|
Clause 48
Penalty notices in respect of graffiti or
fly-posting
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Hawkins: It will be helpful to have a brief debate on the clause. I am glad to say that Opposition Members can welcome the fact that the Government propose to take further measures on graffiti and fly posting. I receive many letters from constituents about graffiti and fly posting, and I am sure that other members of the Committee receive similar letters.
It is fair to say that all of us who are rightly proud of our country are depressed about the image that is sometimes conveyed, particularly to overseas tourists, by the amount of graffiti here. The problem is not by any means restricted to the UK-I have observed a lot
Column Number: 380
of graffiti in other European countries as well. However, it is undoubtedly the case that parts of our major cities-not only London-have been severely damaged by graffiti. Local authorities, companies and other bodies have to spend an appalling amount of money on removing graffiti. One thinks in particular of the problems faced by railway companies and London Transport in trying to clean graffiti off railway and tube carriages. We therefore welcome the fact that further powers are being taken in clause 48 to enable authorised officers of local authorities to issue penalty notices. However, I have some questions for the Minister about the powers that the Government are taking.
One of the issues on which I considered tabling an amendment, but decided not to do so, is the level of penalty that has been chosen. Unfortunately, some graffiti artists are quite wealthy, and I wonder whether the £50 penalty specified in subsection (9) will be enough of a deterrent. I am rather surprised that the penalty is so low. Can the Minister explain the thinking behind that?
It occurred to me that, although the power is useful, the Government need to consider whether they are imposing extra bureaucracy on local authorities. I have previously mentioned my concern about the imposition of more and more duties and powers on local authorities without accompanying funding. I am particularly conscious of that matter, having just opened a letter from the chief executive of my local authority, in which it is pointed out that Surrey Heath borough council has experienced a net loss this year, because the extra money that it has had to pay out in salaries and national insurance outweighed the increase that it received from the Government. That is not the Minister's fault, but it is nevertheless relevant.
I hope that the Minister can explain the thinking behind the low penalty payable in pursuance of a notice, but I understand that in subsection (10):
''The appropriate person may by order substitute a different amount for the amount for the time being specified in subsection (9).''
It is useful that local authorities have the opportunity to increase the maximum penalty, but I wonder whether we should be delegating such matters to them. It is more common for the Government to set out the level of a penalty in the Bill, and then to increase it in due course, if new legislation or inflation mean that the amount is too low. I hope that the Minister can comment on that, but I do not want him to read into what I said any opposition to further measures against those responsible for graffiti or fly posting.
On another point, subsection (2) says that a fixed penalty may not be used if the offence was motivated wholly or partly by hostility towards a person based on his belonging to a racial or religious group or towards members of a racial or religious group. I assume that the thinking behind that is that such an offence would be pursued separately by the police, using other powers for offences of race hatred. Can the Minister give some guidance on how local authorities should respond? Should they go and consult senior
Column Number: 381
officers in the relevant police force the minute that they identify such an offence? As that aspect of fly posting or graffiti is excluded from the power, can the Minister explain what local authorities should do if a vast number of racist posters suddenly go up in an area over a weekend?
4.30 pm
Shona McIsaac: The hon. Gentleman said that he could imagine such things happening. In my constituency, Solomon court sheltered accommodation is particularly targeted by racist graffiti and posters, causing the elderly residents great distress.
Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Lady is right. That is already happening in certain areas, and even where it has not happened so far, it is possible to imagine it happening. It would be helpful if the Minister could say something about that matter.
Liz Blackman: I want to confine my comments to a couple of points.
I have never believed that the quality of the environment is an add-on. It is essential to people's self-esteem and feeling of well-being and it enables them to feel part of the community. I welcome the clause.
I want to take up one of the issues identified by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath concerning the funding of the imposition of penalty notices. The revenue raised by speed cameras is already recycled back into the police pot. Will the Minister consider ways in which the revenue taken from penalty notices-or at least some of it-might find its way back into the local authority pot?
The Chairman: Order. I think that the issues that the hon. Lady is addressing appear in clause 50.
Liz Blackman: I beg your pardon, Mr. Cran.
Mr. Randall: I have a couple of questions for the Minister.
Will there be an age limit for penalty notices? That may be dealt with elsewhere in the Bill, or it may be a well-known fact of which I was not aware. I am not thoroughly up on graffiti artists; I have an idea that wealthy people go round doing such things. I am not sure about that, but I accept the wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath on that matter. Such people are not necessarily impoverished, but some of them will be young and some will not. What effect would the Bill have on juveniles, or is that dealt with in existing legislation?
Is there anything in the Bill about obscenity in racial and religious graffiti? I can understand that deciding which words in a piece of graffiti were obscene would cause a sub-committee of departmental civil servants a problem-they would try to work out what points they would give for obscenity. Presumably fly posting comes under the Obscene Publications Act 1964? Is there any relevance in that?
Column Number: 382
My other question-and here I declare an interest-is whether fly posting includes advertising attached to lamp posts. I do not know whether that is a common practice in all constituencies. I know that it is only in Scotland that election notices are legally attached to lamp posts.
Mr. Hawkins: No, it is done in various constituencies.
Mr. Randall: In Uxbridge, we value our lamp posts. Some people use lamp posts and other street furniture for affixing adverts, such as ''Lose 20 stone in half an hour''. That one I did not take up.
Mr. Hawkins: I am not going to intervene on my hon. Friend on the issue of losing 20 stone, but he may be interested to know that I had cause-for reasons that I will not bore the Committee with-to look into election posters being fixed to lamp posts. In certain constituencies, there are specific byelaws to allow that, whereas in other places it is illegal. I know of one constituency in Staffordshire where all the lamp posts had, alternately, Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat posters on them, and I wondered why any of the parties had bothered to do that, because they completely cancelled each other out. However, when I checked, I was surprised to find that a byelaw to allow the practice had been passed.
Mr. Randall: You will be as delighted as I am, Mr. Cran, to discover that we learn so much in Committee. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information.
As I said, I have an interest. This is unfair to the bona fide retailers, who may have been trading in the same spot for over 100 years, who stick to the rules. Notices are put up, some by reputable companies-just about reputable, as they obviously do not offer quite the same value as others-and are left up for some time, unless they refer to an events such as a bank holiday weekend sale. I wonder whether that can be defined as fly posting, because if companies are advertising on those notices, it is obvious who is responsible for them. Those companies are advertising for nothing, whereas others have to pay to put up advertisement leaflets in prominent places, so it would be useful to slap a penalty notice on them for each poster. However, I do not know whether the Bill contains such a power.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley): I wish to make two points that follow on from the hon. Gentleman's comments and relate to the fixed £50 penalty notice.
There may be companies that are getting others to fly post on their behalf. If that is the case, there is an issue about the level of the fine that the companies responsible should pay. We must also be clear that where a company passes the responsibility to another person-possibly a young person-for a few pounds, or more, that company must not escape its responsibilities if the person sticks up posters advertising its warehouse sale, for instance, in the streets of our communities.
I also want clarification on fixed penalty notices. As the Minister is aware, we had discussions in earlier debates about the age at which they will apply.
Column Number: 383
Without being ageist, one would assume people under 18 are responsible for a lot of graffiti, but earlier advice to the Committee was that notices would apply to those over 18, and only in pilot areas to those aged 16 and 17.
Vernon Coaker: May I make a couple of points, following on from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)?
The age at which young people can be given a fixed penalty notice is a crucial issue. Most hon. Members think that the police should be able to issue fixed penalty notices to youngsters aged 10 and above, and, as will become apparent when we address clause 51, there is a debate about whether community support officers should be able to do that. That raises this question: if a young person under 16-perhaps 11 or 12-is responsible, should the payment of their fixed penalty notice be a matter for their parents?
A range of issues need to be clarified to make the clause as effective as possible. In my area, the majority of people who are responsible for graffiti are under 16, and if we do not have a clause that deals with that, the Bill will not make a lot of difference to the current situation. Generally, I welcome the clause-but with that proviso.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath was right-I have taken a straw poll among Labour Members, and we, too, think that £50 is not enough. Will the Minister address that and find out whether £50 is as effective a deterrent as we would want?
I well understand why the Minister wants to exclude graffiti that is racially motivated or against religious groups, as we would all agree that it is so serious that other powers can deal with it. However, the speed at which graffiti is removed is important, whatever sort it is, and I wonder whether the guidance for local authorities will mention the speed at which they are expected to remove graffiti.
Graffiti is a problem for all sorts of properties and premises. We have huge debates in my constituency when graffiti appears on a garden wall or on the side of a shop. We get into a nightmare in which the local authority says that it will remove graffiti if it is on a public building, but not if it is anywhere private; or it says that it will remove graffiti if it can get payment for doing so from the person who owns the property. Will the Minister clarify whether penalty notices will be available to deal with graffiti on any building or structure?
| 
