| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Graffiti and Vandalism
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. McNulty.]
12.7 am
Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): For the benefit of the small number of night owls or masochists who have chosen to remain for this debate, I want to raise an issue that causes great concern, anger and frustration to many of our constituents. In many respects, it is a local problem dealt with through local agencies, but the Minister has a strategic role in looking at best practice and pulling the various threads together, so I think that it is an appropriate issue to throw at him.
Why is graffiti a big issue and of such concern to many of us? First, in the areas in which it is a serious problem--and mine is one--it creates an atmosphere of neglect and disorder and fear of crime, particularly among vulnerable elderly people, who see it as evidence of the authorities' inability to maintain the fabric of local society and, rightly or wrongly, associate that with crime. Demoralisation flows from that.
Secondly, graffiti is often associated with criminality. I had a long discussion before the debate with some of the youth workers in my constituency and with the local police, who know many of the perpetrators. Typically, in an area such as mine, which has 100,000 people, there are probably 20 youths seriously involved in graffiti. Many of them are also involved in theft. They probably stole the aerosols and may be at the beginning of involvement with substance abuse. Some of the aerosol sprays are intoxicating--apparently they give an adrenaline buzz to the kids who use them. Unless there is proper intervention by the courts, the police, the youth workers and others, many of those adolescents will find themselves on a slippery slope that will lead quickly to a young offenders institution and prison.
The final reason why this is an issue of concern is the cost, which can be considerable. My local authority is severely stretched financially. That is one of the reasons for the last of the Divisions that we have just had, on a totally separate issue. The authority has a budget of £100,000 a year for a hotline on graffiti, but it has had to double the number of people involved because of rising demand.
I have had correspondence with London United Buses, which is in despair about the enormous cost of cleaning buses and shelters. A study carried out five years ago on the London underground suggested that about £2 million a year had to be spent on the removal and clearing up of graffiti. That is a substantial cost for utilities, local councils and, indirectly, for all of us.
I want to focus on areas of action and policy initiatives that the Minister can take forward. The first issue is policing. Clearly, the police are in the front line. My local police are positive about the issue, and they apply an effective zero-tolerance policy. They work closely with the police consultative group in the area, and give the matter appropriate priority.
For the Metropolitan police as a whole, graffiti and associated vandalism is not a high-priority offence; perhaps it should be, and I am interested in the Minister's reactions to that. Clearly, this is also linked to the numbers of police officers. As the Minister knows--we will not
rehearse the party political arguments--there is a problem with the decline in police numbers in London. That has been particularly serious in suburban areas which are assumed to be less prone to crime, and which therefore have borne the brunt of the cuts.It is evident in the areas which have seen a decline in policing that graffiti and associated vandalism have blossomed. On Sunday afternoon, I went round an area which has just had a beat police officer withdrawn for reasons of economy. It is now one of the worst-affected areas. Cause and effect is difficult to prove, but that is certainly highly suggestive.
Where police officers are not available, closed circuit television is important. I note here the positive initiatives of some of the train operators. South West Trains, whatever its other deficiencies, has seen the value of properly monitored CCTV. I hope that I have persuaded the company to accelerate the installation in some of the worst-affected stations. Clearly, that is an important part of the picture.
The second line of defence is the courts, and I attended a meeting of the local police consultative group last week where there was consternation at the fact that, in the local magistrates court, one of the worst offenders had been up on 50 counts and had been given no more than a supervision order. I think it is now recognised that there is a wide range of possible offences. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister the results of the field surveys that have been done in 10 boroughs, from which are emerging the most promising lines of action through the courts.
Perhaps we could draw on international experience. In Holland, widespread use was made of what could be called reparation provisions, insisting that graffiti offenders clear up the mess that they had created through community service orders. That would seem to be a promising route, and it would be interesting to hear the Minister's reaction to that.
The third line of argument--it is perhaps a little different from the conventional way of pursuing the matter--is what we might call the supply-side problem. If we were talking about drugs, we would be talking about the supply of drugs. In terms of graffiti, far too little attention is paid to the issue of how aerosol sprays and other instruments get into the hands of potential young offenders. There is an issue here for the retail sector and for the manufacturers.
I noticed in one of the local discount stores this weekend that aerosol sprays are being sold at a heavy discount--six for £1. The owners of the stores must know what the aerosols are being used for. Graffiti is now almost certainly the major market for a lot of aerosol sprays, and there is a complete absence of social responsibility. This seems to be an area where public education, led at ministerial level, might be useful.
Similarly, the manufacturers know what they are producing; they know what these things are for, and there must be a heightened sense of social responsibility among them. The paint industry is giving a lot of thought to the matter. The Paint Research Association is based in my constituency, and has helpfully sent me some of its academic journals on new coverings which, were they used extensively by householders and utilities, would substantially diminish the adhesive potential of graffiti paint. I am not sure how widely that has been promoted
or how much support the Government and local authorities have given it. The industry has some responsibility. Has the Minister discussed the possible remedies with it?At present, there is a clean-up hotline in many boroughs and the council can paint over the damage, but it needs the permission of the property owner, which is frequently not forthcoming. Owners are sometimes difficult to find and many businesses do not want to pay the small charge that is asked of them. There is a particular problem with utilities, which will not allow authorities to touch their heavily marked equipment.
Would it be useful for local authorities to have the additional power to compel clean-up, without the approval of property owners? I am not sure what the legislative problems might be. Secondary legislation might be needed. Something that allowed a more co-ordinated and tougher response would be appreciated.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the pulse of the problem. Is not the whole point of graffiti tags for one artist to advertise his handiwork to others, and is it not the case that, with a hotline such as that operated by New Forest district council, which leads to the graffiti being obliterated within 48 hours, not only is the vandals' objective defeated but policing is made much easier if they keep returning to the site to reinstate their efforts?
Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman is right: speed is of the essence. That is why the local authority needs not only the resources but the legal powers to respond rapidly. I noticed that he used the word "artist". I try to avoid that expression. There may be occasional cases in which graffiti are artistic or even witty, but they are infrequent. Graffiti seriously disfigure public space.
I am not asking for a heavy-handed intervention from the Home Office. The Minister is aware of good practice both here and abroad, in the courts and in local initiatives. Some bold schemes have been tried. I believe that in Los Angeles and Chicago, attempts were made to ban the sale of aerosol sprays to under-age children. It would be useful to have some reflection on that experience. What is good practice? Does the Home Office have a view, and is it disseminating it? How does it propose to bring the various threads together?
There is a role for Ministers to bring together the various agencies. Even if the Minister does not legislate specifically, he could bring together the utilities, which are very variable in their response to the problem, and the private sector--not necessarily to coerce them but to improve their sense of public responsibility.
12.19 am
Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for allowing me to borrow a few minutes of his time, and I echo many of his comments.
There is an epidemic of graffiti in my constituency. In New Malden, Chessington, Tolworth and Surbiton there is not a road sign, telephone box or bus shelter without some ugly scrawl or tag defacing it. It is not a coincidence that the rise in graffiti has accompanied the fall in the
number of police officers, and especially beat officers, in our community. There has been a cull of nearly a quarter of the Kingston police division in the past five years.The Minister may say that the Government have put more resources into the Metropolitan police and that the numbers are being turned around, but we have yet to see any evidence of that in Kingston. We have had the recent announcement that we will not get the cuts that we expected next year. I welcome that, but until we start rebuilding the local police force and get more police on the beat we will not turn the tide of vandalism and graffiti, which is sometimes called low-level crime.
I have a few specific questions for the Minister. Will he ask his officials to review the problems faced by the police in getting evidence to convict vandals of graffiti offences? For example, is there any way for police to challenge and search youngsters who they suspect are carrying spray cans in their bags with intent to deface a property, or who they believe have come from defacing a property? At the moment, the law does not allow that.
Will the Minister assure me that his Department will monitor the use of the new reparation orders to punish graffiti vandals? Will he make sure that the courts use the orders as Parliament intended--as an appropriate and common-sense punishment for offences of this type? Will he try to support the probation service and youth offender teams as they use the new punishments? Will he ensure that they are carried out properly?
Will the Minister ensure that the effect of the reparation orders with regard to reducing graffiti is properly studied? Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said, will he also review the policy with regard to age limits on the sale of spray paints? I received an e-mail today from a constituent, who said that he and his neighbours in New Malden believed that that solution would help. Similar arguments are used to support the limits on sales to minors of other products, and they apply equally to the sale of spray cans.
Will the Minister consider issuing new Home Office guidelines to manufacturers and retailers of spray paints, to encourage them to play their part in combating the graffiti menace? Could not the guidelines offer advice on the storage and display of the paints, with a view to minimising the pilfering of spray paint cans?
Finally, would the Minister be prepared to organise an anti-graffiti summit? The paint manufacturers could take part, as could public service organisations such as transport operators, telecoms providers, cable television suppliers and local authorities. That would be a way to generate new ideas, spread best practice and develop new partnerships to tackle the problem.
In my gallop through these issues, I have not touched on clean-up, a part of the solution mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham. It is very important that graffiti are cleaned up as soon as possible, as that will discourage vandals.
Government and local councils must give a lead on the matter. I hope that the Minister will join me in condemning those Conservative councillors who wanted to cut Kingston's graffiti clean-up budget. They talk tough in the local papers about graffiti, but they fail to provide the finances needed to clean up. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors in Kingston, who worked together to prevent the cuts in the clean-up budget?
We should not tolerate graffiti in our communities. I hope that the Government will build on the good measures, such as reparation orders, that they have taken and the previous Conservative Government did not. I hope that they will go much, much further.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |