Knife Crime in Glasgow
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-2038, in the name of Frank McAveety, on knife crime in Glasgow. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the unacceptable number of incidents involving knife crime in Scotland and particularly in the east end of Glasgow; believes that the Scottish Executive, Strathclyde police and other key agencies need to work more effectively to tackle this problem; considers that a range of measures to deal with knife crime are required, and believes that the Executive should consider measures such as restricting access to the purchase of knives, ensuring appropriate programmes are in place to educate young people on the dangers and consequences of carrying and using knives, speedier and effective sentencing for those convicted of knife crime and ensuring that the police have effective powers to deal with those who carry and use knives.
I thank those members who have supported the motion and those who have expressed an interest in a debate on this particularly difficult and complex issue, which needs to be tackled over the next few years. I thank the considerable number of members who have stayed on this Thursday evening to contribute to the debate on how we address the issue.
In essence, concerns were raised over a month ago when, during a very difficult weekend, a number of significant events took place in my constituency that resulted in loss of life. Not all those events involved knife crime, but to have had four murders in one weekend is a unique statistic that is nothing to be proud of and which needs to be tackled. Combined with that, there was a fatalism. People shrugged their shoulders as if they accepted that that level of activity was a necessary aspect of life in Glasgow. Certainly, given the historical background, we have become immune over the years to many issues that we should perhaps still be outraged by. We ought to wish to tackle those issues in a consistent and comprehensive fashion. Thus, those recent events combine with a history of regular use of knives in street crime and in violent incidents, not just in my constituency but across west and central Scotland.
The statistics involve misery not only for the victims concerned and for the families who must live with the loss of loved ones, but for many young men who, having become involved perhaps for the first time in serious criminal activity, find themselves convicted and required to spend a considerable period of their young lives in jail.
During the past 10 years, prior to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, the Westminster Parliament provided measures in the Offensive Weapons Act 1996 and the Knives Act 1997. It was no coincidence that members of Parliament who represent the areas of Glasgow that have been particularly affected by knife crime were central to much of that development in the House of Commons. Those measures were necessary and essential but, nearly 10 years on, we still have a persistent and long-term problem with knife crime in Glasgow and the west of Scotland.
If people care to look at them, the statistics on the scale of the problem are quite chilling. Already in 2004, at least 26 murders have taken place within the greater Glasgow area. In E division, which covers a significant part of my constituency, we have had five murders in 2003 and 2004, with almost 30 attempted murders. The figures show that the impact on individuals from those incidents was substantial. The most frightening statistic from Strathclyde police is that the area has three and a half times more murders that are committed with a knife than England and Wales have.
Given that knife crime in Glasgow and central Scotland is massively higher than in comparable cities in the rest of the United Kingdom, there must be something particular not just to the economics and social circumstances of our communities—although I share many members' concerns about those—but to the mindset and mentality that seems to encourage such activity. The fact that, in the past three years, 89 young men under the age of 21 have committed murder is a chilling statistic that we need to address.
I welcome the Executive's very recent positive commitment—which was the result of pressure that several members brought to bear in the chamber—to tackling knife crime. When I asked the First Minister at question time more than five weeks ago whether the Sentencing Commission could take responsibility for the issue in order to hasten things on, the First Minister went much further than that. He said that, rather than wait for the Sentencing Commission, the Executive would identify how we can deal with issues relating to knife crime. I welcome the commitment that the First Minister and the Minister for Justice have made, which I hope will be amplified by the Deputy Minister for Justice when he comments on those major measures.
I welcome the doubling—from two years to four—of the sentence for the possession of knives and offensive weapons. I recognise that the police need more powers to stop and search, especially in areas where they believe that there is a history of knife-related incidents. We must tackle the issue of easy access through retail outlets to weapons that can be used in such incidents. We must be willing to work with licensees throughout Scotland to address the issue of the availability of weapons.
As I indicated in my question to the First Minister, even if we did all the things that I have described individuals would continue wilfully to have the mindset and to bring together the weapons for events on Friday or Saturday evenings. In my constituency, there have been ridiculous cases of people constructing weapons to use in public parks when engaging in what we call territorial gang fights. We need to send out a consistent message that if people possess such weapons, we will take substantial action to address the issue. That is why I welcome the fact that Strathclyde police, in particular, has undertaken to make tackling violence much more central to its work.
The more important development that I want to be sustained—I invite the minister to respond on this point—is the targeting of resources on the locations where incidents take place. Through statistical development research and work across the public agencies, we should identify ways in which to work effectively in those communities. If we take out the city centre wards of Glasgow City Council, the tragic statistics are that 50 per cent of the six wards with the highest levels of violent crime are located in the constituency that I represent. Those areas are Calton, Parkhead and the Gorbals. There are substantial issues that we need to address.
I will use the last minute of my speech to identify ways in which the Executive can continue with the progress that it has made. We need to work with health agencies to ensure that reported incidents of violent crime—especially those that affect accident and emergency units throughout Glasgow—can be fed into the research, so that the police can target their resources. I welcome the initiative by Strathclyde police to locate police officers in local secondary schools, especially in the east end of Glasgow. That will have a long-term benefit in changing attitudes. I welcome the First Minister's commitment this week in Aberdeen to make that initiative a role model, but it must be resourced and supported through direct grant.
We must send out a strong message about firmer sentences. I welcome the progress that has been made so far, but I recognise the aspiration of families—especially families down in England who have lost loved ones—for much firmer statutory sentencing for people in possession of knives or other instruments that can be used in violent crime.
We need to be consistently vigilant. Too many lives are blighted and too many people are affected by this problem. Dr Rudy Crawford of the accident and emergency unit at Glasgow royal infirmary said recently:
"If people could see our resuscitation room, soaked in blood and a young man lying dead with his chest cracked open … they might see things differently."
If we keep that picture at the heart of what we do, develop the measures that have been announced recently and continue to work on this issue, I hope that many of the young lives that are blighted by this tragedy will not be blighted in the future. I hope that the Executive will respond to my concerns.
I thank Frank McAveety for securing the debate. Dealing with knife crime is an issue that I have pressed vigorously, and I know that other MSPs, both in and outwith Glasgow, have done the same. On 20 October this year, I lodged a motion that highlighted the horrific murders to which Frank McAveety alluded, not just in his constituency but in other areas of the west of Scotland.
As Frank McAveety mentioned in his speech, the problem is not limited to the east end of Glasgow, where his constituency is located, but affects the west of Scotland as a whole. We must tackle the serious issue of knife crime throughout that area.
I recognise that the Executive is taking measures to stamp out knife crime, but I have concerns about the raising of the age for buying knives from 16 to 18. I do not have reservations about increasing the age limit as such, but I am concerned that people who are intent on carrying such weapons will simply use kitchen utensils instead. Indeed, Frank McAveety has alluded to the fact that the same thing happens in schools. Teachers have told me that pupils use compasses and even pencil sharpeners as implements of violence. We should not get too het up with the belief that simply raising the age limit will stop the problem. Instead, we must send out a message to the general public and the youngsters whom we are trying to educate that we need a cultural change in the west of Scotland to address the problem of people who carry all types of weapons.
I am concerned by the suggestion that Frank McAveety made in his speech, and in a press release, that there should be a police presence in schools. Youth club members and groups of young people in the street have told us that even the presence of a policeman in a school was seen as a badge of pride by some young people who cannot be told that knife culture is wrong. I have my reservations about posting policemen in every school. Perhaps the pilot scheme in Aberdeen—
I mentioned the point simply because of the positive experience at St Mungo's Academy, where the head teacher was initially worried about the perception of having policemen on school grounds and the role that they could play. However, I have witnessed at first hand how that police officer has substantially changed young people's attitudes. If the police could play that kind of positive, proactive role, their presence would be worth while and could genuinely tackle a particular undercurrent in communities throughout central Scotland.
I take Mr McAveety's point. However, although I might welcome such a move as part of a pilot scheme in some schools, I am not sure that it would work in all schools. We need a culture change instead. We also need decent sentences that mirror the seriousness of this crime, because only that approach will send out a message to people who carry and use knives, whether or not they do so for their own protection.
Members have mentioned in many debates that it is crucial to have policemen on the beat. As a great believer in prevention rather than reactive policing, I feel that the best way forward would be to have more police on the beat with stop-and-search powers to stop kids carrying and using knives. We must have a culture change, which is why I have already called for an investigation into the terrible knife culture in Glasgow. Unfortunately, the problem will not be eradicated overnight, but we must convince the public that this heinous crime can be dealt with by having more police on the beat, better education for young people and an investigation into the causes of knife crime. I look forward to the minister's response.
I, too, congratulate Frank McAveety on securing this debate on an extremely important issue. However, I want to begin by challenging the still current stereotype of Glasgow as a highly violent place. I have heard friends, particularly those who live down south and who perhaps do not know Scotland as well as we do, talk about the city in those terms. The stereotype is perhaps overblown in many people's minds. After all, I lived in Manchester for four or five years and was mugged three times, twice at knife-point. I have never felt as safe as I have in Glasgow, although, as a youngster and now as an adult socialising in Glasgow city centre, there have been times when I have not felt safe. My point is that I have felt a lot less safe in other cities. However, as the motion makes clear, no level of knife crime is acceptable and I welcome the opportunity to debate the issue.
I welcome proposals for a licensing scheme for knife sales. No one will argue that all knives that are sold, including those that are designed for sporting use, are used for legitimate purposes. Indeed, we would all welcome steps to increase the minimum age for knife sales and to ban certain categories of weapons. However, such measures are not enough on their own. Anyone who wants a knife will always find an opportunity to get hold of one or, as Frank McAveety pointed out, to construct one.
It is clear that enforcement has an important role, but as we discussed in this morning's debate on justice we must accept that increasing sentences and locking people up for longer does not guarantee long-term protection. The public need and deserve protection from people who pose a genuine risk. However, that protection will be little more than a temporary fix if their imprisonment does not involve meaningful efforts to rehabilitate them.
Patrick Harvie and I share a belief in restorative justice and we believe that locking people up is not the solution to crime. However, does he accept that we must embrace the introduction of stiff mandatory sentences for the carrying of knives if we are to break the cultural problem that we have?
That will be appropriate in many cases, but the next point that I wanted to make concerns the cultural aspect of the problem.
We need to acknowledge that, for many young people, the motivation for carrying a weapon is not random aggression or a desire to attack. For some it is, but for many it is not; for many, it is the feeling of being under threat in their own communities. Many young people who carry weapons overestimate the number of their peers who do the same. The fear feeds the fear, and our response needs to recognise that. Once those fears are compounded and more people carry weapons, because they believe that their peers are doing the same, and once knives are present and available in conflict situations, what might have been a relatively minor incident can become a tragic one.
Our response needs to engage with those reasons, motivations and perceptions, because enforcement by itself, although necessary, is insufficient. Working with young people to discuss and challenge their perceptions as well as their fears, and listening to them, must be a vital part of our response. When we legislated on antisocial behaviour, much of the intervention, although it was required, was done in the wrong order. We need to deal with youth work first, then to review existing systems such as youth justice and children's hearings, and then to consider enforcement. I hope that the same mistake is not made in this instance.
I join other members in thanking Frank McAveety for securing the debate. I also take this opportunity to draw to members' attention the work that he does—and has done for many years—in his constituency on the issue. I know first hand that he has drawn down resources and developed many models that have prevented young people from getting into serious bother. His work on that should be well acknowledged.
I asked for dispensation to speak in the debate; I wanted to speak in my capacity as a constituency member because of my deep concern about the scale of knife crime. I realised, of course, that I had to ask myself for dispensation, so I very generously granted it.
Like Frank McAveety, I see almost daily the impact of knife crime; I see its scale, the range of knives that are available and the culture of knife crime, which members have mentioned. Frank McAveety is absolutely right to talk about statistics on murders and serious assaults in the east end of Glasgow. The human tragedy that they represent is incalculable, not only to the victims and their families, but to the perpetrators and their families.
Of course we must make our streets and communities safe, but we should never be complacent and accept a culture in which a young person's horizon cannot be extended beyond gang warfare or beyond the idea that knife crime is somehow enjoyable. As Frank McAveety has, I have talked to many police officers and was recently told a story—at the beginning of this week, in fact—about an incident in which police officers had cause to attend a mother's house to find out the whereabouts of a 15 or 16-year-old boy, to be told by the mother, "Oh, I haven't seen him since he went out last night gang fighting." That is the culture that we need to change.
I accept the point that Patrick Harvie made; we cannot accept a culture that allows young people to think that they need to carry a knife to feel safe. It is our failure if we have created a society in which young people feel that that is the only way they can make themselves feel safe.
I do not want to get into a competition with Sandra White about who has the most dangerous area, and I well respect the point that she made, but Frank McAveety and I have to talk about the east end of Glasgow and the disproportionate amount of murders and serious assaults there. Police officers have given us evidence of that. A simple dispute in our communities becomes serious because of knives. An altercation between two individuals on the street can become serious assault or even murder in our communities because of knife crime. The police officers in our communities tell us unequivocally that carrying of knives is the determining factor that takes us to the top of the league for murder and serious assault. We must do something about the situation and we cannot be complacent.
I understand the point that Patrick Harvie made, but let us not be fooled about how dangerous Glasgow can be. We should not, despite our commitment and passion for our city, allow ourselves to cover over some of the human tragedies that happen.
I congratulate the Glasgow Evening Times, which manages to strike the balance between allowing ourselves to be proud of the city and articulating its great strengths, while being prepared to have the courage to face the challenges in our city. It is important that we do not collude in promoting an outdated stereotype that media people in particular want to promote. We must take the opportunity to face the challenges.
I agree that we must prevent knife crime. We must divert young people who are using knives into better activities; we must widen their horizons, provide them with other means to articulate their opinions and enable them to move on beyond the exclusion that they may feel. However, we must not be soft and we must be prepared to introduce sanctions for behaviour that we feel is inappropriate. As a society, we must be prepared to say what is and is not acceptable. We might not solve the problem of knife crime easily at a stroke, but we must use every opportunity to turn around the culture and reduce the scale of knife crime and the use of knives.
I say to Hugh Henry—he knows that I will say this—that the range of knives that is available on the streets of Glasgow is shocking. I understand that some young people will make weapons out of other objects, but it is disgusting that some people are prepared knowingly to profit from the misery of others. We cannot let those people play their part in lives being blighted.
I congratulate Frank McAveety again on securing the debate. Let us send a message out to all agencies that the matter will become a number 1 priority for Parliament and the Executive.
I, too, congratulate Frank McAveety on bringing the matter to Parliament. It is a matter of the greatest concern and I know that all my colleagues who represent Glasgow constituencies and wider regions share that concern about the damage that knife crime can do to individuals and families.
A number of issues have come out of the debate. First, Patrick Harvie was correct to talk about the stereotype of a Glaswegian, which some people still like to go on about. A classic illustration of that featured in a recent advert. I was able, with the assistance of a Labour secretary of state down south, to have the advert withdrawn.
That is not to say that we do not have our problems in Glasgow; we must recognise them. It is still far too frequently the case that young men in Glasgow, when they go for a night out, put the blade in their pocket with the same alacrity and facility as the rest of us would put on the aftershave. We must get away from that culture. We must also get away from the culture in which on a nice summer's night instead of going out to play football or something like that, people under 16 go to a public park or an open space and engage in gang warfare. That is the situation that pertains.
We all have a part to play. Margaret Curran was correct to criticise people who sell knives for profit when it is apparent that they are being purchased for nefarious purposes. I can understand that someone may use a knife in their work and I can understand that someone may use one for culinary purposes, but can someone explain to me the purpose of a sporting knife? I can understand that a small knife could be used for fishing, but the knives that are being sold as sporting knives are murderous weapons. That is not an exaggeration.
What should we do about the problem? First, in some cases parents must ask themselves serious questions. In many cases—Margaret Curran gave an example—parents know that their children go out carrying knives. There can surely be no more terrifying irresponsibility than that.
The police must start to take action on the same basis as they did a number of years ago. Stop and search powers were introduced under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. Those powers should be utilised much more frequently and in a much more determined manner. Every knife that is removed from the streets potentially prevents a murder.
We have to examine the courts system, because it is taking 10 to 11 months for cases to come to court, which is not acceptable. The Executive has to address that problem. Cases should be fast-tracked. They will not, in the main, be long or complex trials. There will probably be only three witnesses—two police officers and the accused—so it should be possible to fast-track them.
I disagree with Tommy Sheridan on mandatory sentences. It may seem to be a strange juxtaposition that I agree with the Executive, and with Hugh Henry in particular, but mandatory sentences do not work because unfortunately people are occasionally trawled in the net who should not get the jail. Mandatory sentences are not the answer.
We have to do things that a few years ago we would not have thought about. Who would have thought it would ever come to our having police in schools? I would have objected to that, but if it will help, let us do it. We cannot allow the situation to continue when literally every weekend there is heartbreak and distress and young lives are ruined.
This is an important debate and, like other members, I congratulate Frank McAveety on securing it. It is perhaps not surprising that the debate has been raised by a Glasgow member and that Glasgow members from across the political spectrum are participating in it because, regrettably, knife crime is at its worst in Glasgow.
During the safer Scotland safer streets campaign, Strathclyde police took 428 knives and 370 other weapons off the streets of Glasgow in only eight weeks. Across the west of Scotland as a whole, 7,500 people have been the victims of knife crimes and I would not be surprised if many more such offences have gone unreported. Scotland has the worst record for stabbing murders in the whole of Europe, apart from Northern Ireland and, oddly, Finland, which we often hold up as an example in other policy areas.
Young people who frequent the pubs and clubs of Glasgow city centre or who live or walk about in many of the suburbs—particularly, but not only, in deprived areas—are well aware of the culture of violence that too often prevails, and of the number of people who believe that it is appropriate to carry weapons. No one doubts the problem, nor the resolve of the Scottish Executive and of political parties across the board to deal with it effectively, but there is no one simple solution. In our 2003 manifesto, the Liberal Democrats called for support for police initiatives to detect and tackle knife crime, and for tough sentences for people who are found in possession of knives. The Executive's five-point plan for a crackdown follows from that and from similar proposals by Labour coalition colleagues.
However, I understand from a conversation that I had this morning with a defence solicitor whom I met on the train that the procurator fiscal in Glasgow determined some months ago to prosecute possession offences routinely in the district court, rather than in the sheriff court. If that is true, whatever the pressures of court business, I cannot believe that it sends out the right message. Possession offences should be prosecuted in the sheriff court. Indeed, if there are associated aggravating circumstances or previous history, consideration should be given to prosecuting on indictment. I ask the minister to discuss that issue urgently with the Lord Advocate.
I ask Robert Brown to accept that what he was told this morning is true, but that the rationale was that sentencing in the district court would be much more robust than has been the case in the sheriff court for similar offences.
I am prepared to accept that that was the intention, and that there must be a saving in court time, but cases being tried in the sheriff court sends out a message that their being heard in the district court does not.
The test of success is not the number of weapons that are confiscated, nor is it the number of violent or potentially violent criminals who are put behind bars, but the crime rate on the streets. It is no use at all if we cannot crack the culture of aggression on the streets, to which other members referred, much of which is associated with or fuelled by alcohol, and stems from fractured individuals who are produced by there being too many fractured homes and too many fractured communities. It is interesting to note that the safer Scotland campaign to which I referred also confiscated 6,517 litres of alcohol, which is enough, I would guess, to keep quite a large pub going for weeks.
In short, we must not forget to be tough on the causes of crime as well as on the criminals. Today's debate is not the time to pursue that, but I urge Parliament to remember that catching the carriers of machetes and the perpetrators of violence is just the start. Protection of the public by locking up those people is a vital part of the armoury but, in other contexts, we have debated the relative failure of prisons to change behaviour, and we have debated whether such people have to be let out again.
I repeat that our effort must go towards creating a zero tolerance approach to violence in the home, at school and in the streets. However, zero tolerance also means tackling the risk factors that stir people to act in such ways in the first place.
The motion is right to mention the need to cut off the supply of knives at source and the need for programmes to educate young people. Sometimes, there is a foolhardy or bravado element to knife carrying and sometimes the weapon is intended to cause serious damage to others. In any event, members are united in putting across the message that it is not acceptable to carry knives and other weapons. As Margaret Curran said, today's debate will assist in that.
To allow all members who wish to take part in the debate to do so, I am willing to accept a motion without notice to extend the debate by 10 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by 10 minutes.—[Hugh Henry.]
Motion agreed to.
I congratulate Frank McAveety on bringing this important debate to Parliament, although I am a bit uncomfortable discussing it. We have been here before—the problem is not new. I missed the Frankie Vaughan amnesty on weapons, but I was around in the mid to late 1970s and was caught up in the peer pressure of local gangs in Glasgow's housing schemes. We happened to be right in the middle of two big gang areas—we had the Kross on one side and the Krew on the other and we were a tiny wee gang called the toddler SPE, which represented the swing park end. In those heady days, it was acceptable to run behind the big boys who were involved in the theatre of gang warfare at Crookston Castle hill, where they would chase one another to and fro, throw a few bottles and carry very large swords.
There was rarely any physical contact, which is why I talked about a theatre. However, at that time young lads like me, of 13 or 14 years, thought that it was all right to carry weapons. For a couple of months I carried a knife—if my mother had known, she would have skinned me alive. I never thought that I would use the knife, but because everybody else carried a knife I thought that I should carry one—just in case. The problem in Glasgow is that the culture of the 1970s has been carried through the 1980s and the 1990s and is still very much alive and kicking today.
It is contradictory of me, as a socialist who believes passionately in personal liberty, to suggest that Parliament must grasp the nettle and go for the much tougher approach of mandatory sentencing. It is unusual for me to be tougher on crime than Bill Aitken is, but the point is that we must crack the nut and make carrying knives, never mind using them, taboo. We must have a zero-tolerance approach. It is unfortunate, but we must introduce a mandatory sentencing system that includes a robust appeals and monitoring system so that we can address the odd exception in such sentencing. That would send a message to primary and secondary schools that a person who even carries a weapon will end up with years in jail, which could lead to a change in culture.
The measure might not work and we might end up simply locking up more people, which none of us wants, but what we have done until now has not worked. Far too many accident and emergency units in Glasgow are filled at the weekends with ripped faces and stabbed bodies, predominantly of young men. They are the tip of the iceberg; Frank McAveety was right that many slashings and stabbings that perhaps do not need medical treatment are not reported.
The problem is huge and sometimes, when we are faced with huge problems, we need radical solutions. As I said, there is no guarantee that mandatory sentences of three or four years will solve the problem. Maybe they will not but, then again, perhaps 10 years from now we will not be having debates such as this because the message might have got through that even carrying such a weapon, never mind using it, will result in such a loss of liberty. The gravity of the problem that faces us needs such a radical and grave response.
I congratulate Frank McAveety on securing the debate and I apologise to the minister because I might not be able to stay to hear all of his response. However, I will read it in the Official Report; I hope that the minister will address whether mandatory sentencing is at least being considered.
Like others, I congratulate Frank McAveety on his motion. It is fair to point out that knife crime does not follow boundaries—certainly not local government boundaries—and that there are big problems with knife-related crime in West Dunbartonshire. I am sure that the minister will say the same about Renfrewshire, Lanarkshire and other areas.
The one consistent pattern is the link between poverty and deprivation and the level of knife-related crime. That is not to say that knife crime is a product of poverty—only a small minority of people carry and use knives—but what we have in some of the communities that have been mentioned is a culture of confrontation that is associated with fear. Fear encourages people to carry the instruments of violence and, in certain circumstances, to use them.
We have to make it quite clear that there can be no tolerance of knife-related crime. As others have pointed out, we have gone through cycles of knife-related crime and cycles of dealing with it. To some extent, if we are able to tackle this issue with energy, enthusiasm and co-ordination, we know that we can make a difference. Perhaps we will be unable to eradicate knife crime, but we know that previous initiatives have reduced the extent of it. We need to start to consider such initiatives again.
Knife crime is not only a problem in the streets. There have been recent cases of burglars leaving knives at the bottom of the stairs of houses they have burgled with the intent of sending a message to the occupiers that they should not mess with the burglars and should keep out of their way. The use of knives to threaten violence is as great a menace to us as is the use of knives in street violence.
What can we do about knife crime? First, we have to tackle the availability of knives. It is difficult to separate the sale of kitchen knives from the sale of machetes and the sporting knives that Bill Aitken mentioned, but I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of man to identify a mechanism that identifies the kinds of knives that are more likely to be used in connection with this kind of violence. We can consider licensing schemes for the sale of knives to ensure that, as far as possible, we prevent instruments of violence from falling into the wrong hands.
Further, we can examine the way in which the police intervene. As Bill Aitken said, perhaps we can use existing legislation and encourage the police to identify what they think are the most effective ways of taking knives off people. We can consider sentencing policy, as some members have said.
We should also consider diversionary activities. What alternatives are we going to offer the young men—and it is predominantly men—who are involved with knife crime, to encourage them to take a different route in life?
This is an example of an existing pattern of resourcing that is not dealing with an endemic problem. If there is an issue with knife crime—it is one of a number of issues that are concentrated not only in Glasgow but throughout west central Scotland and in poorer areas rather than better-off areas—that is telling us something about how we prioritise and address the issues. We need to identify not only the way in which we allocate resources but the different ways in which we can use those resources—to make use of our energy and commitment to solve the problem of knife crime in the communities that I and others in this chamber represent.
I first visited Glasgow at the age of 32, for the 1978 Garscadden by-election at which Donald Dewar returned to parliamentary politics. I found the people of Glasgow warm and welcoming and I thank Glasgow MSPs for their courtesy in allowing me to join them in this debate, which reminds me of how Glasgow people welcomed me in 1978. Even political opponents were friendly in Glasgow. They were focused, but they were friendly.
I will take apart a couple of things that Frank McAveety usefully states in his motion and focus on them as the most important matters. The motion refers to
"ensuring appropriate programmes are in place to educate young people on the dangers and consequences of carrying and using knives".
I must draw an important point to members' attention: we can talk about knives as both weapons and tools.
As a young lad in the country, I carried a 9in, double-edged knife, but I never realised that it was a weapon; it was a tool to be used for a variety of purposes. I was far from being alone in my attitude towards knives. A good pal, who is now dead—for reasons that had nothing to do with knives—used to go to the front of the class in secondary school to sharpen his pencil with his flick-knife. Nobody thought anything about it; it was just another knife being used as a tool in an appropriate context.
I will support, in principle, the Executive's planned measures on knives and the control of their sale, which will be a useful move, but we should not imagine that cutting off the supply of knives will cut off the desire in the people who currently use them as weapons to have a weapon of some kind. If we take knives away from them, there is a real danger that they will find another weapon to use instead. That is why the motion's point about educating young people about the consequences of carrying knives is the most important one. The issue is about people's attitudes to other people and their willingness to enforce their point of view on them through violence. Such people happen to use knives in far too many instances.
I am slightly surprised that members have so far not made the link between drugs and knives. The knife is the preferred weapon for a frightener in the drugs industry. A knife to the buttock is a standard warning in the drugs industry. I would have thought that Glasgow MSPs had met that practice in Glasgow, as I have done in the north-east—we got it from Glasgow. There was a grave misfortune in my constituency: one of my constituents died from being stabbed in the buttock. The knife went too far in and severed the femoral artery. My constituent was dead in 20 seconds.
It is important for us to educate our youngsters about the consequences of knife use. It is not simply bravado to carry a knife; consequences may follow from doing so. Of course, Glasgow has the unenviable reputation of being a city in which the proportion of knife crime per 100,000 of the population exceeds the total murder rate per 100,000 people in London, which is a city that we do not always think of as being one of the safest in the world.
Robert Brown was correct to say that there is no single solution. Just because I say that we should not get too wound up about knives, because the problem will move on, does not mean that I do not support Robert Brown's important point. I welcome Tommy Sheridan's view on sentencing up to a point, because I do not think that mandatory sentences are the right thing way to go. However, I certainly think that it is vital that fiscals, in considering charges and the courts to which they will take them, and sheriffs and district magistrates in considering sentences, take the context into account. In particular, I would like the severest sentences to be given for the use of such weapons in the drugs business. That is a hidden crime that is rarely reported to the police. Members might be surprised at how prevalent it is.
I congratulate Frank McAveety on securing the debate and thank him for his hospitality in allowing me to speak in it.
I, too, congratulate Frank McAveety on lodging what I think is an important motion that deals with an issue that affects many parts of Scotland. It is unfortunate that, because of the gravity of the situation in Glasgow, I can be parochial. Like Margaret Curran, I congratulate the Evening Times on its constructive campaign in raising awareness of the seriousness of knife crime and of a number of the challenges that we face.
The human element has been brought home to me when I have dealt with families who have been affected by knife crime and who have lost their loved ones. A family that comes to mind from my own experience is the Watson family, who tragically lost their daughter—and then their son—as a result of a playground murder in the Dennistoun area of my constituency. Margaret and Jim Watson have been devastated by the ruthless murder of Diane and the subsequent suicide of their son. When we reflect on such cases, we realise the need to think about how we tackle knife crime.
For the first time ever, I agree with everything Tommy Sheridan said—we are united in our views. His speech was valuable; I wonder whether he was speaking for the Scottish Socialist Party.
There are two issues I want to deal with. The first is regulation. In the Parliament, we have considered what some people regard as serious restrictions of liberty, such as the banning of smoking in public places. In my view, we must consider the sale of knives in a similar fashion. When I look at many of the weapons that are sold by retail outlets such as Victor Morris in Argyle Street in Glasgow, I wonder why anyone would have to purchase them. I argue that people should have to make a case for purchasing many of the knives and other weapons that are on sale. In common with Des McNulty, I think that we should consider more regulation, whereby someone would have to show why they needed to buy a particular weapon rather than simply have the right to buy it for whatever purpose they want.
Sandra White spoke about policing schools, which I think is the way forward. At Whitehill Secondary School in my constituency, pupils and police officers have been most impressed by the response that they have received. Such initiatives are an opportunity for police officers to make contact with young people in a way that they have never been able to before. The times when young people would not communicate with community police officers are long gone. In my experience, young people are moving on; they want to establish a dialogue with police officers in more creative ways. I argue that that is the way forward.
We need to direct police resources to the areas that are under pressure as a result of the serious challenge of knife crime. From day one, I have said that the leafy suburbs of the Strathclyde police area have the same number of police officers as places such as Ruchazie, Shettleston and Easterhouse. We should direct our police resources at the areas that face the challenge of knife crime so that we can detect the people who are involved in it.
Frank McAveety has done a service to the Parliament by stimulating the debate. The almost total unanimity among members on the need to face up to a serious problem in society that has profound and tragic consequences reflects the seriousness with which knife crime is viewed throughout the country.
Although the Evening Times is a newspaper that has done me no favours over the years—I have had to live with some problems as a result of it—I echo what Margaret Curran and Paul Martin said about its work. I recognise that the Evening Times has consistently campaigned on many issues in a considered way. It presents problems in a way that is not hysterical or sensational, but which draws people together to seek solutions. Its portrayal of some of the knife crime problems has been commendable and has helped to progress the debate. I congratulate the Evening Times on that.
I will tackle the debate in two ways. First, I will talk about the bigger picture and pose questions. Why, in comparison with other countries, does Scotland have such a serious problem with young people carrying knives? Why, in comparison with other countries, do many people here die or become maimed or injured as a result of young people carrying knives? Why is the situation in the west of Scotland much worse than that in the rest of Scotland, which is not to say that no problems exist elsewhere? Why is Glasgow much worse than the rest of the west of Scotland?
We need to understand profound cultural and social issues, which many members touched on. We need to consider the culture in which young people are brought up; poverty; educational issues; and the responsibilities of families, parents and communities. As Tommy Sheridan said, why do many young people think that carrying knives is acceptable?
On a visit to Inverclyde last year, I met fairly articulate and intelligent young people who were part of a youth project and who had been involved in crime. I was profoundly depressed when they tried to justify their carrying and use of knives and—bizarrely—blamed the police, who they said were not present to protect them, which was why they carried knives. That is completely illogical and unacceptable.
Why have we as a society failed to take action against some of the dire consequences of knife crime? The police recently showed me a video. It could be argued that it showed two gangs clashing, but it also showed a tragic murder by knife of a person who was walking by, minding their own business in Glasgow city centre, and who had nothing to do with those who were involved in the groups. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time cost that person their life. We cannot accept that. Something must be done.
Frank McAveety graphically explained the dire and tragic consequences of people carrying knives and others echoed him. We must understand the situation and have a more profound debate, separated from party politics and point scoring, about why we have the problem. The Minister for Justice is determined not only to debate the criminal justice plan, but to go beyond that into a debate about violence in Scotland and profound cultural issues. We are determined to do that and we hope to return to Parliament with ways of progressing the debate.
As well as having that wide-ranging and profound debate, we need to consider specifics. Frank McAveety and others asked for a response. The First Minister recently announced a five-point plan on knife crime, which made it clear that we regard the issue as a high priority. We will return to the Parliament with further details.
Several initiatives are already happening and they confirm what we have heard tonight. For example, the sixth safer Scotland campaign, which is run by Scottish police forces and the British transport police, targeted vandalism, drinking in public places and knife crime in an eight-week period that ended on 3 December. During the campaign, police officers seized more than 700 offensive weapons and charged just under 700 people with more than 1,000 reported knife crimes. The extent of such crimes is a tragedy and a disgrace.
I do not have time to describe specific examples, so I will move on to what we intend to do under the five-point plan. As Frank McAveety has requested and as others have mentioned, we will look into introducing a licensing scheme for the sale of non-domestic knives and similar instruments. It is bizarre to see some of the weapons that are available and which people think are acceptable for sale. However, we should not kid ourselves on that that alone will solve the problem, as Sandra White and others said. If people are determined to carry a knife and commit crimes, they will find some other type of knife.
At the very least, however, we should demonstrate our determination to do something. It has been suggested that we should increase the age of purchase from 16 to 18. I know that some would even wish to extend it to 21. We at least have to consider an increase from 16. We also want a general ban on the sale of swords. Why in the name of humanity would anyone want to be able to carry a sword in public?
The climate is right for us to give the police the right to make more use of stop-and-search powers and powers of arrest for suspicion of carrying a knife or offensive weapon. We also have proposals to double the sentence for the possession of a knife or offensive weapon from two to four years.
I welcome the comments made by Tommy Sheridan, who said that he would back the rest of the Parliament in considering tougher sentences. However, I hope that he is prepared to face up to this issue: if he wishes to promote mandatory sentencing, which would have even more profound implications for the prison population than the severe sentences that many of the rest of us are talking about, I hope that we will hear less criticism of talk about the need for more prisons and more prison places. There is a consequence to saying that there should be mandatory sentences for carrying knives. I hope that we get a change in argument from Tommy Sheridan and his colleagues when it comes to knife crimes.
We have heard about the murders and the mayhem and we have heard that the problem could even be worse than we realise. That is absolutely right. However, the number of deaths could be greater but for the fact that many incidents take place in the centre of Glasgow within fairly close proximity to the Royal infirmary. Had it not been for the ability of our emergency services to get people to the infirmary, many more young people could have died. The Royal infirmary has available a range of skills that is probably unsurpassed by any other hospital in Britain, if not Europe. It is a tragedy that we have developed those skills on the back of knife crime, but that is how many of them have developed.
I know that some of the things that we have proposed will have implications. I know that there are issues around people who are involved in certain cultural and sporting activities, for example, but we need to have the debate. What is certain is that we cannot do nothing. We cannot stay where we are and we cannot ignore the problem. Bill Aitken was right to say that we need speedier justice and I hope that we can make progress with some of the recommendations of the McInnes review. I will consider the point that Robert Brown made to the Lord Advocate on issues in Glasgow in particular. There might be reasons—I do not know.
Tonight's debate has demonstrated that there is a mood and a determination to do something. There is a realisation that too many families are being destroyed as a result of knife crime. Tonight, Frank McAveety has given us an opportunity to put down markers for what I hope will be a more detailed and longer debate in the Parliament, through which we can demonstrate to the people of Scotland that we will do something to protect them from such crimes.
Meeting closed at 18:19.