| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Greenway: My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) failed to advise us what possible mischief there would be in someone being on school premises with what might be regarded as an offensive weapon were it not part of a national costume. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) said, we have to consider whether there is the slightest chance of someone removing a skean-dhu from his highland dress and using it as a weapon of assault.
Mr. Greenway: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, but I wish to develop this point a little further.
I wish to relate an incident that occurred during my police career in the 1960s and which, on the face of it, might support the amendment. In reality, however, it serves to prove that my hon. Friend's proposition is ridiculous.
I had just walked into the front office of the Savile Row police station just after midnight, when there was an emergency call to go to the Westbury hotel around the corner in Conduit street where a brawl was taking place in the foyer. [Hon. Members: "Surely not."] Yes, indeed, at the Westbury hotel.
Hon. Members will perhaps be surprised to learn that, when I arrived at the hotel, a mother and father of a punch-up was going on. It involved mainly gentlemen in dinner jackets, but one in highland dress. I, a bold 19-year-old policeman, tried to stop this fracas in one of our leading west end hotels. I was roundly assaulted with kicks to various parts of my anatomy, one of which I would not wish to mention in front of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).
At that point, something strange happened. The gentleman in highland removed the skean-dhu from his stocking and attacked the throat of the gentleman who had kicked me in a particular part of my anatomy. I subsequently managed to arrest both gentlemen and, at the police station, they were charged with various offences relating to drunk and disorderly behaviour. On the advice of the station sergeant, the gentleman in highland dress was charged with an offence relating to the skean-dhu. The word "skean-dhu" appeared on the charge sheet.
In those days, it was usual for people who had been charged to appear at Bow Street or Marlborough Street magistrates courts the following day. The CID officer on
duty that morning would consider any charges. When he saw the reference to the skean-dhu on the charge sheet, his first impressions was that I had been over-zealous and that the charge had been made simply because the poor fellow had the skean-dhu in his stocking. I assured him that that was not the case and that it was fortunate that the skean-dhu had not entered the other gentleman's throat.
Suffice it to say that when the gentlemen appeared in court that morning, it transpired that they both had impeccable professional qualifications. They had been at an annual dinner when an argument had broken out. Everyone there had been the worse for drink. They pleaded guilty to the offence and were roundly condemned and thoroughly ashamed of their behaviour.
I do not think that I have ever told that story in public before, and certainly not in the House. The point of my telling it is to emphasise that we are being asked to consider the likelihood of such an event happening on school premises if someone were wearing his national costume and had a skean-dhu in his stocking.
Mr. Merchant:
A person intent on mischief would not be allowed to take a weapon into a school if he were dressed like me. If he tried to do so, he would immediately fall foul of the Bill's provisions. However, does my hon. Friend accept that such a person could put on any national costume--there is nothing in the Bill to say that he is not entitled to do so--and thus enter the school brandishing a knife without falling foul of the Bill?
Mr. Greenway:
That is an absurd proposition. We have to have a sense of proportion.
In the story which I related, the Scottish gentleman who went to dinner at the Westbury hotel in highland costume was not committing an offence by having a skean-dhu in his stocking, but the moment he removed it from his stocking and attacked the other gentleman's throat, any defence that allowed him to carry that implement went out the window.
I can tell from the way that the House listened with care and interest to my story--I hope that I shall not be accused of filibustering or of being out of order for having told it, because it goes to the heart of the matter that we are debating--that the very idea that such an event could occur on school premises is patently absurd. In the extremely unlikely event of someone drawing that knife in anger from his stocking on school premises or elsewhere, he would lose the protection of any possible exemptions and would be guilty of a serious offence.
Mr. Tim Smith:
My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) made a powerful and emotive case against the amendment. It is incumbent on those of us who represent English constituencies to listen to him carefully. There are many Scotsmen in England and, no doubt, many teaching in English schools. From time to time, they may choose to wear their national costume. If my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) examines the subsection that he seeks to
I listened carefully to the account by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) of his experience when, some time in the 1960s, as a 19-year-old policeman, he was called to the Westbury hotel after midnight. That fascinating episode from his past was also extremely relevant.
In fact, the defence that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam inserted in Committee, when clause 4 was first introduced, is not novel. It also appears in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which refers to a "public place". As the 1988 Act is a consolidating measure, even in the 1960s--when my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale was serving at Savile Row police station--the gentleman wearing Scottish national costume would have had a defence had he not removed the offensive weapon from his sock. The point of my hon. Friend's story was that he did remove it. Until that point--or, perhaps, until the point at which he had consumed too much--he had not intended to do any damage with the weapon that he had decided to carry with him. It was part of his national costume, and posed a threat only when he removed it with intent to injure another person.
I strongly believe that we should keep legislation as simple as possible. Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, on which I believe clause 4 is modelled, provides the same defences. It refers to "use at work", "religious reasons" and "national costume". I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has added "educational purposes", which is understandable in the context of schools.
I feel that the clause should be left as it is. I am glad that the Committee decided to extend the Bill by referring to schools; it is not entirely clear to me that a school is a public place, although a public place is defined in section 139 of the 1988 Act as a
There could be some debate about whether the public do have access to schools. Clause 4 is a welcome addition to the legislation, and I feel that in this respect, at least, we should leave it unamended.
Lady Olga Maitland:
I understand the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) tabled his amendment, but by the time he finished his speech I think we felt that he had not been all that enthusiastic in the first place, because he made so many exceptions. The arguments against the amendment are borne out by the experiences described by my very dear hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker)--another Scot; we have two on the Front Bench today--and the telling incident in the Westbury hotel described by the erstwhile detective constable, currently my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). Those experiences tell their own story; sometimes the law can seem absurd, or, indeed, an ass. If the amendment were accepted--I hope that it will not be--we would find ourselves in an invidious position.
The intention behind clause 4 is simple: it extends to school premises the provisions that already apply to the carrying of offensive weapons, such as knives, in public.
I believe that, unless there are good reasons not to, we should strive for consistency between what happens in public and what happens on school premises.
The existing offence of carrying a knife in public is accompanied by a number of defences for anyone charged with such an offence. There is the general defence that the person concerned had a good reason, or lawful authority, to carry the knife. That makes good sense in regard to, for instance, someone carrying home a kitchen knife that he or she has just bought, or carrying a knife with which to cut cabbages on the allotment. A keen fisherman might carry a knife along with his rod and tackle.
There are also three specific defences. The person charged may be able to prove that he was carrying the article for use at work; he may be a carpet layer, for example, although that defence is somewhat over-used and, indeed, abused. He may be able to prove that he was carrying it for religious reasons, or as part of a national costume.
In extending the offence to carrying an offensive weapon to schools, we have added a specific defence where the person concerned can prove that he was carrying the article for educational purposes. He may be a teacher, or, indeed, a pupil, equipped with a tool with which to work in arts and crafts or cookery classes. The justification is obvious.
"place to which . . . the public have . . . access".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |