PUBLISHING OR DISTRIBUTING (Hansard, 30 April 1986)

§ Mr. Lawrence
I beg to move amendment No. 55, in page 12, line 7, at end insert—
'(1A) The authority responsible for maintaining any public highway or passageway shall remove any such written matter 1051 from the public highway or passageway or the curtilages adjacent thereto within fourteen days of receiving notice of the existence of such matter'. Clause 17(1) makes it an offence for a person to make a threatening sign, writing or visual representation. I take it—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that the use of devices such as spray paint and graffiti is threatening, abusive and insulting if the user intends hatred against a racial group. There is no point in making that an offence if the writing remains on the wall. If the person responsible is charged, convicted, fined or sent to prison, but what he wrote on the wall is still there and will be there until the cows come home, we will not have achieved a great deal.
My amendment would place on the local authority responsible for the highway, the passageway, the curtilage, the fence or the wall abutting the highway, the duty to remove the offensive material within 14 days. The suggestion is so eminently sensible that my only surprise is that it is not already in the Bill. I ask my hon. Friends to support me. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will note the strength of that support and acceded to my sensible amendment.

§ Mr. Giles Shaw
I recognise, and welcome, the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that local authorities should remove graffiti. I think that even he would argue that it would hardly be right to enter a new phase of conferring further statutory duties on local authorities, however admirable his amendment might be. Local authorities already have many statutory duties, and it is not part of our policy to create new ones, unless it is absolutely necessary. I do not see that the imposition of such a duty is a necessity. I hope that all local authorities, as a sensible part of good housing management policy, could be persuaded to take the kind of action that my hon. and learned Friend seeks. If such a duty were imposed, there must be some doubt whether it would be enforceable. I am not minded to ask the House to accept my hon. and learned Friend's amendment, but I understand why he proposed it.

§ Mr. Soley
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is right. It does not do the Government any credit to say that they are not prepared to impose these extra duties on local authorities. They spend so much time taking away duties and powers from local authorities that it is no wonder that racialist graffiti is left in decaying urban areas. The Government ramble on about law and order policies, but they cannot keep areas, especially inner-city areas, clean and decent places in which people can live and walk. The Government have no right to talk about law and order, even if one ignores the mess that they have made of it generally.
There is a strong case for imposing on local authorities a duty to clear up racialist graffiti, precisely because we know that it is given such a low priority by so many local authorities. The Government have said that part III is an important part of the Bill, and I agree. I have already commented on the Minister's abilities—he has been very good in this respect. The Government give part III a high priority but say that is does not matter if the offending words and phrases remain. Such words and phrases are sufficient reason to bring a person before a court and, in 1052 certain circumstances, to send him to prison. The Government say that we need not do anything about it. That is virtually a contradiction.
Why do we take such action against the individuals who write that graffiti if we are not prepared to ensure that it is cleared up when the culprit cannot be found? Are we just to leave the graffiti there to be offensive? The Government have a double standard on law and order. They want all the good things. They go on about law and order being necessary, but take all the action that makes a breakdown in law and order highly likely. This is yet another example in which the Government make no effort to maintain standards in decaying and rundown areas where racialist graffiti is a major problem and in other areas where it offends the many people against whom it is directed. The hon. and learned Member for Burton was right to draw our attention to it.

§ Mr. Lawrence
Although I reject the intemperate accusations of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) against the Government's law and order policy, I am grateful to him for his support for my amendment. I am not pleased with my hon. Friend the Minister. He said how sympathetic he was, but talked of how impossible it was to do anything about the problem.
If the Home Office is not minded to put some pressure on a department somewhere to do something about the problem, nothing will be done. I should like to be able to say that the writing is on the wall if the writing is not taken off the wall by the Government. Some action is necessary. My hon. Friend's answer was not, with the greatest respect, convincing or satisfactory.
Of course I appreciate the difficulties involved in pressing the amendment, but I should like my hon. Friend to reconsider. I hope that the other place will see fit to put more pressure on the Government than I have managed to do, with the welcome assistance of the hon. Member for Hammersmith. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.