| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.17 pm
Mr. Kirkhope: I must express the Government's gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam for agreeing to take forward this very important Bill. I know that that gratitude is shared by the whole House. My hon. Friend has also been very much involved in considering the proposals that were added to the Bill in Committee.
It is fair to say that there is a high degree of acceptance by hon. Members on both sides of the House not only of the notion that the evil of knife carrying and other knife-related crime should be stamped on, but of the type of measures that we should be looking at to achieve that. The Government have long recognised the need to empower the police to deal with such problems.
The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 made it an offence to carry an offensive weapon in public without good reason or lawful authority. A knife is not an offensive weapon in itself, as it can have all manner of legitimate uses. It can, however, be regarded as an offensive weapon when the prosecution can prove that the carrier intended to cause injury with it. The police were experiencing difficulties in proving intent in many cases, even though common sense dictated that knife carriers were not carrying knives for use as, say, legitimate kitchen implements.
Because of that difficulty, we introduced in section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 an offence of carrying a knife without good reason or lawful authority. In addition, we introduced in section 141 of that Act the power to prohibit the manufacture, sale and importation of specified weapons. An order made under that section specifies 14 articles, including swordsticks and knuckledusters. That is in addition to flick knives and gravity knives, which are already prohibited under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
The provisions in the Bill build largely on the foundations already provided in other legislation. The proposed ban on the sale of knives to people under 16 is a new and radical measure, and one that is entirely justified. Common sense cries out that people in that age group should not be able, for the most part, to buy knives.
Let me explain about exclusions. In drawing up clause 6--which the Government introduced as an amendment in Committee--we gave careful consideration to the definition of precisely what we wished to cover in the ban on the sale of knives to people under 16. We need a workable provision and, if we introduced a long list of exceptions, I fear that that would not be achievable. We none the less recognise that certain articles covered by the definition proposed in new section 141A(2) should be excluded, and can be without undue threat to the clarity of the measure.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary proposes to exclude two articles in that way. The first is the folding pocket knife with a blade no longer than 3 in. The reasons are simple. First, buying a penknife has been a natural experience for many a child, on holiday, in souvenir shops, before going camping with the boy scouts or girl guides or for fishing. There is an argument that, if a child wants such a penknife, it should be bought for him by a parent. I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of maintaining the freedom of children to buy penknives, but I think it important to make that concession. Another reason is that penknives are not a significant part of the knife culture that many police officers are now witnessing.
I said that two articles were covered by the ban. Let me explain what is meant by a knife blade. It is simple, although unpleasant, to explain. Most of us are familiar with craft knives of the Stanley knife variety, which are extremely useful for a variety of tasks but also much favoured by young knife carriers for their slashing qualities. The blades of such knives can be easily detached and replacement blades purchased. Those blades are not covered by the definition "any knife". By themselves they are not very bulky, and they are therefore sometimes carried by young thugs who wish to evade searches on entering, for example, football grounds. Even without the handle, the blades can inflict great injury, and it would be a mistake not to include them in the ban.
Clause 6(2)(a) refers to "any . . . razor blade". What most of us understand by a razor blade is a blade used in an old-fashioned safety razor. That needs to be included in the ban for reasons similar to those that I have just given in relation to replacement blades for craft knives. Razor blades are not, however, covered by the definition "knife blade", and therefore need to be specified separately. That creates a difficulty--which brings me to the second of the two articles to which I have referred.
In Committee, I said that disposable razor blades should be excluded from the ban. By "disposable razor blades", I mean the plastic cartridges with two short blades protruding. Not much damage can be done with those, beyond the superficial injuries that may be self-inflicted by the inexperienced shaver. It is perfectly right that someone under 16 who has begun shaving should be able to purchase his own disposable razor blades.
The Bill has enormous support throughout the House. It has been presented and prepared admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. The support of the House has continued throughout the Bill's stages. I am disappointed only by the fact that, a few moments ago, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth accused my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary of being complacent. Whatever the political grounds on which the hon. Gentleman might wish to criticise my right hon. and learned Friend, to describe him and his vigorous attacks on
crime as complacent strikes me as inappropriate and very much against the general tenor of our consideration of the Bill.
Mr. Kirkhope:
No, I will not give way. I have made my point, as the hon. Gentleman made his.
I noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks carefully. As I said, in certain respects the Government will continue to look carefully not only at his remarks, but at elements affecting the general area of the advertising and sale of knives.
I shall finish as I started. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam on her wonderful achievement. This important legislation will do an enormous amount of good.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Order for Third Reading read.
Mr. Hartley Booth (Finchley):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It gives me great pleasure to return this short, but important, Bill to the House. This is the first time that we have considered it orally in the Chamber. The proceedings in Committee established beyond all doubt that this will be a practical and useful measure. I thank all hon. Members who served on the Committee for their thoughtful and constructive contributions and for maintaining the all-party consensus that the Bill has attracted.
I am grateful to the members of the Howard League for Penal Reform and of the Penal Affairs Consortium, to Home Office officials, who have just entered their Box, and to the many others who have supported or issued guidance on the Bill. For many years, I have felt that the practice of prisoners being unemployed and idle in prison should be reversed. They should pay their debt to society while they are in prison, and that would be an opportunity for them to prepare themselves to re-enter society as law-abiding, useful citizens. I raised this matter with Iain Macleod, a former right hon. Member of the House, when I was a mere stripling of a student. Unfortunately, he was unable to agree with me at that time, so I am glad to bring the matter to the House now.
In a publication that was kindly published by the CPC in 1992, I wrote about the importance of prisoners paying something directly to the victims of crime. That is part of the Bill.
The Bill follows a series of important reports from Woolf, Tumim and Learmont, who all called for more work to be provided in prisons and for more financial responsibility to be accepted by prisoners. In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the need to give the interests of victims greater prominence in the way in which the criminal justice system operates. One of the Bill's key objectives is to give prisoners the opportunity and the encouragement to do something for victims and potential victims of crime. To achieve that, prisons must provide the capacity for prisoners to work hard and productively, and we need a robust system for deducting part of their earnings to help victims and for other appropriate purposes.
The Bill has three purposes. They are: crime prevention, national housework and help for victims. Victims can be divided into three categories--actual victims, families of victims and taxpayers.
The Bill is not about increasing prisoners' wages, but it allows for a modest pay increase which is necessary to motivate them. Since 1991, the Prison Service has made commendable progress in developing so-called enhanced wages schemes. In 18 prisons, 1,300 prisoners out of 9,000 are employed by prison industries and farms on this scheme. Instead of earning the ordinary wage of £7 a week, prisoners on the scheme are paid £15 or perhaps, occasionally, a little more. However, the average amount is £15. The effects on motivation and output have been quite dramatic. In one workshop output has tripled from
the same number of workers. The beauty of the scheme is that all the extra pay is funded from the value of the extra output produced, so there is no net cost to the taxpayer.
The introduction of a comprehensive system of deductions has been held back by the lack of a proper legal framework, so the Bill provides a clear statutory framework for four deductions: board and lodgings, upkeep of dependants, savings and contributions to victim support and crime prevention schemes. Participation in the enhanced wages scheme to which deductions will apply is a privilege. Prisoners will earn that privilege. Only then will they be allowed to take part. If they are not allowed that privilege, the alternatives will be ordinary prison work on ordinary prison pay.
I have little doubt that the scheme will prove popular among prisoners, leading to increased levels of activity in prison workshops and to busy prisons. It will mean that prison authorities will have to find more work for prisoners. I understand people's concerns about where the work will come from. It is crucial that it should not be obtained at the expense of law-abiding jobseekers in the wider community. That is why the Prison Service is increasingly seeking to work in partnership with private sector firms seeking opportunities for import substitution, and making every effort to ensure that local jobs are not lost. The prison population is about 54,000. If we can get a high proportion of those people working productively, that will help in a small way to stimulate the economy and to contribute to growth and a reduction in unemployment.
May I share with hon. Members a few examples that illustrate those points? For a Manchester firm, bulk container bag production is in progress in certain prisons. That involves import substitutions that would otherwise come from Turkey. For a midlands firm, safe workwear is being produced by machinists in prisons after advertisements locally for machinists produced no replies. Again, no local jobs have been lost.
For Minit shoe repair shops, refurbishing of machines takes place at Wymott prison. For the Prison Service, mugs and toothbrushes are produced at Ranby prison--there is even a night shift to produce those. For another company, mozzarella and ricotta cheese are produced at East Sutton Park. If that prompts hon. Members to ask, next time they eat a pizza, where the cheese comes from, so be it.
In the course of producing the Bill and during its passage through the House, I have been asked some questions. I should like to respond quickly on a few of them. What of prisoners' dependants? Will they lose social benefits? If there is a payment from the prisoner to the family, there may be some replacement of social security benefit, but, given that one of the main causes of spiralling crime is the break-up of family life, I believe that if the Bill can retain the link between the prisoner and the dependant family so that marriages are saved, that will reduce the likelihood of an offender reoffending.
How will the Bill affect the enhanced wages scheme? It will not affect the scheme badly. Prisoners will still be better off than under the old mailbag and pocket money scheme. The enhanced wages scheme will still succeed.
Will prisons directly benefit from the Bill? That is especially relevant to contracted-out prison services. There is a yes and a no. Money from the payment for board and lodging will go directly to the Consolidated
Fund and to the Treasury, so no contracted-out prison--indeed, no prison--will have any conflict of interest, but prisons will benefit because morale in them will be better and they can apply to the Treasury or the Consolidated Fund for project money, possibly from that source.
How will the money be apportioned? I have already mentioned the four destinations. Initially, it will be split simply among four objects, but over the years it may be varied accordingly to what seems relevant in a particular case.
What safeguards will there be against excessive deductions? There will be the prison rules and there will be common sense. This is a voluntary scheme that will succeed only with the will and motivation of the prisoners. In any event, we are signatories to conventions that prevent the use of forced labour which we must observe.
How will the funds be administered? The prisons will set up savings accounts and systems to send money directly to dependants and to voluntary victim support and crime prevention organisations.
Will the scheme be unfair to the unemployed? Indeed, it was put to me by a forceful journalist yesterday that prisoners should stick to breaking rocks in prison. It does not help anyone for prisoners to remain idle. It just adds to our economic burden. It is in the interests of even the unemployed that when prisoners leave prison they have a greater likelihood of going straight, not least because many of the victims of crime are themselves unemployed.
The Government have a proud record on victim support, the funds for which have been increased by 8 per cent. this year. Some £11.7 million has been paid out this year. Under the present arrangements, this Bill will add money to that. That is what the Government intend and there are no plans to change that. Compensation orders will be paid first by offenders in prison, before they become part of the scheme.
1.24 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |