Graffiti (Hansard, 13 June 2000)

§ Baroness Rendell of Babergh
asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to deter those who deface historic buildings and monuments with graffiti.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton)
My Lords, deterrents to tackle all types of graffiti are already in place. Graffiti and vandalism are offences under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Where the value of criminal damage is more than £2,000, the maximum 1512 penalty is 10 years' imprisonment for those aged 18 and over; and up to two years' detention in a young offenders institution for those aged 15 to 17.

§ Baroness Rendell of Babergh
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. If I may extend my Question to include buildings in general—that is, masonry, brickwork, metal surfaces and so on—is the Minister aware that there are areas near central London where one can hardly walk more than a couple of yards without passing graffiti, much of it highly obnoxious? As specialist manufacturers are producing coatings which deter and repel spray paint, does my noble friend agree that it should be government policy to use those coatings and to recommend them for private, domestic and local authority use?

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, the methods that the noble Baroness suggests should be used are valuable. I understand that they have been used successfully both here and abroad. I also commend to your Lordships' House the activities of those local authorities which employ teams of "graffiti busters". I understand that they have been successful in Stevenage and that there are very good schemes in the London Borough of Sutton and in the Boroughs of Croydon, Merton, Kingston and in Liverpool. I strongly commend that those authorities work closely together with crime and disorder partnerships to do all that they can to deter the widespread nuisance of graffiti, which defaces our excellent public buildings and spoils many local environments.

§ Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, does not the Minister agree that those who deface monuments with graffiti should clean them up themselves as a part of community service orders—or even be brought from young offenders institutions to do that work?

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes some wise suggestions. The scheme in the London Borough of Sutton, to which I referred earlier, does exactly that. Young offenders who are subject to community service orders are involved in cleaning up areas which have been subjected to graffiti. I think that is useful and a constructive use of their time. It is something to be commended and adopted nationally.

§ Viscount Falkland
My Lords, is not an important part of the attraction to those who put graffiti on walls the illegality of it? There is an excitement about it which makes it difficult to deal with. Would not the problem be better approached by diverting those who do it, by all means possible, to buildings of lesser merit? I could name a few.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, the noble Viscount seems to be suggesting that there are some buildings over which it would be more acceptable for "graffitists" to spread their wise words. I am not sure that the public at large would necessarily agree with that. I am rather reminded that on the subway system in New York there was a big campaign over 10 years to deter graffitists. It did so very successfully through a mixture of the methods suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, and by ensuring that graffitists were caught. That is an extremely powerful deterrent.

§ Lord Glentoran
My Lords, do the penalties mentioned by the Minister in his original Answer apply to criminal damage to roads and public buildings in Northern Ireland?

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I shall speculate. I think I am right in saying that they probably do, yes.

§ Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, as in many things, prevention is better than cure, particularly as regards crime? The powers of stop and search are very relevant to this issue. Young police officers have approached me—they are very reluctant to bend the rules in this area, for obvious reasons—and pointed out that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which provides powers of stop and search, simply deals with stolen goods and offensive weapons; it does not include stopping people who are carrying, for example, aerosol cans for defacing buildings. In my day, of course, we used to use the Ways and Means Act. I am not suggesting that young police officers should do that. But there is a good case for extending the law. Will the Minister consider extending the law to cover stopping and searching people where it is suspected that they are carrying weapons or tools for defacing buildings?

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, my noble friend speaks with far greater expenence of these matters than I. No doubt over the years he has apprehended a number of graffitists. Perhaps we should take his good advice to heart and consider his proposals when we come to our next review of the situation.

§ Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, given that lessons in citizenship now form a part of the national curriculum in schools, does my noble friend consider that education might be an effective deterrent to those who might be tempted to spread graffiti?

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I tend to agree that education can act as a form of deterrent—although that comment may not be quite the right use of language here. Nevertheless, encouraging a sense of civic pride and steering young people towards more 1514 socially useful outlets for their energies and artistic enthusiasms would be a much more appropriate way of dealing with the problem.