| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Merchant: Would there not be a perfect defence in such circumstances under "educational purposes", if not under
- "good reason or lawful authority"?
Lady Olga Maitland: My hon. Friend is introducing yet more exceptions. There are so many exceptions that I wonder how often we would find that there was a rule.
The amendment is not logical, and could cause serious difficulties. If we are to keep the legislation as harmonious as possible, we should retain that specific defence in England and Wales. With great regret, I must tell my hon. Friend that I reject his amendment.
Mr. Kirkhope:
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has just said. We should not forget that there
Mr. Bill Walker:
Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. Before the industrial revolution, the vast majority of Scots--like everyone else in the United Kingdom--lived on the land, and the highlands were very densely populated. After the 1745 rebellion, the highland clearances and the industrial revolution, that changed. My hon. Friend is probably descended from highlanders.
Mr. Kirkhope:
My family has been progressively moving further south all the time. My hon. Friend forces me into an embarrassing admission. Having survived in the Scottish lowlands, I understand that in some murky episode my family removed itself to the north-east of England, to Newcastle, apparently with some cattle and other items, which I suspect we have never returned. The point of relating that is simply to enable me to say that I was privileged to go to a good school in Newcastle, the Royal grammar school, at which some of the pupils were of Scottish extraction.
I was involved in Scottish country dancing, a fine social activity, and we were visited many times by boys from other excellent schools in Scotland. As we know, the Leader of the Opposition went to Fettes college, but I am not sure whether he ever visited the Royal grammar school or came to England in full Scottish dress, which I think he may be entitled to wear. I have related all that because it underlines the fact that the amendment would not be helpful. Although we are discussing pupils, we should not forget that many people are on school premises out of school hours for various purposes in which such national dress could play a part.
There should be consistency between knife carrying in public and on school premises. In that context, it is wrong for someone to have a defence for carrying a knife in public but not for carrying it on school premises. We have had some merriment and some tuition from my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside about Scottish history and folklore, but I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Merchant:
The debate has been skilfully and quickly turned into one about the Scots, which was not my intention when I moved the amendment. I am aware of the sensitivities and should like to make it clear that I have nothing against the Scots or Scottish national dress, which is an important, colourful and historical part of our overall United Kingdom culture. I was trying to make some serious points about what I thought could be a loophole in the Bill, and I am glad that at least I have been able to precipitate a reasonably full debate on the subject.
There have been many references to minorities. I distinctly appear to have become a minority of one on this issue and do not seem to have much hope of pressing my
amendment. I suspect that I am surrounded by a majority of Scots, albeit wearing suits, but at least I am not like the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who maintains his solitary vigil in the knowledge that he has a majority of one, on his side at least.
If the clause has to remain, I would prefer it to read "as part of that person's national costume" rather than "any national costume", but it is clearly too late to introduce an amendment on that. I hope that people will not use the clause as a loophole to avoid the Bill's provisions. Above all, I do not wish to be unhelpful--the magical word that was used by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary--or to upset or frustrate the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). As she knows, I supported the Bill at every stage and spoke strongly in support of it on Second Reading and in Committee. As she says that the amendment would frustrate the Bill's purpose, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Merchant:
I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 43, leave out from 'months' to the end of line 44.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 14, in page 3, line 3, leave out
No. 15, in page 3, line 6, leave out from 'months' to the end of line 7.
No. 16, in page 3, line 10, leave out
No. 17, in page 4, line 10, leave out from 'months' to the end of line 11.
No. 18, in page 4, line 14, leave out
No. 19, in page 4, line 17, leave out from 'months' to the end of line 18.
No. 20, in page 4, line 21, leave out
Mr. Merchant:
The amendment is straightforward and simple and I shall not detain the House. The linked amendments have exactly the same purpose, which is to remove the fine option from the offences related to the issue that we have been discussing, namely, the carrying of various types of weapons in schools. The amendments apply to England and Scotland, which are listed in the measure.
I shall not detain the House by going into the detail of which offence attracts which punishment. My sole purpose is to say that maximum prison sentences are specified and that it is clearly up to the court to show flexibility according to the circumstances, detail and
nature of the offence. Courts would be able to impose a light sentence if that appeared to be relevant, which means that there is room for discretion.
I move the amendment because at present the proposed sentence is identical to that which applies for offences that are committed outside a school. In my view it would be appropriate to have a tougher sentence when an offence is committed in a school. The reason is simple and relates to the environment in a school. A large number of children are present at one time without their parents, and for that reason they need extra protection. I cast no aspersions on our highly professional teaching staff and others who look after children in school. In the vast majority of cases it works perfectly satisfactorily and safely. Nevertheless, the ratio of adults to children is normally considerably lower than when children are with their parents. There is also the specific sensitivity and the potential target that a school may present to those who wish to cause mischief. I recently quoted two recent examples of that and there are many more.
The Bill needs an extra mark of protection for children who are potentially under threat. We need tougher deterrents and greater punishment and deterrence is the issue that I wish to stress. By making it clear to anyone who contemplates breaking the law that there is an automatic prison sentence, the deterrent value is that much increased. The amendments would strengthen the Bill and are based on good reason.
Mr. John Greenway:
The amendment is not a good idea. Again I am sorry to differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant). He tried to explain that the courts would have discretion and spoke about a maximum rather than a mandatory sentence. None the less, removal of the fine option would be extremely serious and would leave a court with no option but to impose a custodial sentence. We should be clear on two points. First, with the exception of the exemptions that we debated earlier, this is an absolute offence. There is no requirement to prove that someone entering school premises with a knife had any intention of using it for any purpose. We all know why we are doing it and it is right that we should, but it is an absolute offence.
I do not want to give in any detail an example of the innocent carrying of a knife or weapon on school premises where someone would be caught under the clause, but it could happen, not least because, as the previous debate made clear, school premises are not used exclusively as schools. They are used for social events, especially secondary schools, and at weekends and during school breaks, so we must be careful. If we think about it clearly, the amendment would impose an absolute offence with an absolute certainty of imprisonment, however brief. That is not a good idea.
Secondly, is it always correct to say that imprisonment is a greater deterrent than a financial penalty? I am not sure that it always is. A youth in his late teens or early 20s, who is earning an extremely good income, may go to an event or dance held for his local football team on school premises. He could have his knife in his pocket and be found guilty of this offence. It would be ridiculous to say that the possibility not just of imprisonment, but of hitting his pocket would have no deterrent effect. It is not one or the other: it is the possibility of both that would be deleted by the amendment.
'or a fine, or both'.
'or a fine, or both'.
'or a fine, or both'.
'or a fine, or both'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |