the estuary. Any future uses of the site would readily be included in this approach.
Asked by: Anna Turley (Labour (Co-op) - Redcar)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many staple foods in the UK are subject to mandatory fortification.
Answered by George Eustice
Wheat flour is the only food with mandatory fortification requirements in the UK. All wheat flour (except wholemeal) is required to be fortified with calcium, iron, niacin and thiamin at specific levels prescribed in the Bread and Flour Regulations 1998.
Asked by: Anna Turley (Labour (Co-op) - Redcar)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps she is taking to help tackle serious cases of animal cruelty.
Answered by George Eustice
In this country we have one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation anywhere in the world to protect animals. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 it is an offence either to cause any captive animal unnecessary suffering or to fail to provide for its welfare needs. The maximum penalty is 6 months’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. The financial element of the penalty was raised only last year from a maximum fine of £20,000. Courts can also disqualify offenders found guilty of animal cruelty from keeping animals for as long a period as they consider appropriate. The overwhelming majority of people in this country are responsible but in circumstances where cruelty does occur I believe we have the necessary measures for enforcement agencies and courts to take action.