Violent Crime Reduction Bill |
|
Hazel Blears: Yes it is. Mr. Malins: The Minister says it is, but when is something going to be done about the problem that is happening on the streets at the moment, in terms of proper enforcement, arrest, conviction and sentence? Where has the old issue of deterrence gone? It seems to
So said the then Minister. Well, do we all feel safer as a result of that? Jeremy Wright: Does my hon. Friend agree that the difficulty is that the Government are trying to give a clear message that carrying knives is wrong; yet that message is mixed by the fact that the result of doing so is inevitably simply a slap on the wrist? Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend typically makes a good point. It is all very well to have the headline, “Carrying knives is wrong,” and it is all very well to say that we are trying to educate the public, but go back to the facts of life. The youth justice survey established clearly that in our schools tens of thousands are wilfully flouting the law. There will be a debate on that issue under the next clause. I have purposely mentioned schools very little. We face a culture in which there is no guilt and no one says, “That is wrong. You will be punished”. That is the dangerous slope along which we are sliding. It is time for us in Parliament, not to grab the headlines, but to say that we have existing law at the moment and why on earth is it not being enforced? There is a compelling case for a minimum sentence for this appalling offence. The Government seek to have minimum sentences and the precedent is well established elsewhere. However, if the Minister cannot satisfy me that there is no case, I believe that I speak on behalf of the vast majority of law-abiding people who want to feel safe when they walk our streets at night. They will feel a lot safer if they know that the person with a bladed article will be sent to jail for a first offence unless there are exceptional circumstances. Our duty in this House should be more to the law-abiding than to the law breakers. John Thurso: I come back to amendment No. 158, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green moved. My question concerns those who are training in the hotel industry, as I did. One of the first things that one is asked to do when one works in the kitchens is to purchase a set of knives. Typically, that will include a long-bladed knife for chopping, a boning knife and a paring knife. Each individually would fall within the scope of the legislation. What provision will there be for those entering apprenticeships or studying for qualifications at colleges to continue to practise their trade without falling foul of the law? Hazel Blears: I shall resist amendments Nos. 158 and 67, because they seek to lower the age to 16. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green seeks to lower to 16 the age at which knives can be bought. I appreciate that her aim is to probe as to how the law would work in practice, but her amendment reduces
The measure should not unduly interfere with the legitimate use of knives. The sale is an offence rather than the use. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has raised the issue of people who undertake catering courses and trainee chefs. People in such circumstances will have to get somebody aged over 18 to buy their initial set of tools for them. That is not an onerous requirement—presumably tutors already play a role in advising young chefs about which knives are best to purchase, so I do not think that that represents a practical impediment. We are trying to ensure that young people under 18 cannot buy knives. That sends out a clear message. Significant problems are caused by young people who carry knives, and it is important to have a range of measures to address them. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) made much of enforcement, yet he will note from the letter that I sent him last week that the figures on prosecutions for people carrying a blade or point in a public place are high—6,589 people were prosecuted in 2002 and 6,839 in 2003 for having a bladed article in a public place, of whom more than 5,000 were found guilty. The police do not turn a blind eye to the fact that people carry blades in public. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross takes issue with the sentences imposed by the courts. I shall come to those in detail shortly. However, I do not think that he can fairly say that the laws are not being enforced when more than 6,000 prosecutions have taken place. Mr. Malins: That is 6,000 prosecutions out of how many offences? Hazel Blears: Goodness me; the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer. In order for there to be an offence, there has to be a prosecution and a conviction. From more than 6,000 prosecutions, 5,281 resulted in conviction. 6.15 pmMr. Malins: The Minister has missed my point. If 60,000 children carry a knife in school, and only seven or eight prosecutions take place against them, that is low. I suggest—can she say the contrary?—that the 6,000 prosecutions under section 139 represent the tip of the iceberg of the number of people who are offending. Hazel Blears: I do not accept the phrase “tip of the iceberg”. The figure of 6,000 shows that there is a pretty robust enforcement policy and that the police are out there on the streets trying to ensure that young people are not carrying knives. Inevitably, the numbers who engage in this activity will be greater than those who are prosecuted, convicted and
Ms Butler: Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that the next clause in the Bill, which talks about enforcement in schools and the ability to search pupils in schools, will probably bring about an increase in the number of prosecutions and arrests of pupils carrying knives? Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. That will be an extra power that head teachers, schools and the police will use to bear down on knife crime and to make our communities safer. I shall resist amendment No. 159. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green wants to put a defence into the Bill for use at official battle re-enactments and similar events, including veterans’ fairs. The weapons currently listed on the offensive weapons order are dangerous weapons and the Government consider any exemptions carefully. I have not received representations from those taking part in battle re-enactments that the current law presents them with problems. However, I can understand the concern of those groups that weapons that are used in battle re-enactments may be added to the order. In that case, we would consider a defence or exemption for the specific weapon. The law is currently inflexible and Government amendment No. 303 should rectify that. We need flexibility when adding weapons to the order, so that those who are involved in their legitimate manufacture, sale or hire are not caught. What “legitimate” means will vary from weapon to weapon, so any defence or exemption could be specific to the weapon in question. Government amendment No. 303 is framed in such a way that the defence or exemption could apply only to some, and not to other, offensive weapons listed in the order. It could apply for battle re-enactments. Regulations will follow the affirmative resolution procedure, so Members of both Houses will be able to debate any such proposed defences or exemptions. We will consult before adding further items to the offensive weapons order. We are currently considering adding Samurai swords to the offensive weapons order. Government amendment No. 303 would allow us to ban their sale, manufacture and hire, except in certain cases such as legitimate martial arts operations. Police officers in my constituency have told me time and again that the damage inflicted by people using Samurai swords in a criminal way is absolutely horrendous. One of my chief superintendents told me that it is almost a rite of passage for some people when they enter the criminal fraternity to get a Samurai sword. I recognise that, if we add such swords to the offensive weapons order, there needs to be flexibility to ensure that legitimate users are not unduly penalised. Column Number: 296 I come to amendment No. 56, tabled by the hon. Member for Woking. I welcome him back to his place, but it is perhaps a little unfortunate that he was not present when we had the debate on minimum mandatory sentences for gun offences that was led by the hon. Member for Huntingdon. There appears to be some confusion between those two hon. Gentlemen about their approach to this important matter of principle. We have a mandatory prison sentence for people who possess guns. We wanted to extend that to people who use children to hide their guns and weapons. We thought that that was the correct thing to do. That provision was opposed in the most strenuous terms by the hon. Member for Huntingdon on the basis of principle: he said that it was interfering with judicial discretion. In his role as a part-time recorder, I am sure that the hon. Member for Woking holds the principles of judicial discretion close to his heart. We were castigated by the hon. Member for Huntingdon, who said we were taking an authoritarian, illiberal approach by shackling and fettering the judges’ power to make decisions. We were denounced in the most extreme terms. Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): The Minister is happy to have a mandatory sentence for the possession of firearms. Given the damage that is done by knives, why is the same principle not accepted in that regard? Hazel Blears: Indeed. I shall come to that matter. I had thought that the Opposition opposed mandatory minimum sentences in principle—but now I am not quite so sure. The Government have never said that we oppose—or propose—mandatory sentences as a matter of principle. We have said that we will use them when we think that it is appropriate. I will give some reasons why, particularly in relation to the proposals made by the hon. Member for Woking, we do not consider them to be appropriate in this case. However, there seems to be a fundamental and serious disagreement on those matters between the hon. Members for Woking and for Huntingdon. There are some technical deficiencies in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Woking. It does not consider the position after custody plus is brought in, when a three-month sentence will not be a possibility. The minimum custodial sentence will be 28 weeks. It does not consider whether, or how, juveniles would be included. The minimum custodial sentence for a juvenile is a four-month detention and training order, so the three-month sentence would not apply. I also have some more general concerns about the amendment. Mandatory prison sentences tend to be reserved for very serious offences. I do not say that carrying a blade in a public place is not a serious offence, but I believe that in this case mandatory custody would escalate a great many offenders, many of whom are juveniles, into the prison system. I do not want that to happen. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure of 20,000 children. I do not accept that we would be prosecuting 20,000 children, but we should consider whether, in the case of a first offence for someone—particularly for
Mr. Malins: Will the Minister then comment on an authoritative report in relation to the then Home Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who apparently was clear that he wanted to introduce a minimum sentence for carrying a knife on the street? Can the Minister deny that? I may be wrong about that, but she will have spoken to the former Home Secretary, and I should like to know what his views were. Has he expressed that view? Hazel Blears: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that we published in our election manifesto a commitment that we would consult on introducing more serious sentences for people who commit serious crimes using knives. That is a matter of public record, and that is what we mean to do. It is our view that in this case we should be looking to the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which we set up last year, to devise the guidelines. The council is currently looking at the issue of seriousness, and its guidelines on seriousness treat use of a weapon as an aggravating factor. We expect the council’s new guidance on violent crime to reiterate that, if a weapon is used, that increases the seriousness of the violent crime, and to prescribe robust penalties for those who commit violent crimes using a knife. The council published its consultation paper on offences against the person last month, and we expect a guideline to be published next year. Mr. Djanogly: I am just having a look back at clause 24, entitled, “Using someone to mind a weapon”. I think that its provisions include knives. Minding a weapon does not just refer to guns; it could include getting someone to mind a knife. If an under-18-year-old gets someone to mind their knife, I think that there is a mandatory sentence of not less than three years. I understand the Minister to say that there should be discretion in the sentence if an under-18-year-old holds the knife himself, but not if he gives someone else the knife to hold for him. Hazel Blears: What I meant to say is that, when someone is in possession of a knife, that should be a matter for the courts, guided by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. There is no mandatory sentence under clause 24 for knives. There is a maximum sentence. Clause 25(2) states that, where the dangerous weapon in respect of which the offence was committed is a knife or bladed weapon,
That is the maximum sentence, and I hope that that is of assistance to the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Djanogly: No. Hazel Blears: It is a maximum sentence, rather than a mandatory sentence. Column Number: 298 The Chairman: Order. Can the Committee maintain some order? I hope that we are not going to lapse into casual conversation. The Minister is on her feet. If hon. Members wish to intervene, they must do so properly. Mr. Prisk: I think that it might help the Minister as she gropes back through the Bill to try to find the answer if I ask whether I am right to say that line 19 refers to a minimum sentence of not less than three years? Is that not mandatory? Hazel Blears: Which clause is the hon. Gentleman on? Mr. Prisk: If I may proceed with that intervention for the benefit of the Minister, we are dealing with clause 25(5), line 19, on page 27. Hazel Blears: I can only reiterate what I have said. That relates to prohibited firearms and not to blades. The provision on sentences for blades is in clause 25(2) and sets a maximum prison sentence of four years. The hon. Gentleman is referring to entirely the wrong provision and I hope that that clarification is of assistance to him. [Interruption.] Steve McCabe: I think that that was an apology. Hazel Blears: I think so. I entirely accept the apology from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford. I do not have anything to add. The Sentencing Guidelines Council will prescribe robust penalties for those who commit violent crimes using a knife. We think that that is the appropriate way forward and I have to say that I would love to be present at the discussion between the hon. Members for Woking and for Huntingdon when they try to reconcile their different positions on mandatory sentences. Stephen Pound: I think the knives will be out. [Laughter.] Hazel Blears: Government amendment No. 106 is a technical amendment that deals with the repeal consequential to Government amendment No. 303. Lynne Featherstone: I was simply seeking reassurance from the Minister that raising the age to 18, which I heartily support, would be sustainable in law. I still have some concerns about the ability of shopkeepers to administer that with an ID scheme such as that used for alcohol, and I also still have some concerns about the example of cooking knives raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. The Minister suggested that under-18s could use a third person to help them to purchase such knives. If, God forbid, that person were to commit an offence with that knife, would the third party have some responsibility? I have some concerns,
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment made: No. 303, in clause 34, page 36, line 16, at end insert—
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. 6.30 pmMr. Malins: I just want to express publicly my disappointment with the Minister’s reply. There was nothing in what she said in response to my speech on knives, which reflected the real concern of many members of the public about the vast increase in knife crime. Nor was there a message from her to the judges to deal with the crime more harshly. I found her response a little self-satisfied, and I am very sorry to have heard it. As for the Minister’s attempts to draw a distinction between me and my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, she rightly points out that I was not in Committee at the appropriate stage, although that was not through any lack of courtesy on my part. I understand that my hon. Friend outlined his arguments with great skill. The purpose of my amendment was to draw the Government’s attention to the disgraceful situation with regard to knives, and to send a message to the Government that it is time that they recognised it, rather than sat back and felt complacent about it. Question put and agreed to. Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 35 Power to search school pupils for weapons Mr. Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in clause 35, page 36, line 38, leave out ‘the search’ and insert ‘searches’. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 102. Column Number: 300 No. 58, in clause 35, page 37, line 17, leave out from ‘includes’ to end of line 17 and insert
Government new clause 7—Power to search persons in attendance centres for weapons. New clause 10—Power to search for weapons—
Mr. Malins: I shall speak very briefly to my two amendments, which are both probing. There is much to be said about the clause in a clause stand part debate. Column Number: 301 Clause 35(3) rather implies that specific permission needs to be obtained separately for each search. That might be the case, but I am anxious that at least one member of staff should be authorised to carry out searches generally rather than authorised to carry out a particular search in a particular case, hence my amendment No. 57. Amendment No. 58 relates to the issue of clothing. In effect, subsection (9) limits what clothing a searcher can require someone to take off. I asked the Minister how she came to define outer clothing as only
The subsection does not refer to shoes, but if the search is to be at all worth while, more clothes should necessarily be removed in order to ensure the efficiency of the search. I pause only to say that we debated a similar measure on clothing in a Bill that is being considered along the Corridor. I apologise for erring from our debate slightly, but that measure relates to the ability of certain immigration officers and private sector employees employed by the Home Office to require certain passengers to remove certain items of clothing. It was most interesting that the list of items of clothing in that Bill—the attempt was to limit it—is not exactly the same as it is in this one, which caused a little consternation among the civil service and Home Office advisers next door and should cause a little consternation in this Committee, since the purpose behind each provision appears to be identical. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 27 October 2005 |