| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Gwilym Jones (Cardiff, North) : I am glad of this opportunity to discuss the matter of the medicentre at the University hospital of Wales. I have referred to the issue three times in speeches in the Chamber. I also raised it in the Welsh Grant Committee last week. I make no apology for raising it again, and I shall continue to raise it for as long as necessary.
My objective in securing the debate is to persuade the Secretary of State to call in the application for the medicentre. I understand that the Secretary of State's powers to call in a planning application are contained in section 77(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That provision appears to be so widely drawn that the Secretary of State can call in any planning application. Clearly, it would not be practicable for him to be able to do that, so there must be criteria.
The 1986 White Paper on the subject gave the best definition of the criteria to be used by the Secretary of State for calling in a planning application. The White Paper was published as a response by the Government to a report by the Select Committee on the Environment which pressed the Government to use their call-in powers more frequently. I fancy that the Committee must have been enduring the same sort of frustrations that I feel in relation to the medicentre at the University hospital of Wales. The 1986 White Paper said that decisions on calling in should be taken in the light of the circumstances of each case ; that the Secretary of State must not fetter his discretion by the rigid application of any particular policy ; that it should involve matters of more than local importance ; and that it should apply where the local authority should not to be entrusted with the decision. It went on to refer to departure applications where the development was a departure from the structure plan.
On all grounds, there is an overwhelming case for the Secretary of State to call in this application. However, before outlining that case, I must impart an understanding of what else is going on at the University hospital of Wales. I shall comment on the relevant powers involved and how they are being used by South Glamorgan council, for the way in which it is being done is as important as anything else. In a parallel case, Mr. Roger Knight, city planning officer for Cardiff city council, was so moved as to describe what South Glamorgan council is doing as being
"an abuse of the planning system."
He said that in the context of Corpus Christi school, and there are other examples occurring now in Cardiff. Apart from Corpus Christi school at Cyncoid, there is the Gardenhurst day centre at Penarth and the centre at Sully in the Vale of Glamorgan. They are not uncontroversial matters. The reverse is the case.
The Gardenhurst day centre is being taken forward despite considerable local objection in Penarth, not least
Column 597
because it is intended to place the day centre in the wrong place for the elderly who are expected to use it. The centre at Sully has members of the Vale of Glamorgan borough council up in arms, saying that what South Glamorgan council is doing is wrong, that it is not the planning authority and that it should not be acting as such. Corpus Christi school in Cyncoid, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), is another contentious matter. As well as parents being opposed to it, my hon. Friend has lodged objections with South Glamorgan council and Cardiff city council.I am anxious that the Minister should be aware of the climate of opinion in Cardiff over those issues. The medicentre is not an isolated example. It is certainly not an example of the harmonious use of processes better to achieve a development that everybody wants. It is more another case of something being rammed through despite local objections.
As I said, it is also necessary to understand what else is going on at the University hospital of Wales. It is a large, fine teaching hospital with excellent staff who make a great contribution and who are constantly increasing and improving the health service in Wales. They are a great asset to my constituency, as they would be anywhere, but, much as they are of benefit to all my constituents, I fear that the hospital is the cause of significant problems for its immediate neighbours, numbering perhaps 10,000 people.
Our problems are mainly traffic, parking and pollution. The hospital was sited on the heath about 20 years ago and no special provision was made for traffic to and from it. There has been the inevitable increase in traffic over the years, but that has been exacerbated by the expansion in the health service at the hospital. In line with traffic, parking has steadily increased, so much so that it has overspilled out of the hospital confines. It now affects many roads around the area. Local residents have not been able to park outside their homes and have often not been able to get into their driveways. It has become necessary again to impose a parking control zone on roads around the hospital, a development which was long fought for by Councillor Tony John, whom I congratulate on his efforts.
Possibly the greatest problem that local residents have had to endure has been that of pollution. That is the most emotive issue, concerning what has been emitted from the stack of the incinerator at the University hospital of Wales under a blanket of secrecy and Crown immunity. Complaints have been legion, involving deposits that local residents have found in their homes, on window sills, on cars and generally in the environment around the hospital.
We hoped that the situation would improve this year as the result of the provision of a new incinerator at the hospital, but, instead, the local community has been horrified to learn of a plan to incinerate not just the refuse from the University hospital of Wales but the refuse from practically every other hospital in South Glamorgan. After the community's experience of emissions from the hospital, there has been the greatest protest about that proposal. Letters have been written and petitions signed by virtually every neighbour living near the hospital.
The objections to the proposal have been led by local councillors, and I am pleased to report that Cardiff city council has refused planning permission for the
Column 598
development. I note that in considering the incinerator proposal, South Glamorgan council argued that it would have involved 20 round trips a day on weekdays and six round trips on weekend days. That obliged that council to tell Cardiff city council that the county council objected to the planning application on highway grounds and that the proposal would result in an unacceptable increase in the use of the surrounding road network.If those problems were not enough, we have a newer problem--the noise of fans at a new boiler house. That is giving rise to renewed complaints from the local community.
As a response, the elected representatives, including myself, have been pressing for more parking and a new access for the hospital from Eastern avenue. I was heartened in October when I led a delegation to see representatives of the health authority. We came away with the commitment that there would be new parking at the University hospital of Wales and a new Eastern avenue access, but we were told that that could not happen for a least two years, at the earliest.
In an attempt to achieve a better understanding between the health authority and its neighbours--by then the health authority was admitting that it had not been a good neighbour to those living around the hospital-- I urged a process of consultation. That was accepted by the health authority. A meeting was held last month and was attended by 300 local residents. We feel that consultation should be a two-way process. On that occasion, it was not a meeting of minds. Instead, it was more like trains passing on opposite tracks. That was not consultation and it has done nothing to improve the reputation of the health authorities among the local community. It is now the general view that those new proposals should wait for at least two years until the promised improvements are in place. The medicentre application is for a two-storey building measuring 36,000 sq ft, 27,000 sq ft of which would be lettable. It will be 40 ft high and situated near residential properties in King George V drive East and one of the nurses' homes. It will occupy one of the last few open spaces within the site of the University hospital of Wales. It is intended that it will employ about 100 people connected with medical research, but no commitment guarantees that any, let alone all, of those 100 people will be involved with medical research. The project is clearly commercial. The national health service should certainly not be expected to pay or to subsidise the development and, if enough tenants involved in medical matters cannot be found, I can only anticipate that any commercial tenant prepared to pay the rent will be accepted.
Some 89 car parking spaces are to be provided, but there are already doubts about whether those will be adequate for the number of people using the medicentre. The planning application admitted that there was no intention to provide car parking spaces for the customers of the medicentre or for anyone else visiting it. Most incomprehensible is the idea that the traffic generated by the medicentre would be acceptable, because much more traffic will be generated by the centre than the incinerator. When Cardiff city council's planning committee considered the mater, it cited South Glamorgan council's opinion on the earlier matter of the incinerator as a ground for refusing the medicentre. For South Glamorgan council to argue otherwise is inconsistent or, some might suggest, hypocritical.
Column 599
It is little wonder that when the city council came to a conclusion on the medicentre, it made a strongly worded condemnation that"South Glamorgan Health Authority be advised that Cardiff City Council is strongly opposed to the principle of developing one of the few remaining open areas within the University Hospital of Wales until such time as an alternative access/egress via Eastern Avenue together with comprehensive car parking arrangements has been produced."
Furthermore, it asks that the director of administrative and legal services write to South Glamorgan council on the use of procedures under regulation 4 of the Town and County Planning General Regulations 1976. That request is most important.
There is a certain familiarity about what the city council's planning committee recorded on the medicentre. It is almost exactly word for word what South Glamorgan's committee had said about its concern about the few remaining open areas within the hospital. At the environment (highways) sub -committee of the county council on 24 October 1990, it was recommended that
"a letter be sent to the Chairman of the Health Authority drawing attention to the problems created by the hospital, recommending that parking provision therein should be significantly increased, if necessary by using the area currently under consideration for a Medi-park development".
So important did the county council regard the medicentre that it was suggested that the area should be used for car parking. Again, there is an element of inconsistency or hypocrisy in that. It has been suggested that the matter is urgent, but it is not new. The application has been hanging around for well over a year. The first application was made to Cardiff city council on 13 August 1990, but only two things have changed since then. There are now to be a few more car parking spaces and the name on the application has changed. It was originally made by South Glamorgan health authority whereas now it is being made by South Glamorgan county council. The matter is regarded in Cardiff as a sham, a con and a disgraceful device. It is just a way of getting round the previous intention of Cardiff city council to object strongly to the proposal. People within both councils are expressing their misgivings, but, inevitably, those within South Glamorgan council cannot speak out. A legally qualified council officer has given a serious private warning in a personal note to one of the councillors. He said that what is meant by "carrying out the development" is not clear, but that he doubts whether merely handing out the RDF grant would constitute carrying out the development. He suggests that the county solicitor should confirm that the county council has no interest in the land and that South Glamorgan council does not intend to carry out the building work in a contrived way. He concludes that if South Glamorgan or any other health authority carries out the development purporting to rely on that deemed South Glamorgan planning permission, there will be no permission for the development, and the city council, as the local planning authority, could take enforcement action.
Those important questions have been pursued by Councillor Tony John, who raised them at the South Glamorgan council meeting on 12 December and asked what South Glamorgan council meant by "carrying out the development". He asked whether it was merely passing over the subsidy, but he has received no answers on those important questions.
Column 600
I am glad that after much lobbying, I was able to persuade my hon. Friend the Minister at least to consider calling in the planning application. In the meanwhile, I thank him for issuing a direction to South Glamorgan council not to determine that application. The planning application was not considered at the planning and public transport sub-committtee on 11 December. Instead, at the South Glamorgan council meeting on 12 December, plenary powers were granted and the resolution was :"The County Council intends to see this development take place and authorises and instructs the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chairman of the Economic Development and Strategic Planning Services Committee, to so determine the planning application to give effect to this intention, should the Secretary of State decide not to determine the planning application himself."
That gives power to the very person who made the application. It originally came from the chairman of the economic development committee and he will now determine it. Would that any commercial developer were in that position of being both applicant and he who decides the planning permission.
Meanwhile, substantial objections have been expressed by me, the city council, local councillors in South Glamorgan council, Councillor Tony John and, as would have been reported to the sub-committee on 11 December, from residents of 219, 216, 8 and 2 King George V drive, 8 and 9 St. Anthony road, 30 and 75 Rhydelig avenue, 33 St. Benedict crescent, 20 St. Agatha road and 20 St. Angela road. None of those objections has been considered and there has been no pretence of considering any of them.
That fact has been confirmed. The county planning officer, Mr. Peter Cope, wrote to me on 17 Decemberand told me that that application was not consideredat the planning and public transport sub-committee on11 December but that the resolution that I have quoted was passed. That was a most improper way to deal with such an important matter. The only consideration that appears to have been given was behind closed doors. The Labour group that controls South Glamorgan council has taken a political decision to force the development through in contradiction to the way planning is normally dealt with in Cardiff. Cardiff city council, which determines 99 per cent. of planning applications in Cardiff, maintains that not one of the political parties will ever put a party Whip on a planning application. It is a point of principle among the recognised planning authorities that no political decisions will be taken, but that is not the case for the Labour group of South Glamorgan council, which has total contempt for the objections. There is no chance for those objections to be considered. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not call in the application, the council has already granted plenary powers to allow it to go through. It will be a disgrace if the views of all local residents and elected representatives are ignored.
The grounds for calling in the application are that it should include matters of more than local importance ; it could be a departure application ; and the local council should not be entrusted. It is patently obvious that it must be called in, because only in that way will the objections be heard. Clause 77(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 authorises an opportunity for a public inquiry to which I recommend my right hon. Friend to submit the matter. The local council should not be entrusted because, by its behaviour, South Glamorgan council has forfeited its right to be entrusted with the matter. Clause 77(2B)
Column 601
allows for calling in a "class" of applications. My right hon. Friend could make that "class" all the applications that South Glamorgan council is considering.It is a departure application because in the development plan, the area is designated as the hospital's use of open space. By no stretch of the imagination is the proposed development a hospital ; it is a commercial development. I understand from the consultation paper which has been published that not only substantial departures from the development plan but all departures are supposed to be referred. Above all, it must be a matter of more than local importance when it is clear that there is a process of abuse of powers as cited by the city planning officer. It is part of the climate and this is far from being the only example. It is a gross abuse that decisions are being taken politically behind closed doors. It is a grave abuse in that legal opinion suggests that the decision is a fiction that can be resolved only by the enforcement action of the planning authority. It must be a great abuse that there is not even a token consideration of objections.
All in all, there is the strongest case. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot respond today to my plea for the application to be called in, but I ask him to allow appropriate time to reflect maturely on all that is involved. I know that the three ward councillors, Clive Milsom, Peter Donnelly and Granville Tatham, will probably want to make representations to my hon. Friend, as will Councillor Tony John, who represents the area on South Glamorgan council. Councillor Bernard Rees, the leader of the Conservative group on South Glamorgan council has wanted to come to the Welsh Office to meet my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the matter. There is the greatest disquiet that unless my right hon. Friend calls in the planning application, the abuse of the planning process will continue.
11.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on securing the debate, which is much prized. It is an example of his assiduous, hard-working and caring role as a constituency Member that he has raised this matter which he feels is of great importance to his constituents.
My hon. Friend has raised a number of points in relation to the town and country planning process. It will be helpful to set them in the context of the legislative framework which we have applied for many years. I know that my hon. Friend will understand that I can make no comments about the merits of the proposal which is the subject of our debate or about the case for calling it in for determination by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That would prejudice his consideration of the current application for a call-in and might also prejudice his consideration of the matter if it is called in. As a consequence, I will confine myself to the facts as I understand them. However, my hon. Friend can be assured that I have listened attentively to what he has said and his points will be considered carefully before a decision is made on whether the application should be called in.
Column 602
Parliament has made local planning authorities responsible for day-to-day planning control, including the determination of planning applications and the initiating of enforcement action. For most categories of development, the local planning authorities are the district councils, but county councils also have limited functions as planning authorities.Whatever reservations there may be about individual decisions from time to time, the basic premise that most planning decisions should be taken locally has never been seriously challenged. Local authorities are generally best placed to exercise the discretion that Parliament has judged appropriate in taking planning decisions. Development plans drawn up with public consultation provide an important framework. Central Government publish general advice on a wide range of planning issues through planning policy guidance notes and circulars. However, we believe that unless there are exceptional circumstances, it is for people with local knowledge to look at individual proposals and to decide them in the way that best meets local requirements.
My hon. Friend does not, I think, dissent from that, but he has questioned local planning authorities' deciding planning proposals that they themselves have originated and in particular the position of the county council in relation to the district council. Again, that is not a haphazard system, but one which our legislation has recognised for many years under successive Governments. If elected local authorities are fit to draw up development plans and to judge the vast majority of planning applications, it would be odd to say that they were not fit to judge their own development proposals. It is, of course, right to require them to adopt certain procedures to ensure that the public and the full range of interests represented by the authority have the opportunity to contribute to the consideration. The regulations provide for this in certain circumstances and we are considering how to improve the detail of the procedures. As I have already said, day-to-day planning control is for local planning authorities and it is not the role of the Secretary of State to become involved in that as a general rule. However, there are two circumstances in which Parliament has seen a role for the Secretary of State. The first is in relation to the need for an applicant who is aggrieved by the decision of the local planning authority on his application to have a right of appeal. In practice, the great majority of appeals are now decided by inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose.
Again, I think that the great majority of hon. Members would not dispute the need for a right of appeal. Nevertheless, there are people who argue that local planning authorities' decisions best reflect local circumstances and should not be overruled by the central Government or their appointed planning inspectors. That is a point of view which I understand, but which I should not commend against a background in which Parliament, when removing the unfettered right of a land owner to develop his land as he wished, thought it right to enable a land owner to get a second opinion if the local decision on his application was adverse.
Others argue that if developers have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State against a local planning authority's decision, so should other interested parties. That argument minimises the fact that it is the local planning authority's role to represent the general public interest. The more practical implication is that if such a
Column 603
wide-varying right of appeal existed, the likelihood is that the whole planning system would become totally bogged down.The second circumstance is that planning legislation has given the Secretary of State the power to take applications out of the hands of local planning authorities and to decide them himself. It is quite clear against the background that I have described that it was intended that it should be an exceptional power and that it should be used only when there are no other ways in which the individual applicant may consider the case himself through the planning process. There is always a danger that if the regulations are overused by the Secretary of State, he will find that his business and duties in planning will become bogged down.
Regulations provide that if local planning authorities are minded to approve a proposal, but judge that it involves a material departure from the provisions of the development plan, they are required to refer the matter to the Secretary of State for him to decide whether he thinks it fit to call in the matter for his own decision.
It is possible for the Secretary of State to direct that a certain category of development should be referred to him if local planning authorities are minded to grant permission. Such a direction has been issued, for example, in respect of a large-scale retail shopping development. The Town and Country Planning (Shopping Development) (England and Wales) Direction 1986 applies when proposals include areas of gross shopping floor space of not less than 250,000 sq ft or 23,325 sq m. The Secretary of State may receive representations in the light of which he may decide to require a particular application to be referred to him for decision.
Successive Governments have adopted the policy that individual decisions should be taken out of the hands of local planning authorities only if they raise issues of more than local importance. It follows that decisions to call in will not be frequent. It also follows that in looking at whether to call in, Ministers do not consider the planning merits of the proposal, but only whether the kind of issues that need to be decided are more appropriate for consideration in a wider than local context by the
Column 604
Secretary of State. I should make it clear that when it is decided to intervene in a local authority's own proposed development, the local authority is required to apply to the Secretary of State for planning permission. The kind of questions that might be asked in the context are whether the proposal could have wide effects beyond the immediate locality, whether it could give rise to regional or national controversy and whether it could conflict with national policy.I turn, briefly, to the case of the medicentre proposal at the Heath hospital, Cardiff about which my hon. Friend is concerned. The proposal is being processed by South Glamorgan county council under regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1976. The project consists of a high specification, purpose-built research centre on land within the site of the University hospital of Wales.
My hon. Friend made certain representations about the proposal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the course of a discussion last month. Following further approaches from my hon. Friend, a direction was issued to South Glamorgan county council on 11 December requiring it not to approve the proposal until the Secretary of State had had more time to consider whether to call in the matter for his own determination.
I emphasise that in taking that step, we have not formed any view on the planning merits of the proposal. What now needs to be established, in accordance with our usual policy, is whether the proposal raises issues of more than local importance or whether the matters in question justify a departure from the policy that matters of local importance should be dealt with by local authorities. I assure my hon. Friend that we look forward to receiving any further written representations that he has in addition to the cogent case that he has put before the House today. Such representations will be considered as quickly as possible in deciding whether we should call in the application. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important constituency point. I look forward to receiving further representations, if he has any, in addition to his important arguments today.
Column 605
Knives
11.59 am
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : I am pleased to have obtained this debate on the important and serious matter of the increasing use of knives in crimes of violence. Christmas is a time of celebration and joyfulness, but there is no doubt that during this time someone, probably more than one, will become over-exuberant, a knife will flash and someone will die. Christmas will be spoilt not just for those involved but for their friends and relatives.
People should not carry a knife at any time and particularly not at Christmas. We have recently seen the horrendous stabbing in Walthamstow which resulted in the death of Sergeant Alan King, a popular Chingford policeman. Police Constables Simon Castrey and John Jenkinson received terrible knife injuries in a similar incident. The Government have expressed their horror at such attacks on the police, but they also need to act.
I planned this debate before that terrible murder. On one occasion, I was cycling with my wife at Whipps Cross when I saw two 14-year-olds with their bicycles. One of them got out the ugliest looking knife that I have seen to cut a piece of string or something on his bicycle. It was a matter of horror to me and my wife that such a young lad could carry that knife. I cycled off quickly, but when I discussed the matter subsequently with my wife she said that to carry a knife was not uncommon nowadays. She cited the example of a model boy from an impeccable family down the road, who I hope will have a golden future, who apparently always carries a knife for his own protection. It is horrific that youngsters should think that that is necessary. The Minister is a little older than I, but when I was a rough and tough lad, we would never have dreamt of carrying a knife and nor would he. It is shocking that that ethos should exist now. There has been a big increase in the use of knives in crimes of violence. I have asked parliamentary questions about the illegal sale and possession of knives and I was told that 150 people were prosecuted in 1988 for having in a public place such an article with a blade or point and in 1989, it was 2,018--a huge jump. In 1990, a total of 903 knives were seized at ports, airports and other points of entry and in 1991 that figure had risen to 2,082.
I do not want to say that there has been a huge leap in the past year or so, because that would not true, but there has been a big leap since 1980. For example, in 1980 in the Metropolitan police district there were fewer than 2,000 cases of the use of knives in offences of violence against the person and 1,240 cases where knives were used in robberies. By 1987, those figures had shot up to 2,870 cases of the use of knives in offences against the person and 4,630 cases where they were used in robberies--a huge increase.
The figure have dropped a little since then, which I welcome. That drop was a consequence of a campaign against the use of knives in mid-1988 and the effects of section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. But with the new ethos to which I have referred of youngsters carrying knives, allegedly for their own protection, there is a real danger that there will be another explosion of such crimes. In 1989, it was estimated that sharp instruments were used in one in three aggravated burglaries, one in five robberies, one in 17 offences of violence against the person
Column 606
and one in 100 sexual offences. Knives and sharp instruments are the most common weapons used in homicides and account for one third of all homicides.An article in The Independent on Sunday on 19 May clearly substantiates my point about the danger of an explosion in knife violence. The article was headed
"Death by Stabbing : the new British way of life".
It said :
"Knife attacks are on the increase, with more young men carrying blades.,"
It talks of anecdotal evidence in 1991 that the carrying of knives is on the increase among young people and it quotes Detective Chief Superintendent Roger Stoodley, who works in east London, as saying : "I have never known so many people to be carrying these weapons." Barrie Irving of the Police Foundation is quoted as saying : "There is much evidence that more people are going out with knives. There is a lot of threat and counter-threat in the pubs and clubs. Much of it is display. The knife is produced as the young man slips into a role that has been established in his mind by videos and that sort of thing."
A serious problem already exists and it is becoming even greater. The Government's response has been inadequate and that is why I initiated the debate. I do not say that in party-political terms, because the Government's objective is the same as mine. They want to see the elimination of the use of knives in crimes of violence, but their approach is that the law is adequate to deal with the problem and that nothing needs to be changed. In a parliamentary written answer I was told :
"The sale and possession of knives is subject to a number of controls There will be practical problems in seeking to apply more general restrictions on the sale and purchase of knives which have a variety of legitimate everyday uses."
The answer refers to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 and ends by saying :
"The Government have no plans to introduce further legislation in this matter."--[ Official Report, 2 December 1991 ; Vol. 200, c. 3 .]
When I asked about local amnesties, I was told :
"It is for chief officers of police to consider whether offering opportunities for disposing of offensive weapons would be a worthwhile crime prevention initiative in their own force area."--[ Official Report, 11 December 1991 ; Vol. 200, c. 436 .] Again, the Government are saying that the procedures are there and nothing further need be done. I challenge that. I accept that we do not want to become involved with domestic cutlery and important workmen's tools such as Stanley knives, but there is other action that the Government should take.
In the face of the dreadful attacks on police officers, the Home Office should have put together an urgent review team which should have incorporated other Departments and put forward a package of measures. I hope that the Minister will take that suggestion on board.
I want to put forward some suggestions for inclusion in such a package of measures. I acknowledge that not all will be appropriate, but some will be. For example, there is a case for a further restriction on the sale of knives and for licensing shops. I know that that is not supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers or by shopkeepers, but there is a case for saying that shops should be licensed.
In November 1980, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewesbury (Mrs. Taylor) said :
"It is vital that we ban offensive and useless weapons. I say useless' because people buy them for only one reason, which
Column 607
is to injure or, at the very least, to threaten other individuals. We feel strongly that weapons of this kind have no place, so we support measures to ban them or prohibit their sale."The key point is that if the knives are used for one purpose and do not fall into the category of domestic cutlery there is a case for a ban. There is certainly a case for enforcing the law more strongly to prevent under- age people buying such weapons. In that same debate my hon. Friend said :
"The proposal that weapon sales be banned completely to people under the age of 16 should stay on the agenda. The Minister is aware that the peak age of offenders is 15 and that it is boys of that age who commit the vast majority of street crimes and crimes involving intimidation or offensive weapons."--[ Official Report, Fifth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. 10 November 1988 ; c. 4.] Butterfly and gravity knives are already banned and there is a case for extending that. I have some information about knives for sale by mail order. I have an advertisement for CIA survival knives which states that it
"is a superb high tech fibreglass filled nylon construction knife which weighs just 20 gm. due to its double edge, spear point and double fluted reinforced spine, tremendous plunging power--it can literally be driven straight through a telephone directory (remains undetected by airport metal detectors)".
Another one is advertised as a "sabretooth survival saw" and it again is said to be able to pass unnoticed through metal detectors. The advertisement says :
"when you need that extra edge'.
An advert for a CIA letter opener says that it can be driven by hammer through in plywood. The OSS sleeve dagger is said to be "Specially designed to be concealed on arm or leg, especially during body search."
The advertisement says that it is supplied only to military personnel, but these are general adverts and I doubt whether that is the case.
Such weapons should be banned and there should be tighter control on their manufacture and import. The police should be protected by body armour. Research is being carried out on that, but it should be speeded up and it should not be left to police officers to buy such body protection. That should be the job of the Home Office. We should consider the supply of metal detectors and the regular retraining of police officers to enable them to deal with knife problems. Police are often delayed through having to seek permission to enter places such as shopping malls, and the law needs to be enforced in pubs and clubs. Penalties should be reviewed. At the moment the punishment is up to six months' imprisonment and/or a £2,000 fine. That is to be increased and perhaps there should be an increase in the sentence for hardened criminals going out with a criminal purpose and carrying a knife. Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 could be strengthened.
There should be a concerted programme to change the knife-carrying ethos in schools. The Minister should get his oar in with the Minister for Health who is carrying out a review in conjunction with the mental health tribunal. We do not want to see more knife carrying by people who are mentally ill, although that clearly affects a minority of community care cases. Search powers should be reviewed and should be exercised where there are reasonable grounds. Perhaps random spot checks could be carried out in the same way as breathalyser tests.
Above all, there should be a knife amnesty with knife banks not just outside police stations but elsewhere. Local authorities could be brought into that and such an amnesty would need Home Office funding and improved
Column 608
publicity. There is a case for implementing Labour's policy aim of a crime prevention council and a crime management foundation to undertake independent research. I hope that the Minister will consider that package of measures to stop people carrying knives and to change the ethos. Knives affect all our civil liberties and can even affect the ultimate one. I give way to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby).12.17 pm
Mr. Michael Shersby (Uxbridge) rose --
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : I take it that the hon. Gentleman also has the consent of the Minister.
Mr. Shersby : Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) for allowing me to speak in this valuable debate. As the House knows, I am parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who represents the Police Superintendents Association, cannot be present at the debate and wishes to be associated with what I have to say.
As the House knows, a terrible situation faces our country. No fewer than five police officers have lost their lives in the past decade as a result of attacks in which knives have been used. A further 17 officers have lost their lives as a result of being shot, crushed or injured in some other way. In the last couple of weeks we have heard about the tragic death of Sergeant Alan King and Detective Constable Jim Morrison and we have seen the terrible injuries inflicted on their colleagues.
As the hon. Member for Leyton has said, the common factor in many of these assaults is the knife. I have one or two suggestions to add to those advanced by the hon. Gentleman in an attempt to alleviate the problem. First, the Home Office should mount a national publicity campaign using all available media to warn parents and young people of the dangers of young people carrying knives. It would remind them that young men who carry knives and youngsters who take them to school may lose their temper and find that one stab is enough to kill a school mate or a police officer.
Such a campaign should be mounted by the Home Office and not left simply to chief constables. Parents should be reminded that they have a responsibility and that they can be fined and required to pay compensation for acts committed by juveniles. The campaign should remind young people of the severe custodial sentences that are available for this type of crime. I should like to see the Home Office introduce what is called the side- handled baton. That is longer than the standard truncheon and would be useful to police officers who patrol alone at night because it affords additional protection against all kinds of assaults, excluding of course, assaults using firearms.
I hope that the Home Secretary will set up a working party jointly with the Police Federation of England and Wales. It represents 125, 000 officers in what is unfortunately only too truly the sharp end of policing. I hope that the Home Office will review the stop and search powers. Those powers were conferred under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and replaced those under the Vagrancy Act 1824. In the opinion of the police, those powers are not adequate. The Act does not give a constable power to search a person or a vehicle or
Column 609
anything in or on a vehicle unless he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find stolen or prohibited articles. That restriction was introduced because of the concern expressed about the old Vagrancy Act and the sus laws. The Home Office and the House must strike a balance between preserving the liberty of the citizen and protecting the lives of police men and police women who are the only protection available to ordinary citizens against people who carry knives and who will stab and kill without regard for the misery that they inflict on their fellow citizens.12.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on his success in securing this debate and thank him for raising the disturbing and important question of the use of knives in crime. It has been brought to the forefront of our minds in a most horrible way--by the recent series of shocking attacks on police officers in London, which resulted in two officers being killed and two others receiving terrible injuries.
I am sure that the House joins me, the hon. Member for Leyton and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) in expressing deepest sympathy to the families of the officers who so tragically lost their lives in the course of duty. We also offer our best wishes to those who were injured, and trust that they will make a full and speedy recovery. Those incidents are a salutary reminder of the dedication of police officers to protecting the public.
The hon. Gentleman referred to an apparent increase in tbe number of offences involving knives, and I will examine the figures that he gave. I know that some were provided in parliamentary answers from the Home Office. Statistics on the misuse of knives are not readily available, because misuse is categorised under other offences, such as assault. In 1989, however, S1 division conducted an ad hoc survey of notifiable offences between 1986 and 1989 in which sharp instruments and knives were used.
Not all forces responded to that survey, but the results suggested that the percentage of notifiable offences involving the use of sharp instruments and knives fell during the period surveyed. The hon. Member for Leyton makes the point well that we could benefit from better statistics.
Details of the types of knives used in crimes are not generally available either, but ordinary kitchen and craft knives are believed to be the most commonly used in attacks, rather than the kind that the hon. Gentleman mentioned as being advertised. The hon. Gentleman wants additional controls on knife sales. Following the recent series of knife attacks on police officers, there were calls from the Police Federation for further restrictions on the sale of knives. While I appreciate public concern about misuse, I do not see how additional controls on sales could offer an easy or practical solution. I do not believe that licensing shops, for example, would help in practice. However, I shall reflect further on the hon. Gentleman's suggestions.
There are, of course, existing controls on the sales of knives. Certain types of knives that have no legitimate use--such as flick, gravity and butterfly knives--are banned.
| Next Section
| Home Page |