|
Column Number: 393
Standing Committee G
Thursday 22 May 2003
(Morning)
[Mr. James Cran in the Chair]
9.10 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): On a point of order, Mr. Cran. I want to clarify some of the points I made during the debate in our previous sitting on clause 48. I was asked whether fixed penalty notices for graffiti and fly posting would apply to juveniles. I replied that they would apply to all people aged 10 and over, but that up to the age of 14 a child would have to know that what they were doing was wrong for a fixed penalty notice to be issued. Unfortunately, I misled the Committee.
It has come to my attention that the law on criminal responsibility for 10 to 13-year-olds was changed by section 34 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Prior to that there was indeed a rebuttable presumption that the prosecution needed to prove that the child had mischievous discretion—that is, they knew that what they were doing was seriously wrong. The Committee will be pleased to hear that that presumption no longer exists. I therefore assure hon. Members that under the proposal, fixed penalty notices for graffiti and fly posting can be issued on the same basis to anybody over the age of nine. I am happy to be able to clarify that point.
The Chairman: I am sure that the Committee appreciates that act of contrition. Clause 53
Sale of aerosol paint to children
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): I beg to move amendment No. 78, in
clause 53, page 39, line 3, leave out 'eighteen' and insert 'sixteen'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 79, in
clause 53, page 39, line 3, leave out 'eighteen' and insert 'fourteen'.
Amendment No. 80, in
clause 53, page 39, line 13, leave out 'eighteen' and insert 'sixteen'.
Amendment No. 81, in
clause 53, page 39, line 13, leave out 'eighteen' and insert 'fourteen'.
Mr. Hawkins: First, may I say on the record that we are obliged to the Minister for clarifying the position in relation to clause 48? It is always helpful when Ministers provide such clarification. This Minister always does so, and we are grateful to him.
As the Committee will have realised, amendment No. 79 is an alternative to amendment No. 78, and amendment No. 81 is an alternative to amendment No. 80. We are concerned about the sale of aerosol paint. We entirely understand that graffiti is a huge problem, as we discussed at our previous sitting, and
Column Number: 394
we do not want to give the impression that we lack understanding of the Government's approach to the matter. We recognise that there is a problem. However, we do not want to cause great difficulties for those who run businesses, especially small do-it-yourself stores, for example. Large DIY multiples may find it easier to deal with new laws and regulations, but Conservative Members, and perhaps Government Members as well, get a lot of letters from many small traders complaining about ever more bureaucratic burdens being imposed on them.
We know that changes were made to the law to combat the problem of glue sniffing: many DIY retailers were told that they were no longer allowed to have glue on open shelves; it had to be behind the sales counter to prevent youngsters from getting hold of glue, which can, of course, cause the most tragic deaths. Most DIY retailers I have talked to say that although it was a burden to change the method of selling glue, they understand that there was a safety reason for doing so, because glue sniffing had become such a terrible problem. However, the problem in relation to aerosol paints is not of the same order. We are not talking about something that is life threatening, although we recognise that graffiti is a serious problem.
The vast majority of young people who buy aerosol paints do not have bad motives for buying them; they are not going to become graffiti artists. They probably buy them because, for example, they want to help work on their father's car or on a moped or motor bike. To say that all DIY retailers and motoring supply stores will not be allowed to sell aerosol paint to customers who are below a certain age is to use too big a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Moreover, it is unreasonable to say that every DIY retailer should check the age of customers, because we know that some 14 to 16-year-old boys appear to be a great deal older. We will put small shopkeepers in the same position as licensees of pubs, although we understand that age checks are necessary in respect of alcohol.
The Committee needs to consider the appropriate age limit. We have suggested two options: 14 or 16. Both are more reasonable than saying that nobody under the age of 18 can buy aerosol paints. I shall not take up more of the Committee's time, because the point is a simple one, but I anticipate that other members of the Committee, perhaps on both sides, will wish to express their views. We think that the Government have gone somewhat over the top. We recognise that there is a problem, but we do not want to create extra bureaucratic burdens. I hope that the Minister will understand that our approach to the matter is serious. We believe that the Government have got the proposal slightly wrong.
Matthew Green (Ludlow): I, too, thank the Minister for the clarification that he gave at the start of the sitting.
The sale of aerosol paints is a tricky subject. I represent a constituency where there is almost no problem of graffiti, so my first thought was that a ban on the sale of aerosol paints to young people in my constituency seemed disproportionate. However, I recognise that many hon. Members represent
Column Number: 395
constituencies where there is a considerable problem of graffiti. I had various thoughts about how this difficult problem might be dealt with, including the possibility of giving local authorities the power to make byelaws rather than imposing a countrywide ban, although I realise that the amendments do not address that point. However, there would be problems even with that solution, because one authority might introduce such a byelaw and another might not, so a young person could just cross the street.
I understand the problems that the Minister faces, and why he has approached them as he has. However, Liberal Democrat Members have added their names to the two amendments that would set the age limit at 16. The amendment represents an attempt to make the law seem reasonable to the general public. We have joked in the House about the fact that a 17-year-old can own and drive a car but would not be able to buy the paint to repair a scratch on the side of it if the proposed law was passed. I am afraid that the public will see that law as foolish, so I do not think that it is a particularly wise position to adopt.
I am sure that many graffiti artists are aged 17 or 18, but we must ensure that the law on the sale of aerosol paints makes sense to those who are not graffiti artists. That is why, after much consideration, because my natural inclination is not to ban, I concluded that 16 would be a more appropriate age limit than 18. The issue has been discussed widely in my party, where there is a wide range of opinions, as there is in all the parties. The Minister is right to try to act on the matter, but I would prefer some sort of sunset clause to be added, because if the legislation does not have much impact, we may have to consider revoking it in future.
There are obvious concerns about some who is over the age limit buying aerosol paint and handing it to someone younger. That often happens with alcohol. There are several such problems. I realise why the Minister is trying to tackle them, but we must ensure that the law is respected and makes sense to people. Most of the public believe that the age limit of 18 is too high. Sixteen is far more appropriate, and setting that in legislation will make more sense to members of the public and make the law more likely to be obeyed.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden): I rise to oppose the amendment. We do not want the law to be laughed at as it is now. If the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) does not have a problem with graffiti in his constituency, I shall be delighted to show him around mine so that he can see the problem that we have. A year ago, I would never have thought that the Government or I would suggest banning the sale of spray paints. It appears to be an extreme thing to do, until one discovers the real problems and the harm that graffiti causes to local neighbourhoods and communities.
I live in the London borough of Merton, and my constituency covers half of it. The local authority recently carried out detailed research into the effectiveness of community wardens. It considered the relationship between graffiti and people's fear of
Column Number: 396
leaving their home because of the fear of crime, and found a strong correlation between the two. It also considered shops that operated voluntary bans on the sale of spray paints to under-18s. It found that fewer than four weeks later, all 26 of the stores that had agreed to be part of the scheme were selling spray paints to children as young as eight or nine.
I do not believe that people who sell spray paints want young people to produce graffiti, but we must make people understand what a problem it is for their neighbourhood. Cleaning graffiti away is not done for free. Local authorities spend about £14 million a year removing graffiti, with varying degrees of success.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley): Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent report that showed that a huge number of older citizens are afraid to leave their home, even though crime has fallen in some areas? Does she agree that part of the problem is the environment outside people's homes? Even if crime has fallen, graffiti, litter and general degradation of the neighbourhood disproportionately affect people's sense of safety and security.
|
