13 Dec 1996 : Column 515
House of Commons
Friday 13 December 1996
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Orders of the Day
Knives Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
9.34 am
Mr. Jimmy Wray (Glasgow, Provan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This House has been deeply moved by recent incidents of crime involving knives. The murder of headmaster Philip Lawrence is still in our memories--a mindless act of violence by a young attacker armed with a knife. In October last year, Mr. Lawrence's widow, Frances, wrote in her manifesto for the nation:
There are other incidents that should inspire Parliament to take action. Only this week, the front pages of newspapers have shown the huge machete that was wielded in an attack on small children. The knife used had a 23-in blade, which was wielded as though it was cutting corn, according to an onlooker. It is more shocking to know that such weaponry is easily available and legally sold. With these incidents in mind, I fear that the House could rightly be accused of attempting to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.
For some years, Labour Members have been trying to persuade the House to legislate against dangerous knives. There have been some changes in the law, but it is too common for people to be carrying knives in public. A survey by the schools health education unit of Exeter university found that one in five secondary school children said that they had recently carried offensive weapons, including knives and guns.
In my constituency, where unemployment and poverty are rife, a number of unarmed people have had appalling injuries inflicted upon them. I am sure that my constituents are looking to this Bill to cut down the number of such cowardly attacks. I want young people to be heroes, to give up their knives and stop the senseless murders and stabbings. Carrying a knife is not for protection or a sign of strength; it is a sign of weakness in people without the courage to take knives off the streets.
The figures for knife crime are alarming. The provisional figures for 1995 show that, in England and Wales, 2,559 people were convicted of carrying an article with a blade or a point in a public place; 3,190 people
13 Dec 1996 : Column 516
The carrying of an offensive weapon in a public place is already an offence, but surely that is not enough. We must also tackle supply, by banning the sale of weapons whose only purpose is wounding or killing. The Bill would do just that.
It has taken the Minister a long time to realise that the tide of public opinion has turned against the availability of such weapons. The words used in advertisements to describe knives are astonishing. The names alone betray their purpose: "SAS shoulder holster knife" or "Rambo shortsword". Looking at the mail order catalogues, which are freely available for all to see, would curl even the most stubborn of hairs:
It is not possible for any rational person to condone these advertisements, but the Advertising Standards Authority has said that it has no power to regulate them, except on a voluntary basis. A voluntary system offers no control over the minority of fringe publications which are targeted at people with an obsessive interest in weapons. Such advertisements do not appear in The Times or The Guardian, which undoubtedly would reject them, even without advice from the ASA or a legal curb on printing them.
The public may not realise that such advertisements are in print, but the fact that they are confined to fringe publications makes the situation worse, not better. Those with a perverted interest in such weapons know where to find such magazines. They are within easy reach, in any high street newsagent.
The people who deal in such weapons are aware that the writing is on the wall. There is little doubt of the purpose of a company called "Battle Orders Ltd."--although, after this Bill is enacted, it will have to change its name to "Standing Orders". The managing director has written in the company's current circular:
An example of the shortcomings of the current law was described in last weekend's Sunday Mail. It tells of a drug addict who showed Glasgow sheriff George Crozier how he used his knife to slice open a drinks can to prepare his fix. The sheriff let him go free, because the addict said
13 Dec 1996 : Column 517
In 1988, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) tabled amendments to the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which would have banned selling knives to under-16s and references to the offensive or defensive use of knives in their marketing or advertising. The Government opposed both amendments. The present Minister of Agriculture, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) then said:
In 1994, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) tabled amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which would have controlled weapon sales by post--but the Minister said that powers already existed to deal with such sales. That has been proven to be untrue, because companies have been able to carry on with those sales. Other amendments would have increased penalties for possession of offensive weapons, but they were voted down by Conservative Members, although Ministers eventually responded by providing an increased penalty for carrying knives, which was passed without a vote.
Last year, there was more progress, in the introduction by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) of the Offensive Weapons Act 1996, which makes carrying a weapon in a public place an arrestable offence. At the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the Bill was amended in Committee to include a ban on sale to under-16s. On that occasion, the measure was passed without a vote. However, when myhon Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth tabled amendments on Report calling for a ban on advertising and selling such knives, Conservative Members voted them down.
Now, at last, there has been some movement towards a consensus. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have supported my Bill, and I am sure that such co-operation will lead to its speedy passage. No hon. Member who has seen the harm caused by such knives can vote against the Bill with a clear conscience. I challenge any hon. Member who votes against it to look into the eyes of Mrs. Lawrence or of the parents of the children involved in the machete attack and explain their reasons for doing so.
The Home Secretary has now agreed to support a ban on advertising or marketing a knife in a manner that "suggests an aggressive use" for it--a formulation similar
13 Dec 1996 : Column 518
Obviously, if someone can show a lawful purpose for owning a knife, it should not be an offence. I believe that we can get the balance right. Surely everyone must realise that saying that it is a complicated and difficult problem will not wash with the public. Some knife categories are already banned from sale. The Offensive Weapons Act 1959, for example, banned flick knives and gravity knives, and an order was made under section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to ban other bladed and offensive weapons.
My Bill makes it an offence to market a knife in a manner that
The Bill covers any name or description on a knife or on any packaging or advertising material relating to it in marketing material that
Clause 3 allows certain exemptions, to avoid catching those who market knives for legitimate purposes, although they are intended for an aggressive use. The exemption includes, for example, knives intended for use by the armed forces, or knives that had an aggressive use when originally made but which are now marketed as collectors' pieces. It will be lawful to market such knives, provided that those marketing them have no reason to suspect that those acquiring them will use them for an unlawful purpose.
It will not be lawful, for example, to market an antique sword in a manner suggesting that it is suitable for combat if there are grounds for believing that the person buying it is likely to use it for such a purpose. The clause provides power for the Secretary of State to exempt other types of marketing.
Clause 4 provides certain defences for people who may be charged with offences under clauses 1 or 2. It would be a defence if a person could prove that he did not know or suspect, and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting, that the way in which a knife was marketed amounted to a suggestion that it was suitable for combat or was likely to stimulate or encourage violent behaviour.
13 Dec 1996 : Column 519
Under clause 4(3), it would be a defence if a person could prove that he took
Clause 5 provides certain powers for the police. If a police officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed an offence under clause 1 or that the person has in his possession knives that have been marketed unlawfully, the police officer may obtain a warrant to enter and search that person's premises and seize the knives.
The clause provides similar powers under warrant to enter and search premises and to seize publications containing offending material. Any knives or publications seized under the clause may be retained until the conclusion of any proceedings against the person involved.
Clause 6 provides a power of forfeiture for the courts. If a person is convicted of an offence under clauses 1 or 2, the court may order the forfeiture of any offending material that the police have seized using their powers under this clause. The courts have the discretion to order forfeiture but are not required to do so. There may be cases in which the court would consider that requiring the offender to forfeit all his offending knives or publications would be a disproportionate punishment--if, for example, the offence were only of a very marginal kind but forfeiture of all the property would have a very serious effect on that person's livelihood.
Clause 7 deals with the rights of third parties in relation to property that has been seized. The offending knives or publications might have been stolen from their legitimate owner, who might have had no knowledge of the way in which they were being marketed by the offender. In such a case, the rightful owner would be able to apply to the court to have his property restored, and the court would be able to return his property to him if it were satisfied that he had had no part in the offence.
Clause 8 adds to the circumstances in which the police can make use of the existing stop-and-search powers under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It allows an officer of superintendent rank or above to authorise officers to stop and search people and vehicles if he has reason to believe that persons in any specific locality in the police area are carrying knives or offensive weapons without good reason. The authorising officer may authorise the use of stop-and-search powers at any specified place within the locality for up to 24 hours.
If the authorising officer has given that permission, police constables will be able to stop and search any pedestrian in the relevant area for knives or offensive weapons and, similarly, to stop and search any vehicle that might be carrying knives or offensive weapons. Authorisations under this clause must be given in writing and specify the locality in which the powers are to be exercised and the period for which they may be exercised. They may be extended for a further 24 hours and may be exercised--as now--by a chief inspector or inspector if no superintendent is available. Subsection (5) extends section 60 of the 1994 Act to Scotland.
13 Dec 1996 : Column 520
Clause 8 entitles a pedestrian who is searched or a driver who is stopped to obtain a written statement saying that he was searched or stopped. Anyone requiring such a written statement must apply for it within a year of the date of the event in question.
Clause 9 deals with relevant offences by corporate bodies. If any offence is committed with the consent or connivance of an officer of a corporate body, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of an officer of a corporate body, that officer and the corporate body itself are guilty of the offence.
The Bill deals with the concerns about which the public have rightfully voiced a strong opinion. Petitions have been presented to hon. Members, and I am sure that I am not alone in having received a number of letters urging the House to legislate against the knives in question.
Not long ago, a representative of the Police Superintendents Association said:
Such a measure should be adopted by the House--and not before time. I hope that the Conservative Members will not show the worst excesses of political malice, and that a Bill which commands cross-party support and which the general public are willing on can reach the statute book.
In drafting the Bill, I have had the co-operation and support of hon. Members from all parties, for which I am grateful. My hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn and for Cardiff, South and Penarth have pursued this matter for a long time. I must thank the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) for his willingness to help with the Bill on a cross-party basis. I am especially grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who has been by my side since the day I came first in the ballot. I am grateful for his help; working with him has been a pleasurable experience for me.
"It is shocking to discover how easy it is to acquire battlefield blades which can have no function other than to be flourished by the inadequate and the cowardly."
I share her shock and anger.
"Terminator Terror Sword . . . monstrous double handed sword . . . absolutely awesome, 56" overall".
Another example tells of
"A commando knife made of carbon fibre, complete with blood channels",
which is described as "an ideal Christmas present". This Christmas, I do not wish to see stockings filled with such weaponry. Such advertisements do more than simply make clear the purpose of such knives: they promote the violent purpose, in print an inch high.
"buying now will beat any ban."
I can assure its magazine subscribers that the police will not ignore their efforts to get "tooled up" before the House passes the Bill. I have not introduced it so that readers of the company's magazine, "The Battle Bugle", will be able to buy their Terminator sword or their
"Knife with quick draw holster"
now, and thereby evade the ban.
"was carrying the knife as a tool of the trade to help him inject drugs".
That account may surprise hon. Members. It certainly surprised the defendant, because he said:
"I thought I was going to jail."
The paper's photograph of the knife shows why we need to change the law. After the Bill is enacted, next year, that man will have to use a hacksaw.
"It is true that we should tackle the problem of possession in a public place, but it does not follow from that that we should prohibit the sale to under-aged persons".--[Official Report, 20 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 916.]
Although I voted for the amendments tabled by my colleagues and Liberal Members, Conservative Members followed their Minister. Some of them may have been unhappy with the official position, but none felt able to vote with us.
"indicates, or suggests, that it is suitable for combat",
or that makes it
"likely to stimulate or encourage violent behaviour involving the use of the knife as a weapon."
The terms are further defined in clause 1(1). "Suitable for combat" means
"suitable for use as a weapon for inflicting injury on a person or causing a person to fear injury".
"Violent behaviour" means any unlawful act inflicting injury, or causing someone to fear injury. Under clause 1, "marketing a knife" includes selling or hiring a knife, offering one for sale or hire, or possessing one for the purpose of sale or hire.
"indicates, or suggests, that the knife is suitable for combat".
Clause 2 makes it an offence to publish any material to market a knife which
"indicates, or suggests, that the knife is suitable for combat; or . . . is otherwise likely to stimulate or encourage violent behaviour involving the use of the knife as a weapon."
That will deal with injuries such as those that I mentioned earlier.
"all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence."
That would provide a possible defence for a shopkeeper, for example, who issued instructions to all his staff not to market knives in an aggressive way, only to discover that one of his staff had flouted those instructions without his knowledge or authority.
"If they can get a man on the moon, I am sure they can come to a definition of a combat knife."
I believe that the Bill provides such a definition. It is not beyond the wit of reasonable people to tell the difference between a knife designed to cut through bread and one designed to cut through people. The public were not convinced by the Home Secretary's comment that no such distinction was possible.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |