| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tim Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on promoting the Bill, which I believe is much needed in the light of recent tragic events of which we are all aware. The heart of her Bill is, of course, clause 1. The important point is that the clause is about the carrying of offensive weapons.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) first introduced amendment No. 1, I had thought that section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 also referred to the carrying of offensive weapons, and that is why I thought that the amendment might be unnecessary. If all that we were talking about was the carrying of offensive weapons, that would be covered by clause 1 as it stands. My hon. Friend was, as I understand the position, referring only to flick knives and one other kind of dangerous knife.
I now appreciate, in the light of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, that the 1959 Act is about the manufacture and sale of offensive weapons. The amendment would therefore have the effect of widening considerably the remit and the scope of clause 1. I tend to agree with my hon. Friend that that was not really the original object of her Bill, because she seeks to give to the police the power to arrest without warrant, in the street or on school premises, in circumstances in which they have good reason to believe that a weapon might be about to be used immediately. That is a very different proposition from somebody either manufacturing or selling one of those weapons. Serious though that offence is, it does not involve the immediate intention of using the weapon to cause harm. The amendment would extend the scope of clause, and on balance I believe that we should not accept it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope):
I shall not detain the House for long, but I wish to deal with a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I can assure him--and the point has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland)--that the carrying of any offensive weapon, including flick knives and gravity knives, which is prohibited by the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, will be arrestable under clause 1. The amendment would make the sale or manufacture of such weapons arrestable.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), now that he has heard what has been said, will feel able to withdraw the amendment. We all wish to take strong action against knife-related crime, and if there were an operational justification for the amendment, we would need to consider it seriously, but the amendment would widen the provision considerably and we would end up with a measure that was too strong for the circumstances that are envisaged.
Mr. David Nicholson:
My hon. Friend the Minister has pointed out that the existing legislation makes the carrying of flick knives an arrestable offence, so the sanctions and provisions of the Bill will apply as much to flick knives as to other offensive weapons. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to air such an important matter and for the assurances from my hon. Friend the Minister. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Piers Merchant (Beckenham):
I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 38, leave out from 'reasons' to the end of line 39.
The amendment would affect clause 4, which was added in Committee for very good reason, because it deals with the carrying of bladed articles in schools. I wish, in passing, to make it clear that I fully support the clause and I was delighted that it was added. It deals specifically with the sort of violent incidents in schools that have caused so much concern to the nation of late. It also has some bearing on one of the motivations behind the Bill, which was the unfortunate murder of headmaster Philip Lawrence, although that took place just outside school premises.
Because clause 4 was added in Committee, the House did not have the opportunity to consider it on Second Reading or to table amendments to it in Committee. For that reason, I tabled the amendment today. It would strike out subsection (4)(d), which is a reference to national costume. To explain the relevance of that, I need briefly to refer to the earlier part of the clause.
The main purpose of the clause is to make a specific offence of the carrying of bladed articles--which are banned under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953--on school premises. The clause also specifies exemptions or clear defences on those two offences, and subsection (3) provides the general defence of being able
Subsection (4) extends the defence to provide specific defences. In my view, most genuine defences would be covered legitimately by subsection (3), so I slightly question the need for subsection (4) at all. I assume that it is included to clarify the situation for people who, quite legitimately, carry pointed instruments or weapons, which action would otherwise constitute an offence. The four specific additional defences are defined as follows:
I seek to remove paragraph (d).
I wish to do nothing to detract from the ability of a Sikh to carry out his religious observances. They are a fine body of people and I would hate to see either their religion or their tradition inhibited in any way. I believe, however, that Sikhs would be fully protected by subsection (4)(c) as a result of a religious imperative. I do not believe that the removal of subsection (4)(d) would have any impact on them.
That leaves us with a simple question: to what would subsection (4)(d) apply? I need to be thoroughly convinced that there is a good and overwhelming reason for the specific reference to "national costume" to be included. I have nothing against the wearing of national costume.
As something of a romantic, I rather approve of people dancing or walking around in various national costumes. I would hate in any sense to be destructive of tradition.
Mr. Michael:
The hon. Gentleman seems almost to be ridiculing his amendment. Is he aware that the amendment has been seen in some quarters as an attempt to inhibit the wearing of the Scottish national costume and the purely ceremonial element that is involved in the wearing of that dress? Is he not diminishing respect for that costume and that activity in the rather flippant way in which he is introducing the amendment?
Mr. Merchant:
I fail to follow what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I am not being flippant. I made it clear that I took national tradition seriously, otherwise I would have not made the remarks that I did. As for Scotland, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have observed that the amendment does not apply to the relevant area of Scottish law. The amendment is directed to English law.
Mr. Michael:
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that many Scots wish to wear their national costume in England and Wales? Therefore, the amendment applies to citizens of the United Kingdom when they are seeking to wear Scottish national costume in England and Wales. Is the hon. Gentleman serious, or is he intent on arguing in support of the amendment to take up time, only to withdraw it?
Mr. Merchant:
I am concerned about these matters. I am aware that there are Scotsmen in England who wear national costume. I am not aware, however, that that happens very often in English schools. To the extent that it does, I believe that there would be protection in any event.
Mr. Nicholas Baker (North Dorset):
Will my hon. Friend ignore the filibustering attempt of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who is clearly trying to disrupt the argument? There is a distinction between United Kingdom national costumes, such as the Scottish costume and the equipment that is worn with it, and the national costumes of other countries. Is subsection (4)(d) an attempt to protect Greek evzones who wear their costume? I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with the distinction between United Kingdom national costumes and national costumes of other countries.
Mr. Merchant:
That is an extremely relevant point, as is that of weapons that are linked with national costume.
"to prove . . . good reason or lawful authority for having the article or weapon . . . on the premises".
"(a) for use at work,
(b) for educational purposes,
(c) for religious reasons, or
(d) as part of any national costume."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |