| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.17 am
Mrs. Audrey Wise (Preston): Every day we read in the newspapers about stabbings. This morning, I read about the stabbing of an elderly lady by someone who tricked his way into her home. Most of the cases never reach the national papers, but in our local papers in our constituencies, hardly a day goes by without an account of a stabbing. That demonstrates what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) said about there being 1,000 such incidents every day.
We are in a serious situation, and it is a tragedy that knives are so commonplace. In one sense, of course, knives will always be commonplace: they are in everyone's kitchen. Those who use that fact to argue that there is little that we can do, because we cannot get rid of knives altogether and that we are therefore fighting a losing battle, are wrong. That is akin to the argument that there is no point in cleaning our homes, because there will always be dust and dirt: we clean today and the dirt is back tomorrow, so why bother?
We need knives, and I am not suggesting that we go back to rending things with our bare hands, but I think that there is a qualitative distinction that can be identified between knives of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Provan, which are the main problem, and knives in the kitchen. It is a matter not of the sharpness of the knives but of their purpose and marketing.
It is perfectly legitimate to have an extremely sharp vegetable knife in my kitchen, but if I were sitting here with it in my handbag or walking along the street with it, it would be open to people to say that there was something peculiar about that, unless I had just bought it and was carrying it home, in which case I could produce a receipt. It is perfectly sensible to say that kitchen knives do not present a major problem. Of course it is impossible to legislate against somebody in a fit of temper picking up a bread knife and stabbing somebody, but that should not stop us legislating where we can do so sensibly.
Marketing is the major factor. It can be said that there would be no supply if there were no demand, but I believe that the supply stimulates the demand and that people are incited to be interested in such weapons by advertisements such as those described today by hon. Members of all parties.
Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow):
Does my hon. Friend agree that the knife culture in this country also emanates to a great extent from the violence in the Hollywood movies
13 Dec 1996 : Column 541
Mrs. Wise:
I agree. It is often said that people are not influenced by films or by television; I do not believe that. A constant diet of violent images must have an impact. Those who advertise consumer goods believe that too, as otherwise they would keep their money in their businesses and not bother spending it on advertising. If television had no influence, why would they use it? Of course it has an influence.
To those who say that everything is justified in the name of art and constantly refer us to Shakespeare--usually "Hamlet"--I would say that children never subsisted on an unadulterated diet of "Hamlet"; besides which, it is a little presumptuous of film-makers to class themselves in Shakespeare's category.
There is a place for drama, even on unpleasant or violent themes, but it is not acceptable that it is beamed into our homes day after day and watched by children from their earliest years.
Mr. Robathan:
I agree whole-heartedly with the hon. Lady. She specifically mentioned "Hamlet". When she was a child, did she come home from watching a play or a film and not then enact to a certain extent what she had seen? I remember a character called Hopalong Cassidy, whom I saw at a children's party; as soon as we had watched the film, we rushed out and played cowboys and Indians. Is not that what most children do?
Mrs. Wise:
The hon. Gentleman is right. The problem is that what children may enact nowadays after seeing it on television is a lot more dangerous than Hopalong Cassidy.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), I heard with dismay a person who markets knives saying that we are tinkering with the law, so he will tinker with his advertisements. That gentleman on the radio this morning showed that not only a knife culture but a business culture is at fault--a culture that says that anything that makes a profit is fine. I do not agree with that.
The appeal to greed, justifying anything in the name of money-making, is obnoxious. We are dealing with two equally obnoxious cultures: the knife culture among too many young people, and a creed of business greed among too many of those engaged in commerce. I deplore them both.
The gentleman on the radio said that he had an excellent relationship with the Advertising Standards Authority. I only hope that that was not accurate. If it was, the authority should tighten its attitude and its procedures. He boasted that he would be able to get round the legislation, and I hope that he will be proved wrong.
If marketing cannot be stopped, the knife culture cannot be arrested. If marketing, advertising and glamorising can be stopped, we can prevent knives from ever getting into many people's hands and we can remove the attraction.
My only worries about the Bill concern some of the defences. We--I include myself as a sponsor of the Bill--are allowing a defence that the knife is "an antique or
13 Dec 1996 : Column 542
A constituent rang me the other day to tell me about an advertisement that he had received in the post for a knife that was described as a decorative object but had exactly the sort of blade and other attributes that make a knife especially dangerous. Although the knife was £145 to buy, it could be obtained by sending a first payment of only £14.50.
Such an advertisement could get into the home of a law-abiding person and a youngster there could pick it up and obtain a very dangerous knife by sending £14.50, which is not a lot of money. I was worried by that, and my constituent was more than worried: he was livid. We must be careful that we do not allow too many loopholes and that they are not taken advantage of too much.
Mr. McWilliam:
In 1988, I had the honour to be presented with a kukri by the Brigade of Gurkhas. I have a duty to maintain it, but I keep it safely locked away. I do not hang it on the wall, because it is an exceedingly dangerous knife.
Mrs. Wise:
I appreciate my hon. Friend's intervention. I was worried about the knives that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) described hanging on his wall, even though they were behind glass. I did not think that that was a secure way to keep such weapons. I only hope that he is not robbed.
The main purpose of the Bill is to tackle marketing. I do not regard it as a threat to civil liberties. I am not at all averse to a civil liberty culture, but I do not think that the Bill harms that. If the police were to use the Bill unreasonably and without discretion, I would worry. I back the Bill on the assumption that the police are as worried as I am about the carrying of knives, want the estates and streets of my constituency to be safe and will not exceed their proper duties as a result of the Bill. I deplore it being described as in any way rolling back civil liberties, which are very important. Everyone, or at least every Opposition Member, wants to defend them; but all liberty is circumscribed in some way. I therefore have no hesitation in wishing to circumscribe the liberty of those who carry knives or market them for profit. I do not want the Bill to be misrepresented.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |