House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Mar 1993

Column 1382

Governments must do more. I was delighted by what President Clinton said about the G7 and its role in helping President Yeltsin in Russia. In the same context, I was not happy to hear what our Foreign Secretary said in Washington--that policies to assist would simply not be justified at the moment because of the economic position in Russia. We need to assist at both national and local level. The hon. Member for Broxtowe said that he hoped that the Bill would receive a fair wind in another place and that it would receive Royal Assent before the summer recess. I am confident about that. I somehow feel that the Maastricht Bill will not reach the statute book as speedily as the hon. Gentleman's excellent measure.

12.26 pm

Mr. Robin Squire : I suspect that I shall be the last Member in the debate to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on his good fortune in winning the ballot, on choosing the Bill and on his skill in guiding it through its various stages today and in previous proceedings. I also congratulate hon. Members who have taken part in our proceedings. Anyone reading the reports of the Second Reading and Committee debates will be struck by the depth of expertise displayed by all hon. Members. That reflects well on the House.

The Bill has the strong support of Government and local government. I am pleased that it is strongly supported in all parts of the House. Its purpose is to clear up the confusion that exists over local authorities' powers to provide technical assistance overseas. The needs of such assistance, and local authorities' capacity to provide it, were brought home to me last week when I attended and spoke to the Council of Europe's Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities annual conference in Strasbourg. Progress in some of the east European countries--Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic--is encouraging, and they are gaining local government experience and skills rapidly. I believe that the assistance of our authorities and other western European authorities has played a significant part in this.

All this modest but self-evidently useful and good work has been put in jeopardy by the doubts that have arisen over local authorities' powers. The only way to remove those doubts is by primary legislation and that is why the Government, and the local authority associations are so grateful to my hon. Friend for agreeing to take on this Bill. Indeed, one of the features of the whole history of the Bill has been the close co-operation and constructive dialogue between central and local government. I might add that this is one example of many which illustrates the improving relationship between us, which the press and--dare I say it--even at times, Labour Members seem unaware of, or choose to ignore.

The Bill is a short and relatively simple measure--a "minor" piece of legislation. It will not grab headlines, but it will enable our local authorities to help communities of all sizes in other parts of the world. It will help in the provision of vital assistance to eastern Europe, but it will also help in the wider world. Who can look at the television pictures coming out of Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia and Angola without wishing that there was something, however small, that we could do to help the ordinary people of these countries? Local government matters. It matters here in Britain. How much more important it must

Column 1383

be in countries struggling to achieve the basic level of stability and organisation necessary to begin to save and improve people's lives. In passing the Bill, hon. Members on both sides of the House will be doing something that allows our country to make a positive contribution to the world we live in and to help those of our fellow men and women who are so much less fortunate than ourselves. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Column 1384

Protection of Animals (Scotland) Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

12.30 pm

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This is a small but important Bill. It will bring the penalties imposed in Scotland into line with those imposed elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I begin by thanking Ministers and officials at the Scottish Office, who helped me by amending my original Bill until it became the Bill that I introduced. The House will realise that, without that assistance and support, private Members's Bills have little chance of getting through the House. I also thank Opposition Members who assisted me in Committee and who encouraged me to promote the Bill.

The Bill has the support of all political parties on the Scottish scene and I believe that it will be welcomed by all who have an interest in the care of animals. There is no doubt, particularly given some of the recent evidence of the maltreatment of animals, that the penalties in Scotland should be brought into line with those of the rest of the United Kingdom.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross) : I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Bill, but there is a danger in just homogenising the penalties in Scotland and those in England for the sake of it. We have a different situation and we should be careful. Our penalties might be greater or smaller or better or worse, but I do not like homogenisation of either penalty or law.

Mr. Walker : My hon. and learned Friend, who is a practitioner in these matters when I am not, understands the problems that are faced in court. I am a simple chap and I should not like to think that someone who wished, as some appear to, to maltreat

animals--particularly horses, in which my children have a great interest-- might feel that if he popped across the border to commit the crime, the penalty would be more lenient. That is why I thought it important to align the penalties in this instance. I accept what my hon. and learned Friend says about the importance of our retaining our different laws in Scotland.

All those who are interested in the welfare of animals will, I feel, welcome the changes.

12.34 pm

Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill) : The Labour party supports the Bill and we welcome the move made by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) in introducing it. We agree that cruelty to animals is contemptible and inexcusable and that the penalty should reflect the seriousness of the offence.

12.33 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) : I think that I can speak briefly in tribute to mhon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who has introduced an important Bill. I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in the debate on the Bill, which deals with an important aspect of animal welfare. I strongly congratulate my hon. Friend on his initiative in introducing it, with the support of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. As my hon. Friend said, the Bill simply increases the maximum fine for an offence of cruelty to animals

Column 1385

under the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 from level 4 on a standard scale, which is currently £2,500, to level 5, which is currently £5,000. This will bring the maximum fine in Scotland into line with that which applies in the rest of the United Kingdom, which has been at level 5 since the introduction of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1987. That, too, was a private Member's measure, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). The Government considered at that time whether the increase in penalties introduced by that measure might be extended to Scotland. Unfortunately, that would have required an amendment to the long title, which would have seriously delayed its passage.

The Government's position has been that we would be prepared to support an increase of the maximum fine in Scotland at the next available opportunity. As the House will appreciate, pressures on the parliamentary timetable meant that such an opportunity for a Government measure did not arise.

There is, of course, no requirement for identical penalties--I take up the point of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn)--to attach to equivalent offences in the different jurisdictions within the United Kingdom. Indeed, between 1912 and 1987, the maximum period of imprisonment for the equivalent animal cruelty offences was six months in Scotland and only three months in the rest of the United Kingdom. We wish, however, to send a firm and clear message to those who might be considering acts of cruelty to animals that the courts should have the ability to impose a substantial fine in appropriate circumstances. I know that issues of animal welfare generally have raised a great deal of public interest in recent years and that general concern exists throughout Scotland about cruelty to animals. There are several issues related to animal welfare about which many hon. Members have, understandably, strong views.

It would be remiss of me to talk about cruelty to animals in the context of the Bill without paying a strong tribute to the work of the SSPCA, which initiated and supports the Bill. The work of the society is crucial in ensuring the protection of animals. The evidence of its inspectors is often instrumental in securing the conviction of those involved in offences of cruelty to which the higher penalty that the Bill will introduce would apply.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : As the Bill protects horses, we should remind those who think that they are protecting foxes that wounding horses is not advancing non-cruelty to animals.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : I accept absolutely that cruelty to horses should be visited with severity.

The SSPCA undertakes work beyond seeking prosecutions for offences of the type with which the Bill will deal. It acts to ensure that the welfare of animals at markets, breeding establishments and boarding places is catered for properly. In particular, it operates 10 welfare centres throughout Scotland to provide vital back-up to the inspectors. It has an important role in educating members of the public, especially young people, in the better care and welfare of animals. I congratulate the society on the

Column 1386

success of its work. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in wishing it continued success in all its worthy areas of activity. There is an immense amount that I could say, but I shall say only a little more. There is unanimity of support throughout the House for the Bill. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North and welcome the support of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). I emphasise the Government's wholehearted support for the Bill and the increased penalty that it contains. I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing it and I hope that it will continue to have a swift and uneventful passage.

12.38 pm

Mr. Hartley Booth (Finchley) : It is often said that politicians are animals. Of course, that is entirely untrue. There are, however, such creatures as political animals, but I am sure that no animal would ever choose to have all-night sittings.

I welcome the Bill, which is an example of the way in which the House has legislated repeatedly to stop cruelty to animals, to protect animals and to demonstrate that right hon. and hon. Members are animal lovers. There has been a huge rise in the incidence of cruelty to animals. It is sad that that has happened after 100 years of the RSPCA and its Scottish equivalent, which has been praised in the debate. There was a 27 per cent. rise in Scotland during the last recorded year and a similar rise in England in 1990-91.

It is difficult for an English Member of Parliament to speak in a debate on a Scottish Bill. However, this is an important issue and Scottish legislation often goes on to become English legislation--for example, legislation on alcohol abuse was introduced in Scotland in 1981 and then in England in 1986. Therefore, it is often useful for English Members to speak on Scottish Bills.

This is the Bill's Third Reading, so it cannot be amended, and I am not suggesting that it should be. However, it contains an unsatisfactory element on which, perhaps, the Scottish Office could help by issuing guidelines. I refer to the substance of the Bill--punishment. All those involved in the drafting, proposing and debating of the Bill are opposed to cruelty to animals, so it behoves us to get the element of punishment right.

In 1912, when the previous Act reached the statute book, there was a more primitive attitude to punishment. It was thought that the only appropriate punishment was a fine or imprisonment. Sadly, those alternatives are repeated in the Bill. In our more enlightened and experienced time, we should go beyond those alternatives wherever possible. For example, we should consider compensation for those whose animals have suffered. Indeed, the theme, "Always think of the victim", would benefit the criminal justice system.

We should consider forfeiture of, for example, items of equipment used in the torture of animals. We have all read the horrible stories about that. It may be that some poor animal has been kept incarcerated in a van--

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : All the penalties to which my hon. Friend has referred are already available to courts in Scotland.

Mr. Booth : My hon. and learned Friend is right. I was about to come to that point.

Column 1387

As those punishments do not appear in the text of the Bill, they should be the subject of Scottish Office guidance. The sheriff and other courts would then automatically put them at the top of the agenda when sentencing.

There is another matter on which the Scottish Office should consider issuing guidance. It is the classic case where those who are likely to commit the offences referred to in the Bill have jobs. Such offenders should, in these more enlighted times, be put in weekend prisons, so that they may keep their jobs, pay substantial compensation, and support their families.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : And pay a fine.

Mr. Booth : Yes, as my hon. and learned Friend says. Those and other penalties should be considered automatically by the courts, but be discretionary in every case. However, the guidelines should be clearly spelt out by the Scottish Office. I hope to see that practice repeated south of the border.

We are in times of change and while I support the Bill in every way, I recommend further work by the Scottish Office to support those people who want greater enlightenment in respect of punishment. Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Column 1388

Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

12.45 pm

Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It is my privilege to rise for a second time today to address the House, and to present a second, important Bill--one which will be welcomed by many people in Scotland.

The Bill has the support of every party represented in the House, and I hope that that support will continue and that the Bill will clear its final stage today. It was amended in the Second Scottish Standing Committee earlier this week.

The urgent need for the Bill was reflected in amendments tabled in Committee by Opposition Members. One amendment from the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) disposed of the two months waiting time that would normally follow Royal Assent. I had some reservations, because those two months represented the preparation time that is built into virtually all legislation ; it allows solicitors, courts and the police to prepare for new legislation. However, the hon. Member for Dumbarton was right about the urgent need for the Bill to be enacted, and I was pleased that the Committee was able to accept such an amendment.

If the Bill receives its Third Reading today, the police prosecution service and all in the Scottish legal criminal procedure chain should take note now, and be prepared to implement its provisions.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross) : I apologise to my hon. Friend for the fact that, owing to illness, I was not able to attend the Committee to which he was gracious enough to appoint me. Having read the proceedings of the Committee, I feel that the House should be reminded that under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, section 1 of which applies to Scotland, there is a penalty of two years' imprisonment--which is greater than any penalty imposed by the Bill. My hon. Friend may not accept the view of the law taken by my hon. Friend the Minister or me, but I have argued frequently that section 1 of the 1953 Act is qualified by subsection (4) and therefore any instrument--be it a knife, axe, tin, mace, or even the Speaker's head--carried for an offensive purpose requires the accused to explain why he is carrying it and to prove that he is not carrying it for an offensive purpose. That is the present law, punishable by two years' imprisonment. The House and the country ought to be reminded of that fact.

Mr. Gallie : I thank my hon. and learned Friend. I am aware of his concerns and have looked into the matter long and hard. I recognise that my hon. and learned Friend has far greater experience than I. However, having taken advice, I still believe that the 1953 Act does not cover the carrying of these weapons.

My hon. and learned Friend referred to the fact that if an individual carries an axe, he will inevitably be faced with punishment. In my constituency, however, when an individual, a well-known worthy, was picked up with an axe in his possession his defence was that he intended to use it to scrape the wallpaper off his mother's walls. He got away with that defence. That is unacceptable to the people of Scotland, either in the streets or in their homes.

Column 1389

Therefore, we are trying to correct the deficiencies in the 1953 Act. With the greatest respect to my hon. and learned Friend, I suggest that he ought to look into that incident.

If the Bill is given its Third Reading today, it will lead to important messages being got home. One of those messages is that every thug who carries a blade will risk having a very severe penalty imposed on him. The provisions of the Bill would lead to a two-year term of imprisonment, which I welcome. The onus is not now, as it was in the past, on the courts to prove intent. That onus is now on the thug and, perhaps more significantly, on the carrier of the knife to prove that he had reason for having a blade in his or her possession.

My first speech today was intended to include an element of humour when seeking the approval of the House for the Third Reading of the Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. I feel no humour and I display no humour as I speak on the Carrying of Knives, etc. (Scotland) Bill. I refer to the fear, anger, and the lack of understanding of every law-abiding Scot. They are all mystified and disillusioned by the evidence of the violence on our streets. All too often, that violence is not just on our streets ; it is to be found in the home. Many elderly people, living alone, fear being violently attacked by people who gain illegal entry to their homes.

People parade our streets carrying threatening weapons. At present, however, they cannot be prosecuted. Carving knives, axes and Stanley-type knives can be carried without the fear of automatic prosecution. That is what we are trying, by means of the Bill, to prevent. I have referred to the Scots, but in this United Kingdom of ours it is not just the Scots who live in Scotland ; the English, the Welsh and people of many other nationalities reside in Scotland. All those who live in Scotland feel under threat.

Before I deal with the details of the Bill, I ought to provide some statistics. They highlight the problems in my region of Scotland. They also highlight the growing tide of violence elsewhere. I am critical of a tendency that has built up since the 1960s of Governments going soft on crime. Figures for the United Kingdom demonstrate that other countries also have problems. I draw attention to some figures for murder and attempted murder in countries worldwide and compare them to figures that I have obtained for London. For example, the rate of murder in Los Angeles and New York runs at some five or six times the level of that in London. The figures for attempted murder and crimes of violence in Los Angeles and New York far outweigh the figures in London.

It is not simply in the United States. The figures for South America are absolutely horrendous. In Canada and Australia, we also see the trend. There are a few countries in which the same trends are not reflected--one of them is Japan. I cannot offer reasons why that should be so, but it would be worthy of investigation. Other countries that do not reflect the same trends include Saudi Arabia in the middle east. I wonder what effect the seriousness of penalties has on deterring crimes of murder and attempted assault and a whole range of perhaps petty crimes in such countries.

What about Strathclyde and my region of Ayr? I have looked at the figures for the five years between 1988 and 1992. The figures for murder show that the reasonably level playing field has gradually risen over that period. In

Column 1390

1992, the figures had almost doubled. For crimes involving the use of knives and blades, the figure rises by an amazing 135 per cent. There is something deeply wrong which fills me with concern. I express the feelings which came out in Committee.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : In case my hon. Friend does not know, invading another person's house to assault them is an additional crime in the law of Scotland of hamesucken. The reason why knives started to be used historically in Glasgow and elsewhere is simple : previously, people slashed others with a razor. When Lord Carman started sending people down for 14 years for razor-slashing, they used a lethal weapon rather than one which only wounded.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's spirit, vigour and purpose. I emphasise that the Prevention of Crime Act--I have appeared some 500 or 1,000 times in section 1 cases--covers matters which the Bill covers with a two-year penalty.

Mr. Gallie : I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. When he comes to the point at which he is defending these people, the prosecution system has decreed that there is a case to answer. Under the 1953 Act, the Crown must prove that there is an intent to use or that the weapon has been deliberately converted to be used for violent means. At present, it means that the prosecution service does not take the case to the point at which my hon. and learned Friend would be involved. There is a well-recognised requirement. I see that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) is nodding her head in agreement.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : Although clever legal minds such as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) turn their cleverness properly to the assistance of those who are charged, as a layman who knows little about these matters, I should be happy with belt and braces for the prosecution. If the belt is suspect, it is a good thing to add the braces.

Mr. Gallie : I agree. We must acknowledge that the people whom we aim to protect are the public--the law-abiding people who want to do nothing other than live in their homes and walk the streets without fear of their life or of assault. That is the aim of the Bill. I hope that the House will go with me.

Other figures show a massive rise in Strathclyde in instances of attempted murder. The use of blades and knives has risen at an astronomical rate in the past year. There has also been an escalation of serious assaults. We must send out a message from the House. If nothing else, the Bill will send out just such a message. That underlines the need for the Bill. Originally, the Bill sought to equate Scottish law with the law in England and Wales under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. As amended, the Bill creates more appropriate sentences to suit the scene in Scotland as it is seen by Scottish Members of all parties. Scottish Members were unanimous in Committee.

Prison is now seen as a justifiable penalty for carrying a weapon. Opposition Members highlighted anxiety about overcrowding of prisons during the Committee stage of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill. I welcome their change of heart on the issue. I recognise that they made justified comments in that Committee, and the fact that Opposition Members pressed for the measures in this Bill underlines the strength of feeling. I welcome that,

Column 1391

just as I welcome the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Office to allow the Bill to be amended.

Perhaps further reviews of punishments could take place. I said in Committee that some older punishments could be effective. I might be slightly out of step with other hon. Members. I referred in Committee to the stocks. I accept that perhaps the stocks have had their day. I do not contemplate a return to the stocks of old in which criminals were placed on the street and had eggs and apples thrown at them. I do not see that as the way ahead.

However, we could have modern-day stocks. We live in a high-tech age. We have television. The bully and those who carry knives and blades and use them depend on their macho, hard-man image. Perhaps we should consider punishments that undercut their standing among their contemporaries. Perhaps we could use the television to do that. In Committee the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) said :

"The saddest aspect is that it is often the most vulnerable members of society who are threatened with knives and weapons. Frail, elderly pensioners who live alone, particularly ladies, are most at risk. What sort of inhuman being threatens an old lady in her 80s or 90s with a knife?"-- [ Official Report, Second Scottish Standing Committee, 23 March 1993 ; c. 11.]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We should let the public see what kind of person does that. Perhaps we could use television as part of the sentencing process so show society's abhorrence at what they have done, which may reduce their standing with their contemporaries. I believe that it is worth considering.

I know that I will not receive the agreement of hon. Members about other forms of punishment. Last Wednesday, the European Court endorsed the use of the cane in schools. That represented a change of direction and a new, enlightened vision. I emphasise that it is not relevant to the Bill, but it is perhaps a thought for the future.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) : I, too, welcomed the European Court's ruling allowing private schools to use the strap because of the lack of discipline in our schools and in the fabric of our society, which has led to the depths that we now have in many parts of the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that following the court's ruling we should reconsider the reintroduction of corporal punishment in the state sector?

Mr. Gallie : I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. I do not think that we can go into corporal punishment this morning.

Mr. Gallie : I would never disagree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I said that the issues were not relevant to the Bill, but I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention and take his point.

I should like to review the background to the Bill. The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 covers people who carry weapons with intent to use and weapons that have been designed to cause physical harm. In recent times, the courts, the prosecution service and certainly the police have not always been able to use that Act. The Bill, as amended, rectifies that issue.

Column 1392

Some of the Bill's provisions replicate the Criminal Justice Act 1988. For example, the Bill allows certain defences. One can carry a blade in public if it can be shown that the individual is clearly en route from place of work to base--home or another works premises. A blade can be carried for religious reasons. That defence was incorporated for Sikhs, who carry small blades in their turbans, in order to preserve their rights. There may be other instances of which I am not aware.

Mr. Matthew Carrington (Fulham) : One aspect of the Bill causes me some concern. I am a rather enthusiastic amateur cook who cooks a great deal. In common with most cooks, I am determined to use my own knives when I cook. Cooks get very used to their knives, which are especially sharp. When I cook somewhere other than at home, I carry a collection of knives with me. Cooking is not my work, but my entertainment. However, the knives could be pretty vicious things in the wrong hands. I have a 10-in cook's knife and a 12-in boning knife, both of which are razor sharp and could perfectly happily fillet individuals as well as joints of meat. I should hate to think that people like me in Scotland would no longer be able to enjoy the gentle entertainment that I enjoy.

Mr. Gallie : On this rare occasion, we in Scotland are lagging behind people in England. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) describes the law in England. I suggest that cooking is not only a leisure pursuit, but a form of leisure work. As the law seems to have caused him little difficulty until now, his mind will be completely at rest when we in Scotland come into line with England. It will cause us little difficulty either.

The exceptions also include an exception for a person who is carrying a blade as part of his national costume. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and I on occasion wear with pride our national costume and we do not intend to change. The Bill allows us to do so.

Mr. Bill Walker : My hon. Friend will be aware that he and I have, interestingly, been accused of not wearing the correct national costume, although I shall not go into detail on that. I am in no doubt about the fact that the skean dhu is part of our national costume. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that I was responsible for ensuring that the Criminal Justice Act 1988 included a provision to allow Scots to wear the skean dhu in England. I am sorry that I have not been successful so far in Dallas, Texas where I was arrested for carrying a knife. One can carry as many guns as one wishes in Dallas, but one is not allowed to carry knives. We still have some way to go, although I thank my hon. Friend for including this exception in the Bill.

Mr. Gallie : Once again, we are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North for enlightening the House. He put forward his views when the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was going through the House. I was not aware of any questions having been raised about my wearing of the national dress, although I have been aware of some questions about his wearing of it. That is his business and I shall go no further.

Clause 2 provides powers of stop and search. There is no need for concern about that. In Scotland such powers already exist for dealing with an individual who is thought to be committing an offence. When we create a new offence

Column 1393

in a Bill, we must give powers in relation to that new offence, and that is the intention behind clause 2. As a result of an amendment, clause 3 provides that the Bill should come into force immediately after Royal Assent.

The Bill is but a small--I emphasise "small"--step in the fight against thugging. No one conceals the fact that much more needs to be done. There are many reasons for investigating the roots of violence on our streets and the actions of some--a small minority--of our citizens. The Bill is a step in the right direction, and marks another item to be chalked off the list of our manifesto commitments--perhaps ahead of programme, but not before time. I have a shopping list of activities, as, I am sure, do other hon. Members. We may need a major review of criminal legal procedure in Scotland, but I make no apologies for this first small step. We must keep the battle going. A Scottish phrase is appropriate, as the hon. Member for Maryhill will no doubt agree : "Many a mickle maks a muckle". By jove, we need this mickle now, and a muckle more in the future.

I thank the individuals involved in preparing the Bill--my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in another place and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who has been a tower of strength to me in recent weeks. I thank the supporters who have backed the Bill, and the Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Dumbarton who have given support. Their contributions to the debates in the House have certainly given everyone something to think about. I also thank the Scottish Office officials who helped to prepare the Bill and provided a great source of strength to me.

I hope that the Bill will proceed without opposition. The people of Scotland will be eternally grateful to the House if that happens. 1.17 pm

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on his success in introducing the Bill. Lengthy debates and changes took place in Committee, and I believe that the resulting Bill will contribute substantially to overcoming the ever-growing problem of the use of knives in a offensive manner. For a Scot to have two Bills on Third Reading on a Friday in Parliament must be a record. I have no recollection of that happening before and I think that my hon. Friend may have a contribution to make to the "Guinness Book of Records".

Whatever may be said about my hon. Friend's dress and mine, I am sure that we dress alike. The misinformation being spread by odd sources is quite wrong. I wear the Scottish national costume regularly as I am proud of my ancestry, and it is important to ensure that we do not impede people who are properly dressed. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr for including such a provision in the Bill.

It was important to recognise the problems that have occurred in the courts. I have no wish to cross swords with my hon. and learned Friend from Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn)--his constituency is next door to mine --but it has been clear to all of us who have been looking at the

Column 1394

problems in the Scottish courts that something was not quite right. I hope and believe that the Bill, if it becomes law, will help to redress the balance.

1.19 pm

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on introducing the Bill. I have a particular interest, in that I am a patron of a charity called the Why? campaign, whose founder, Bill Dennison, suffered a grievous loss when his son John was stabbed to death. It has become acutely obvious that young people are increasingly carrying knives, careless of the damage they can do.

These knives have become a scourge, associated with the sort of macho image that young men like to foster. They go out in the evenings carrying car keys, wallets and knives as if the latter were part of their masculinity.

This culture of knife-carrying has led to an enormous increase in the number of deaths from sharp implements. In the past four years, the numbers of such deaths have risen by 25 per cent.

In Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) tried to move an amendment to make the Bill cover 3-inch pocket folding knives. Gruesome evidence was given of victims who had died from wounds less than three inches deep. Such wounds can reach the chest, heart or lungs and can prove to be mortal. There is no evidence, however, that such injuries are caused by penknives or pocket knives. Much larger weapons are needed to cause them. In any case, the people who carry small folding pocket knives are not usually the ones likely to be committing an offence. It is the people who carry larger weapons who are more likely to inflict injury.

There is no evidence in the south that pocket knives are giving rise to concern. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) said, knives can be innocently carried for other purposes, such as cooking or whittling wood. Every self-respecting cub and boy scout knows how to handle a pocket knife. They are a part of everyday life.

There is a mythical story that Zsa Zsa Gabor kept a drawer full of pocket knives as presents for her admirers, knowing that the knives would remind them of their childhood.

We are trying to draw attention to the serious knife carrying which can lead to mortal injuries. I welcome the efforts that have gone into the Bill. When educating young people, we must emphasise to them more than ever that knives are highly dangerous and will not be tolerated in public.

1.23 pm

Next Section

Home Page