The
Chairman: Order. I hope that those concerns will be
strictly relevant to the
order.
Mr.
George: Thank you, Ms Walley, for that guidance. If the
explanatory memorandum on the draft Criminal Justice Act 1988
(Offensive Weapons) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2008 is
relevant, I believe that what I have to say is very relevant. The
second paragraph outlines “a defence” in relation
to “curved
swords for use in religious
ceremonies.” Many
hon. Members represent Sikh constituents and we will all be aware that
the kirpan is not a dagger, weapon or item of cultural symbolism. To
describe it in that way is offensive to
Sikhs. Many
Sikhs wear the instrument, if I may put it in that way, in their normal
daily lives. Yes, when they go into a religious ceremony it is being
worn in a gurdwara, but many who are deeply religious would use such a
thing—not a dagger or weapon, but a religious symbol—in
their normal daily lives. Is there any danger to that practice? I hope
and suspect not. The phraseology refers to a defence of use in
religious ceremonies. I would like clarification of and reassurance
about that, even if it is not possible
today. I
have a question about those who may now use the defence that they
manufacture or use swords for other circumstances, including those who
manufacture, sell or use certain curved swords, who will be able to say
that it is now within the law. It might be that my question arises from
ignorance, but given that the law lays down strict requirements for
people who own guns legally, in relation to storage in secure
circumstances, and given that even placing one’s legally held
weapons in secure circumstances can be no bar to someone’s
breaking in and taking those legally acquired guns, are there to be
similar requirements for people who sell or hold weapons that in the
wrong hands could pose a considerable danger to anyone who comes into
contact with
them? The
holding and use of weapons for criminal purposes is not confined to the
lower sectors of society. They can be used by people who are higher up
the social scale. If a person is angry and there is a weapon available
to them, using it is an option.
My last point
is about self-protection. If I found the curved Nazi sword that my
father brought back from the second world war, would I be committing a
criminal offence? I have been presented with two Gurkha kukris, as I am
sure have other Committee members who have been on the Defence
Committee. Are we too committing a criminal offence by holding a curved
weapon?
I hope that I
have not strayed too far from the order and incurred your wrath, Ms
Walley. These are serious issues and I look for reassurances and
information from the
Minister. 4.56
pm Lynne
Featherstone (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD): May I say what
a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship for the first
time, Ms Walley? We on these Benches welcome what seem to be sensible
changes made to allow ownership of curved swords from any country and
so end the anomalous special status of Japanese curved swords. Many
other cultures attach religious and cultural significance to curved
swords, and it is right that the law recognises that. My Liberal
Democrat colleagues and I are supportive of any measure that will
uphold freedom of worship. For example, the measure ensures that Sikhs
can carry, trade and lend the kirpan without fear of imprisonment or
fine. Many
hon. Members will be aware that the ex-Liberal Democrat MP Nigel Jones,
now a Liberal Democrat Peer, was attacked with a Samurai sword, and
although he survived, his political assistant, Andrew Pennington, was
killed. We are very sensitive to the potential misuse of such weapons.
I would welcome the Minister’s response on what rules will
appertain to guard against such a thing happening again, if the weapons
are to be available. Can he address the issue raised by my hon. Friend
the Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott) in the original debate?
She found many samurai or curved swords available on the internet. She
asked how the law would apply to weapons that are so widely available
and what work the Department has done on potential online retail
sources.
4.58
pm
Mr.
Blunt: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Ms Walley. I noticed that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green
used the royal “we” to describe those on her
Benches.
I would like
the Minister to address the narrow point about the use of swords in the
Army, with which I am familiar. Obviously swords are now used for
ceremonial purposes. In the last debate, we discussed the example
pertaining to me. I had inherited an infantry pattern sword which is,
therefore, largely straight, other than the small curve at the end. I
assume that that is not covered by the legislation.
The pertinent
point is about curved swords manufactured after 1954. I would not want
us inadvertently to put the Chief of the General Staff in a difficult
position. All general officers carry curved general officer-style
swords, which I suspect are machine-made rather handmade. While I
suspect that most officers will be issued with a general
officer’s pattern sword, it is possible that some may wish to
buy a sword as a memento or will be presented with a sword to mark
their service at general rank. That also applies to the cavalry
regiments, which
have curved cavalry pattern swords. As my hon. Friend the Member for
Hornchurch said, they are probably manufactured rather than
handmade. I would be
interested in the definitions that the Minister has obtained from the
rather limited number of companies—there are at least
two—that offer their services to officer cadets and their
families. Obviously, on commissioning, families want to present young
officers with a pattern of sword appropriate to the regiment into which
they are being commissioned. Will the Minister reassure us that we are
not inadvertently outlawing that trade and that the necessary
consultations took place when the order was put
together? That
said, let me put on the record once again my appreciation of the fact
that we have returned here after less than six months to discuss the
issues that were raised in our debate on 17 March 2008. It goes some
small way towards addressing what we said. We have been sitting on the
Opposition Benches for 11 years, and nothing else that we have said has
been taken into account. I would therefore particularly like to thank
the Minister for the fact that we are looking at the order again. I
look forward to his
answers. 5
pm
Mr.
Coaker: May I say how grateful I am to the hon. Gentleman
for what he has just said, because I was sitting here thinking,
“I don’t know why we bother.”? I have spent the
past few months listening to what was said about the issues raised in
the previous statutory instrument debate and introducing an order to
deal with all the points that have been made to me since then. I am
therefore really grateful to him for saying what he did, because it has
restored my faith in my somewhat unusual attitude of trying to change
statutory instruments if somebody makes a reasonable point.
We have made
changes on all the issues on which we had representations and all the
measures have been agreed with collectors and manufacturers. As far as
I am aware, nobody is now writing to me to complain, apart from belly
dancers—that is why I mentioned them, as I hope my hon. Friends
noticed—and one or two morris dancers. The hon. Member for
Hornchurch mentioned martial arts, but I have had no representations
from anybody involved in martial arts societies, nor have I had any
from collectors or manufacturers. That is because they agree with the
provisions. I
could go through the whole thing and make up all sorts of different
scenarios where people may not be happy. All I can say to the
Committee, however, is that people came to see me and we agreed on what
would help. They said, “These are the measures that will enable
our business to carry on and us to do the sorts of things that we need
to do. This is the sort of change that we recommend you make.” I
told my officials, “Take these measures away. If they are
sensible and reasonable, put together an order, and I will take it back
to the House of Commons. Hopefully, hon. Members will pass the order
and we can take it to the other place.” That is exactly what we
have
done. With
respect to one or two of those who have spoken, I know people can say,
“What about this and what about that?”, but none of the
issues relating to sporting activities have been raised with me. I am
not an expert on martial arts or the legitimate uses to which various
weapons are put, but if any of the martial arts clubs had a problem,
they would have made a representation to me by now, and they have not.
I assume, therefore, that they must be happy with the measures.
However, there were real problems with the collectors, which is why we
did what we
did. Let
me go through the specific points, although I take note of your diktat,
Ms Walley, and I will not get into the issue of knife crime, serious
though it is. Whatever debates take place, we all recognise the
seriousness of knife crime. I will not go into that now, however,
because we are debating the
order. We
are considering what we are doing about online sales of goods such as
samurai swords. I should, however, make the point that what is illegal
offline is also illegal online. That is an easy thing to say, but it is
the truth and we need to understand that. It applies not only to
samurai swords, but to a range of issues relating to how we police the
internet more effectively. As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood
Green will know, one of the big problems is that when we shut down a
site, people shift somewhere else. That is not an excuse, and I am not
an IT expert, but even the IT experts say that it is particularly
difficult to deal with those things. Having said that, we need to
address that important issue.
As I said, we
have received no representations from martial arts societies or anyone
else on the sporting issues, unless we count belly dancing and morris
dancing as sports, which I do not wish to do because the issue is far
more serious than that.
With regard
to Scotland, we are still having discussions, but it fair to say that
we do not yet have agreement. Those matters are ongoing. We had a
useful meeting, but even useful meetings do not always provide outcomes
as quickly as we might want. I hope we will have something that we can
all agree and sign up to and that that will cover the whole UK, but we
are not yet
there. We
chose 1954 because that was the date in Japan after which people needed
a licence to manufacture genuine Japanese swords. The Japanese were
becoming concerned about imitations and changes, so after 1954 people
needed a licence to be able to make genuine Japanese swords. That
seemed a reasonable date to use, and for practical reasons we did not
want to change it so that we would have had 1954 for Japanese swords
and all sorts of other dates for swords from everywhere
else. I
hesitated when answering the hon. Member for Reigate because I was not
sure that we had met specifically with the manufacturers of Army
swords, but I understand that we have talked to them and taken their
concerns into account. They are happy with the order because, as we
know, it will allow swords made before 1954 and those made after 1954
using traditional methods. In answer to many of his points, I can say
that our view and the general view is that the Crown immunity covers
all the issues he raised with regard to the 1988
Act. We
know that that defence covers all the issues surrounding the use of
ceremonial swords—at the trooping of the colour, for example.
Those are all Crown functions and, as such, are protected by the
available immunity, and that defence has been available since 1988.
Again, I have received no representations from the armed forces
about that. With regard to the machine point, it is permissible to make
those swords by machine if one of the defences applies, and the defence
of Crown immunity from those provisions will apply in the case of Army
swords. Mr.
Blunt: I realise that this is a narrow point, but what if
the Chief of the General Staff were presented upon his retirement with
a sword manufactured after 1954? Crown immunity would apply while he
was using it, but once it was passed down to his family the immunity
would cease to
apply.
Mr.
Coaker: Not at all, because that is possession, which is
not an offence.
We had
further discussions with DCLG, which had concerns about some of the
order’s provisions and how they will apply to such things as
daggers worn for ceremonial or religious purposes. We listened to those
concerns and changed the order to create a defence for such things. If
people wear those things in public, there is always an offence, but a
chef who might have the most brutal knives on him will not be
prosecuted for carrying them on the street, because he has a lawful
reason to have
them. Similarly,
someone who is wearing a knife for religious or cultural purposes will
have the defence of having a lawful reason for doing so. Only knives
that are carried on the streets for no such purpose will be affected by
the order. If there is no lawful reason, people can expect to be
prosecuted, and quite rightly. A Nazi sword is also a possession, and
if it was made before 1954 it will be exempt from the provisions
anyway. My
right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South raised the interesting
point that there are not the same sort of regulations on the storage of
knives as there are on the storage of guns. Hon. Members will recognise
that that raises the issue of what we class as a dangerous knife in the
home. To be fair, the difficulties with the regulation of knives is
demonstrated by the fact that we are having enough problems trying to
discuss them now, despite everyone agreeing with the order. Indeed, if
the hon. Member for Hornchurch looks back to his 2006 Bill, he will see
that there are issues relating to all
this. Perhaps
we should discuss the storage of knives with the police, but if my
right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South reflects on that,
perhaps he will also question what should be done about kitchen knives
and bread knives. There are knives in my house that would be lethal if
used in the same way as some of the weapons that we have discussed. As
I have said, there are not the same protections for knives as there are
for guns, but most collectors, given the value, will tend to look after
them. I
think that I have answered most of the major points that have been
made. As always, such matters are kept under review, but we have made a
reasonable step forward. We listened to all the people who came to us;
notwithstanding belly dancers and morris dancers, they all agreed with
the change that has been made. As far as I can remember, not one
organisation asked for a change to the relevant orders that we have not
listened to or to which we have not responded with an adaptation. The
hon. Member for Reigate makes a point about the
Army, but—again from memory—we have not been contacted by
the Army or any of the armed forces about their concerns. I hope that
the Committee takes things in the spirit in which they are meant. I
have made a positive attempt to make such Delegated Legislation
Committees work a little better and to take account, as the hon.
Members for Reigate and for Hornchurch mentioned, of views across the
Committee, where they make sense, to try to move things forward. As I
said, there have been 80 crimes
in four years, and 10 murders. The measure will not resolve all the
difficulties, but I think that most people will see it as a valuable
contribution to ending one of the menaces that contribute to violent
crime. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice Act 1988
(Offensive Weapons) (Amendment No. 2) Order
2008. Committee
rose at eleven minutes past Five
o’clock.
| 
