| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Paice: I broadly welcome this group of amendments, and I particularly welcome the introduction of an appeal system. It is always a matter of concern to me when we give public bodies—be they local authorities or any other public body—powers over the private sector against which there is no appeal. The matter was debated in Committee. I am particularly concerned when we create a power for an authority to take action and to reclaim moneys from the private sector, so the introduction of an appeal mechanism is extremely welcome, and I thank the Minister and the Government for it.
I was interested to hear the Minister's remarks about the money side of this question and about the fact that she is putting into the Bill the way in which local authorities will be able to utilise the money that they have raised for approved purposes. It is worth bearing in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made precisely such a suggestion in Committee and was, not for the first time, rebuffed by the Government and told that they did not believe in hypothecation and that it would not happen. Of course, they are now putting that precisely into the Bill, enabling income to be hypothecated directly for particular items of expenditure.
I cannot help but gloat a little—I suspect that the Liberal Democrats will, too—at the way in which the Minister so charmingly said that the Government had now been persuaded that 16, rather than 18, should be the minimum age in relation to the sale of aerosols. If my recollection is correct, the hon. Lady was not the Minister in Committee, but, if my recollection is correct, there are Members in the Chamber today—including the former Minister with responsibility for the police—who were around at that time, and who were members of the Committee. They will remember how totally and utterly the Government rejected the logic of the arguments put by my hon. Friends and me for reducing the age at which someone should be prevented from buying an aerosol. I remember drawing attention to the fact—I think it was on Second Reading—that someone can, at 16, use a shotgun, go into a pub and have a drink, or even get married. At that age, they can have a driving licence and buy a car, but if they bend the car, they cannot go and buy the paint to mend it until they are 18. That seems utterly ludicrous. I am delighted that the Government have heeded the arguments made in the other place, albeit at the eleventh hour, but I cannot pretend to be surprised or even disappointed that they
did not heed the argument made in this place that 18 was too high an age at which to ban something as everyday as the purchase of a can of aerosol paint.I do not wish to deny the damage that graffiti does. It is a serious problem, and my hon. Friends and I support the Government's efforts in that regard. I would also say in all honesty to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) that I do not in any way resent the fact that she has been extremely successful in getting her proposals into the Bill. As I said earlier, I support the amendments in their entirety, but I have to say to the Minister that she is extremely courageous to suggest that the Government have listened to the arguments and been persuaded on the issue of age, given the strength and volubility of the way in which several Ministers—and, indeed, Back Benchers who supported the Government in Committee—sought to decry the efforts that some of us were making to reduce the age to 16. Even at this late hour, however, this is a welcome concession, and I am delighted to support it.
Mrs. Brooke: I, too, welcome this group of amendments. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) welcomed the qualifying functions in amendment No. 23 in relation to what the money could be spent on. I would like a little clarification on that. In know from my past life in a local authority that sometimes, when money is ring-fenced too tightly, it cannot be spent on sensible things. Obviously, we want the receipts to be able to finance extra activity. My councils, like others, can barely afford noise patrols at the moment, for example. I wonder whether there will be any consultation before the provisions are finally drawn up.
I welcome the fact that amendment No. 29 puts guidance on to the face of the Bill. I have not seen such a provision on any other of the relatively few Bills with which I have been involved so far. I strongly support amendments Nos. 35 and 36. I well remember discussing those issues in Committee; in fact, I got the Committee report out so that I could revisit that debate. However, given the spirit in which we are discussing the Bill today, it would be unkind to quote some of the comments that were made. I am sure that these measures are the right ones. The obvious point has been made that if someone can have a driving licence at the age of 17, it is nonsense that they cannot go out and buy spray paint. Overkill such as that can be counter-productive.
I would like to make a serious point about amendment No. 30, which states that one of the grounds for appeal is that
- "the defacement is neither detrimental to the amenity of the area nor offensive".
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I, too, am slightly puzzled by that defence, because it appears to invite those on the magistrates bench to substitute their
artistic taste for that of the local authority. That does not seem to be an entirely sound legal ground for exemption, and I wonder whether guidance will be specifically given to the bench and to local authorities as to how they should interpret
- "detrimental to the amenity of the area".
Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North): Can the hon. Lady come up with a single example anywhere in these broad and sweeping kingdoms of any bit of this foul, feral scrawl that we call graffiti that could possibly be described—even by a Liberal Democrat—as attractive and interesting?
Mrs. Brooke: A person who has painted something on a property could stand up in court and argue that it was beautiful. I probably would not think that it was, but if it was not obviously offensive, the person who had painted it could create a certain amount of legal difficulty. I am sure the Minister will reassure us on that.
Ms Blears: I shall deal first with the issues raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). He argued that our decision to allow the retention of moneys from the fixed penalty notices for night noise was inconsistent. However, we are already proposing, in clause 51, that local authorities should have the right to retain the income from fixed penalty notices for graffiti and fly posting. That builds on existing powers to retain fee income from littering and dog fouling. This is therefore nothing new. We are allowing local authorities to retain the money from the fixed penalty notices issued for night noise, in an attempt to encourage them to use the powers more widely. That is why we are getting rid of the adoptive provisions and making them apply across local authorities. It is therefore not new for us to introduce a measure to enable the authorities to retain such income. There is a consistency of approach here, and probably also a read-across to the retention of moneys by the police in relation to the income from fixed penalty notices for speeding, which is ploughed back into road safety measures. The Government have a coherent and consistent approach on those issues.
6.30 pm
The hon. Gentleman indulged in some unfortunate gloating in relation to spray paints. I never saw him as the kind of person who would gloat in such circumstances—perhaps I was mistaken—but I think that every Member of the House would acknowledge that graffiti is a huge problem for our communities. That is why we have made it a central part not just of the Bill, but of the "Together" action plan, which we issued a few weeks ago. If the hon. Gentleman has read that, he will
know that we have a major programme called Operation Scrub It, which we hope will lead to the removal of graffiti up and down our land. We also have Operation Scrap It for abandoned cars and Operation Gate It for alley gating, so we have scrub it, scrap it and gate it, and our plans for tackling antisocial behaviour will be very effective indeed.I am delighted to say to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) that I understand that when reducing the age in respect of possession of spray paints was discussed in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who was previously responsible for the Bill, said:
- "I will continue to listen to representations, or any other evidence to show that it is not the age group that the Bill mentions that is presenting the problem. If people think that they have that evidence, they should let us have it, because I do not pretend that we have the whole picture mapped out, or that we know exactly what is going on in our society."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 22 May 2003; c. 405.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |