|
Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising those points. This is an important decision because it will assist in the enforcement of the law. Anyone who has experienced some of the worst incidents of graffiti in their area has a strong wish for the issue to be tackled. Most of us have constituency experience of the problem.
The weights and measures authority is the district council in a two-tier arrangement, and in a unitary authority it is clear who is the authority. The requirement for them to consider and take stock of what is going on, on a regular basis, and then to reflect the need to tackle issues through a programme of activity, is set out clearly in the provisions. Proposed subsection (2) clarifies that, where appropriate, a variety of different measures can be taken. The bringing of prosecutions is important, but
''the investigation of complaints in respect of alleged offences'',
examining not just the offences themselves but what is going on in an area, is also important. The subsection also provides for
''the taking of other measures intended to reduce the incidence of offences under that section.''
That takes into account the issues of educating the public, alerting parents to what is going on in their area, adopting measures through schools, and alerting retailers to the possibility that not all their customers may be legitimate, in terms of breaching the restriction on young people purchasing aerosols. It should be said that the problem is not restricted to young people, but the hon. Lady rightly points out that there is a predominance of such activity at the younger end of the scale. I hope that that addresses the points that she raised.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Unlawful display of advertisements: defences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miss McIntosh: I understand from the explanatory notes that the purpose of clause 33 is to
''remove the requirement for a local authority to prove that a person consented to the display of an advertisement in contravention of regulations.''
That obviously firms up what the Minister seeks to do with the current provisions. Has the Minister received representations from the National Farmers Union or from other similar organisations? The NFU is concerned about where the presumption will lie in subsection (3). In the subsection, which will be inserted into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, there is a requirement that any unauthorised advertisement should be removed.
The Minister will understand that in deeply rural areas such as the Vale of York, where we still have large arable farms, the farmers work land that is widely distributed, not always easily accessible, and often divided by a major road artery such as the A1 or the A19. Consequently, they might not visit as frequently
Column Number: 158
as the Department expects. Those farmers may therefore not be aware of an illegal advert, will certainly not have given their consent to its being there, and probably do not have the time or tools to remove it once it is discovered. The NFU asks whether the Department is aware of the difficulties that might be faced in implementing that subsection, and that it should be applied reasonably to take account of such difficulties.
We see what the Minister is trying to do, and that the current law has presented difficulties for local authorities because they have had to prove that the person concerned knew of, and consented to the display of the advertisement, which has made it hard to secure convictions. Will the Minister assure us that he understands that the subsection could inadvertently pose real problems for farming communities such as those that I represent. There are not too many hills in my constituency—hence the name the Vale of York—but there are outlying farms in the Howardian hills, and they will face difficulties with conforming to the provision, particularly in the winter. I hope that the Minister will have regard to those points.
4.45 pm
Alun Michael: I must insist on one point: there is no requirement in clause 33 to remove illegal advertisements; that duty is in existing law. However, I agree with the hon. Lady that the powers and prosecutions should be proportionate. Subsection (3) sets out the defence, should things ever get to that point, of the person being able to show that
''the advertisement was displayed without his knowledge''.
That would cover one aspect of her concern. The other defence is that
''he took all reasonable steps to prevent the display or, after the advertisement had been displayed, to secure its removal.''
That does not require the taking of unreasonable steps. The issue is one of being reasonable and proportionate, but making it clear that in some circumstances landowners in urban and rural areas pay little attention to the effect of advertisements on their neighbours and other people who come into their vicinity. The clause sets out a reasonable requirement, not an unreasonable requirement.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Removal of placards and posters
Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in clause 34, page 29, line 25, leave out 'or obliterate'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 59, in clause 34, page 30, line 11, at end insert—
'(7) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (3) and (4), a person shall be deemed to display or cause to be displayed a placard or poster for the purposes of those subsections except when the placard or poster is displayed on a hoarding or other structure designed for the display of advertisements.'.
Column Number: 159
Matthew Green: The amendment deals with the problem of over-posting, which has been made clear to several members of the Committee by Westminster city council, although I am sure that it is not only council to have done so. It has provided some interesting statistics. The difficulty is that if the law allows that something can either be removed or obliterated, obliterating can be taken to mean putting another poster over the top of the existing one, so when a council serves an enforcement notice in respect of a poster, the fly-poster can get out of it by posting another on top. To give some idea of the scale, Westminster city council say that in 2002
'''over-posting' negated enforcement of 82 per cent. of the notices served''.
In 2003, it negated 92 per cent. of the notices and in 2004 it negated 89 per cent.
Clearly, the Government do not intend to allow people to get round legislation in such a way. Removing the words ''or obliterate'' would force somebody to remove the poster. If the Government are not minded to accept this amendment, there is another option, which is to change the section so that the local authority is given the decision whether to ask for the poster's removal or its obliteration. I understand that that approach may be taken in the London local authorities Bill. It may be sensible to copy the approach used there, if the Minister is not minded to remove the words ''or obliterate'' from this Bill.
The second amendment, to which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford have put our names, was suggested by the Outdoor Advertising Association of Great Britain Ltd., which has pointed out that the addition would bring the clause into line with section 10 of the London Local Authorities Act 1995. Apparently, when DEFRA consulted on the proposed Bill, that part was included but it has not been included in the published Bill. It has the effect of sorting out potential ambiguities concerning planning consent for poster sites and the argument about whether they have express or deemed planning consent. Given that the Minister is going to look into the other potential problem of definition, perhaps he could look at the matter mentioned in the amendment and see whether there is a problem, or reassure us that the provision has been found not to be needed. As I say, amendment is exactly in line with section 10 of the 1995 Act and it would make this Bill appear in the same form.
Miss McIntosh: I was interested to see that we have gained the support of the hon. Members for Ludlow and for Guildford. I read with interest the hon. Gentleman's entry on the Register of Members' Interests, which states that he enjoys commission from sales of timber products on behalf of Traditional Products Ltd. Clearly, he has some commitment to sustainable development.
Matthew Green: The hon. Lady obviously has not read the most recent version, because that entry has been removed. I no longer receive any commission.
Miss McIntosh: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the latest version has not been changed. I hope that what he says does not mean that his
Column Number: 160
commitment to sustainable development has been weakened. Nevertheless, I am delighted to have the support of the Liberal Democrats.
The hon. Member for Ludlow was kind enough to mention our attention to the problem of over-posting in his remarks on amendment No. 61, which deals with the issue. It is a real problem and the cost to local authorities of unlawful advertising should not be underestimated. The Government's regulatory impact assessment states that the total implied cost to local authorities is £7.6 million. I am not sure whether that figure includes London, but it is considerable. It is incumbent on the Government to state whether they are satisfied that the problem of over-posting will be resolved in the way proposed.
We are concerned about the question dealt with by our amendment's statement that
''a person shall be deemed to display or cause to be displayed a placard or poster . . . except when the placard or poster is displayed on a hoarding or other structure designed for the display of advertisements''.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley referred earlier to the problem of vehicles, particularly those on agricultural land, which were never intended for the purpose in question. Perhaps the Minister will provide some clarification.
Finally, does the Minister have in mind only fixed displays of posters, or moving hoardings as well? They can entail difficulties.
| 
