| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for his supportive remarks. He mentioned the difficulty of young people going into stores to purchase knives. If stores had a clear ruling that there should be no sale of knives to young people below whatever age we agree, it would not be a matter for debate. The position becomes difficult when the matter is fudged and there are too many alternatives. If it were clear that there would be no sale of knives to young people, if a young person took some kitchen knives to a checkout, the sales girl would have to say no.
Mr. Greenway: I could go along with that. One would have to define young people as those below the age of 18 and they would have to carry identity cards to prove their age, but my hon. Friend would have to achieve that measure by persuasion, and it would not be easy. Although the basic concept behind the Bill is sound and right, its implementation would not be so easy, desirable though it might be.
Clause 1 tackles the subject very well. It would make it an offence to carry a knife or an article with a blade or point, and people could be stopped without warrant, searched and dealt with on the spot. That would go a long way towards solving the problem.
There was ghastly period in my time in teaching when flick knives were carried and it was legal to carry them. It was even more dangerous than the present situation. Young people and others could, by simply pressing the knife handle, be capable of inflicting great harm from a long blade. Flick knives were successfully banned. If a person is caught carrying one, he faces an enormous penalty. However, if a parliamentary question were tabled on the last time someone was prosecuted and convicted for carrying a flick knife, I am sure that the answer would be that it was some time ago. We have enacted legislation against flick knives, and my hon. Friend's Bill will enhance and improve law and order.
I want to say a word about my great constituent Philip Lawrence, who was person of the year in 1995, with nearly 24,000 votes across the land. That was a huge response by the people of our country to his courage. My early-day motion 191 was well supported on both sides of the House. It commended Philip Lawrence's courage and extended sympathy to his family. Unfortunately, that early-day motion was suspended under the sub judice rule, because charges have been brought in relation to Philip's murder.
I want to put on record my tribute to Philip's widow, Frances, and to his four children for their great courage in the way that they have borne that terrible death. It is one thing for a husband and father to die, but to die by murder is something that hon. Members will probably only properly understand if they are unfortunate enough to encounter such a tragedy in others. Philip Lawrence's family have been wonderfully dignified and the country was hugely moved, not least by the memorial service for Philip at Westminster cathedral last Monday. I include Philip's remarkable mother, who is 87, in my tribute.I spent some time with the Lawrence family the day after his death and since, and I know how wonderfully staunch they have been from the first moment.
I conducted examinations at St. George's school in Westminster, where Philip was headmaster, over several years, so I know the community and everything that the school has sought to do over the years. If the Bill had already been on the statute book, that murder might not have happened--who knows? The effect of that murder was to send the community reeling and to disorientate it. That was the effect of the other murder that I mentioned. Murder by knife is such a sudden thing. It may be premeditated, but not always. The damage to those who commit such murders and who are the victims of it,and to the community, is lasting. It is therefore especially incumbent on the House to support my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and find a way to tighten up the law in the way that the Lawrence family and all of us wish.
I had the honour, with the Abbot of Ealing, Laurence Soper of the Order of St. Benedict, to found the Philip Lawrence memorial fund, on the day after Philip Lawrence's murder. By last Monday, £104,000 had been donated to that fund, mostly in small donations of £5 or £10. From that evil, wicked act, great good has come. The abbot and I have had thousands of letters, as has Frances Lawrence. People have written to say that they could send only £2, £3 or £5, but they sent it with their love for the family, their love for our country and their hopes and determination that we will stand up to lawlessness in the brave way that Philip Lawrence did. That is so worth the saying, and if the Bill helps to achieve that it will achieve a great deal. It may do so.
At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned the dedication of the teaching profession. I doubt if there is any good teacher who would not do today what Philip Lawrence did on the fatal day on 8 December 1995,and stand up to trouble outside his or her school in defence of a member of the school. However, those teachers would not expect to suffer murder as a result.
I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether the Home Office will consider my suggestion that people convicted of offences near a school should be doubly punished. That happens in other countries. For example, in New York, when a violent offence is committed within a reasonable radius of a school, the punishment is doubled. That has given substantial support to the teaching profession, heads of schools and those seeking to protect schools from invasion or the sort of violence that Philip Lawrence and others have suffered. I hope that that suggestion will be seriously considered.
Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth):
As I mentioned in my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), the Bill has the support of the Labour party. The hon. Lady was right to refer to individual cases, especially the murder of Philip Lawrence, which have shocked and horrified the nation and stimulated widespread public demands for action.
However, the dangers have been around for a long time. Debates in Committee on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 revealed some of the dangers and the need for action. It is unfortunate that we so often seem to trail behind events. For that reason, I congratulate the hon. Lady on taking the initiative and ensuring that this issue is before the House in this Session and has not been left as a promise for the future. The Home Secretary should have acted himself, but at least he is supporting the Bill, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Home Secretary.
This is the second occasion in succession that I have spoken in the Chamber in a cross-party spirit. It might become a habit if we carry on like this. There can certainly be few topics that are more suitable for cross-party consensus--a clear and united message from the House.
The Bill rightly includes the offence of carrying an offensive weapon within the offences that entitle police officers to exercise the power of arrest. The absence of that power has been a curious anomaly, and provision for it is a welcome change in the law. Increases in penalties are important also because they give the courts additional power to sentence.
Increased penalties send a message of support to the police and to the public, who fear or are at risk of injury. They also send a clear warning, not only to those who perhaps go out intending to become involved in violence but to those who have got into the habit of carrying a knife. One of the greatest dangers is tolerance of carrying a knife and the idea that one does so for self-defence. The danger is always there that, if the item is carried, it will be used, and that the type of fatal incident that we have seen on too many occasions becomes almost inevitable. Violence may be inflicted not intentionally by those who carry knives--that lack of intent is bad enough--but almost by accident.
Lady Olga Maitland:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that important point. Does he agree with me that we are trying to tackle the macho knife culture in which young people carry knives so that they feel big, masculine and one of the boys? They are drawn into that culture by peer group pressure. We hope that, if we make knives difficult to get hold of and pass stiff penalties, they will drop that habit. There is a playground practice of keeping up with the lads.
Mr. Michael:
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. There is no simple way to tackle this type of problem--one cannot suddenly turn off the tap and say that people's behaviour must change. One must tackle it by every means possible. The hon. Lady is right that we need the legislation and that a message should be sent by the House of Commons. We also need, however, the day-to-day work of so many people, unsung and unrecognised, whether they are teachers, police officers, youth officers or members of a family and the community.
One of the more difficult things that we must do is to turn the tide, from a vicious circle that allows such things to happen and tolerates violent advertisements and behaviour, into one that encourages more positive behaviour.
That change cannot be accomplished by edict of the House. We can send our message, but it must be done with the support of the individuals throughout the country who contribute their little bit to giving their local community a more positive culture. I am pleased that the hon. Lady has made that point because it removes the idea that a piece of legislation can be a magic wand that produces results overnight. The scope of the Bill, which the hon. Lady, with becoming modesty, said is limited,is a start in the right direction. It recognises that the developments that we have seen during recent years are unacceptable. There is common ground between us on that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |