§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
§ 12.7 am
§ Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham)For the benefit of the small number of night owls or masochists who have chosen to remain for this debate, I want to raise an issue that causes great concern, anger and frustration to many of our constituents. In many respects, it is a local problem dealt with through local agencies, but the Minister has a strategic role in looking at best practice and pulling the various threads together, so I think that it is an appropriate issue to throw at him.
Why is graffiti a big issue and of such concern to many of us? First, in the areas in which it is a serious problem—and mine is one—it creates an atmosphere of neglect and disorder and fear of crime, particularly among vulnerable elderly people, who see it as evidence of the authorities' inability to maintain the fabric of local society and, rightly or wrongly, associate that with crime. Demoralisation flows from that.
Secondly, graffiti is often associated with criminality. I had a long discussion before the debate with some of the youth workers in my constituency and with the local police, who know many of the perpetrators. Typically, in an area such as mine, which has 100,000 people, there are probably 20 youths seriously involved in graffiti. Many of them are also involved in theft. They probably stole the aerosols and may be at the beginning of involvement with substance abuse. Some of the aerosol sprays are intoxicating—apparently they give an adrenaline buzz to the kids who use them. Unless there is proper intervention by the courts, the police, the youth workers and others, many of those adolescents will find themselves on a slippery slope that will lead quickly to a young offenders institution and prison.
The final reason why this is an issue of concern is the cost, which can be considerable. My local authority is severely stretched financially. That is one of the reasons for the last of the Divisions that we have just had, on a totally separate issue. The authority has a budget of £100,000 a year for a hotline on graffiti, but it has had to double the number of people involved because of rising demand.
I have had correspondence with London United Buses, which is in despair about the enormous cost of cleaning buses and shelters. A study carried out five years ago on the London underground suggested that about £2 million a year had to be spent on the removal and clearing up of graffiti. That is a substantial cost for utilities, local councils and, indirectly, for all of us.
I want to focus on areas of action and policy initiatives that the Minister can take forward. The first issue is policing. Clearly, the police are in the front line. My local police are positive about the issue, and they apply an effective zero-tolerance policy. They work closely with the police consultative group in the area, and give the matter appropriate priority.
For the Metropolitan police as a whole, graffiti and associated vandalism is not a high-priority offence; perhaps it should be, and I am interested in the Minister's reactions to that. Clearly, this is also linked to the numbers of police officers. As the Minister knows—we will not 192 rehearse the party political arguments—there is a problem with the decline in police numbers in London. That has been particularly serious in suburban areas which are assumed to be less prone to crime, and which therefore have borne the brunt of the cuts.
It is evident in the areas which have seen a decline in policing that graffiti and associated vandalism have blossomed. On Sunday afternoon, I went round an area which has just had a beat police officer withdrawn for reasons of economy. It is now one of the worst-affected areas. Cause and effect is difficult to prove, but that is certainly highly suggestive.
Where police officers are not available, closed circuit television is important. I note here the positive initiatives of some of the train operators. South West Trains, whatever its other deficiencies, has seen the value of properly monitored CCTV. I hope that I have persuaded the company to accelerate the installation in some of the worst-affected stations. Clearly, that is an important part of the picture.
The second line of defence is the courts, and I attended a meeting of the local police consultative group last week where there was consternation at the fact that, in the local magistrates court, one of the worst offenders had been up on 50 counts and had been given no more than a supervision order. I think it is now recognised that there is a wide range of possible offences. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister the results of the field surveys that have been done in 10 boroughs, from which are emerging the most promising lines of action through the courts.
Perhaps we could draw on international experience. In Holland, widespread use was made of what could be called reparation provisions, insisting that graffiti offenders clear up the mess that they had created through community service orders. That would seem to be a promising route, and it would be interesting to hear the Minister's reaction to that.
The third line of argument—it is perhaps a little different from the conventional way of pursuing the matter—is what we might call the supply-side problem. If we were talking about drugs, we would be talking about the supply of drugs. In terms of graffiti, far too little attention is paid to the issue of how aerosol sprays and other instruments get into the hands of potential young offenders. There is an issue here for the retail sector and for the manufacturers.
I noticed in one of the local discount stores this weekend that aerosol sprays are being sold at a heavy discount—six for £1. The owners of the stores must know what the aerosols are being used for. Graffiti is now almost certainly the major market for a lot of aerosol sprays, and there is a complete absence of social responsibility. This seems to be an area where public education, led at ministerial level, might be useful.
Similarly, the manufacturers know what they are producing; they know what these things are for, and there must be a heightened sense of social responsibility among them. The paint industry is giving a lot of thought to the matter. The Paint Research Association is based in my constituency, and has helpfully sent me some of its academic journals on new coverings which, were they used extensively by householders and utilities, would substantially diminish the adhesive potential of graffiti paint. I am not sure how widely that has been promoted 193 or how much support the Government and local authorities have given it. The industry has some responsibility. Has the Minister discussed the possible remedies with it?
At present, there is a clean-up hotline in many boroughs and the council can paint over the damage, but it needs the permission of the property owner, which is frequently not forthcoming. Owners are sometimes difficult to find and many businesses do not want to pay the small charge that is asked of them. There is a particular problem with utilities, which will not allow authorities to touch their heavily marked equipment.
Would it be useful for local authorities to have the additional power to compel clean-up, without the approval of property owners? I am not sure what the legislative problems might be. Secondary legislation might be needed. Something that allowed a more co-ordinated and tougher response would be appreciated.
§ Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the pulse of the problem. Is not the whole point of graffiti tags for one artist to advertise his handiwork to others, and is it not the case that, with a hotline such as that operated by New Forest district council, which leads to the graffiti being obliterated within 48 hours, not only is the vandals' objective defeated but policing is made much easier if they keep returning to the site to reinstate their efforts?
§ Dr. CableThe hon. Gentleman is right: speed is of the essence. That is why the local authority needs not only the resources but the legal powers to respond rapidly. I noticed that he used the word "artist". I try to avoid that expression. There may be occasional cases in which graffiti are artistic or even witty, but they are infrequent. Graffiti seriously disfigure public space.
I am not asking for a heavy-handed intervention from the Home Office. The Minister is aware of good practice both here and abroad, in the courts and in local initiatives. Some bold schemes have been tried. I believe that in Los Angeles and Chicago, attempts were made to ban the sale of aerosol sprays to under-age children. It would be useful to have some reflection on that experience. What is good practice? Does the Home Office have a view, and is it disseminating it? How does it propose to bring the various threads together?
There is a role for Ministers to bring together the various agencies. Even if the Minister does not legislate specifically, he could bring together the utilities, which are very variable in their response to the problem, and the private sector—not necessarily to coerce them but to improve their sense of public responsibility.
§ Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for allowing me to borrow a few minutes of his time, and I echo many of his comments.
There is an epidemic of graffiti in my constituency. In New Malden, Chessington, Tolworth and Surbiton there is not a road sign, telephone box or bus shelter without some ugly scrawl or tag defacing it. It is not a coincidence that the rise in graffiti has accompanied the fall in the 194 number of police officers, and especially beat officers, in our community. There has been a cull of nearly a quarter of the Kingston police division in the past five years.
The Minister may say that the Government have put more resources into the Metropolitan police and that the numbers are being turned around, but we have yet to see any evidence of that in Kingston. We have had the recent announcement that we will not get the cuts that we expected next year. I welcome that, but until we start rebuilding the local police force and get more police on the beat we will not turn the tide of vandalism and graffiti, which is sometimes called low-level crime.
I have a few specific questions for the Minister. Will he ask his officials to review the problems faced by the police in getting evidence to convict vandals of graffiti offences? For example, is there any way for police to challenge and search youngsters who they suspect are carrying spray cans in their bags with intent to deface a property, or who they believe have come from defacing a property? At the moment, the law does not allow that.
Will the Minister assure me that his Department will monitor the use of the new reparation orders to punish graffiti vandals? Will he make sure that the courts use the orders as Parliament intended—as an appropriate and common-sense punishment for offences of this type? Will he try to support the probation service and youth offender teams as they use the new punishments? Will he ensure that they are carried out properly?
Will the Minister ensure that the effect of the reparation orders with regard to reducing graffiti is properly studied? Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said, will he also review the policy with regard to age limits on the sale of spray paints? I received an e-mail today from a constituent, who said that he and his neighbours in New Malden believed that that solution would help. Similar arguments are used to support the limits on sales to minors of other products, and they apply equally to the sale of spray cans.
Will the Minister consider issuing new Home Office guidelines to manufacturers and retailers of spray paints, to encourage them to play their part in combating the graffiti menace? Could not the guidelines offer advice on the storage and display of the paints, with a view to minimising the pilfering of spray paint cans?
Finally, would the Minister be prepared to organise an anti-graffiti summit? The paint manufacturers could take part, as could public service organisations such as transport operators, telecoms providers, cable television suppliers and local authorities. That would be a way to generate new ideas, spread best practice and develop new partnerships to tackle the problem.
In my gallop through these issues, I have not touched on clean-up, a part of the solution mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham. It is very important that graffiti are cleaned up as soon as possible, as that will discourage vandals.
Government and local councils must give a lead on the matter. I hope that the Minister will join me in condemning those Conservative councillors who wanted to cut Kingston's graffiti clean-up budget. They talk tough in the local papers about graffiti, but they fail to provide the finances needed to clean up. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors in Kingston, who worked together to prevent the cuts in the clean-up budget?
195 We should not tolerate graffiti in our communities. I hope that the Government will build on the good measures, such as reparation orders, that they have taken and the previous Conservative Government did not. I hope that they will go much, much further.
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke)First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this Adjournment debate. I also congratulate the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on their interventions.
Initially, I was tempted to draw some association between Liberal Democrats and graffiti, but then I thought that that would be unworthy. I shall therefore take the subject at its face value.
§ Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester)The writing is on the wall.
§ Mr. Charles ClarkeI hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I was in his constituency last Friday, and I must say that I felt that the writing would be on the wall for him at the next general election.
I can understand why, in the light of all the most recent pronouncements on crime and disorder, members of the public believe that offences such as vehicle crime, burglary and violent crime take a higher priority than quality-of-life issues such as vandalism and graffiti. However, the points made by the hon. Member for Twickenham are warranted, and we should take them very seriously.
The Government recognise the damaging effect of vandalism and graffiti on neighbourhoods and how people feel about living where there are substantial amounts of criminal damage. We are concerned to tackle those issues with energy and enthusiasm; I shall set out the ways in which we plan to do so.
It may be helpful to the House to understand the scale of the problem. According to the recorded crime statistics bulletin for the 12 months ending in September 1999, there were more than 900,000 offences of criminal damage. That included damage against vehicles, dwellings and buildings other than dwellings, such as bus shelters and post boxes—a wide range.
That is not the whole picture. In 1998, the British crime survey, which measures reported and unreported crime, stated that, in 1997, there were more than 2,900,000 acts of vandalism against private property. It noted that vandalism was under-reported by 26 per cent.
One of the reasons for that under-reporting was that those interviewed felt the offence too trivial to warrant troubling the police. It is important that we feel comfortable in reporting all crimes. I am sure Members on both sides of the House would join me in urging everyone to report crimes of that type, however trivial 196 they may seem. Without an understanding of the problem, we shall all struggle to tackle such issues in a measured and effective manner.
It is important to recognise that the police need to set priorities for their time and money. It is not always possible for the police to be around when offences such as vandalism and graffiti are being committed. They look to members of the public to play their part in reporting offences.
In the light of the comments made by the hon. Members for Twickenham and for Kingston and Surbiton, I remind them that, in our debate on the police grant, I committed myself to examine the issue of police numbers in suburban areas of London. Several Opposition and Government Members made powerful points about the need for such issues to be addressed properly. Indeed, my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), exerts immense pressure over such matters, and they are being set in hand.
A range of groups, such as neighbourhood watch and community organisations, can actively contribute and help the police in developing and strengthening the quality of life of their communities.
Many of the crime and disorder reduction partnerships across the country have identified graffiti and criminal damage as important issues for the community. According to our latest figures, 227 of the 363 strategies seen by the Home Office have given priority to criminal damage. More than 90 per cent. of the audits referred to graffiti and criminal damage. The problem is not limited only to the Liberal elements of south-west London; it exists throughout the country, as I am happy to acknowledge.
Much of the work to tackle criminal damage will be undertaken locally, taking into account the most appropriate form of action for each neighbourhood. That was reflected in the speeches we heard this evening. Several local authorities have decided that the way to tackle the matter is through eternal vigilance—comments have been made about that. For example, Stevenage has a graffiti busters service, which acts rapidly on all reported incidences of graffiti. Part of Richmond's strategy is to highlight the fact that it has a graffiti removal service. Those are only isolated examples; across the country, authorities have developed strategies to address the matter effectively.
The use of CCTV was mentioned by the hon. Member for Twickenham. It might have been gracious of him to acknowledge that the Government have made a major investment in CCTV, which has resulted in its being much more widespread. There has been an active commitment by local authorities and crime reduction partnerships around the country to introduce CCTV. That has the knock-on result of giving additional effective support to policing.
Education campaigns—especially those aimed at schoolchildren—and improvement of the local environment can all play a part in reducing the incidence of criminal damage and in making people feel better about their surroundings.
I have already mentioned crime and disorder reduction partnerships. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 includes provision for orders aimed at confronting young people 197 with their behaviour, as well as tackling the circumstances that provide them with the opportunity to commit crimes. The reparation order requires the young offender to make specific reparation to his or her victim, or to the community. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton asked me for an assurance that the Home Office is closely monitoring the use of the orders, to see whether courts use them as an appropriate and common-sense punishment for graffiti vandals. We support the probation service and youth offending teams to make sure that such punishments are properly carried out. My experience of the operation of the reparation schemes in various parts of the country is extremely positive. By forcing people to confront the consequences of their actions, they are an effective way of dealing with the issue at an early stage.
Parenting orders are another device under the crime and disorder reduction partnerships and are intended to help and support parents to control their children's behaviour. That is an important element of the partnerships.
I emphasise our commitment to the development of neighbourhood and community warden schemes, which are an additional resource that can help to develop the eyes and ears of the community above and beyond the police and neighbourhood watch schemes. In my city of Norwich, as in many areas, the neighbourhood warden scheme in the parks of the city has been an effective operation that has inhibited certain types of behaviour. Such schemes are an important development that should be generally welcomed.
Spray paints and marker pens have been mentioned. In response to the specific point put to me, I have not discussed them with manufacturers thus far and I have not had discussions generally about the issue. Although the idea of restricting the sale of spray paints and marker pens is initially attractive, to do so would penalise young people who have genuine and legitimate reasons for their purchase. Marker pens in particular are widely used by young people in a variety of different ways and not for graffiti. Simply to say that someone cannot have one because he is a young person might be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
We believe that such a ban is unlikely to prevent the determined graffiti "artists"—like the hon. Member for Twickenham, I was entertained by the use of that word—from obtaining aerosol paint and continuing their criminal activity. I hope that retailers will, as a matter of course, consider who they are selling such products to. It is important to emphasise that, under the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985, it is a matter for individual retailers to reserve the right to prohibit the sale of solvents to young people who appear not to have a legitimate reason for buying them. The Act provides some powers that retailers are able to use.
The police already have the power to arrest anyone who they reasonably suspect has committed or is about to commit the offence of criminal damage. Where vandals are found in possession of a paint spray can with the intention of damaging property or after already having done so, the criminal law can be brought to bear.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton referred to the problems that the police have in obtaining evidence to convict vandals of graffiti offences. The short answer 198 to his question is that we keep matters under constant review, but that we think that the police have significant powers in this area.
It will interest the hon. Member for Twickenham—he represents a London constituency—to learn that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has advised me that section 12 of the London Local Authorities Act 1995 gives councils the power to serve a notice on an occupier of premises where a surface of those premises has on it a "sign". That includes any writing or picture—for example, graffiti—that a council feels is detrimental to the amenity of the area. Not all London councils have adopted the provisions in the Act—I do not know what the position is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—but the power is there for London councils to use if they wish.
The surface on which the graffiti exists must, according to the Act, be readily visible from a place to which the public have access. Once any council notice has been served, the owner or occupier has 14 days to remove the offending graffiti. The owner or occupier has the right to appeal to a magistrates court within the 14 days. If no appeal is made, and after 14 days the graffiti has not been removed, the council may do the work itself, incurring the clean-up costs. It would then have to go to court to recover the costs and would have to prove that the area's amenity had suffered detrimentally.
Section 13 of the same Act provides additional leeway to the British Railways Board, Railtrack, London Regional Transport and any of their subsidiaries, such as London Underground. Those bodies are called protected parties. If graffiti exists on any of their property, the 14-day notice period is increased to 28 days and the protected party can serve a counter-notice on the council. The counter-notice lets it impose its own reasonable conditions on any cleaning-up work.
As I said, I have been advised on that by DETR. It is important to note that what I have said is only the Department's interpretation, and matters of fine interpretation are for the courts. However, I am prepared to look further at how that Act has operated and to consider whether it might appropriately be extended to other local authorities or changed in certain respects.
More fundamentally, with the Youth Justice Board, the Department for Education and Employment and DETR, we are funding a series of youth inclusion programmes, targeting young people in neighbourhoods most in need of support. Although those will concentrate on setting up family link centres and skills centres, environmental work will play an important part.
I add that the social exclusion unit's policy action teams are considering a variety of issues that impact on vandalism and graffiti. I have mentioned neighbourhood wardens, and a range of other schemes are intended to focus on anti-social behaviour such as vandalism and graffiti. I agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham that developing a stronger approach on good practice is an important way to proceed, and we shall certainly consider ways in which we can do that and make progress.
199 I have already answered the points made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton about evidence and reparation orders. He asked me whether I could use what influence I have with the Crown Prosecution Service. I simply say to him that, as he knows, those are matters for the CPS, not for Ministers.
I have responded to the question of reviewing policy on age limits for the sale of spray paints, and the case would have to be well made before we considered making such a draconian intervention. However, as I said, individual retailers have powers in these cases. I was asked whether I would consider issuing new Home Office 200 guidelines to spray paint manufacturers and retailers. At this stage we are not considering such guidelines, but we will of course consider what has been said in this debate.
Finally, I respond to the suggestion of an anti-graffiti summit—I think that hon. Members were perhaps over-influenced by the European Union summit in Lisbon—which would involve everybody concerned. I have to confess with humility and shame that although we have a string of tsars, we do not yet plan to introduce an anti-graffiti summit that will shake the world, but we are certainly prepared to consider that.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to One o'clock.