James
Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman’s point about the
importance of focusing on graffiti is relevant. There is a debate about
designing out crime. So much can and should be done to make our
communities look cleaner, such as ensuring that they are well lit.
Aspects of design can assist in ensuring that areas are safer and that
less crime is committed. He is right that we should consider the
concept of the broken-window society. If an area looks unsafe or
unkept, in some ways the problem becomes self-perpetuating and the
crime arises. Sadly, we have obviously seen this in many different
communities that we have had involvement with.
There are two
points. There is also the cost to businesses and small shops that
perhaps have their shutters or their buildings continually defaced by
graffiti. That highlights that graffiti is not an insignificant crime.
So many businesses really struggle, because after the first occurrence
they perhaps cannot get the insurance to pay to deal with the problem.
The viability of certain secondary or tertiary shopping areas,
including the shops that have had to withstand some of these problems,
becomes quite marginal. Those shops feel the direct cost, particularly
when local authorities understandably say, “Well, you
haven’t cleared this up and we’re going to issue you with
a notice to clear it up, because it is contributing to the area feeling
less safe.” That puts real pressure on a number of those
businesses. I am sure that many hon. Members will have experienced that
situation in their own
community. I
understand and recognise the points that the hon. Gentleman makes about
the importance of not criminalising young people and not drawing them
into the criminal justice system at too early a stage. However, if
someone is going round tagging and creating graffiti, that is really
quite important, because it can be the precursor to other offending. By
simply saying that an officer of the local authority would effectively
deal with graffiti, there is a risk that these offences will be viewed
as less serious if they are taken outside of their current remit. In no
way am I suggesting that the hon. Gentleman is making that point,
because he is
not. I
absolutely agree that restorative justice can demonstrate to a
community that somebody is paying for the crime that they have
committed, that they are seen publicly in their community to be either
repainting a building or clearing up litter, and that people recognise
that somebody has received a punishment in those circumstances.
However, I fear that an unintended consequence of what the hon.
Gentleman is suggesting may be that graffiti is seen as less of a crime
and less of a threat to a particular community, because it would
obviously then be for the local authority to try to arrange the
community punishments. That would take the local authority into a realm
that it is perhaps not so familiar with, albeit that partnership
arrangements could be established with youth offending teams and that
whole aspect of the
system. There
are significant issues and potential problems with what the hon.
Gentleman is suggesting. Furthermore, if we recall the debate that we
had this morning about gangs, some gangs may use tags as a mean of
identifying territory, so that there is a more sinister aspect to the
use of graffiti. We can talk about graffiti being a mark on a wall, but
sometimes, as the hon. Gentleman will know, those tags mean something;
they can have links to more serious offending. That is why the approach
of involving the police, who often log these tags and have a database
of them so that they can tie that graffiti to other offending, is quite
important.
Paul
Holmes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a
quite clear distinction and it would be at the designated
officer’s discretion to establish that distinction? He would be
working with the community disorder reduction partnerships and the
police. Clearly, if it is serial tagging, gang tags or that sort of
issue, why would the officer adopt this approach, unless they thought
that it was appropriate for somebody just to get involved? If it is
somebody who has just been caught spray-painting or chalking on a wall
for the first time that we know of, why start to go through the
heavy-handed legal procedures? So the decision would be at the
discretion of the relevant
officer. Clearly, if it was a serious matter, such as a serial offender
or repeat offender, this approach would obviously not be
appropriate.
James
Brokenshire: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman
talks about the discretion of the relevant officer in this situation. I
would argue that there should be discretion for the relevant police
officer in how they deal with community safety and with offences in
their community. It may be the case that an officer in the
circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has indicated might, on a one-off
occasion because he knows the person responsible and is very familiar
with them, seek to exercise discretion in a particular way. I am just
suggesting to the hon. Gentleman that that might be a better route in
terms of being reasonable and dealing appropriately with offences in
the community. There needs to be discretion and judgment on the part of
police officers in these circumstances and that may be an appropriate
way to address this problem, through the increasing use of community
policing and safer neighbourhood teams, which I wholeheartedly support,
who have a clearer understanding of the communities and neighbourhoods
that they are
policing.
Ms
Keeble: My reading of this, and one reason why I think
that it would not work, is that it involves
“an authorised
officer of a local
authority”—— not
a police officer, but a council officer. The person has to confess to
the council officer that they have done it. It starts a new hare in the
criminal justice system. That is why I have difficulty envisaging how a
local council officer could be made to use a legal procedure such as
this against a kid who is doing graffiti. It is an issue for the police
officer, not the council cleaner.
James
Brokenshire: I hear clearly what the hon. Lady says, but,
as she should notice, I have talked about the discretion of police
officers, working in conjunction with local authorities, which have a
key role in the crime and disorder reduction partnerships that the hon.
Member for Chesterfield alluded to. I have been to parts of the country
where, for example, community police teams work hand in hand with
council enforcement officers. Therefore, a combination of
council-related issues—clear-up or using local environmental
protection byelaws—and working with the police creates a
partnership approach. That is almost an alternative model that could be
adopted and, in many ways, could achieve some of the elements that the
hon. Gentleman seeks.
Paul
Holmes: On the partnership approach, are hon. Members
aware of the pretty widespread practice, not only in Chesterfield, but
also across the country, of council officers working with the police on
many issues? Sometimes, the council officers take the initiative. In
Chesterfield, we have a system of rangers who go around the parks and
housing estates tackling graffiti and working with the police on
offenders. If the offenders are council tenants, they will serve
notices or warnings on them. There are already working examples of
council officers taking the initiative on such issues. The
police—the beat officer—and the council tenant liaison
officer will visit a problem family together. The police will say,
“Well, if you don’t get your act together, these are the
legal outcomes” and the tenant liaison officer will say,
“And you can be evicted as well.” That double act works
very well. This is not new ground; it is already happening to varying
degrees.
James
Brokenshire: I hear what the hon.
Gentleman says, and I support close partnership working among the
police, local authorities, probation teams and the NHS to address the
issues in our communities. We see success where strong partnership
elements are working. However, I question the necessity for the new
clause in terms of where the relative responsibilities for dealing with
the issues should lie. In my judgment, we are talking about criminal
offences and if we want to debate young people in the
criminal justice system, this is not necessarily the way to do it,
although it is a valid point.
Going back to
intelligence and potentially gang-related tags, the hon. Gentleman
talked about the discretion of the officer, but, in reality, the police
maintain the database of tags from photographic evidence and are better
able to match them up. Would the local authority officer be in a
position to make a judgment or use discretion? They would not
necessarily have all the information at their fingertips. Equally,
there is a cost impact on local authorities if they take on a new
enforcement and community punishment role that is not currently
envisaged for them.
The hon.
Gentleman made an interesting point and, although I am not convinced,
highlighting the impact of graffiti on our neighbourhoods and
communities is relevant and valid, but I am not sure that this is the
right way to approach
it.
Mr.
Campbell: I thank the hon. Members for Chesterfield and
for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) for drawing this issue to the
Committee’s attention, because this is an interesting amendment.
When I discussed the proposal with my ministerial colleagues, we
thought that there might be something in it. I cannot guarantee the
hon. Member for Chesterfield that I will delight him, but I might give
him a tiny bit of pleasure.
We have wide
agreement on the broken-window theory, but I assure the hon. Gentleman,
in view of his comments, that we all take those matters seriously,
because graffiti and fly-posting are serious matters that can blight
areas. It is right that the appropriate authorities react quickly to
them and use enforcement powers when necessary. However, he begins to
bring us into a more general debate on keeping young people out of the
criminal justice system at an early stage, and he and I have some
agreement on that.
I also agree
with the points made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch on the need to
be careful before going down that route. Making such a change or going
too far down that route would send out a message to the individuals who
might get involved in that kind of activity and the wider community.
The community expects that graffiti and fly-posting will be put right
by someone, and it is best put right by the perpetrators rather than at
the expense of the council tax payer or anyone else. I want to say
briefly where I think the Government are in that debate and reassure
the hon. Gentleman of some of the things we are
doing.
Paul
Holmes: Before the Minister embarks on that explanation,
which might be a direct answer to this question, I would like to say
that we have already been in that territory to some degree in our
debate on community payback. I remember visiting one group of people
doing community payback in Chesterfield. One individual was in the army
and his career would have ended if he had had to go to prison for those
nine days, but the
community payback allowed him to avoid that. There were other people in
the group who would have lost their jobs if they had gone to prison for
a very short spell, which actually has no beneficial effect with regard
to crime and punishment. Several people I talked to in that group said
community payback had been really helpful and avoided criminalising
them. Those were adults rather than children or under-18s, so this is
extending the same principle to an even lower
level.
Mr.
Campbell: I remind the hon. Gentleman that restorative
justice is already embedded in the youth justice system, and we are
constantly looking at what more can be done to make it more widely
available to avoid some of the scenarios to which he has rightly drawn
the Committee’s attention.
With regard to
the measures already in place, the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003
introduced fixed penalty notices as an alternative to prosecution for
certain types of environmental crime, including graffiti and
fly-posting offences and, we believe, offers an effective and less
burdensome alternative to prosecution. Fixed penalty notices for
graffiti and fly-posting offences can currently be issued by local
authorities, the police and police community support officers who have
been designated by their chief officers.
One of the
difficulties with the new clause and the further introduction of
community service punishments is that it would have implications, not
least for cost, a point to which the hon. Member for Chesterfield
alluded. For example, what about the practical and funding problems for
probation services or anyone tasked with ensuring that the community
service was carried out? It also runs counter to the current focus on
unpaid work in community service that is often directed towards highly
visible work projects for offenders convicted of relatively more
serious offences, and I use the word “relatively” because
I do not underestimate how serious graffiti and fly-posting can
be. Other
out-of-court disposals are available to address that kind of behaviour.
For example, adult conditional cautions allow low-level, low-risk and
mainly first-time offenders in uncontested cases to be offered a
caution with conditions attached. The conditions must either be
reparative, such as the payment of compensation to a victim or unpaid
work, or rehabilitative, to address the root causes of the offending
behaviour. Later this year, we will begin testing the youth conditional
caution. The youth restorative disposal is also currently being
piloted, which will allow low-level, low-risk, first-time young
offenders to undertake reparation for those types of offences and
similarly enable their conviction to be discharged if
completed. The
idea brought forward by the hon. Member for Chesterfield is
interesting. I am sure that we have not heard the last of it. I
reassure him and other Committee members that we are satisfied that we
have a comprehensive range of disposals available and do not need to go
down this route. I hope that he will withdraw the
clause.
Paul
Holmes: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
clause. Clause,
by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause
5Extraordinary
rendition ‘After section 24B
of the Aviation Security Act 1982 (c. 36)
insert— “24C
Police powers to search
aeroplanes (1) If the Secretary
of State has any reason to believe that an aircraft that is in flight
over the United Kingdom is or has been or may be involved in an act of
unlawful rendition then he or she may require the aircraft to land at a
suitable aerodrome. (2) If an
aircraft is required to land in accordance with subsection (1), a
responsible person must, as soon as practicable after the aircraft has
landed, enter and search the
aircraft. (3) The Secretary of
State or a responsible person must enter and search an aircraft if he
or she has any reason to believe
that— (a) an aircraft in
an aerodrome is or has been or may be involved in an act of unlawful
rendition; or (b) in respect of
an aircraft in an aerodrome, incomplete or incorrect information under
sections 32 and 33 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006
(c. 13) has been supplied. (4)
For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3), a search of an aircraft is
to be carried out to determine
if— (a) the aircraft has
been, or may be involved in an act of unlawful
rendition, (b) a criminal
offence has been committed,
or (c) allowing the aircraft to
continue on its journey could place the United Kingdom in breach of its
obligations under the European Convention on Human
Rights, but these powers may
only be exercised when it is not reasonably practicable to apply for a
warrant of entry in accordance with section 8 of the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.
60). (5) A person who carries
out a search under this section may remove any items from the aircraft
if it may be evidence of any of the matters set out in subsection
(4). (6) In this
section— “an act
of unlawful rendition” means an act, not being in accordance
with formal lawful extradition or deportation procedures, involving the
forcible transportation of a person to a territory where he or she may
be subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading
treatment; “a
responsible person”
means— (a) the chief
officer of police of a police force maintained for a police area in
England and Wales; (b) the
chief constable of a police force maintained under the Police
(Scotland) Act 1967 (c.
77); (c) the Chief Constable of
the Police Service of Northern
Ireland; (d) one of the
Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue and
Customs; (e) a constable
designated by any of the persons specified in paragraphs (a) to
(c).”’. —(Paul
Holmes.) Brought
up, and read the First
time. 3.45
pm
| 
