| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Knives (Stop-and-search Powers)
4. Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards further extending the powers of the police to stop and search for knives without time or geographical restrictions; and if he will make a statement. [6151]
Mr. Howard: A police officer may stop and search anyone if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find stolen or prohibited articles, such as a knife. We intend to amend the code of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to make it clear that reasonable suspicion includes intelligence that shows that members of a group or gang habitually carry knives. We have also proposed that police powers should be extended,
5 Dec 1996 : Column 1189
so that they can stop and search anyone in a particular area if they reasonably believe that people are carrying knives in that area. Those powers would have to be authorised by an officer of at least inspector rank for a maximum period of 48 hours.
Sir Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a change to 48 hours and to authorisation by an officer of the rank of inspector in a area where violence is suspected will be welcome, and will make a substantial contribution towards dealing with the difficult problem of knives in the community?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am aware that police associations have welcomed the proposals as a significantly useful reinforcement to their powers, which will enable them the more effectively to protect the public.
Mr. Llwyd: That proposal is all very well--I am sure that it will be a useful addition--but what do the Government intend to do about the availability of knives to the public? What is the latest Government thinking on the private Member's Bill to be presented to the House a week on Friday? Will the Home Secretary please tell the House and the general public what is being done about the availability of such knives?
Mr. Howard: We have suggested to the promoter of that private Member's Bill an excellent package to deal with the problem. I hope that he will adopt those proposals and include them in his Bill. If he does so, he will have our full support.
Sir Irvine Patnick: Will my right hon. and learned Friend deal with the problems associated with Stanley knives? It is not only the length and type of knife that matters. Stanley knives can inflict dangerous injuries. How will stop-and-search powers deal with them? If I were at a dance with a Stanley knife in my pocket, I could be a suspect, but what about people walking in the street?
Mr. Howard: In the circumstances that I identified in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby), the police would have extra powers to search. We have substantially increased the penalties for people who carry knives in public without lawful excuse. We recently embarked on an extensive publicity campaign to ensure that everyone knows that those powers exist, and that if they continue to carry knives in public without a lawful excuse, they run the risk of spending a substantial period in prison. We urge people not to carry knives in public without lawful excuse, so as not to run that risk.
Crime Prevention
5. Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recommendations of the Audit Commission on the prevention of crime contained in its report "Misspent Youth". [6152]
Mr. Maclean: The Government are determined to do all that they can to prevent children turning to crime. However, they do not accept the Audit Commission's
5 Dec 1996 : Column 1190
recommendation that local authorities be given an enhanced role in dealing with juvenile criminals. Punishment must be a matter for the police, the probation service and the courts.
Mr. Gunnell: Does the Minister agree with the Audit Commission's core findings that our youth justice system is inefficient, not working properly and in urgent need of reform? If he is aware of the initiatives that West and South Yorkshire police have taken with regard to young people and crime, will he ensure that such preventive measures are co-ordinated, expanded and resourced, as the Audit Commission recommends? Or are the commission's recommendations too close to Labour party policy for him to accept good advice when he gets it, as would seem to be the case?
Mr. Maclean: I am not surprised that the Labour party grasped at the suggestion that social workers, rather than the courts, be put in charge of justice. I can accept a large number of the Audit Commission's analyses of the problem. What was rather disappointing, naive and unconvincing was its solution, which was to hive people away from the courts and do more cautioning. We are keen on cautioning for first-time offenders because that has about an 80 per cent. success rate. It is naive, however, to believe that a large pool of first-time offenders are wrongly going to court and could be hived off and cautioned instead. That is nonsense and, because the Audit Commission got that wrong, it rather undermines its credibility in the matter.
Dr. Twinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a serious aspect of youth crime is that many of the crimes committed by repeat offenders take place while they are waiting for their cases to go to court? More of those young people should be remanded in secure places, where they could perhaps start treatment for crack and other addictions, rather than waiting for months and repeating their crimes while in the care of local authorities.
Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right, but the Opposition voted against our proposals to lock up habitual young offenders when they voted against our proposals for secure training centres. It is not merely that the Opposition vote against measures that would mean people being locked up; they even vote against community punishments. When we increased community sentences to 240 hours, the Opposition voted to cut them to 120. When we introduced curfew orders for the first time, they opposed that. The Opposition are pretending that they are worried about youth crime, but they have voted and argued against all that we have been trying to do to crack down on young offenders.
Mr. Straw: Why does the Minister not accept that, of all his and the Government's many failures on law and order, nowhere have they failed more than on youth crime? Is it not astonishing that, in the past 10 years, while the number of crimes committed by youngsters has shot up, the number dealt with by the police and courts has dropped alarmingly, delays have worsened, costs increased and the number of secure accommodation places decreased? Instead of all this bluster, why does the Minister not accept that the Audit Commission report confirms the urgent need for Labour's pledge to halve the
5 Dec 1996 : Column 1191
time that it takes to bring persistent young offenders to court--the Minister laughs at that pledge and the country can see him laughing, complicit in the delays, which have got worse in the past 10 years--and for our proposals to ensure that prompt and effective action is taken to punish, divert and deter young offenders? Or is the Minister going to continue to do nothing, so that too many youngsters stay out of control, blighting their lives and causing misery for thousands of members of the public?
Mr. Maclean: That was a good example of bluster if I ever heard one in this House. The reason why I was laughing and am still chuckling is that we have heard that that much-touted Labour pledge will halve the time that it takes to get kids to court, but the Opposition have not spelt out a single detail of how they will do it. They have not spelt out how they will make the defence move more quickly or how they will expedite the files. They have not spelt out a single detail on those matters.
Through our pre-trial issues steering group, we have taken practical action to expedite files and to get people, including juveniles, to trial faster. The Magistrates Association has recently announced that it will bring to trial early youngsters who are up on multiple charges, and it will bring them to trial for the first offence.
If the hon. Gentleman has been so very worried about juvenile crime, I can conclude only that he has been away from the House for far too long. He voted against all the measures that we have taken to deal with juvenile crime. He voted against community sentences and curfew orders, and he even voted against making parents attend court in all circumstances. Labour even voted to cut the time required to be spent at an attendance centre, from 36 to 24 hours. So much for being concerned about juvenile criminals.
6. Mr. Merchant:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminals who took a gun to a crime have been given a life sentence since 1989.[6153]
Mr. Howard:
Some 123 persons were given a life sentence for homicide offences initially recorded in the years 1989-95, in which the method of killing was shooting. Information for other offences is not available separately.
Mr. Merchant:
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that taking a gun to a crime is a very serious matter, and that, therefore, every effort must be made to crack down on that type of crime? Does he agree that the tough measures included in his Crime (Sentences) Bill will help stamp out second offences?
Mr. Howard:
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for his support. Automatic life sentences for those who commit a second serious violent offence will bring home to people the importance of not committing such offences. More importantly, they will protect the public by ensuring that no one who does commit such an offence is released unless and until an assessment has been made of whether they still pose a risk to the public. If they do not pose a risk, they will be released, but if
5 Dec 1996 : Column 1192
7. Mr. John Marshall:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminals who have used a gun to threaten with intent have received a life sentence in each of the past six years. [6154]
Mr. Howard:
It is an offence under the firearms Acts, subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, to be in possession of a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence. In the six years from 1990-95, 717 people were convicted of that offence in England and Wales, and 420 of them were imprisoned, with an average sentence of 36 months. None was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Mr. Marshall:
Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept my thanks for that answer, which explains the need for his Crime (Sentences) Bill? His Bill will ensure that persistent and dangerous offenders are properly punished, and that the law-abiding majority are properly protected. Should not his Bill be welcomed by all those who claim to be tough on crime?
Mr. Howard:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I entirely agree with him. We still await the details of the Labour party's response to those proposals in the crime Bill, although we know that it will oppose many aspects of my proposals. We shall leave no stone unturned as we remind the public of the proposals that we intend to put in place, which are being constantly blocked by the Labour party.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |