Violent Crime Reduction Bill

moved Amendment No. 131:"Before Clause 38, insert the following new clause—" ““SENTENCE FOR OFFENCE OF HAVING ARTICLE WITH BLADE OR POINT IN PUBLIC PLACE In subsection (6)(b) of section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) (offence of having article with blade or point in public place), for ““two years”” substitute ““five years””.”” The noble Baroness said: Knife crime in this country is on the increase. Recent reports suggest that in some parts of the country it has risen by as much as 90 per cent in two years. Perhaps the most worrying trend is the increase in the carriage and use of knives by young people. There seems to be a so-called ““culture of the blade”” and I am sure we all agree that something more needs to be done. Terror is the only word that can sufficiently describe what must be experienced by a victim of crime when someone in the street draws a knife on them. But those that carry knives believe that somehow it is a brave thing to do or that it enhances their respect among their peers. This week, the Government said that they will launch a national amnesty on sharp-bladed weapons, but a senior police adviser has said that the measure will not reduce crime levels. Detective Inspector Keith Perkin, who works on the knife crime advisory team of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said:"““We could have a message that a knife amnesty will reduce knife crime, but you and I and any members of the public know that is not going to happen. A knife amnesty per se will not reduce knife crime. It is a marketing tactic and it raises awareness””." My view is that if something assists in raising awareness and reduces knife crime, that in itself must be supported, as a knife amnesty should be. I hope that it works effectively but, as the police officer recognises, it is only one part of the overall attack that there has to be on knife crime. It is important that we explore all the possibilities open to us and employ as wide a range of measures as possible to reduce knife crime. That was certainly brought home to me when I looked again over my speaking notes yesterday. I had fresh in my mind all the stories that we heard at the weekend about the death of Kiyan Prince last week. It was a tragedy for him and his family. It was deeply shocking, and it is something that should not be allowed to happen in our society. It is right that we should work together to send a strong signal to those parts of society that think that carrying a knife or blade in a street is somehow acceptable. We should show that such behaviour is not tolerated and that, if caught and found guilty, the individual will face very severe consequences. My amendment would try to do just that. It would increase the maximum sentence for the offence of having an article with a blade or point in a public place from two to five years. Not only would that act as a deterrent to those who might consider carrying a knife in a public place but it would, I hope, also send a message to victims of crime that Parliament has expressed its will that such an offence should be treated with the utmost gravity. The need for such an amendment becomes all the more apparent when one considers the sentencing powers of the courts in relation to a similar offence—possession of an offensive weapon under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. This offence carries a maximum penalty of four years. Given the rise in knife crime, surely the time has come to consider whether the offence of carrying a bladed article merits a greater sentence than that available under the 1953 Act. My amendment is put forward in the constructive spirit of trying to find a variety of ways to tackle knife crime. If the Minister says that it is poorly drafted or that perhaps five years is not the right maximum sentence, I should certainly be prepared to discuss that. But I hope that I shall hear from the Government that they are prepared to consider this matter again. I beg to move.