| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.8 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West): This hasbeen a good debate, as the hon. Member for Ogmore(Sir R. Powell) said. Friday debates bring out the real personalities of hon. Members, and can produce extraordinary consensus or disagreement across the House.
I cannot think of a previous occasion in nearly 10 years in the House on which I have agreed with nearly everything that the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) has said. I served on a council with her daughter for six years before coming here, and I cannot recall agreeing with anything that she said, either. However, I agree with what the hon. Lady said today. The hon. Member for Ogmore was right to pay tribute to her thoughtful treatment of the subject.
The debate has not been party political--or at least, not until the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth(Mr. Michael) spoke. We all understand that that is how he speaks, and we indulge it. There is no issue on which he cannot act like a pit bull terrier, with blatant disregard for the facts. That is understandable. The House absorbed his contribution, and returned to a non-party political debate on this serious issue.
The Bill has several worthwhile elements. We have to accept--this is not a party political point--that it is based on proposals set out by the Government in November to tighten the rules on the marketing for knives and to strengthen police stop and search powers. Much mention has been made already of the obnoxious gentleman on Radio 4 this morning, who seemed to treat the issue as a game that did not matter. He believes--when pressed even gently, he could not prove this--that all the knives he sells are put in glass cases. There is very little chance of that being correct. An examination of his company by the constabulary would be welcome.
The issue is not a game. As Mrs. Lawrence has shown the nation, it is a serious business. The starting point has to be advertising. It is important to get rid of the style of marketing of knives that suggests an aggressive use for them. If we allow such marketing to continue, not just combat knives but others that resemble them will be carried.
The offence should apply to the name of the knifeand to any associated marketing literature. Clauses 1 and2 make aggressive marketing of knives illegal.
At the start of my speech, I was carried away with my comments about the hon. Member for Preston, and neglected to pay an enormous tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray). His decision to introduce the Bill is commendable. I hope that hon.
13 Dec 1996 : Column 551
This is a short Session. A private Member's Bill is a delicate flower in any Session, and can be struck down by any group that opposes it. The hon. Gentleman has taken a small bite of the issue and brought forward a narrow Bill that does not go beyond what we can prove or what we believe we can do. It is clear that hon. Members on both sides support the Bill. I pay tribute to his wisdom in that. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) is right to say that we shall have to return to the issue because the Bill is narrow, but that is a tribute to the skill of the hon. Member for Provan, not a criticism.
The stronger stop-and-search powers for the police are right. Any attempt to ban the sale of certain types of knife or to restrict the marketing of knives will have only a limited impact on knife-related crime. Criminals can and do use many other objects to commit crime, including a variety of kitchen knives, screwdrivers or the murderous Stanley knives that many of us have at home.
The Government believe--and the Opposition now believe--that the most effective way in which to make our streets safer from knives and offensive weapons isto strengthen the powers of the police to stop andsearch people. My hon. Friend the Member for BurySt. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) mentioned people who were against the Bill. The more he lists those who are against the Bill, the more everyone else in the country will be in favour of it. He did the House a good service in listing those people.
The Bill would amend the code of practice of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 so that the police can stop and search anyone who is thought to be part of a gang. The tragic death of Philip Lawrence brought home to us that important point.
By chance, I drove past the Lawrences' home in Ealing, which is not far from where I live, last Friday. Until then, I had not known where they lived, except that it was in Ealing. The reason I found out where they lived was that there were police and a gaggle of camera crews outside.
I am sure we all abhor the problems that the Lawrence family are having with malicious and sick-minded people. However, the tranquillity and peace of the Lawrence family is not helped by the huge media attention, with camera crews, a links vehicle with its enormously high aerial, and reporters gathered outside their house, over-reporting an incident that was personal to the family. The press should show a little more self-control when they report such matters.
My next remarks may seem to be criticisms of the Bill, although I hope that the hon. Member for Provan will accept that they are not. They are simply observations about the difficulty of this whole area of law. The shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Blackburn(Mr. Straw)--this is not a criticism of him--said that he would soon come up with a definition of a knife that should not be carried. He has not done so--which is not surprising, as it is almost certainly impossible. A number of incidents have led me to believe that.
I discussed the matter with staff of the Crown Prosecution Service in Harrow and with some of the national people. My fear is that, if we get rid of combat knives, we are left with the kitchen knives that hon.
13 Dec 1996 : Column 552
My point is not a criticism of the Bill; Parliament has to attempt to legislate on knives, and we are right to do so today. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend the Minister and the police must keep a watching brief on precisely what is happening in the courts. They must consider whether we need to modify the law as we go along to catch the criminals.
Mr. Michael:
The hon. Gentleman is making a serious point. He is right to say that we need to keep an eye on the way in which the law is implemented.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill contains elements that deal separately with the definition of what can and cannot be sold? Does he also agree that the Bill allows the courts to make a common-sense judgment, as they do when dealing with the carrying of an offensive weapon? The Bill allows, as it were, the elephant to be recognised even when it cannot be defined. It allows the courts to exercise common sense as Parliament and the public wish them to do.
Mr. Hughes:
Absolutely. The Bill covers that issue as well as it can. However, I have a deep suspicion that it will be monkeyed about with by clever lawyers, who will attempt to move the definition and prove that someone has the right to carry a knife.
I understand that certain Rastafarian youths in south London carry a knife with a short blade and a sharp serrated edge. When they are stopped, they tell the police that they are vegetarian and are carrying a fruit peeling knife. Although I am also a vegetarian, I do not possess a fruit peeling knife, and if I did, I certainly would not be carrying it now. That illustrates the problem of people carrying knives, apparently for legitimate use.
In a recent incident--which I shall not explain in detail, as it has yet to come before the courts--a man carrying a meat cleaver was stopped near a school. It is a particularly sensitive issue because of the terrifying incident that came to court so recently. The man's initial defence--that no doubt will be pursued--was that it was a tool of his trade. A number of people will use that defence.
Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde):
I am absolutely delighted to speak in today's debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) is an incredible character. In many ways, he is one of the largest figures in the House, and he is one of my closest friends.
13 Dec 1996 : Column 553
Let me give some of the background to my support of the Bill. My hon. Friend and I both come from Glasgow. My hon. Friend comes from the Gorbals, and I come from the neighbouring area of Govan. I remember the anger and frustration of my parents and many others in Glasgow when the book called "No Mean City" was written. It gave the impression that there was gang warfare in every street, village and hamlet. That is completely untrue. It portrayed Glasgow in a terribly bad light throughout the world. It was a best seller for the wrong reasons. My hon. Friend will agree that it did not describe Glasgow as it really was.
Glasgow is one of the finest cities in the world. It has some of the warmest, most lovable people. Anyone and everyone should come and visit Glasgow. It is a city of culture--a wonderful place with marvellous people, and we have a marvellous time there. People do not walk about with knives, razors and tackety-boots to kick the hell out of folk. That is not our city. However, in common with other cities, Glasgow has its yobbo culture and suffers the same problems. The House is designed to introduce legislation to limit the damage that can be done to our good folk who want to live in peace and harmony and enjoy the full fruits of life.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has introduced the Bill. There is a obviously a tremendous need for it, as the crime statistics show. I shall not go on about the crime statistics, but I should like to raise a number of issues.
In my constituency, a couple of young policemen have been stabbed and seriously injured. I know many young people who have been stabbed and had to go to hospital, and have been maimed for life. I know people who have been killed with knives.
I heard the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) speak about his youth, and about being in the Army for 15 years. I do not want to imply any criticism, but I presume that he was an officer, given that he is a Tory. I presume that he went into the Army for 15 years because he could not get a job because his dad's business was not big enough. The young folk I knew had to go into the Army because they could not get a job, but while they were serving, they were sheltered from some of the things that happened to civilians in the cities; they missed what we call the culture of violence.
I remember my days in Glasgow when I was young. I lived on the streets of Glasgow, in the sense that I went to the dances and the parks. I watched the clowns--I called them clowns--who were the nonentities in a gang or a group of young men. They were probably not the strongest physically, and they were certainly not the cleverest in the group. As I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Provan would agree, some of them would come up and flash their knife or dagger--the Nazi daggers that were floating around Glasgow at the time--and think that they were tough, hard men. A guy became a hard man because, in Glasgow slang, he was carrying a chiv--a weapon, a blade. People would talk about these guys, and they became a big man, a hard man. People would say, "Willie's carrying a chiv," and Willie's reputation grew as a result.
I watch movies; I am a movie buff, I buy videos until they come out of my ears, and enjoy watching them for relaxation. Members of Parliament cannot always watch
13 Dec 1996 : Column 554
I like a lot of foreign film stars, but when I watch Rambo shooting 200 or 300 people, I wonder how there was ever a war. If they had brought him in, the rest of them in the war would have been down the road in five minutes. I have seen "Die Hard", "Die Harder" and "Die Hard with a Vengeance", with guys crawling about buildings, lobbing this and that, and blowing everything to smithereens.
I remember the Kung Fu pictures, when they kicked their feet up and there was a wee blade in the shape of a star, which would be thrown all of a sudden, slice someone's head--and they were dead. I even remember Odd Job in the James Bond films. He looked a bit like me in those days, except he had a hat that he threw at someone's head--and they were dead.
We should think about the fact that all that violence was designed to kill, maim and look great. Everyone used to say, "Oh, what a movie. That was great killing." I remember going to the matinees when I was a young kid and seeing Tom Mix, shooting and blowing people away with his gun. It was great. I remember Robin Hood with his bow and arrow and William Tell's great victory. All the kids came out of the pictures and ran along the road pretending to be Tom Mix, William Tell and Superman.
We are conditioning our kids to accept violence. We are bringing them up right in the middle of that violent core. We have created a culture of violence through propaganda and by allowing television, radio and video to become rampant. I am not calling for censorship or for a restriction of civil liberties: I am asking for common sense.
Not long ago, in preparation for the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Provan, I visited a knife shop. I could not believe the display of horrific knives. There was a knife like a sword: if it were put into somebody and pulled out, all their guts would spill all over the table. That is different from a kitchen knife. I am not saying that kitchen knives do not kill, because they do. Put them in and pull them out and there is blood. However, when Rambo knives are put in, they rip out and cause mind-boggling damage.
Many young folk think it glamorous to carry a knife and to act the tough nut on the hard man scene. Their pals think, "Wait a minute, look at wee Willie. He is a tough, hard man, and I would like to be tough." Everybody would like to be able to hold their own, but that does not happen in life. I know people who have been stabbed to death or maimed for life because of the culture of knives. Young people can be conned by all the glamour, and we must start doing something to stop that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |