Crime (Use of Knives) (Hansard, 30 June 1987)

§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

I am pleased to raise on the Adjournment of the House the problem of the use of knives in crime. I do so under the shadow of a hideous murder in Leicester of a 17-year-old trainee carpenter constituent of mine called Paul Webster. Stephen Michael Curran was last week convicted of that murder and also of the stabbing of a very brave police officer, Inspector Michael Holly, who was fortunate to survive the attack. I do so also in the presence of Mr. Dennison, who lost his son in a stabbing incident and who has launched a courageous campaign in an attempt to have the law changed. I appreciate that in an Adjournment debate I can refer only to the law as it is and ask the Government what they propose to do in order to meet the challenge within the law as it stands.

The law within which the Home Office and the police work is extremely weak. In the first place, when dealing with knives I would wish to pay a tribute, with which I know that you, Mr. Speaker, would wish to be associated, to my late father Barnett Janner, Lord Janner of the city of Leicester, who introduced the restriction of Offensive Weapons Bill which subsequently became an Act in 1959 and which resulted in the effective banning of flick knives and gravity knives, which have become rarely used. It is an offence under that Act to manufacture, sell, hire, offer for sale or be in possession of such a dangerous instrument.

Unfortunately, the Act does not extend to other knives which rejoice in such names as survival knives, Rambo knives, butterfly knives and other dangerous weapons, still less to knives which may be used entirely properly by anglers, hunters, carpenters, butchers or carpet layers; knives such as Stanley knives, especially those with retractable blades, and large penknives, which can, if used, be extremely dangerous.

The other Act which gives the police some power is the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which provides: Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon shall be guilty of an offence". But an offensive weapon does not include an instrument which has normal and proper uses unless the prosecuting authorities can prove that the weapon is being carried by the person concerned with criminal intent. In effect, the burden of proof remains such as to make it almost impossible to achieve successful prosecutions for the carrying of knives which are normally used for proper purposes.

It is into that background that the police are faced with hooligans, with young villains and sometimes with perfectly ordinary youngsters coming together in gangs and carrying knives. Some of them, according to the Metropolitan police, are carrying them in London as a means for self-protection. As Chief Superintendent Mike Farbrother said: We are seeing early evidence of a generation which carries knives almost as part of their clothing. It is becoming almost a fetish, a vogue, a fashion, and it is hideously dangerous and must be stopped.

470 This is a national problem. We know that about one third of all murders are committed with sharp instruments, the vast majority of which are knives. We know also that the problem is far worse in the metropolitan district than elsewhere. In Leicester, for example, it is regarded by the police as no more of a problem than in other places. However, the pages of the Leicester Mercury are too often filled with stories of knife attacks. Indeed, last week's issue contained a page with pictures of the sort of knives about which the Leicestershire police are worrying. Superintendent John Peacock, the deputy commander, says that it is not as big a problem as in other places—for example, in the Metropolitan police area—but that any control, whether voluntary or statutory, would he well recieved, as the police are concerned about people being able so easily to buy and carry craft and other potentially dangerous types of knives.

The question now arises of what control there can be in the absence of changes in statute, and what proposals the Government would make in the face of this problem. I know that the Minister, who is himself a distinguished lawyer, will take the problem seriously, as one who has both prosecuted and defended criminals in cases involving knives. I hope that he will bear in mind the horror caused to ordinary people when they are faced with a knife, even if the person does not intend to use it. I hope that he will not take lightly the fear that is struck into the hearts of so many people out on the streets, and sometimes in their own homes, when they are faced with someone carrying a knife. I hope that he will also take seriously the vast increase in crimes of violence in the Leicester area. In the past nine years such crimes have doubled in number, and many of them—although we do not know how many—involve the carrying and use of knives.

I was pleased to hear the Home Secretary say earlier today that he was having consultations with the shadow Home Secretary to see what common ground could be found. I am sure that there is much common ground. Equally, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is the Government's duty to see that legislation is brought in. It is necessary to be a very able and, in some ways, a fortunate legislator to succeed, as my father did, in introducing a private Member's Bill from the Back Benches and to see it brought into force. It is the Government who have watched over, and failed to control, the vast increase in dangerous crime, and it is the Government who must now bring forward proposals to deal with it. The problem is worse in London than in other areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng)—whom I was delighted to see elected to Parliament—can testify. It is national, metropolitan and local.

The first possibility is that the Government will institute an immediate campaign to try to convince young people that the carrying of knives is as great a danger to themselves as it is to those whom they may face. Some youngsters carry knives, as they put it, "just in case". That is a very poor argument for carrying an offensive weapon. The same argument is sometimes used to suggest that police officers ought to carry guns, just in case they are faced with someone with a gun. That argument has been used successfully in the United States, and has contributed to the huge increase in crimes involving firearms. Anyone would encounter such cases if he had the misfortune to be out in New York, or even just to read the newspapers. But it is not an argument that we want to hear in this country, 471 and we do not want it to be introduced to our police force. It is certainly not an argument from which the Government should take the least solace. What we want is to convince people that carrying knives of any sort is dangerous.

Secondly, it ought not to be thought that knives that are normally used for happy purposes can conveniently be carried, simply because one forgets to put them away. Nobody is trying to prevent anglers, hunters, carpenters or carpet fitters from carrying those knives that are part of their duty, work or sport, but when the purpose of carrying a knife is completed, it should be put away. It should be left at home. It should be regarded as a danger.

When, in due course, the Government consider changes to the law, they must strike a balance. When additional powers are given to those whose duty it is to protect the public, and when the burden of proof is changed, dangers to people's liberty are sometimes created. If we carry knives after dark, we should recognise that we may have to explain that the purpose of carrying it is lawful. If an ordinary member of the public is carrying a sheath knife, a hunting knife, or a knife with a retractable blade, it will not be easy to prove innocence.

The Government must try to convince shopkeepers—voluntarily, one would hope, without a change in the law—that they should take much greater care than they do today when they sell knives to members of the public. If voluntary efforts fail—as they failed over the sale of glue, and some of us were involved in that campaign—legislation will have to be introduced. In the case of glue, it became an offence for a shopkeeper to see glue if he knew or believed that it would be used for an unlawful purpose. It would be a misfortune if similar legislation had to be introduced for knives. I cannot call for it tonight. No doubt, however, legislation will have to be considered if shopkeepers continue, as at present, to sell weapons that are a menace to those whom they have no good reason to believe will use them properly.

The so-called survival knife is sold by many totally disreputable shops. One selling Nazi regalia is due to open within a mile of this House. Shops that sell such knives ought to be licensed. Knives should not be available for sale to anyone, particularly when they are obviously being sold to those who are villainous in intent. I should like all such shops to be licensed and as few licences as possible to be granted.

In the meanwhile, if we are not to have legislation—and I cannot call for legislative changes tonight—all those who sell survival knives should keep them locked up and sell them only to adults of apparently good intent. Furthermore, the name and address of every person who buys such a knife ought to be taken. I have spoken to shopkeepers, some of whom have said that that would be no problem,, while others have said that it would create more bureaucratic trouble for them and that it would be difficult. I cannot see the least difficulty for them.

If a shopkeeper sells a weapon that may be used to kill, murder, maim or strike fear into the hearts of ordinary people, I cannot see why he should not take the name and address of those who buy such weapons and why he should not require some form of identification. It would not be so great a burden as if the shopkeeper were selling a gun, and it would act as a voluntary deterrent. I call upon those who sell potentially vicious, dangerous knives to the public 472 to take voluntarily the same sort of precautions today as they have been required to take by force of law over the sale of glue because voluntary measures failed.

The problem is vast. The deaths that have resulted from our failure to face the problem have been unnecessary, and they have caused grief and misery to hundreds of families. The thousands who are faced with the menace of a knife will not forgive the Government if they fail to take immediate steps in recognition of the concerted complaints that have been made to them by the police, in recognition of public concern at the growth in violent crime and in recognition of the Government's own failure to curb crime in accordance with their promise to do so. They will not be forgiven for that failure by any of those who are threatened, still less by the families of those who are murdered. There should be voluntary action and, if necessary, compulsory action by those who sell knives. It should be made more dangerous in law and in reality for those who carry knives and who should not have them on their persons.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg)

I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has raised this subject. It causes considerable concern to the Government. Despite the fact, Mr. Speaker, that you fought this election in a non-partisan way, you will have doubtless cast your eyes on the Conservative party manifesto—perhaps someone whispered its contents in your ear—and you will have found a commitment by the Government to strengthen the law dealing with the sale and possession of offensive weapons.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated a number of possible approaches for the Government to adopt, and I too would like to deal with that aspect of the problem. Before doing so, there are two preliminaty points that I should like to make. The first relates to the increase in the number of incidents involving the carrying of knives and the second is about the existing law.

Let me deal first with the increase in the number of incidents in which people carry knives. I entirely agree with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said: there is an alarming increase in the numbers of people who are carrying knives, and I agree with his suggestion that in certain parts of our cities it is becoming part of the subculture to go around with a knife. That is a profoundly worrying and distressing fact that the Government must address.

The evidence is conclusive, and I give just two statistics. In Merseyside between 1985 and 1986, the number of robberies involving the use of a knive increased by 21 per cent., and in the Metropolitan area during the same period the increase was 29 per cent.

The nature of my responsibilities means that I go around the police stations and talk to police officers. I am very aware of their anxieties on this score. Therefore, like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think that this is an urgent and pressing problem which Governments must address.

My second preliminary point relates to the existing law. If a knife is used for the purposes of assault and injury is caused, the offender will be charged not with the possession of an offensive weapon but with the more substantive offence that reflects the assault. The gravity of the charge will reflect the gravity of the offence—that is 473 to say, if it is a serious injury, the person may well be charged with an offence under sections 18 or 20 of the 1861 Act or with assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Therefore, for the purpose of this debate, I confine my attention to the possession of offensive weapons as dealt with under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. The hon. and learned Gentleman has, as one would expect, reminded the House of the contents of that statute. I am happy to say that he did so accutately. He correctly summarised the contents of the 1953 Act, so I do not have to do so. However, I want to dwell on the classes of weapon that are caught by the Act. Two classes are involved, as they fall within the definition of an offensive weapon.

One type of offensive weapon is the kind that is made or adapted for the purpose of causing injury. An obvious example might be a swordstick or a sharpened screwdriver. Both would fall within the first class of an offensive weapon, but that is not where the problem lies. It lies with any weapon—I use that word broadly—because it can be any instrument that a person carries for an unlawful purpose—for the purpose of causing an injury. It might be a milk bottle, a high-heeled shoe with a sharp stiletto or a knife.

It is here that we come to the core of the problem because there are a range of legitimate purposes that justify the carrying of a knife. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West referred to the fisherman coming back from the stream with an angler's knife. Other examples are the housewife returning from the ironmonger having purchased a bread knife, the boy scout returning from camp with a sheath knife or the decorator who has been hanging wallpaper and has put a Stanley knife in his pocket. All those instances would be a proper possession of something that is capable of being a weapon. When a weapon is carried in those circumstances it is not an offensive weapon for the purposes of the 1953 Act, but it becomes an offensive weapon if the person who is carrying it has it for the purpose of causing an injury. It is the intent to which the 1953 Act is directed and it is that which causes the problem. How does one distinguish, in statutory language, between the first innocent example and the second example, which is far from innocent? What approach should we adopt?

The hon. and learned Member spoke about education and I agree with him. What is being done by Superintendent Farbrother in Lambeth is desirable and useful. In schools, youth clubs and other appropriate places we must ram home the message that the possession of a knife is, or can be, a criminal offence. It can be dangerous to the possessor and very dangerous to other people.

I agree with the hon. and learned Member that we must place increased emphasis on what might be called the broader educational aspects of the matter. However, I do not agree with him when he calls for licensing. The problem does not concern the Rambo-type knife, unpleasant though it may be, but with the potato knife or the bread knife, which is just as dangerous as the Rambo knife, but which could not be made the subject of licensing 474 regulations. There are other problems, but I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I do not develop them in this short debate.

I now turn to what I would like to see done. I appreciate that I cannot go into the detail of legislation, but I have been looking at "Erskine May" and I see that where the matter is ancillary to the main business before the House it is permissible for me to dwell on it in broad terms. The Government are not in a position to come forward with firm proposals, but it might be helpful if I were to canvass some of the broad ideas that have been passing through my mind and those of other people.

We must remind ourselves that flick knives and gravity knives have been made the subject of a prohibition. It is unlawful to sell a flick knife or a gravity knife. That is a precedent on which we could build. It would be perfectly possible for the Government to take powers to prescribe and prohibit certain classes of weapon. Those classes could be defined generically or by description. No doubt there would have to be powers to amend the list. There might have to be residual statutory defences, but those are problems of no great moment. It would be perfectly possible for Parliament to prohibit the sale, and probably the possession, of certain defined weapons. That may be a useful way forward that will commend itself to the House. However, there is a problem. The problem is that that will not go to the root of the difficulty. Although we could define and include Rambo knives in the prohibited classes, the bread knives, Stanley knives and carving knives are the major problems. We could not prohibit their sale, for the reasons that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West and I understand.

We have to go a stage further. We have somehow to try to mark the statutory distinction between the fisherman, the boy scout, the decorator and the housewife and make it unlawful for someone without a lawful cause to have a knife tucked away in the back pocket either for offence or defence or because of pressure within the peer group. We must direct our statutory endeavours to that.

It would be idle to pretend that the Government have yet made a collective decision or are in a position to make proposals. However, we are giving urgent attention to how we can make it unlawful for people without good or reasonable excuse to have with them a sharp-bladed instrument. I hope that it will be possible for the Government in the near future to make proposals. They might be additional to the power to prohibit sale.

Like any Minister, I am conscious that we are likely to be criticised from both flanks. Some people will say that we have not gone far enough and others will say that we are infringing civil liberties. That is for the future. For the present, all that I can say is that I regard it as a matter of high urgency. The Government recognise the serious problem. We are addressing that problem. We will, I hope, come forward with proposals soon. I also hope that the proposals will be couched in such terms as to appeal to Opposition Members.