|
Mr. Evans: I also seek some clarification on one or two matters relating to the amendments, but I am almost compelled to say that the prospect of 3,500 fixed penalty notices being issued to the hon. Gentleman is good reason for retaining the provision and perhaps directing it towards that political party and not the party of truth and righteousness—the Conservative party.
A lot of fly-posting is done on a commercial basis. In my constituency, as in a number of rural areas, car boot sales on a Sunday are usually advertised on the Saturday night. Somebody goes around in a vehicle putting posters on lamp posts without any authorisation, and after the sale the posters generally, but not always, come down. I assume that that will be covered by the clause.
I also have a problem with the word ''affixed''. Some advertisements may be freestanding on the side of a highway and not actually fixed to a hedge or anything else. I would welcome clarification on what ''affixed'' means in this context.
Every Committee member will know about the increasingly prevalent use of advertisements on vehicles on farmland adjacent to motorways. I assume that that is not dealt with as fly-posting. Vehicles are used because they are mobile and can, in theory, be moved around, although in reality they never are. Has the Minister considered that? I can see the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment nodding, which shows that everybody knows that this is a specific problem—and if it is not addressed at some stage it will, perhaps, get worse or will become regularised.
Matthew Green: Do I take it from what the hon. Gentleman is saying that he would condemn any political party that used such mobile posters, months in advance of any election?
Mr. Evans: I am not going to get dragged down that path, because it sounds like a huge trap.
The problem is that such advertising is currently within the law, which is why people do it. They are not putting up big billboards on farmland, per se. They have looked at the law carefully, somebody has said, ''Look at this loophole. Why don't you just shove it on to an old trailer or tractor?''—and that is what they are doing. Although the clause will not deal with that, I
Column Number: 154
assume that at some stage somebody somewhere will look at it to ensure that it does not get out of hand completely.
Talking about fly-posting, now and again when we drive around, we see banners saying, ''Happy birthday Rosie, 60 today'', and so on. Would that be covered by the Bill? It is not commercial, does not promote anything and is nothing other than somebody wishing to embarrass a close relative by saying how old they are. Mostly, such banners are taken down after a short period, too. Perhaps that will be covered under the provision on the number of days, although the ownership of the banner would be difficult to work out.
To return to the point on political banners made by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), it is true that in some local authorities during by-elections they are on lamp-posts all the time. There are byelaws that cover all sorts of things like that—in my local authority area there are not—and people are not allowed to put such posters up, because they would be fly-posting if they did so.
Matthew Green: I am not referring to posters on lamp-posts, because they might be on property on which it is illegal to post and is, perhaps, owned by the council. I am talking about posters attached to a stake in a hedge, which are used extensively in rural areas and are technically planning offences, but people get round that because of the 28-day rule.
Mr. Evans: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's clarification on that point. A poster on a lamp-post would be covered by the legislation, but posters in hedges is another matter. We use a lot of farmland in my constituency to get posters up along major highways. Political parties are, in the main, responsible about putting posters up and taking them down, which is the most ghastly job of all and the most depressing thing after a general election, because everybody is shattered. Perhaps we will get some clarification on such posters.
When the word ''affixed'' is used in clause 31, it is
''without authorisation to any surface.''
I have already declared my interest. I own a piece of land, so I assume that I would be able to put up anything without any problems whatever, but if anyone else wanted to put something on the land in front of my shop it would be up to me to decide whether to give permission. Is that covered by the clause? There is a problem with furniture on the highways, where owners of shops or businesses want to put advertisements for a cafe, or whatever they sell, on pavements owned by the local authorities, or land owned by themselves. Some local authorities enforce measures rigidly, and with good cause, because in some cases it is to do with disabled people, those with prams and blind people getting proper access through to the highway. Will the Minister clarify whether billboards advertising particular items or services on private land adjacent to a public pavement are covered by the clause?
Column Number: 155
4.30 pm
Alun Michael: We have ranged wide on a clause that is a good deal narrower than some of the issues that have been raised. It is entirely right for members of the Committee to ask whether such issues are covered under the clause, although it is more specific than the items to which hon. Members have referred. It defines fly-posting for the purposes of defacement removal notices and is linked to the relevant services defined under the 2003 Act. The way in which the explanatory notes outline the impact of the clause might be a little simple.
As the hon. Gentleman realised, vehicles on farm land stimulated a little resonance around the Room as an issue that is coming up the agenda. However, it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as fly-posting. Environmental matters are one set of arrangements, whether fly-posting is a distraction to the highway is another and a transport issue, and permissions under the planning regulations raise yet another set of issues. I am not sure that the matter is simple to deal with, although it is easy to identify and attracts a certain measure of agreement.
Political processes have authorisation under schedule 2, class F of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992, a copy of which I carry everywhere with me and which I have in my hand at the moment. The difference in electoral material is clearly and specifically covered, not least because of the limited time to which hon. Members have referred. Advertising at election time is part of the price of democracy. Some of us have come across complications in the way in which that is regulated. Events during the Vale of Glamorgan by-election in 1989 spring to mind, as do matters with which my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) will be familiar.
Mr. Evans: In many cases, political parties find that they do not have to take down their posters because someone else has already done it for them.
Alun Michael: Yes, but the trouble is that it is not always done efficiently on the day or two before the end of the election, but earlier in the campaign.
As for the definition from ENCAMS to which the hon. Member for Vale of York referred, it is more of a description that is used for a statistical survey. It does not work as a legal definition, although it says what is within a definition to be able to measure the improvement or the duration of circumstances over time.
Several important points have been made about definitions. Again, we know what we intend to stop: fly-posting. We know what it looks like, but when we come to the definition, authorisation seems to be the best way in which to deal with it as it links the issue to compliance with regulations under the 1990 Act. It is clear that what we have drafted is not as explicit as that, so it caused some of the queries that have been raised during our short debate. I undertake to look further at such matters. We have already started examining them to identify whether anything needs to
Column Number: 156
be defined more clearly. I will inform members of the Committee of the outcome of those deliberations and, if necessary, I will bring forward an amendment on Report.
Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister say whether we will have sight of that amendment before Report?
Alun Michael: I have not yet said that there will be an amendment on Report; I said that I will inform the Committee when we reach conclusions. If that is well in advance of Report, I will share my intentions with the Committee.
Miss McIntosh: Obviously, ENCAMS feels wedded to its definition. The only point to which the Minister did not respond was the representations from BT about fly-posting on its poles and in kiosks.
Alun Michael: That is because that fits with the issue of authorisation. I hope that that helps.
Miss McIntosh: Indeed. I am grateful for this little discussion; the Minister is now apprised of my concerns. I am delighted that he may be minded to bring forward an amendment. The mention of over-posting, and the decision to extend graffiti removal notices under the clause, shows recognition of what is happening. Given our thoughtful discussion, and the Minister's semi-commitment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Sale of aerosol paint to children
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miss McIntosh: This is an opportunity for a small discussion. We welcome the provision enforcing the ban on the sale of aerosol paints to children under 18. I am sure that the Minister would wish to pay tribute to the many railway companies and others that have made massive investment, particularly on railway properties, in non-graffiti-stick materials. They are coming up with carriages and stations where graffiti paint will not take effect.
At present, local authorities rely on section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 to make advisory visits to retailers to seek assurances that spray paints are not being, and will not be, sold to children. Will the Minister confirm that, under clause 32, there will be a more positive and rigorous control to make sure that the sale of aerosol paints to children under 18 is indeed prohibited? Will the enforcing officer of a local weights and measures authority be different depending on whether we are talking about a unitary authority or a county or district authority?
I understand that it is difficult to give a precise figure for the percentage of graffiti committed by under-16s, but it is believed that they account for well over 60 per cent. of all graffiti, so the provision is potentially extremely important.
Column Number: 157
| 
