| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Wray: The Minister and I spent many hours consulting the Home Office and various other people on the stop-and-search powers. Originally, I did not intend--and the Government did not request--stop-and-search powers to be part of the long title. We needed to amend section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, but found that it would not have applied to Scotland. That is why I left the door open by putting stop-and-search powers in the long title. There was no intention to have a separate clause giving random stop-and-search powers. I merely wanted to amend section 60 of the 1994 Act to provide the necessary powers to deal with knives as, under the 1994 Act at present, the powers deal only with violence. Everybody was happy with that arrangement.
Mr. Merchant: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I congratulate him on being prepared to include in the Bill the necessary amendment to section 60 of the 1994 Act to extend the stop-and-search powers of the police under that Act to cover the carrying of knives. I welcome that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not feel that I am being critical; I am not. I happen to think that there is a case for extending the powers a little further, but that does not mean that I am against what he has put in his Bill. I would like there to be some widening of the powers, either through this Bill or at some future stage.
Labour Members may believe that my constituency is a leafy suburb, but there is a difficult area in Penge, where there is a high level of violence, especially at weekends. The majority of the area's population are very concerned
13 Dec 1996 : Column 547
Mr. Brian David Jenkins (South-East Staffordshire):
I have sat through all this debate and listened to all the references to violence in cities and large towns. The knife culture has spread to rural areas, including those in my constituency. Only last week, when one of my constituents saw someone trying to pinch his car and went to remonstrate, he was stabbed. That happened beside fields; this is not just an urban and inner-city problem. The knife culture is endemic, and is found in rural areas.
Mr. Merchant:
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right; I was merely giving an example from my constituency--which, for the purposes of this argument, does not have a green field in it. I have therefore to refer to an inner-urban area.
In the area of Penge that I mentioned, there is an undercurrent of violence. It is not part of the culture of the majority of the population, who want it stamped out. It might, at some stage, become necessary for the police to invoke the powers in this Bill. If they judge it to be right to do so, I would support them, but I would like them to be able to invoke them, in the first instance, for longer than the 24 hours provided for in the Bill. I accept that the Bill provides for subsequent periods to be added to the original 24 hours, but I should like the original period to be60 hours so that it covers a weekend. Often, those who threaten violence, knife carrying or gang activities meet over a weekend, not for only 24 hours.
I should also like to extend the reasons for stop and search beyond the supposition that someone is carrying a knife, to include drugs. We heard a moving speech from the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), who graphically described how often violence is linked with drugs. That, too, is an aspect that should be examined.
Mr. Michael:
It is important that we engage with the important issues that the hon. Gentleman is raising, but we must do so with care. The period of 48 hours, which would be allowed under the Bill through the exercise of the initial 24 hours plus an extension of 24 hours, would meet what the experience of the police has shown to be necessary. It is important that we achieve a balance between the police having the right powers to protect the public and there being protections against any excessive use of those powers. Indeed, the police are very sensitive to that matter. The hon. Gentleman should be careful not to try to go too far and so disturb the consensus on making progress on the Bill.
Mr. Merchant:
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here when I said that I accepted that this is an extremely sensitive area and that it is important to get the balance right. I am simply pointing out that I am pulled in the direction of a slightly wider power than the one in the Bill. However, I also said earlier that it was not my intention to oppose or delay the Bill. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister that the House will return to the subject of knives and knife crime.
Sir Raymond Powell (Ogmore):
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) not only on grasping the nettle by introducing his Bill and on his good fortune in being number one in the ballot for private Members' Bills, but on using that good fortune to promote a controversial but very important Bill. I am sure that, by now, he has persuaded not only most of his colleagues on the Opposition Benches of his case, but, in all probability, many Conservative Members. The Bill is important, and it must be enacted very quickly. My hon. Friend has had the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) throughout his campaign. No doubt with him on his side, his Bill is as good as passed.
Today is Friday the 13th, and people who are superstitious might say that that is unlucky. Today could indeed be very unlucky for some of those who trade or use knives, but lucky for those who have been the victims of people who use such weapons. This morning, when I arrived at 9.30 am, I had to look again at the Bill's title because, after seeing the hon. Members who were in the Chamber, I thought that we were engaged either in a sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee or in a Scottish debate. I thought that perhaps another Bill had been pushed in front of the one proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Provan. Only when I saw my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) did I realise that we must be debating this Bill. All my doubts were definitely dispelled when I saw my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow in the Chamber.
I pledge my support for the Bill and for its provisions to ban the sale and advertising of combat knives. I recall the shadow Home Secretary producing--I would not be able to get away with it--a large paper that showed, not only to the Home Secretary and a crowded House but to the television cameras and the public, the size of a combat knife. That proved conclusively to everyone who is involved or interested in this debate why it is necessary to ban such weapons and for the Bill to be passed. The Bill will stop the marketing of such lethal weapons and allow the police to stop and search gangs of youths who roam the streets tooled up for violence.
Today, my hon. Friend the Member for Provan has eloquently and clearly explained the Bill's provisions. He deserves the Government's congratulations, and their full support in enacting it as expeditiously as possible. I wonder whether the Minister has any objections to the Bill or whether, in his reply to this debate, he will promise us that it will have the Government's full support, and that it will be dealt with expeditiously in Committee and be on the statute book within weeks, in 1997.
Mr. Maclean:
I had not intended to reply to this debate, but I can give the hon. Gentleman those assurances. There are a few small matters to be clarified--which will be technical, drafting amendments. I should like to discuss the stop-and-search powers, and the rank of an authorising officer, but those are matters for the Committee. I have no other objections to the Bill. Other hon. Members have not expressed to me other objections
13 Dec 1996 : Column 549
Sir Raymond Powell:
I am very grateful, as I am sure are the House and the nation, for those words of encouragement and support.
Hon. Members receive mail from across the country, from our constituents, and from others. Some letters worry us. In the past few months, hon. Members have received letters about guns and dogs, but especially about knives. All the letters reveal different attitudes. I received one this week from D. R. Stow of West Down, north Devon, who also enclosed a short poem entitled "Remember justice". It is relevant to our debate and I shall read it out so that hon. Members might understand what other people think.
In October this year, Frances Lawrence, the widow of the murdered head teacher Philip Lawrence, wrote in her manifesto for the nation:
"There was a time in days gone by
I do not agree with everything in the poem, but I do not think that the person who wrote it was directing his attention to our discussions. All of us are worried about guns; I am a dog lover and I am worried about restrictions on dogs; today we are worried about knives. It is essential that the Bill is given adequate consideration before it is put on the statute book to ensure that it does not restrict people unnecessarily.
When justice for all was the common cry
When men of Honour could stand tall
And the law of the land was "Justice for All".
Then came a time when crime was rife
And politicians cried ban the gun, the dog, the knife!
I was guilty of no crime
But the politicians said the fault was mine.
My dog, a kindly old soul
Was no longer allowed his daily stroll
The pistol I shot in my leisure time
Through no fault of mine became a crime
The penknife I used in my daily work
In the eyes of the press became a deadly Dirk.
As I sit and wonder with a shrug
At what time did I become a thug
All I ask in this simple plea
Is for God's sake punish the criminal . . . not me!"
"Is it not shocking to discover how easy it is to acquire battlefield blades which can have no function other than to be flourished by the inadequate and cowardly?"
That message explains the necessity for the Bill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |