Clause 113 - Offences of threatening with article with blade or point or offensive weapon in public or on school premises
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders bill
2:30 pm

Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment 389, in clause 113, page 90, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 35.

Philip Hollobone (Kettering, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 392, 393, 396.

Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)

Knives on our streets are a social scourge. That is why the unlawful possession of a bladed or pointed article or offensive weapon is already a serious criminal offence carrying a maximum custodial sentence of four years.

Clause 113 goes further than those possession offences. Our aim, through the clause, is to send a clear message to those in possession of a bladed or pointed article or offensive weapon, that if they then go on to threaten and cause an immediate risk of serious physical harm to another person they can expect an automatic custodial sentence. The existing possession offences have defences of lawful authority and good reason or reasonable excuse for having a bladed or pointed article or offensive weapon. Those are important defences that allow for people who may, for example, be carrying a knife for  trade or religious reasons, or simply because they are on their way back from the shops with a new set of kitchen knives.

Because the new offences build on the basic possession offences, which target people who are in unlawful possession, the defences that apply to the basic possession offences were carried through to the aggravated offences. However, on reflection, the Government are concerned that there is a small risk that the person using a bladed or pointed article or offensive weapon to threaten and endanger could theoretically be acquitted because they were in lawful possession of the article. While in practice anyone brandishing a blade or pointed article or offensive weapon would struggle to persuade a jury that they were in lawful possession of it at the time, amendments 389 and 393 would remove any risk of that happening. The offence will, therefore, apply to individuals regardless of whether the possession is lawful.

Amendments 392 and 393 simply make it clear that if a defendant is found not guilty of the new aggravated offence, but it is proved that the defendant committed the relevant basic possession offence, the court can return an alternative verdict of guilty to the basic offence. The overall effect of that is that lawful authority or good reason or reasonable excuse for possession alone would not be available.

Alex Cunningham (Stockton North, Labour)

I do not want to make light of the clause, but I have a question in which I have an interest, as a Scotsman who wears a kilt and carries a skean-dhu. What is the situation regarding a Scottish person carrying a skean-dhu as part of the national dress?

Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)

Subject to any advice I might receive, I presume there would be a reason to be wearing national dress, which might be parallel to a Sikh taking part in a religious ceremony. I hope that that parallel does not get me into trouble, but that would be lawful reason to possess the knife about one’s person. However, if the hon. Gentleman drew it and used it in a threatening way, he would not be able to use the defence that he was in lawful possession of his knife and he would therefore be subject to a mandatory custodial sentence, as the clause will require.

Alex Cunningham (Stockton North, Labour)

May I assure the Minister that I have no intention of using mine? In fact, it is usually encased in my sock.

Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)

It will not be me the hon. Gentleman has to convince. If he finds himself in such circumstances where he has drawn his knife and used it in a threatening way, it will be the appropriate constabulary and prosecutors to whom his unlawful behaviour will have imperilled him in terms of mandatory custody.

After that entertaining Celtic sally, I repeat that the overall effect of the provision will be that lawful authority or good reason or reasonable excuse for possession alone would not be available as defences for the new offences because they do not justify threatening and dangerous conduct, as I said to the hon. Gentleman. However, those defences will continue to be available to the basic possession offences that he mentioned in  relation to what is it called he mentioned? A skidoo? [Hon. Members:“ A skean-dhu”] Indeed. A skidoo is something slightly different I think. I presume as a Scot in traditional dress he would have that defence. I will be interested to see whether I am now supplied with advice that states that that is not an adequate defence.

I trust that the Committee will feel able to support this group of small but important amendments that will ensure aggravated offences will now apply regardless of whether the initial possession can be justified in law. The amendments will also ensure that courts that do not find the defendant guilty of the new aggravated offence are, nevertheless, able to return an alternate verdict of a possession offence that is appropriate to the case.

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

May I say what a pleasure it has been to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, during the course of these debates and how unfailingly fair and helpful you have been to Committee members?

The issue of knife crime is obviously extremely serious. In the 12 months up to June 2010, nearly 30,000 offences were committed and, even more worryingly, 4,600 people were taken to hospital as a result of knife crimes. The clause creates a new offence of threatening with a blade or point or offensive weapon in public or on a school premises. At the moment, it is the only clause in the Bill that creates a new offence.

I am rather concerned about the way that the Government are using legislation here. As was mentioned earlier, it seems to be further complicating the legislative framework, and I suspect that this piece of legislation is being used for rhetorical purposes.

My first point is that the clause does not fulfil the commitment in the 2010 Tory party manifesto. The section headed, “Change society: Fight back against crime”, stated:

“We have to send a serious, unambiguous message that carrying a knife is totally unacceptable, so we will make it clear that anyone convicted of a knife crime can expect to face a prison sentence. We will introduce mobile knife scanners on streets and public transport,”

and so on. The clause does not do what the Prime Minister said, which was to make the carrying of a knife in any circumstances a criminal offence. The reason why Ministers are using this legislation in a rhetorical way is that we had the “tough on crime” message from before the general election, but then, in October 2010, the Justice Secretary made a U-turn. A BBC News article titled, “Ken Clarke to drop Tory knife jail pledge”, from 6 December 2010 states that

“Mr Clarke said ministers would not insist on ‘absolute tariffs’.”

He went on to tell the BBC:

“‘We’re not setting out absolute tariffs for particular things. What happens is pundits or newspapers suggest levels for particular forms of crimes… Parliament in its wisdom enacts them—it doesn’t work.

Anybody who is guilty of serious knife crime will go to prison but I’m not in favour of absolute rules. I’m in favour of actually allowing judges to see how nasty the offender is, see what the offence was, see what the best way of protecting the public from him is.

‘I’m more interested in actually, will we stop this man doing this again in future?’”

That is a perfectly sensible remark, but we have the tough, and then we have the soft.

Anna Soubry (Broxtowe, Conservative)

On what basis does the hon. Lady say that it is soft to say that people who carry knives in the manner described by the Justice Secretary should expect to go to prison for a considerable length of time? Will she remind us again about the manifesto commitment that people who carry knives could “expect” to face a prison sentence, which implies a non-mandatory sentence and that seems to me to be exactly what is set out in the legislation?

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

If I may say so, the hon. Lady has admirably, and not for the first time in Committee, demonstrated the point, because the fact is that if I had read that, I would have expected it to be mandatory.

As I was going to say, the Justice Secretary then said something different, but after the shambles around 50% discounts for early guilty pleas, we then had the insertion of this clause into the Bill. The clause was not consulted on in the White Paper. I feel that this legislation is being used to make rhetorical point. I am not convinced that it will have a significant impact, because the Government are talking tough with this clause, but failing to deal with the root causes of youth crime.

Earlier this year, the Government commissioned a report by Brooke Kinsella—the sister of Ben Kinsella, who was stabbed to death at the age of 16 in Islington—titled, “Tackling knife crime together”, and it was published in February. In the course of preparing her report, she visited a large number of organisations and projects around the country that seek to turn young people away from a life of crime and gang violence, including the Prince’s Trust and Catch22.

In her thoughtful report, Brooke Kinsella made a large number of recommendations, including for knife crime programmes to be taught in schools, better data sharing, the encouragement of communities to come together, a communal website to link charities to funding opportunities, more projects to promote knife crime education and awareness, and a credit scheme for young people—all sorts of things—but at no point did she discuss changing the law and there was no recommendation about sentencing for adults or young people.

Brooke Kinsella particularly recommended the knife crime prevention programme in Liverpool, which seeks to challenge the behaviour of young people who are found carrying a weapon and encourages wider stakeholders—for example, accident and emergency nurses—to explain the impact of knife crime to dissuade young people. I know from an anaesthetist in an A and E department in Liverpool that knife crime is a very big problem in that city. People with other illnesses and injuries are put at the back of queue, because young men—usually, but not invariably, young men—turn up and jump to the front of the queue every Monday morning.

The Government are ignoring the prevention measures that they need to take on knives and gangs. The Minister may have read the Hansard report of the Westminster Hall debate this week, which was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). He pointed out that there is a growing problem: in London, knife crime rose by 8% last year, and in his constituency, 50% of 14 to 16-year-olds said that knife crime was the biggest issue that they face today. The reason why I say that the Government are not tackling the issues in an intelligent way or in a way that is likely to work is that, despite the very real problems, the budget for the youth offending service in Haringey has been cut by 50%.

The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is not in his place, which is a shame because he, too, contributed to that debate. He said that better information sharing across boroughs was needed. He noted the success of the project in Cardiff that tries to bring together people from hospitals and from the police to ensure that they have a better understanding of what is going on.

When the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) responded, he agreed with the Brooke Kinsella report, saying that we must be more “hard-headed” about interventions. At no point during that debate did anyone call for tougher sentencing or discuss the Government’s plan to create a new knife crime.

I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the remarks made by the Bar Council. It stated:

“This Clause would introduce a ‘new’ offence of threatening with an offensive weapon or with an article with a blade or a point, with a minimum sentence of six months’ imprisonment.

This provision is little more than ‘tough on crime’ window dressing on a Bill which is actually intended to reduce the prison population and the associated cost to the State. While it may have impressed certain sections of the tabloid press, the actions it covers have been criminalised by existing provisions; namely sections 3 and 4 of the Public Act”—

the Public Order Act 1986. It continued:

“Even if the Government’s intention is to ‘toughen up’ sentencing on knife crime, we fail to see how a mandatory minimum sentence of six months imprisonment will serve such a purpose.”

My point is not that we will oppose the clause, which I have to say is otiose and unexceptionable, but that if Ministers were really serious about knife crime they would tackle it in a totally different way.

Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)

We can be upbraided for not being able to deliver our manifesto commitments, but it is rather a shame that we did not win the general election outright. The Government’s programme is not based on the Conservative manifesto, but on the coalition agreement. [ Interruption. ] It is a coalition Government and there are no commitments on knife crime in the coalition agreement. If the hon. Lady wants to put the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and his colleagues in the parliamentary Liberal party in the dock, she can do so. But it is therefore the success of the Conservative part of this coalition that they have agreed to support, as part of the coalition, these arrangements that send an unequivocal message about this coalition Government’s attitude to knife crime.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said that this is about rhetoric. I can tell her that it is about message and clarity—to make it clear beyond a scintilla of doubt that the coalition Government take knife crime extremely seriously. That is why we are taking these steps to put on the statute book a mandatory sentence when people use knives in a threatening manner.

Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith, Labour)

I am slightly surprised by the Minister’s sudden and unprovoked attack on his coalition partners, particularly when the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is not here. I do not know whether we will hear from the hon. Member for Edinburgh West, who may need to clarify the situation. The Minister certainly needs to do so.

Are we being told that there would have been a stronger provision on knife crime had there been a Conservative Government, or are we to believe what we were told by the hon. Member for Broxtowe a few moments ago, which is that this does exactly the job that the Prime Minister said it would do before the election? They cannot both be true.

Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)

We fought the general election on the manifesto. The hon. Gentleman will have observed that, much to my distress, we did not have a majority on the basis of that manifesto. That is why we are in a coalition and the programme for the Government is the coalition agreement. While there was no reference to knife crime in the coalition agreement, the coalition Government, after due consideration, are sending an unequivocal message through the measure that we propose to put on the statute book in this clause. Of course, we enjoy the full support of our Liberal Democrat colleagues on this.

Ben Gummer (Ipswich, Conservative)

I am surprised by the shadow Minister’s tone here. It is not about rhetoric. It is about sending an important message. The message is important in itself for this reason. She will be well aware that the whole  problem with knife crime in some communities in this country is the habitual carrying of weapons, especially by young men, in order to threaten. Sometimes the weapons are not even produced. The point about this clause and the amendments to it is to ensure that a message is sent that it is not acceptable to carry a weapon, whether brandished or not. That is precisely the Government’s intention. We are hitting a real problem with a strong message and a strong solution.

Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clear and unequivocal support.

Dave Watts (St Helens North, Labour)

If the Minister feels that the measure will be effective, as I suspect he does, has he assessed the likely impact on knife crime on the streets in the 12 months after it is introduced?

Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)

I wish I had a crystal ball and could say exactly what will happen once we pass legislation. We are trying to create the circumstances where we will have an effect and the clarity of the message sent will have an effect. We have to be careful with the conduct of this discussion. If I have contributed to the levity, then I should apologise. This is a serious issue, and we have to find a way as legislators of doing our level best to address it. We have to do it within the proper justice framework and we have to have measures that will be effective. This is the judgment that the coalition Government have come to about how to send what I think we all agree is the necessary message about the absolute unacceptability of knife crime.

Anna Soubry (Broxtowe, Conservative)

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 made the possession of a firearm an offence attracting a mandatory five-year sentence. In doing so, the Act sent out a powerful message, which many people, especially those at the sharp end of the criminal justice system, believe had a profound effect on the carrying of firearms and, in cities such as Nottingham, led to a steep reduction in the use and possession of firearms.

Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point about the messages that accompany our measures, the practical benefits that are felt on the ground and on the enormous benefit to people who would otherwise be victims.

I shall now address the detail of the clause, which creates the new offences of using a blade, pointed article or offensive weapon to threaten or cause immediate risk of serious physical harm to another. The offences under this clause will apply in England and Wales, and they will be triable either way and subject to a maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment on indictment.

The clause provides that the courts must impose a minimum custodial sentence of six months if the offender is aged 18 or over, unless there are particular circumstances relating to the offence or offender that would make it unjust to do so. That exception exists for firearms offences, and it is usual for such mandatory sentence laws to make exceptions in appropriate cases to avoid the possibility of an unlawfully disproportionate sentence being imposed.

Special considerations apply to young people, which is why there is a separate sentencing framework for juveniles in the criminal justice system. The juvenile  criminal justice system has an overriding statutory aim of preventing further offending, whereas the sentencing of adult offenders has a number of purposes that the courts balance. Rehabilitation of juveniles can take place more effectively in the community, where links to family, positive influences, education and wider services can be maintained. Although the new offences apply to juveniles as they do to adults, juveniles will not automatically receive a custodial sentence. Courts will, however, have the power to impose, where appropriate, detention and training orders on juveniles convicted of the new offences.

We will tackle the scourge of knives by complementing existing offences and initiatives with new offences that target the most serious threatening behaviour in which people carry a knife or offensive weapon and use it to put others at risk. Young people convicted of a knife crime and who receive a community penalty will usually be directed to attend a knife crime prevention programme. We are determined to stamp out knife crime, and we need to ensure that young people know why carrying a knife is wrong. Knife crime prevention programmes deliver a powerful message that carrying knives is wrong and may result in tragic outcomes for victims and their families. Modules include sessions delivered by victims’ families and by national health service senior clinicians, who give their first-hand experience of the impact of knife crime. Such programmes are reported as effective and are welcomed by youth offending teams.

Unlawful possession of a knife or offensive weapon is already a serious criminal offence that carries a maximum custodial sentence of four years. If someone is physically harmed, there is also a range of existing offences against the person, particularly offences of wounding or causing grievous bodily harm, that reflect the seriousness of the offending behaviour and the harm caused. The maximum penalty for grievous bodily harm with intent, for example, is life imprisonment. The use of a weapon is an aggravating factor in sentencing. We want to strengthen the existing legislative framework.

Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith, Labour)

The Minister is arguing against himself. He is effectively conceding the point that this is a cosmetic offence. In their comments, Government Members, including the Minister, are eliding two different things—the offence is one of threatening, not possession—and are trying to cover up their embarrassment at not fulfilling their manifesto programme. There are already offences on the statute book that address the issue.

It is not right that legislation is used simply to send a message. There is nothing wrong with such an offence. It does not do anything bad. We shall not oppose it. I am sure that my hon. Friend will deal with such matters, but the Minister ought to be a little more straight and direct, and accept that he is not actually introducing a measure that will have a material effect on sentencing. He cannot get away with eliding what the offence will do and what the Government promised in the first place.

Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)

There is no difference; the Government have been absolutely consistent since the formation of the issue and will continue to be so. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman and the style of his interventions serve to undermine the unequivocal message that I hope the whole of Parliament is sending out about such offences. I would rather that we had his support, delivered with more enthusiasm and better grace so that Parliament’s intention to deal with such a scourge is made clear.

We want to strengthen the existing legislative framework by targeting behaviour that amounts to more than simple possession, but does not go as far as resulting in injury to the victim. Our new offences will complement the existing offences of possession that deal with people who carry weapons in public places or schools without lawful authority, reasonable excuse or good reason. With or without the assistance of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, we send through the clause a clear and unequivocal message from Parliament to people who defy the law by carrying knives and offensive weapons in public places or schools and use them to threaten or endanger people.

Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East, Labour)

On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. My name appeared on an amendment in respect of night crime. I have made inquiries and, for the record, I want to make it clear that it was a mistake.

Philip Hollobone (Kettering, Conservative)

Thank you, Mr Turner. Your comments are on the record.