UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 433-i

House of COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

 

 

KNIFE CRIME

 

 

Tuesday 27 March 2007

MR VERNON COAKER MP, MR SIMON KING and MS VANESSA NICHOLLS

Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 74

 

 

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1.	This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
2.	Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
3.	Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
4.	Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.

 

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Home Affairs Committee

on Tuesday 27 March 2007

Members present

Mr John Denham, in the Chair

Mr Jeremy Browne

Ms Karen Buck

Mr James Clappison

Mrs Janet Dean

Gwyn Prosser

Bob Russell

Martin Salter

Mr Gary Streeter

________________

 

Memorandum submitted by the Home Office

 

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Mr Vernon Coaker MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr Simon King, Head, Violent Crime Unit, and Ms Vanessa Nicholls, Director, Crime and Drugs Strategy Directorate, Home Office, gave evidence.

Q1 Chairman: Minister, thank you very much for coming back so quickly after your appearance here a couple of weeks ago. The issue of knife crime is one that has been of concern to the Committee for some time. As you know, we fixed this session several months ago in response to a request from Mr Russell who dealt with a tragic constituency case. You will also know that just under two weeks ago two of my constituents were found stabbed to death in Southampton, and sadly in the past few weeks there has been a rash of high profile cases. I do not believe anybody would underestimate the importance of the issues that we have asked you to come here to discuss today. Perhaps you would like to introduce your colleagues and we will then get under way.

Mr Coaker: Simon King is head of the violent crime unit and Vanessa Nicholls is director of the crime and drugs strategy directorate of the Home Office.

Q2 Chairman: Perhaps I may start with a very general question to which we will return in detail fairly soon. I know that you chair a task force to look into a range of different crime issues. Just explain to the Committee when that was set up and its remit.

Mr Coaker: I start by thanking the Committee for its inquiry into knife crime. As you said in your introduction, it is a very important topic. The Home Secretary at the time launched what is called the Round Table on Guns, Knives and Gangs. This involves a wide range of stakeholders and different governments departments: the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Home Office. It also has on it representatives of the police. There are various ACPO leads on gun, knife and violent crime, but, importantly, it also has a number of voluntary stakeholders who represent a wide range of faith and community organisations so they can feed into the deliberations of the group.

Q3 Chairman: Is that a group which continues to work and do things or at some point will it produce a new strategy or paper either on knife crime specifically or on a range of issues?

Mr Coaker: What the working group has done is allow people to come together, because obviously one of the things that is often said is that there is a need for people to have the opportunity to come together to discuss issues of mutual concern. But at the last meeting we considered the drawing up of an action plan with respect to guns, knives and gangs to try to draw on the various kinds of expertise. I think that is an important step forward for the group, but we must also be careful that the action plan that we draw up is consistent with other action plans that have been drawn up, for example that concerned with firearms. There is also a draft document setting up good practice for police forces across the country drawn up between the Home Office and ACPO with respect to knife crime. We need to ensure that although that group may say these are the tasks that it believes are important it links into the other work that is being done. I do not want to give the Committee the impression that nothing was being done. The point of the group is to try to build on that work and accelerate progress in some areas. The bringing together of that group emphasises that the solution to these problems and work on them is not one policy or the other. It is about law enforcement, which is why the police are there, and about legislation, which is why the politicians are there to hear what people have to say, but it is also about prevention and working with schools and communities and listening to what they have to say about what more should be done in their own areas to tackle these very real problems. If it is helpful I shall ask my officials to send a copy of that draft to the Committee. This is very much work in progress and we expect to publish it in June.

Q4 Chairman: That is very helpful for the purposes of the background to today's session. I am sure that the Committee, following today's session and having looked at some of the evidence submitted by organisations, would very much like the opportunity to comment on it. Perhaps I may take you back a few steps. Can you start by helping the Committee to sort out the statistics which are sometimes confusing? To what extent is knife crime a growing problem? We all have the perception that it is, but is it a growing problem?

Mr Coaker: It is very important to preface my remarks about statistics. We need to debate the statistics and develop that. In a moment I shall say a little about the work that we intend to do to try to get a better understanding of the extent of knife crime. I should like to put on record that all of us recognise, as the did the Chairman at the beginning, that whatever the statistics say there are individual tragedies and families who have been devastated by what has taken place. I do not want to diminish that in any way. For myself, I know that that is so in Nottingham. The British Crime Survey figures show that knife crime as a proportion of all violent crime has remained relatively stable. The statistics show that 6% to 7% of all violent crime is knife-related. The number of homicides involving sharp instruments, which could be not just knives but screwdrivers or broken bottles, is again broadly stable at about 29% to 30%. It may be helpful if I give you a couple of statistics. Homicide has risen and peaked in 2002/03. Taking 1997/98, there were 608 homicides and of those 202 involved the use of sharp instruments. In 2002/03 there were 953 homicides, of which 266 involved the use of a sharp instrument. In 2005/06 there were 746 homicides and the number involving the use of sharp instruments fell to 212 homicides. It has been broadly stable with respect to homicides and the use of sharp instruments. In a moment when you think it appropriate I shall mention the way forward and the fact that the Home Secretary has pointed out the need for us to gather more information on knife-related crime, because clearly those figures refer to homicide and not other statistics. Many other knife-related offences are not separately identified at the present time; they are contained in other offences such as violence against the person or wounding. But from April 2007 we shall require police forces separately to identify knife-related crimes according to certain categories.

Q5 Chairman: We shall come back to the detail of the statistics but for the moment I want to concentrate on the picture. Those figures suggest that despite these terrible and high profile cases in recent weeks and months there is not a clear upward trend in the number of people being murdered with knives. Can you say a little more about the wider issue of knife crime, or at least knife-carrying, and the extent to which you believe there is a trend for knives to be out in the community which may be used in crime or may simply be there as a potential dangerous weapon?

Mr Coaker: Having given the qualification that the identification of knife-related crime is difficult because it is subsumed, one way to try to get an idea of what is happening is to look at emergency hospital admissions. There is no doubt that such admissions as a result of assault by a sharp object have risen to 5,961 in 2005 from 5,281 in 2002 and 3,500 in 2000. Therefore, there is some evidence of an increasing trend in the use and availability of knives. It is difficult, but there are a couple of statistics that may give the Committee some other evidence. The 2005 Crime and Justice Survey found that 4% of 10 to 25 year-olds said that they had carried a knife in the previous 12 months. The 2004 Safer London Youth Survey found that 10% of inner London school children aged 11 to 15 reported carrying a knife in the previous 12 months. It is right to point out that whilst the BCS figures with respect to homicide have stayed broadly stable there are some issues to do with the carrying of knives and their use. We need to have a better set of data in order to try to quantify that more easily. That is what will happen from April 2007.

Q6 Chairman: You have touched on statistics about young people carrying knives. If we look at the generality of media coverage of this youth issue, my two constituents were in early middle age. Other people die in knife crimes which are not committed by teenagers or young people. To what extent should we regard this primarily as an issue of public concern because of the involvement of young people, and to what extent should we be taking a much broader view and understanding all of the different situations in which people are being killed or wounded with knives?

Mr Coaker: We need to recognise that there is an issue with respect to young people and knives, but it tends to be a broader issue than, for example, gun crime. From the information we have, knife offences cover an age range. People up to their thirties are involved in knife crime, so it is not just specifically a young people's issue, though that tends to be a lot of the focus; it is a much broader issue than that. We know that, for example, in domestic violence knives are sometimes used. As to general availability, we all have knives in our homes and so on; there are knives in the House of Commons. Because of general availability knives are much more likely to be available to people of all ages in all circumstances rather than guns which thankfully are much rarer.

Q7 Mr Browne: As chance would have it, yesterday I was talking to another older Member of Parliament who recalled that in his youth when at university he had broken up a fight in a street. He said that he would not do it now because he would not know whether or not the people had knives on them. Do you believe that the public perception about the likelihood of being a victim of knife crime is exaggerated and out of proportion to the statistics and the prevalence of the commission of such crime?

Mr Coaker: I think people have a general concern about crime today and sometimes it does not reflect the statistics. One of the things that we as a government often point out is that crime has been falling by the BCS measure but the perception of the level of crime and fear of crime have not fallen along with it. Clearly, there are issues to do with the perception and fear of crime and the level of crime. As an individual as well as a Minister I am aware that people are concerned about the consequences of becoming involved in incidents in the street and so on. All I can say is that in statistical terms the proportion of offences in terms of homicide has remained broadly stable. As to possession, the figures indicate some concern, but I understand people's real fear.

Q8 Mr Browne: Unless I am mistaken, crime overall and the irritating and less serious offences, such as having one's car broken into, have reduced but violent crime has increased over the past decade, has it not?

Mr Coaker: Overall, crime has gone down but serious violent crime has risen as you point out and people have that concern. That is why the Government is taking a series of steps by way of the introduction of legislation and other preventative measures.

Q9 Mr Browne: You covered some of the areas that I wanted to touch upon in your earlier remarks. Would you care to speculate about the social trends that underlie this development? Why do you believe there has been a rise in violent crime and why is there increased prevalence of knife-carrying particularly in cities and among young people?

Mr Coaker: Interestingly, one piece of research about safer communities - I have forgotten the name - has looked at the reasons people give for carrying knives. One reason is that there is almost kudos, in the sense of bravado, attached to carrying it, so for some young people it is almost a symbol of something or other. Alongside that, some young people say that they do it to protect themselves; they are concerned about crime and it is about protection. Part of the problem of carrying a knife is that you may think you protect yourself but it makes it more likely that you will become a victim. There is no doubt that some young people carry them in order to commit crime, so there are a number of reasons. Because there are a number of reasons why people carry knives it is also important to have a number of strategies that do something about it on a broad level rather than just one particular policy objective. I have now found the reference. The Communities that Care Safer London Youth Survey 2004 looked at the various reasons people gave for carrying knives. But if we are to do something about this we must look at family intervention and build up strength in communities with peer group pressure with respect to some young people and determine what is effective in terms of law enforcement. We are concerned with all of those things working together to try to overcome the problem.

Q10 Bob Russell: You are probably aware that on Wednesday I presented to the House a petition of 5,000 signatures collected by my constituent Mrs Ann Oakes-Odger. The area of that petition will be covered by my colleague Mr Prosser in connection with the comparison between knife and gun crime. I should like to concentrate in particular on young men who carry and use knives. Why do you think so many young men do carry knives?

Mr Coaker: To repeat the answer I gave Mr Browne, I believe that a number of reasons have to be looked at. Research shows that a number of young people use them because they believe that they help to protect them on the street. A lot of the work that we have been doing is about trying to debunk that myth and to show that it makes you more vulnerable. The whole point of the campaign that we ran in the summer of last year with the Association of Chief Police Officers in relation to the amnesty campaign was that if you carry a knife it can be turned on you. Another area is peer group and increased pressure on some young people in some communities to carry a weapon. It is almost a symbol of membership of the gang and those sorts of things. For a very small minority of young people it is carried as a weapon that they might use.

Q11 Bob Russell: Following your earlier answers to Mr Browne, are we therefore in a vicious circle where crime and lack of confidence in the police cause knives to be carried and so more knife crime results?

Mr Coaker: As always with these things, if a particular problem arises one must try to understand why it is happening. I have given some explanation as to why I believe there has been a problem with respect to knives and the carrying of them. If one then identifies what one believes to be the issue, whether it be a problem within the community, the family, in school or peer group pressure on the individual, one then asks: what is to be done about it? With respect to law enforcement and activity on the street, the police take it very seriously. We have improved and increased the legislation with respect to that. We are working in communities to try to tackle this issue with respect to young people and with a number of voluntary and community organisations. They say that if you want to tackle the problem you cannot just do it from the aspect of law enforcement, the community or school; it is all of those things together. This is a very real problem in some parts of our communities. We need to keep it in perspective without belittling the problem.

Q12 Bob Russell: I understood from one of your previous answers that the evidence showed that nationally one in four young people had carried a knife and in London it was one in 10. Did I hear that aright?

Mr Coaker: When I was quoting the figures for carrying knives, the London Youth Survey found that 10% of inner London school children aged 11 to 15 had reported carrying a knife in the previous 12 months.

Q13 Bob Russell: In all your answers I have heard the word "family" mentioned only once. Everybody else has been mentioned. To what extent is knife-carrying due to inadequate parental supervision or skills?

Mr Coaker: I tried to make sure that I included everything. Obviously, family is extremely important. Where there is a problem in a family and it is dysfunctional clearly it will, among other things, contribute to the possibility that young people may be influenced by others, because the socialising impact of the family will be weaker when set against the possibility of "Why don't you join the gang?" or "Why don't you participate in this?" But one must also say that some people who are involved in knife crime also come from very strong model two-parent family. It can be a contributory factor and it is something that we need to look at. One of the other policies that we are pursuing with DfES is family intervention projects and programmes, working in some of the most difficult areas to ensure that work goes on to support families and parents where there are difficulties. From my own experience as a teacher - I am sure other members of the Committee have the same experience - sometimes it is not just bad parents who need help but very good parents work extremely hard but have difficulty controlling usually their young son or, increasingly, their daughter. A mixture of work needs to be carried out, but certainly work to strengthen and support the family must be one of the other policy planks that we pursue.

Q14 Bob Russell: But is this predominantly a young male problem?

Mr Coaker: Yes, but not exclusively.

Q15 Gwyn Prosser: This morning you have given us a number of statistics, but one thing we have been told is that over the past 10 years there have been three times as many knife-killings in the UK than killings by guns. That is a pretty stark statistic. With that background, how do you respond to the suggestion that government has given far too much priority to gun-killing, which hits the headline all the time, at the expense of the work it should be doing to curb knife-killing?

Mr Coaker: We have not tried to prioritise guns. Gun crime is extremely serious and over the past 10 years the Government has taken its responsibility with respect to guns very seriously. Knives are also an extremely serious issue. We have also taken our responsibility in that regard seriously. One of the matters we have tried to do is ensure that we develop our work through the Round Table and Association of Chief Police Officers. If one looks at the number of convictions for possession in public they can be either a good or bad news story. If we want the police to clamp down on knife crime and the possession of these weapons in a public place without lawful reason those possession and crime figures will go up. I have to tell you that if that means getting on top of knives on the streets that is a good thing, because in the short term it means that tough police action will result in the crime rate going up. We have to be mature about it and argue the case. If one looks at it over the past few years, taking 2000/01 there has been a 70% increase in convictions in England and Wales for the possession of an article with a blade or point in a public place. I believe it shows that the Government with the police and courts is taking that extremely seriously. Where appropriate, I want to see people who do not have a lawful reason for possessing a knife on the street - if they are not chefs, for example - brought before the courts and prosecuted. If that means in the short term that those figures will go up that is something we need to say and explain. I believe that it is something which the British public would expect because it shows that somebody is trying to get on top of this problem. All I say is that guns and knives are a serious issue. The fact that we have toughened the legislation with respect to guns and are now doing likewise with respect to knives, given the one statistic about the increase in convictions for possession of an article with a blade or point in a public place, demonstrates how seriously we take it and shall continue to take it.

Q16 Gwyn Prosser: In your memorandum you set out the variety of approaches to tackle knife crime including legislation, police activity and community work. Obviously, you have to strike a balance across those three areas. How do you strike that balance? Do you think you have it right, and how do you measure the effect that each may have?

Mr Coaker: I believe that the easiest way to answer that is to use a practical example. I think that if any of our constituencies, or any part of the country, suffered from a particular problem with knife crime in the short term there must be tough law enforcement. You cannot talk about what is to be done in the longer term to rebuild the social glue of society. Therefore, there must be tough law enforcement as a first priority if there is a particular problem. People must then know that there will be a serious consequence for what is happening, which was why I referred at length to the point about convictions. Therefore, tough law enforcement must be a key part of what you do. People must know that there is a possibility of going to gaol if they possess knives on the street without lawful reason and, alongside that, if they use them they can be charged with other offences. That is a crucial part of it which I believe retains the public confidence but is the right thing to do. If one talks to communities one knows that on its own it will not deal with the problem and underlying issues. It is about physical regeneration. If one goes to many areas where billions of pounds have been spent that is a good thing to improve the physical environment, but it is also about how to strengthen families and create the community spirit and environment that people want to see around them. How do you strengthen community organisations and create role models? Everywhere I go people say particularly with respect to black people but also white working-class lads: what sort of role model can they give them? How can they be given mentors or positive role models so they can look up to somebody who has worked hard and achieved? We have to find a better way to do that. Whilst we are at it, part of it must be to demolish the negative role models of young people and others who strut around in our communities and clearly have obtained money from ill-gotten gains. We need to strip that away from them through a more proactive use of proceeds of crime and other measures so they have positive role models. I cannot give you an answer which says that it is 20% on that and 50% on that. All I can say is that they are all of equal value. If we are to be successful in further tackling this issue we have to pursue all of these issues with a degree of dynamism, positive activity and enthusiasm.

Q17 Gwyn Prosser: This morning you have touched on some of the new measures announced on 19 March by the Home Secretary. How significant are those new measures? Are we to assume that that is just work in progress with regard to knife crime and there is a lot more to come?

Mr Coaker: I think there have been significant changes in legislation which should help. Perhaps I may repeat them for the benefit of the Committee. Clearly, a major change was the increase in the maximum sentence for possession of a knife in a public place without lawful reason from two years to four years. That has been implemented. The raising of the age at which somebody can purchase a knife from 16 to 18 will take place in October. Giving school staff new powers to search pupils where appropriate is I believe another valuable measure. Alongside that, there is the new offence of using somebody to mind a weapon which will apply obviously to guns, as I mentioned two weeks ago. Clearly, it applies also to knives. I believe that that will help with respect to this. The other matter that I think will make a significant difference when talking about legislation and requirements is the move announced by the Home Secretary on 19 March to require police forces across the country to collect data with respect to knife-related crime according to certain categories. That has not been a requirement up to now. It is also worth pointing out that that was something decided on in April 2006. We consulted ACPO and various others. We got agreement from ACPO which took place as we went through the year. Although it was announced by the Home Secretary on 19 March 2007 it was work in progress for nearly a year in order to bring that about. I believe that that will help us with respect to the policies that we have pursued, because the categories of knife-related crime data to be collected will include: attempted murder, wounding with intent to do GBH, wounding or inflicting GBH, robbery of business property or robbery of personal property. The collection of that data will make a big difference to our understanding of what is happening. In terms of review, we shall work with ACPO through the year to see whether anything more needs to be done with respect to the collection of data. Obviously, we shall always keep legislation under review, but we have just made those changes. In addition to changing legislation we need to look at what we have got, how effective it is and that we use all of it.

Q18 Mr Streeter: I think the Government is wise to collect separate statistics on knife crime and also to talk to accident and emergency departments of hospitals. In Plymouth, which one may perhaps regard as a sleep community, my information is that in recent months there have been more and more incidents where people attending accident and emergency units have suffered knife wounds of one kind or another. Perhaps it is due to domestic violence. I think that you will get a fuller picture by looking at that information, and I commend you for that. Obviously, the Government places great store by public service agreements with various departments. You mentioned earlier that if the police enforced law on knife crime more rigorously the numbers of people caught in possession would go up and so the crime statistics would go up. First, why have you not introduced a PSA in relation to this issue, because there is not one at the moment? Second, why would not the expected rise in the level of knife crime provide an encouragement to the police to go out there and be more effective in enforcement?

Mr Coaker: First, I believe that the police do enforce the law rigorously and I am sorry if I gave the impression that it did not. That was one of the reasons I quoted the possession figures. I have spoken a number of times to Alf Hitchcock who is the ACPO lead on knife crime. We work very closely together. He does an excellent job. As to A&E data, we are looking at how to make better use of it to get a fuller picture of what is happening. We want to pick up what is unreported as well as reported. Clearly, that gives us an indication. We need to work with A&E staff about protocols and how we do that, so that is work in progress. At the moment the Metropolitan Police is running a pilot to record anonymous data in A&E departments on what it calls penetrating injuries to try to get a fuller picture of that. We need to learn from it and perhaps replicate it in other areas. We are currently looking at PSA targets. We are considering whether we should have a PSA target that relates to serious violent crime which obviously includes knives.

Q19 Mr Streeter: Perhaps I am wrong, but from my youth I remember the mods and rockers. You cannot remember them; you are far too young. I recall that they carried knives as part of their identity. The then government passed a law banning flick knives and the whole thing fell away. It is a serious point. I just wonder whether we can look back 40 years and learn anything from it. There was something going on culturally among young people then. Is there something similar going on now culturally with young people of which we may not be fully aware? That was not the question I intended to ask, but it is a very interesting point. You have talked about working with other government departments, and obviously that is crucial; there is not a magic wand that can be waved here. Are you absolutely confident that other government departments are fully signed up to effective action here, particularly DfES with its access to young people and the kind of educative responses that we want it to have?

Mr Coaker: I am absolutely convinced that all government departments recognise the seriousness of the issue. All government departments recognise the need for them to contribute to the solution of this particular problem. With respect to DfES, a huge amount of work goes on in schools which that department alongside us support in order to try to help young people. That is done at both national and local level. DfES together with the Home Office are also working on a whole range of measures with respect to early intervention which is clearly crucial in this area. From my teaching background, there is an awful lot going on in schools to try to tackle violence - knife crime and gun crime - and all of these issues. Whether it is drugs, guns or knives, we need to get a better understanding of the most effective way to do it. In some schools the most effective way to do it is to bring in ex-offenders to talk to young people. Other people do not find that appropriate, but I just think that we need to look at and research in a bit more detail how we can make a difference in a school. What is an effective way for a school to tackle this? Clearly, that is part of the solution and it is working hard to deal with it. If we look at the Be Safe project and the work that lots of organisations do in schools - DVDs that now go into schools are made by a whole range of bodies, for example the UK Youth Parliament and Met Police - a huge amount of effort is being made. What all of us are searching for is: what is it that will make a difference to a young person, whether it be in a school, in the street, a youth club, the scouts or the church, who may be tempted to go down this route or may even be involved? What is it that will make that difference? All of us are searching for that. All government departments and all sectors - everyone - are signed up to try to work together to overcome what we know is a real problem. It is only by working together that we will deal with that.

Q20 Chairman: I completely understand that no single course of action will solve the problem, but when you said that you could not say whether it was 20% this and 20% that you rather gave the impression that all of these things were important but you could not say which were most important. The difficulty always is that if everything is a priority nothing is a priority. If we look at the things that you have mentioned in the past 10 minutes or so we may say that we should have the police doing far more stop and search, using metal detectors outside clubs or something of that sort, or we might say that targeting these negative role models in local communities will have the biggest impact in the effort we put in, or that we really cannot deal with knife crime per se until we have dealt with all the problems of social exclusion and poverty in communities where that is most prevalent. If one does not have ways to assess the effectiveness of different impacts does one not rather end up with a lot of people doing bits and pieces here hoping that it will amount to a solution to knife crime without having any idea whether or not it will work?

Mr Coaker: To say that we need a better understanding of what works in communities is fair comment, but my view of this in the time I have been around and the people I have spoken to is that clearly there must be a tough police response to this activity. The other crucial factor alongside it is to work in those areas where there are problems with the community organisations. I have been massively impressed by the work I have seen in Peckham which is not related just to gun crime. I refer to the Boyhood to Manhood Foundation and other initiatives.

Q21 Chairman: We have seen many of these organisations in our inquiry.

Mr Coaker: I am referring to empowering and working with the Damilola Taylor Trust and those sorts of organisations.

Q22 Chairman: My question is: how do you know whether or not they are working? What would be your test to tell you whether or not they are working? Would it be to have fewer woundings or young people saying that they carry knives? In the communities where you say that good working is going on do you have systems rather than the occasional ad hoc survey to monitor what is happening on the ground? We have met many of the organisations that you have talked about and have been very impressed by their inputs. It has always been very difficult to measure whether or not they are producing the results we want.

Mr Coaker: That is why we need to get a better understanding of what works and measure it. When you ask me what I want to see I should like to see a reduction in woundings and knife crime and more achievement at school. What we have to do is to get better at measuring those and that is part of the change that we are making to the collection of data by police forces. The Youth Justice Board and others do a lot of good work and carry out surveys and so on to try to understand it. It is important that we measure it. But when you ask me what I believe to be the most important things I say that community-type action is the key because it strengthens families and the community and gives a positive message that knife crime is not acceptable in our community. It establishes community values and sets those values against the values of individuals and maybe some of the gangs in a small minority of cases. I also agree that we need to get better at measuring that in a quantitative and qualitative sense.

Q23 Chairman: I turn to moving young people away from the use and carrying of knives. From the Mayor of London we learn that 13% to 14% of knife crime in London relates to incidents of domestic violence. Clearly, there are situations where older people take and are prepared to use knives in conjunction with burglaries and other types of property theft. There are other incidents which may involve people with personality disorders or severe untreated mental health problems, which I know the Government is trying to address through the Mental Health Bill. Does it make sense to talk about a strategy to deal with knife crime in all of those different circumstances, or do we have to get to the underlying problem of domestic violence, for example, which we try to tackle by a number of different strategies? I am trying to get clear in my own mind whether we should take all those different types of knife crime and have a specific strategy to deal with them or whether we should say that there is an underlying type of crime which is to do with how we handle people with personality disorders or how we tackle domestic violence.

Mr Coaker: Interestingly, this is one of the matters that distinguishes it from guns in a sense. Guns are illegal - full stop - and one cannot imagine any circumstances in which one has a handgun. Obviously, knives are much more difficult and widely available and people have them for perfectly lawful reasons. Probably within that one has an overall knife strategy where one looks at particular categories, because obviously there are different circumstances in which that knife crime would occur. You mentioned domestic violence. You will know that the Government has taken a whole series of measures to tackle domestic violence which is an appalling crime. Do we need an overarching knife crime strategy? Yes, we do. Within that we need to recognise that in different circumstances different parts of that policy will apply, whether it be mental health or domestic violence. With respect to domestic violence and the recent Bill, the independent domestic violence advisers, specialist courts and all those things are part of dealing with that problem. If you like, it is more a victim-centred approach than the approach that one might adopt with respect to knives in other circumstances.

Ms Nicholls: We are working on an overall violence strategy with the Association of Chief Police Officers and others within which knives would obviously be one issue, but things like alcohol are big drivers of violence overall. We are working on that through the summer along a similar timetable to the development of a potential new PSA on more serious violence.

Q24 Chairman: Clearly, at the moment we are all at the edge of our knowledge in terms of evidence, but when we look at the other circumstances in which knives are used, not involving young people and gang culture, has the Home Office any work under way, or will it have with the new statistics, to see whether it can pin down more precisely what of the other knife crime that takes place is domestic violence, what is accounted for by knives carried by older people committing crimes and what is related to other circumstances so that there is at least as good a picture about the use of knives in other areas of life as one begins to develop in relation to the use of knives by young people?

Mr Coaker: We are looking to do that in the new data collection arrangements particularly with respect to domestic violence. There will be a flag next to some of the statistics where domestic violence is an issue with respect to that. When you say "the edge of our knowledge" you make an important point. That is absolutely right. We need better to understand where knives are being used and in what circumstances. We are doing it with respect to domestic violence, and we probably need to do that with other categories so that we build up a picture of what is happening and can properly tailor our policies to deal with that.

Q25 Chairman: I should not abuse my position as Chairman, but certainly in terms of my recent constituency case it would be enormously useful to be able to answer some questions about whether that sort of crime was a one-off or fitted into a pattern of other crimes. If you could extend your work beyond domestic violence to other areas where knives are used it would be very helpful.

Mr Coaker: We need to do that and will do so in due course.

Q26 Martin Salter: We have no shortage of legislation governing knives. Just looking through our briefing, we have the Prevention of Crime Act 1953; the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959; many sections of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; the Knives Act 1997; the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; the Offensive Weapons order, a subset of measures under the Criminal Justice Act; and, more recently, the Violent Crime Reduction Act which, amongst many other things, I am pleased to say increased the maximum sentence from two to four years for the offence of having a knife with a blade or point in a public place or on school premises. We have also received memoranda from the Police Federation and others saying that there is a confusing plethora of legislation which in certain circumstances makes it more difficult for police officers to secure a quick, effective and efficient conviction, because if a suspect is arrested for one of the other dozen available offences and the paperwork is not processed in the right way he may be released on a technicality. How do you feel about the suggestion of the Police Federation that we need to cut through all this nonsense and bring all the legislation together so it is sharply focused, if I may use that pun, in an overarching knives and offensive weapons bill to simplify the process? Surely, it is about time that is done.

Mr Coaker: I am not sure that we will have one bill that brings it all together, but one of the things that we are trying to do is ensure that activity in this area is co‑ordinated and effective. That is one of the points of the Round Table that the Home Secretary has established, and from memory one of the other actions is to try to make everyone on it aware of the legislation that is available and ensure it is used effectively and that where there are issues with respect to it we simplify it. The Home Office is working with Deputy Commissioner Alf Hitchcock on a knife crime best practice guideline. In February of this year a draft was prepared. That tries to deal with some of the issues you raise to ensure that across the 43 police forces there is consistent practice and awareness of what legislation is available and we try to overcome some of the problems and difficulties you mention in the plethora of legislation so that what is effective can be used, is known about and acted upon. I have the draft here. I believe that the best practice guidance will make a lot of difference because it tries to cut through some of the fog around all of this.

Q27 Martin Salter: To press you on that, you have talked about the plethora of legislation and the fog that surrounds it. Surely, you are making the case yourself for at least the Round Table to consider simplifying the legislation.

Mr Coaker: All I am saying is that there are a number of Acts that try to deal with particular problems. What we are trying to do is simplify that in the sense of helping police forces to become more aware of what is available to them and the sorts of measures they can take. ACPO itself has sought to do that, not by changing legislation but by trying to increase awareness of what is already available, what best practice has done in some parts of the country and make it available to other parts. It points to what is being done in one area and asks whether consideration has been given to doing that here to tackle this particular problem. I believe that that sort of approach through the Round Table, Home Office and ACPO knife crime best practice guidelines provides a positive, effective way forward. Part of the issue that Alf Hitchcock is trying to address is to work with police forces to ensure that the legislation is effectively implemented. As we know, a good part of the time the issue may not be the legislation; it may be about how we can more effectively use the tools that are available to us and ensure that we do not get variations in practice.

Q28 Martin Salter: The Knives Act 1997 made it an offence to market knives as suitable for combat or in ways likely to stimulate or encourage violent behaviour using the knife as a weapon. One of your predecessors in the Home Office drew my attention to adverts in various magazines which promoted knives that would be undetectable by metal detectors at airports, yet to my certain knowledge the publishers of that magazine were never prosecuted. We have all this legislation on the statute book. The problem is not too much legislation but that half the time it does not get used. You are not making any argument to me against simplifying and rationalising the legislation.

Mr Coaker: I believe that the point you make with respect to the Knives Act 1997 and the fact that it is an offence to market a knife or weapon in a way that encourages violence or combat is a good example. If you look at convictions under that piece of legislation there have been seven since 2000. It seems to me that that is not a matter of the legislation being unavailable but trying to increase awareness that that piece of legislation is available to be used, and what the best practice guidelines are about is making sure everyone is aware of the legislation that can be used and ensure it is implemented. Part of the issue is to ensure that where legislation is there it is used. I see some of these adverts. Clearly, it is a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, but if we say that a particular piece of legislation is available perhaps we may need to look a little more carefully at whether it can be used in more circumstances.

Q29 Martin Salter: Do you believe there is a case for having a minimum mandatory sentence for all knife-associated crime?

Mr Coaker: We need to keep a distinction between guns and knives. The reality is that in many situations knives are readily available and are carried on the street. What we want is a law that is proportionate, practical and workable. We have just increased the maximum sentence for knives from two to four years. I believe that that is an important indication of the seriousness of this crime. I do not want to underestimate the huge importance and seriousness that we attach to knife crime. Many people carry knives for legitimate reasons.

Q30 Chairman: They carry them for legitimate reasons but do not get prosecuted for it under the existing law. It seems that the police are able to decide which people should be prosecuted under the existing law because you have just raised the maximum sentence for doing so. The question at issue before the Committee is: if you can work out who should not be carrying knives and you can take them to court and get a conviction why should there not be a mandatory minimum sentence for knives as there is for guns, given you are three times more likely to be murdered with a knife as you are with a gun?

Mr Coaker: We believe that it is a proportionate response to the problem at the present time. We wish to see how it works with respect to the new maximum sentence and we believe that that is a reasonable way to deal with the problem.

Q31 Martin Salter: I should like to press this point, probably on behalf of the whole Committee. At what point would it not become a proportionate response? At the moment one is three times more likely to be injured with a knife than with a gun. If one is five, six, seven or eight times more likely to be injured with a knife is it proportionate at that point?

Mr Coaker: We need to see the impact of the new offence that we have just introduced. It became law only in the past month. We believe that it will have an impact. It gives the courts a new power and a new penalty. What we need to see is how that new penalty works.

Q32 Martin Salter: I should like to put two matters on the record. First, there has been talk about the Government introducing some form of fixed penalty notice for disorder and applying that to knife offences. Do you want to take this opportunity to confirm that you will not do that?

Mr Coaker: To be absolutely categorical, yes. It is too serious to be dealt with in that way.

Q33 Martin Salter: We hoped you would say that, Minister. Second, Scotland introduced a licensing scheme for the sale of non-domestic knives and swords, although for the life of me I do not know what a non-domestic sword is. Are you considering the introduction of such a scheme in England and Wales?

Mr Coaker: We are looking at what is happening in Scotland. We are concerned that it would be excessively bureaucratic and how workable it would be. As with all these things we shall look at how it works, whether it is effective in Scotland and whether we can learn from it, but our initial thought is that it would be quite bureaucratic and difficult to do.

Q34 Mr Clappison: I want to take you back to the points you made in answer to Mr Salter. In relation to proportionality, it seemed to be a factor in your equation that somebody might have a legitimate excuse for having a knife, but when the person has committed an offence it goes beyond that point. The person has committed an offence by having a knife if there is no lawful excuse. That is excluded by law; if not, the person would not be committing an offence. We are talking about people who possess knives as offensive weapons and are convicted of the offence of carrying offensive weapons, so the proportionality does not relate to any reasons that people might have.

Mr Coaker: Clearly, if they used the knife the charge would not be a possession offence; it would be for another offence, such as wounding.

Q35 Mr Clappison: Possession of an offensive weapon without a reasonable excuse is itself an offence and rightly so because people must be discouraged from having offensive weapons on them.

Mr Coaker: Yes.

Q36 Mr Clappison: You have just increased the minimum sentence for that offence from two to four years and you have therefore sent out a signal to courts about sentencing.

Mr Coaker: Yes.

Q37 Mr Clappison: I want to ask about the sentencing statistics that you collect. Do you have any statistics to show how often in the past possessing an offensive weapon on its own has resulted in a custodial sentence? Do you collect that as a statistic?

Mr King: We have some information on it, but not with us today.

Mr Coaker: If it is helpful to Mr Clappison, although we do not have the information here I will write to the Committee.

Q38 Mr Clappison: Perhaps you could in addition set out what the position will be in future about collecting the information and how often people are sent to prison for doing this. I imagine that a lot of the cases come before magistrates' courts where the maximum sentence at the moment is only six months' imprisonment.

Mr Coaker: Yes.

Q39 Mr Clappison: I know that magistrates are given guidance on sentencing. I should also be interested to know what the starting point for sentences should be. What advice are magistrates given about sentencing and what guidelines are given, and have those guidelines changed as a result of the new Act coming into force.

Mr Coaker: I shall need to write to the Committee. I am not an expert on the law, but presumably if the magistrates do not believe they have appropriate sentencing powers and think the matter is serious enough they can refer the matter to the crown court.

Q40 Mr Clappison: But they can deal with it themselves and impose a custodial sentence.

Mr Coaker: We shall write to the Chairman on the points that have been raised.

Q41 Mr Clappison: You could tell us how many cases are dealt with by the magistrates and how many by the crown court.

Mr Coaker: Of course.

Q42 Mr Clappison: I should also be interested to know whether possession of a knife in a school is regarded as an aggravating offence from the point of view of sentencing.

Mr Coaker: Again, we will have to write to you on that point.

Q43 Mr Clappison: I should like to ask about amnesties. Last year you had an amnesty in which a substantial number of knives - nearly 90,000 - were surrendered. You regard that as successful. But we have had a memorandum from the Centre for Crime and Justice that puts a different complexion on it. It suggests that the 90,000 or so knives collected is only a small proportion of the total number of knives and asks whether there has been any evidence of success in the amount of knife crime that has occurred subsequently.

Mr Coaker: I believe that the amnesty was successful in terms of getting 90,000 weapons off the street. From our point of view it was successful. I am sure that many of us in our local communities saw some of the horrific weapons that were destroyed and are not out there now. The point about amnesties is that they are important. That is why people now ask why we do not have a national gun amnesty. They raise the profile of the issue but are not a solution on their own. It is not the intention - this is not what you suggest - that there is a knife amnesty, that every knife is collected and therefore every offensive weapon comes off the street and knife crime stops immediately, but it does enable one to raise the profile of the issue with young people and older people and across society. It also enables one to start to talk about law enforcement being part of the answer, but alongside that are other actions related to the family and community that need to be taken which we discussed earlier. I have never pretended that amnesties are successful on their own; they are one part of the strategy that one adopts to raise the profile of the issue.

Q44 Mr Clappison: I take your point that there are 90,000 fewer knives on the street, but what do you say in answer to the point made to us by the Centre for Crime and Justice that you should also measure it against the amount of knife crime that is taking place? According to the centre the Metropolitan Police found that six weeks after the end of the amnesty knife offence levels had returned to pre-amnesty levels. What is your view on that?

Mr Coaker: My view is that it just shows that the amnesty on its own is not the answer to the problem but is one part of the strategy that you adopt to raise awareness of the issue. I do not pretend that you have an amnesty and next day all knife crime stops, but it is important and is something that gives you the opportunity to show the sort of weapons that are being brought off the street. How on earth could anyone have a reason for possessing them? It shows the importance of the issue, the need for tough police action and the need to look at the broader context in which this occurs and the policies we need to pursue and adopt to tackle it.

Q45 Mr Clappison: You mentioned police action. There have been police operations: for example, Operation Blunt run by the Metropolitan Police and Operation Shield run by the British Transport Police. They used different strategies in those operations, if I may put it that way. What do you make of those operations? What evaluation of them has been carried out?

Mr Coaker: From the response we have had from the Metropolitan Police and the British Transport Police both operations have been extremely successful. They have managed to catch a number of people who were carrying weapons and they have managed to ensure the message goes out that the police are taking firm action against people who seek to carry knives.

Q46 Mr Clappison: If those two campaigns have been successful do you seek to promote such operations on a national level?

Mr Coaker: Yes. The toolkit that I mentioned earlier - the Home Office knife crime best practice that we are putting together with ACPO - will look at how we can build on effective operations that various police forces have had in their area so that police forces can learn from one another about what makes an effective law enforcement strategy in their own areas. That is a very good point and something that we shall seek to do as well. In our own areas, if we look at operations across the country there are a lot of individual examples of forces taking action in their own areas to tackle knife crime. We want to see what are the best and most effective ones and how we can learn from them so we have a more co‑ordinated, coherent strategy across the country.

Q47 Mrs Dean: To clarify one point, is it the work that you have done with ACPO on best practice that is due to be published in June?

Mr Coaker: No. I am not sure when the ACPO/Home Office knife crime best practice guidelines will be published. A draft was put together in February. I am told that it will be in the next couple of months. The point I made right at the beginning in answer to the Chairman was that the Round Table had put together an action plan. We hope to get agreement at the Round Table for that in June and we will publish it soon thereafter. It is very important that the Round Table puts together an action plan and some points to try to help move this forward in a more co‑ordinated way across government, but I do not want to give the impression that ACPO or anybody else is not at the moment already looking at what sort of strategies they need. There is a gun crime and violent crime strategy and a new knife crime best practice which ACPO is putting together. The Round Table's action plan needs to make sure that it is also consistent with and complementary to those plans. Does that answer your question?

Q48 Mrs Dean: Yes. Can you say a little more about what will be in the Round Table action plan and what are the resource implications for the police forces and authorities?

Mr Coaker: What we have done is try to set out a series of measures. Would it be helpful if we sent that very rough draft to the Committee?

Q49 Chairman: Thank you.

Mr Coaker: I should make the proviso that it is not agreed; it is a very rough working document. It sets out what we are doing in a whole range of areas in terms of current legislation, police activity and cross-government activity. It looks at a whole series of topics and asks what is being done, what we need to do and what other ideas people have. That is right across the piece; it is not just in law enforcement. What we have tried to do is say that we need a view of what is happening across government already, then take a view about what should happen and how we make it happen. In answer to Mr Streeter's earlier point, that includes not just the Home Office but the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department of Health, Department for Education and, importantly, the police and various other stakeholders.

Q50 Mrs Dean: Moving on to the sale of knives and other potential weapons, why are there so few convictions for the import, sale or hire of offensive weapons? Is it the law that is defective or are there insufficient resources to target this offence?

Mr Coaker: It is something about which we need to speak to the police. We talked earlier about the action plan. Part of it is a review of the legislation. In answer to Mr Salter's point, we need to establish what legislation there is, how effective it is, where it is being implemented, how it could be more effectively implemented and if there are any gaps to try to fill them. Part of that activity is to look at issues where it may be thought that perhaps this could have been used more than it is. Is that a case of awareness or resources, or is there a defect in the legislation? Part of what we are trying to do is get a better understanding of all that. On the face of it, where one has a piece of legislation which says that people who market knives or offensive weapons in a way that encourages violence or combat many of us would think that perhaps some of the adverts we have seen come a bit close to that. I think that we need a better understanding of why that is so. I should like to see greater use of that legislation.

Q51 Mrs Dean: I understand that the Government is looking to extend the ban on the manufacture, import, sale and hire of knives to cover samurai swords. What difference would that make given that there are so few convictions in this area anyway?

Mr Coaker: We launched the consultation on 5 March. The consultation is that the Government is minded to ban samurai swords. Perhaps I may put on record that we are looking at an exemption for genuine enthusiasts and clubs, the names of which I cannot remember. We are looking for a balance between individual liberty and freedom to pursue those interests and also protection of the public. We have seen some very well publicised crimes where samurai swords have been used. We believe that alongside the other measures that we are taking a ban on the sale of samurai swords would contribute to public protection, with the proviso that we are looking for exemptions. I believe that it is one of those things that people would expect the Government to do, and that is what we are minded to do.

Q52 Mrs Dean: How big a problem is the sale of knives over the Internet and how can you control it?

Mr Coaker: The Internet is an issue for us in crime generally. The important point to make, which is often misunderstood, is that what is illegal offline is illegal online. We need to look at how we can more effectively use the law to tackle internet and e.crime. Just before I came to this Committee I attended a conference on e.crime and how we could more effectively use the legislative tools we have to tackle it. One example of that may be the piece of legislation to which you have just referred with respect to the Knives Act and what constitutes illegal advertising when it comes to the use of knives or offensive weapons. The law is there and we need to ensure that it is effectively implemented where appropriate.

Q53 Mr Clappison: A report for the Corporation of London in 2004 concluded that "few dedicated public awareness or educational programmes have been developed or delivered" to address knife carrying by young people. There are few examples of good practice in this area and they have not been sufficiently disseminated. What is your view on that?

Mr Coaker: We try to support a wide range of educational and public awareness activities. The Be Safe project trains people and is also used in a number of schools, youth clubs and other establishments across the country. We have supported the work of the Damilola Taylor Trust and the Respect Your Life, Not a Knife campaign, and Rio Ferdinand was regarded by the Home Secretary as a positive role model with respect to that. Attempts are being made to raise public awareness of it and get more educational resources into schools. There is a huge range of material that goes into schools. For example, in my area of Nottingham the No More Knives website has been launched. Again, that is an example of the police, schools and community working together. A huge range of national initiatives is being undertaken. We have also tried to support local initiatives to raise public awareness of the whole problem.

Q54 Mr Clappison: In your own words there is a huge range of national and local initiatives. Do you believe there is sufficient co‑ordination between them and evaluation of them?

Mr Coaker: Sometimes there is a need to evaluate more effectively what works and makes a difference. What is the best way in schools to pursue anti-violent and anti-knife behaviour? What makes an effective public education campaign? That is not just true in this area; it is a discussion that we all have. What is the best way to get this message across? In answer to the question whether we need to do more to evaluate it, we do and we shall certainly do so.

Q55 Mr Clappison: The Prince's Trust has called for more robust funding of existing initiatives rather than the creation of new ones. What do you think of that?

Mr Coaker: One of the big cries from the voluntary sector and NGOs and so on is the sustainability of funding. You establish something and it becomes good practice and people then worry about what will happen next year or the year after. What we need to do is see how we can make funding more sustainable to those groups, organisations and community associations that clearly make the most difference. I think that part of the work we need to do is to evaluate what is effective and then try to make the funding to those that are shown to make a real difference more sustainable. We have the Connected Fund and are reviewing the use of it. Often, what are needed are small sums to community groups and organisations. We are reviewing the use of that and looking at what we can do to support more of that community-type activity.

Q56 Mr Clappison: You mentioned the Be Safe project which is one that has been recognised by the Home Secretary as being successful. We believe that its funding is not certain from 2008 onwards. Can you make any comment on that, or would you like to come back to us?

Mr Coaker: There is a whole range of things that will need to be looked at from 2008 as a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review. The only point I make is that we see the funding of community organisations like Be Safe, the Damilola Taylor Trust and a whole range of community groups as very important. The point I made in answer to your earlier question is that it is the sustainability of funding that is the crucial part of this so that people do not set up a good way of working, gain the confidence of people and the local community and then have uncertainty about their funding. We need to find a better way to ensure that those things that work are supported for more than a year or two.

Q57 Ms Buck: What evaluation has been made to demonstrate whether or not awareness campaigns have an impact?

Mr Coaker: As I said to Mr Clappison, this is an area in which we need to do more to evaluate what is effective and what works with respect to all of these various campaigns.

Q58 Ms Buck: We put a degree of emphasis on doing awareness without any evaluation. You talked earlier about more intensive project work with young people and the question of security of resources. Look also at the issue of scale. The latest Youth Justice Board research undertaken by MORI in 2004 on the behaviour of young people aged 10 to 16 indicated that 11% of young people had carried but not used weapons. If I take my constituency as an example, that would represent about 1,000 young people - I suspect it is much higher - who have carried weapons. We have certainly one body working with young people. I imagine that it probably is able to work with 30 or 40. Do you incline to the view that, whilst there is good practice, compared with the scale of behaviour we are not even on the page?

Mr Coaker: I make two points in answer to that. First, one of the difficulties is to get a firm grasp of what the statistics are. One set of statistics may say one thing; another set says something else. Clearly, there is an issue with respect to this, and I absolutely accept the point you make. Do we need to do more to support community organisations or educational programmes so they reach more people? The answer must be "yes". We need to look at how we do it, what is effective and how we support it. The first part of the question is entirely appropriate. I believe that these community groups make a difference. We do not have the formal evaluation of that which is what we need. When we have done a formal evaluation of what actually works we can decide how we should more properly and broadly support them.

Q59 Ms Buck: At the beginning of your comment were you disputing those statistics?

Mr Coaker: Not at all. All I am saying is that I have seen the Youth Justice Board survey on the number of people who carry knives and then I see the Crime and Justice Survey which gives a different figure. The only point I make is that government needs more clarity about the scale of the problem - we know there is an increased issue here - and decide what to do about it.

Q60 Ms Buck: What exact steps will be taken to establish the clarity that you are looking for?

Mr Coaker: First, we need evaluation of the projects being undertaken in different communities to see how effective they are and what difference they make. Part of the Chairman's point about how to evaluate them must be some means of measuring the community's confidence in what is going on and whether there is a broad consensus that a particular group is making a difference. Second, what impact is it having in terms of statistics relating to possession, knife-related crime and so on? It must be an evaluation. Once that evaluation is done we must look to see how we can support those organisations that have been proved to be effective in a more sustainable way.

Q61 Ms Buck: When will there be an evaluation of the Safer Schools Partnership?

Mr Coaker: DfES has responsibility for that, but I shall find out and write to the Committee.

Q62 Ms Buck: We do not know what is contained in that evaluation, because you would agree that the read across is very great?

Mr Coaker: Yes.

Q63 Ms Buck: One stark piece of evidence that emerged from the youth justice survey was that 11% of young people in schools said they had carried a weapon, though had never used it, rising to 31% of excluded young people, and 2% said they had threatened another person with a weapon, rising to 12% of excluded young people. Further, 78% said that they had never used a weapon in school generally, and only 46% of excluded young people said that. What is your advice to the DfES about the response to dealing with exclusion? In your mind, does that reinforce the need to take a tougher line on excluding people, such as automatic exclusion for carrying a knife, or does it incline you to the opposite view?

Mr Coaker: I think that what it says is that what you do with excluded people is crucial. Nobody wants to see young people excluded from school for obvious reasons, but there must be a balance between maintaining good discipline in the school, protecting younger pupils in the school from somebody who may be dangerous and violent and also ensuring that if you do exclude a young person that individual is not in a situation where he or she is left to offend. My answer is that, first, we do not want to see young people excluded from school unless it is absolutely essential, and clearly the head teacher will take a view with respect to that. Second, alongside that one wants to see effective support for young people who are excluded so they are not just left in a situation where they can offend.

Q64 Ms Buck: Do you believe that schools should automatically exclude a pupil who carries a weapon?

Mr Coaker: I cannot imagine many circumstances in which a young person carrying a weapon is not automatically excluded at least for a fixed term.

Q65 Ms Buck: Does it worry you that there is quite a striking variation in patterns of school exclusions?

Mr Coaker: Having been responsible for exclusions in my previous life, that is absolutely the case. I believe that most good schools start from a position of ensuring that young people are kept in school wherever possible, which is a sign of an excellent school, but where there are problems it tries to deal with them in school and keep young people in school. But alongside that it must be right, however, that the head teacher will make judgments, quite rightly, about what is in the interests not only of the individual pupil with respect to a disciplinary problem but must also take account of the impact on the rest of the school. That is a very difficult decision for head teachers. I cannot imagine a situation where somebody who is carrying a weapon in school is not at the very least excluded for a fixed period of time.

Q66 Ms Buck: From my experience, what tends to happen - I have observed it extensively - is that some schools are much tougher on exclusions than others. Other schools which tend to be the less popular schools to begin with end up taking all the children who have been excluded from other schools, thereby reinforcing effectively a polarisation. Is that something you have experienced?

Mr Coaker: This is obviously the policy area of DfES and I understand that it is trying very hard to deal with it. The department does not want a situation in which a school takes all of the particular problems in that area. The DfES is working very hard to avoid that. Clearly, sometimes that is what seems to happen but as far as possible it is something we should try to avoid.

Q67 Ms Buck: This is all very dear to my heart. In my constituency there were three stabbings the week before last in one school, which is exactly that position.

Mr Coaker: It is horrific. The only point I make is that DfES is trying to avoid a situation where a school becomes a recipient of all the problems in a particular area. I do not believe that is good for the school, the area or the educational entitlement of all young people. Part of the solution to these issues in all our areas is the work that is being done right across government - local authorities, parents, governors and all of us - to ensure that everyone has a good school to go to.

Q68 Ms Buck: For the record, in that school there were two stabbings and one knife threat. Another very topical point, given the DfES report on bullying, is that the Youth Justice Board conclusions were that one third of young people in mainstream education had been a victim carrying a knife compared with 18% who had not been victims. What negotiations are going on between you and the DfES to look at how to develop support services to deal with young people who have been victims?

Mr Coaker: I should have said that the changes we have made give teachers and head teachers the power to search for knives. I expect the new changes to help schools deal with the problem of knives as well. Part of any strategy must be how to support victims and deal with bullying in school. Forgive me if I have it wrong, but has not the DfES said something about bullying today?

Q69 Ms Buck: The report of the Select Committee on Education and Skills was published today.

Mr Coaker: They have pointed out the importance of this. I know that DfES is working on it. One other very interesting matter is the work done by other young people in the schools to support victims. I had experience of peer group support for the victims of bullying. One needs a tough approach to discipline in the school alongside a sensitive, caring approach. The two are not mutually exclusive. Peer group support for young people who may have been the victims of bullying is also important, but schools must address bullying which is an issue in schools; it must be dealt with effectively.

Q70 Ms Buck: In my experience, the majority of schools do not want to admit that bullying is going on. I was part of a discussion about bullying with the head of department in a school who told me that there was no bullying or fighting going on in that school. A child was called over and asked whether bullying was going on and little Johnnie said "Yes". How does this happen? To some extent it is tied up with school achievement pressures which are not the fault of the Government; they are part of a wider issue. The pressure to achieve does incline institutions, not individuals, towards denial of the challenges, whether it is bullying, carrying weapons, fighting and so forth. There needs to be a strategy to respond to that, does there not?

Mr Coaker: One of the things that we are doing in developing the new crime strategy is that young victims, whether it be of bullying or any other type of antisocial or criminal activity, will be identified as a priority group, but generally where there is an issue it is important not to deny its existence but to outline the things that are being done in order to tackle it.. That is what people expect, whether it is a school, hospital or the Home Office wrestling with what are difficult issues. We want to work with people and all agencies on very real problems to try to make a difference, which is what people would expect.

Q71 Chairman: I do not expect you to drop your colleagues in it, but today is a one-off inquiry. We have had a longer inquiry into young black people and the criminal justice system and have had compelling evidence that exclusion from school is a major issue in the disproportionate number of young black people being involved in the criminal justice system. We finally extracted from the DfES a report on exclusions from schools which talked in very stark language about racism within schools. A lot of the problems that you have talked about here seem to be driven by what is and what is not happening in schools, in particular the failure of the education service to deal with school exclusions effectively. First, are you really convinced that the DfES is doing everything it can to tackle these problems in the round to reduce offending?

Mr Coaker: I am convinced that they are doing that. They are working very closely with us to try to overcome these various issues. The point I make now, and tried to make in answer to Mrs Dean's question about the Round Table and how we take forward some of these issues, is that we want to see good schools in every area and a continuing reduction in exclusions and we want to work with the DfES to ensure we get effective schooling.

Q72 Chairman: Outside the Round Table, which has as many people round the table as this Committee, when were you last able to meet one to one with the DfES Minister and go through these issues?

Mr Coaker: I met Lord Adonis and the Minister of State, Tony McNulty, two or three weeks ago to talk about the Safer Schools Partnership and how to roll that out more effectively across the country. Recently, I had a letter from Beverley Hughes about how we ensure that extended schools operate in all areas of the country. We are trying to improve and extend our work together.

Q73 Chairman: It was notable that the Home Office memorandum did not mention crime and disorder reduction partnerships as a delivery mechanism in relation to the matters you have mentioned this morning. A few years ago they were seen as the main partnerships at local level that were meant to deliver across a whole range of issues involving different agencies. Why are they not part of the story any more? Has the Home Office lost confidence in them?

Mr Coaker: They are and they should be. In talking about the ACPO/Home Office best practice guidance we need to spread it throughout local police forces. Obviously, a key part of the delivery of our agenda will also be through the local CDRPs. Clearly, the Government has a national responsibility, but there is no doubt that some strategies at a local level will be more effective in one area rather than another. In the national context we want to see effective local action, and much of it will also be through the CDRPs.

Bob Russell: I should like to put on record my appreciation to colleagues for agreeing to hold this one-off evidence session and thank those who have made written submissions. I also thank the Minister for coming along. I believe this has been a very useful inquiry and I hope that benefits will flow from it. I just make the plea that with knife crime being three times more prevalent than gun crime the criminal justice system will reflect that and act accordingly.

Q74 Chairman: Before we close, perhaps I may say for the benefit of the press and public that this is one of the occasional one-off inquiries we hold, so we do not produce a formal report as we do with a more extended inquiry. We hope that the evidence session including the written evidence stands in its own right. Minister, you have helpfully promised a certain amount of extra information and share with us some of your ongoing work, which we appreciate. These are issues that the Committee will have every opportunity to return to when you, the Home Secretary or the Permanent Secretary of the department is before us in the coming year. You can be quite sure that we shall want to return to some of these issues and see what progress has been made. The fact there is not a formal report does not mean that the Committee will not want to take it further forward.

Mr Coaker: Perhaps I may also say that I shall be very pleased to come back to see what progress or otherwise has been made with respect to all of this. We have a common interest in trying to deal with these issues, so thank you for the opportunity to come before the Committee.

Chairman: We thank you and your colleagues.