Knife Crime in London

Debate between Luke Taylor and Andy Slaughter

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Luke Taylor]

I could not agree more. I was interested to hear the hon. Member’s speech the other day about including council enforcement officers in these hubs, too. Having them present in the community and accessible to residents is incredibly important. I am keen to have a conversation with him about the measures that he has achieved.

To follow exactly the point the hon. Member just made, at the time when we should be getting more police embedded in communities to halt knife crime, we have instead let numbers crater. We know that research consistently shows violent crime dropping significantly in areas where the police are present, visible and proactive.

In December 2023, when, tragically, a knife cut short the life of a young man in my constituency, Ilyas Habibi, who was just 17, he was just minutes away from a local police station. Just as worrying is that the fact that in my constituency and across London, we see safer neighbourhood officers being abstracted from their beats—a quirk of the Met police set-up that results in vital officers who should be on our streets, making our neighbourhoods safer, being pulled away for major police operational events, typically in central London. It is, in effect, robbing outer London to pay inner London and it has to stop. These officers want to be doing great work in the community, but the failure to recruit across the Met is letting them and, by extension, us down.

There can be no doubt that recruiting into the Met is challenging. The Casey report outlined the scale of the failures that have occurred in recent years far better than any of us can—the failures to get a grip on damaging internal cultures, to protect the victims of crime, and overall to carry the confidence of the very communities they serve. I have met Commissioner Rowley and I acknowledge his undertakings to reform the Met. Nobody in this place can pretend that his role is easy; we must recognise that he needs the full backing of Government to reinvigorate the force and repair its image.

As yesterday’s ruling on vetting clearance and dismissals shows, the hurdles in front of these reforms are immense, and the single greatest tool to smash through those hurdles is the powers that the Secretary of State holds. To bolster a new Met for London and drive knife crime down, it should be a priority of this Government to expedite the reforms we all know the Met needs. Without these reforms, how can we expect recruitment to bounce back? I urge the Minister to today outline what steps the Government are taking to get back to proper community policing, to work with the Metropolitan police to reduce abstraction rates, and to support Commissioner Rowley as he embarks on his package of reforms.

We cannot look to policing alone, though. The whole-of-society approach that is so desperately needed will require an “it takes a village” attitude, and requires a Government committed to supporting early intervention initiatives. A key first step is diversionary programmes, which we know can cut out knife crime before it can metastasise across our streets. The targeted early help and integrated support teams at Sutton borough council do excellent work with young people in my constituency. Their approach is targeted; once a potential young offender reprimanded by the police is brought to their attention, they work tirelessly to build positive relationships with the child to stop the otherwise steady and depressing downward spiral into criminality. It is vital to remember that these schemes offer opportunities to young people who are often not afforded the luxury of such attention elsewhere in their lives.

In London, these intervention programmes rely heavily on grants from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, the Ministry of Justice and the violence reduction unit, but youth services across London often face uncertainty about how and when these grants will be allocated. The team we spoke to at Sutton council is still waiting to see if its grant will be approved for March, which is only a few weeks’ time. In addition, these grants are typically only allocated for 18-month to two-year periods, leaving little space for local authorities to plan ahead.

All the evidence shows that young people susceptible to committing this form of violence require sustained relationships with skilled youth workers to help them to choose safer paths. Such a relationship can take months to form, but it acts as a critical antidote to the peer pressure and social circumstances that are otherwise weighing on the child. It is therefore utterly misguided to continue with this short-termism. Skilled youth workers are deterred from engaging in local authority work due to temporary contract conditions and the lingering threat of grant termination, which could see the shattering of crucial relationships between London’s youth workers and young people at risk of committing knife-related offences. I am therefore keen to hear from the Minister whether she will consider ringfencing funding for local authority early intervention services in London. Without multi-year funding to improve planning and put these services on a more stable footing, this vital first step in preventing knife crime will fall by the wayside.

Backing early intervention is just one of the arrows in the quiver of a wider approach that we must shift to. Young people will continue to die if we do not take heed of our Scottish counterparts and finally embrace a public health approach. Famously, Glasgow took thousands of knives off the streets, and rallied organisations at every level to intervene before a crime was committed. That approach breaks down the silo walls between bodies, putting teachers, A&E doctors, social workers, sports clubs and many more stakeholders in partnership with law enforcement.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and he has identified that there is no one solution to this. The Scotland example shows what can be done, but there are some practical measures that can be taken. For example, half of all homicides with sharp instruments are done with kitchen knives, and that simply has not been tackled. It might be tackled, or the problem might at least be alleviated, by encouraging the transition to blunted knives rather than pointed knives. Does he support that?

[Luke Taylor]

Introducing blunted knives is a very good example of thinking differently about this crime. The tabloid approach of looking for popular, big and visible solutions, such as banning zombie knives, while important, often ignores the statistics of how crimes are most often committed. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, so I thank him.

The public health approach sees the problem of knife crime in three dimensions and recognises that violence begets violence like an illness. Returning to my argument that violent crime is like a virus, I remind hon. Members that when a contagious, dangerous virus broke out in this country half a decade ago, we rallied every aspect of civil society to fight it. Public services, the police and the third sector were all brought together to work as partners rather than in silos. Implicitly, we recognise that this is the right way to tackle an emergency that threatens life and limb, so why do we fail so consistently to bring that approach to bear in dealing with knife crime in the capital?

A hallmark of this approach is the creation of violence reduction units and the provision of serious financial support by Government to make them the hubs of proactive action they need to be. In London, we have done the first part by creating a violence reduction unit in 2018, but its potential remains woefully unrealised. The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies told me that it fears that the unit remains limited in its ability to engage with wider civil society and is still entangled in the paradigm of enforcement rather than engagement. Funding for the VRUs, including the one in London, is just too low to make this strategy a reality, so it should surprise none of us that it has not borne fruit.

There is a wider problem in that politicians of all stripes have paid lip service to the idea of a public health approach, but have utterly failed to implement it. The last Conservative Government, keen to be seen to do something, embraced the language of public health and crime reduction, but we have seen none of this effectively put into practice. Instead, they piloted controversial new powers that increased suspicionless stop and search, which evidently did little to stop knife crime, although the findings from the pilots have yet to be brought before Parliament.

It just is not good enough—not for mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters all over London whose lives have been ripped apart by knife crime. They deserve a public health approach. We must join up public bodies, the police and the third sector so that young people are supported before they slip through the cracks. We have to consider the principles of restorative practice, too, because they underlie and echo everything that is good about the public health approach.

Earlier this week, I met with Ray and Vi Donovan, who lost their son in a violent attack in 2001. In his memory, they created and have for many years run the award-winning Chris Donovan Trust, which works with police, public bodies and charities across the board to highlight the value of restorative justice in preventing reoffending. They told me that their work takes the restorative principles not just into prisons but schools. That approach, which is grounded in embedding empathy and victim awareness in young people, is like a light in the dark in London It awakens in young people on the cusp of gang life, and even in young people already drowning silently within it, an awareness that carrying a knife will inevitably one day ruin their life and the lives of others. Restorative practice is too often overlooked, even as part of the wider package of public health reforms to tackle crime, yet it is vital to winning the war for the hearts and minds of young people at risk of picking up a knife.

Will the Minister consider putting victim awareness on the curriculum? I encourage the Government to publish all the findings from the serious violence reduction orders that were trialled by the last Government, as well as detailed conclusions about the impact of suspicionless stop and search trials under the knife crime prevention orders. If these punitive and controversial methods worked, surely this information would have already been shared; none the less, Parliament deserves to see the findings in writing, so that we can hasten the end of this troubled approach and speed up the saving of young lives through a better approach, grounded in public health.

Too many young people are being failed before they even set foot into adulthood, and Londoners have had enough of senseless stabbing after senseless stabbing, but the truth at the heart of this crisis is that people carry knives because they fear becoming a victim themselves. The only way to combat that climate of fear is with a public health approach that actually gets results. I reminded the House earlier this month, and I do so again now, that success in this area is measured in something more important than profit or efficiency; it is measured in lives saved, lives nourished and lives reinvigorated.