| Anti-social Behaviour Bill
|
|
Siobhain McDonagh: I had precisely that problem when I looked at the new clauses, but the Association of London Government helped me with them. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to new clause 9(2). I am reliably informed by the ALG's lawyers that that provision could relate only to statutory undertakers—those people who have a right to dig up roads. I am not a lawyer, so I cannot add any more than that. However, I have put on hon. Members' desks a copy of Votes and Proceedings, which includes my ten-minute Bill. It clearly states that it relates to statutory undertakers.
3.15 pmThroughout our proceedings, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling and others have suggested that we must ensure that any legislation we pass is clear, understandable and effective. I believe that the new clauses meet all those requirements. They clearly state that the local authority has the right to issue notices for the removal of graffiti. There is 14 days to comply with the notice, and if the company does not comply, the council can remove the graffiti and charge the company. It is a simple and sharp procedure, which I hope will shock companies into some activity. Matthew Green: Provided that new clause 9(2) does what the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) believes it does—I am no lawyer either, so perhaps the Minister can reassure us on that point—this is an excellent set of new clauses which deserves our support. If we get the reassurance we need, we will certainly support the amendments. Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden made an excellent contribution, and one point that she made deserves repetition. Why is the removal of graffiti important? All members of the Committee agree that removing graffiti, wherever it occurs, is not a trivial matter. Removal helps to reduce crime and the fear of crime; that is why it is important. For too long we have taken the view that graffiti does not really matter—it is okay because it is individual expression and, in some cases, brilliant art. We have almost turned a blind eye to it and the statutory undertakers almost see it as beneath them to worry about it, but if Parliament and society ignore the small things, we will find it difficult to tackle the antisocial behaviour that blights our communities. Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman is right about the removal of graffiti. Does he feel the same about bus shelters that are constantly being vandalised? Vernon Coaker: That is a good point. Whether the graffiti is on bus shelters, telephone boxes, bridges or walls, if it is not removed, it undermines society's sense of standards. Whether we call our approach zero tolerance or the broken window theory, people who object to these new clauses will argue that it is too totalitarian and that we are infringing everyone's basic rights. In reality, by turning a blind eye, we create communities where the law-abiding majority find life difficult because we tolerate too much that is done by a minority, be that graffiti or some of the more serious things. We have to deal with the small things, because if we ignore them, we will not get some of the bigger things right. Column Number: 443 Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes): I was pleased to support the ten-minute Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden, although I am sure that she was inundated with support for it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling that we must consider the environment. If people open their front door and see broken bottles and graffiti, that depresses them and they do not feel that it is worth keeping their own front garden tidy, and that can lead to a spiral of decline. However, if graffiti and litter are cleared away quickly, people take more pride in an area and it is less likely to be covered in graffiti again. Their local environment being in a poor state permeates people's attitudes to public services—they lose faith in the public services and the police. It also breeds fear of crime, so that even though crime is decreasing, people do not believe that it is because of what they see when they open their front door. I hope that the Minister takes note of the strength of feeling on the issue, because the new clauses are simple and would be effective. I am sure that every local authority in the country would welcome such measures. Mr. McNulty: Last October or November, I had the great pleasure of launching the ''Living Places'' consultation document because I was the lead Minister responsible for it. I therefore agree with much of what underlies my hon. Friend's new clauses. I also fully concur with what my hon. Friends have said about the slow, gentle and initially low-level degradation of our local environment. Whether the problem is litter, broken bottles, general rubbish, syringes or graffiti, that cycle of degradation is important. Although some of my mean colleagues take the rise out of me, I have great pleasure in being the Minister for parks and green spaces and for the public realm and all that goes on in it. I have serious policy concerns about the spaces—green or otherwise—that make up much of our urban townscape. If those spaces are degraded, we are in difficulty. Some will call me a philistine because although I try to be hip and youthful and to see some artistic merit in some graffiti, I can see none. There is a place for street art. Recently, I was in Sutton high street, which is not a million miles away from my hon. Friend's constituency in Merton—in fact I went to her constituency afterward to help her in the launch of a successful warden scheme. In Sutton high street there is public art that looks like art; it is not scruffy graffiti that despoils the surface of our public realm, whether street furniture or otherwise. I take account of all those elements, and I shall not bore the Committee with the many other things that we will be doing over the next few weeks, as a consequence of the ''Living Places'' consultation document. I share hon. Members' concern about those important issues. The problem is rather like a little thread hanging off someone's jacket: it is irrelevant and needs nothing much done about it, but if it is left, it grows longer and longer, and suddenly there is no jacket left because it has unravelled completely. Column Number: 444 Cable boxes, telephone boxes, street lighting and other items of street furniture are too often magnets for graffiti, as my hon. Friend said. We are considering the matter in the body of the ''Living Places'' consultation. We need to consider how to strike a balance: graffiti is part of the degradation of smaller town centres and high streets, but shops standing empty because people have been priced out of an area or street are an equally powerful element. I am no lawyer—I say that happily and thankfully—but I am not absolutely convinced that the definition of street furniture given by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden as that which is noticeable and on the pavement will not catch small businesses, or that it will catch the once public, now private utilities that have loads of money. We need to look at the cost elements in more detail to ensure that the proposal does not have a disproportionate impact on some of the things that are captured by the definition in new clause 9. In addition, we must ensure that we do not impose an undue cost burden on local authorities, especially during the start-up period. I am deeply sympathetic to all that my hon. Friend said. It goes to the core of what is outlined in ''Living Places'' and in the DEFRA addendum on rights and responsibilities. Siobhain McDonagh: As a Minister with some responsibility for local government and as a former councillor, does my hon. Friend not agree that most London boroughs would willingly take on the extra start-up costs of having the powers in the new clauses? They recognise that people who live in their area regard removal of graffiti as an important service that is needed and wanted. My experience of talking to all sorts of local authorities is that they are desperate to have simple and easy powers to tackle these problems. Mr. McNulty: I do not doubt what my hon. Friend says. We share the experience of having been councillors in inner London and in suburban areas. However, in the interests of simplicity and clarity, it should go through the due process of the law in terms of what the proposal catches and its impact on costs. I sympathise with the points made by hon. Friend and I undertake to reconsider the issues, but I ask her, please, to bear with me for now and let us look at the matter in far greater detail to discover whether the proposal in its current or another form can achieve the policy outputs that she wants. I am absolutely with her on the section of the new clause to which she referred, but I ask her to withdraw the motion. Siobhain McDonagh: I, as a constituency MP, remain frustrated that the small things that anger my constituents take so long to resolve, and I am concerned that government often seems to be about stopping good ideas rather than running with them. I ask the Minister what is the time scale for the considerations, what deliberations will take place, and what will come back in the Bill on Report? Mr. McNulty: To take the questions in reverse order, I have no idea what will come back on Report because it depends on the due consideration that is given. The time scale is between now and Report, Column Number: 445 when a view will be forthcoming from the Government about what we can and cannot do with the new clauses. Bad law, however well intentioned, does not enhance the reputation of the role of this palace of varieties as a legislative assembly. These matters need to be considered. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend has secured good legal advice about the drafting of the new clauses, but however good that advice was, it was not the advice that the Government received, which is why we need to take them away and think about them. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause.Siobhain McDonagh: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 446 Schedule 3 agreed to.
|
| |
| Prepared 22 May 2003 | |
