Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
This is a very sensible move. I am glad that it has been accepted as so by most people. There will be a bigger debate on the ID cards. It is right that there should be some penalty if people do not obey the new law and that they be held if they are meant to have an ID card. I commend the order to the Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations 2008. 22nd report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.(Lord West of Spithead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead) rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2008.
The noble Lord said: The Criminal Justice Act 1988 introduced an order-making power to ban the manufacture, sale and importation of specified offensive weapons. Currently, the offensive weapons order prohibits 18 weapons, including sword sticks, knuckle-dusters, disguised knives and batons. On 6 April 2008, samurai swords were banned by adding swords with a curved blade of 50 centimetres or more to the offensive weapons order to address concerns of public safety. In the parliamentary debate on this ban, which was held on 18 March 2008, I gave an undertaking to listen to representations of groups with concerns that their legitimate activities had been affected by the ban. That was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. The amendment order we are discussing today acts on that undertaking.
Collectors had expressed their concerns to Vernon Coaker, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Crime Reduction, that the ban had unfairly impacted on valuable curved military swords from the First and Second World Wars. He was also lobbied by makers of high-quality swords who told him that they sell handcrafted curved swords, worth £1,000 to £8,000, for export. The Governments intention was not to disadvantage craftsmanship, nor was it to stop the trade in swords of historical and cultural significance. The intention was to ban the cheap, readily available samurai swords used in violent crime, including murders.
I understand that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State met collectors and manufacturers in April 2008 and he asked officials to work with them to explore ways of protecting their legitimate use of curved swords without impacting adversely on the overall effectiveness of the ban. The amendment order we are discussing today contains some small amendments, agreeable to stakeholders, which address their concerns without impacting on the effectiveness of the ban.
The amendments are minor in detail but significant in effect. They focus on broadening the current defence to any curved sword made before 1954 rather than just those made in Japan, and to any curved sword made after 1954 according to traditional methods of making swords by handagain, not just those made in Japan according to traditional methods. For thoroughness we are also amending the order to allow swords for use in religious ceremonies. While we have had minimal lobbying on this point, I understand from the Department for Communities and Local Government that curved swords are an integral part of Sikh wedding ceremonies and we have no wish to hinder such activities.
On whether the new defences would cover swords used in folk dancing and sword dancing, I cannot offer a definitive view on whether the swords used in any one particular activity would be banned under the new legislation. Groups who think that they may be affected
16 July 2008 : Column GC133
Ministers have also been asked if there are any plans to add a specific defence for swords used in belly dancing. I found that rather surprising. I thought snakes were used in belly dancing. There are no such plans, but Section 43 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 introduced a defence for those supplying offensive weapons for TV, theatrical performances and film productions. This measure provides those companies and individuals who sell and hire offensive weapons for film, television and theatre productions with a defence from prosecution. That came into force on 6 April 2008 and I suggest that individuals contact the trade union for artists and performers, Equity, for advice on whether they would be covered by this defence. Even if the sale of swords used in folk, sword and belly dancing were banned, possession would not be affected and individuals should still be able to use their current swords in those activities, as before.
The changes are in line with the Government fulfilling their undertaking, provided during the parliamentary debates on the original order, to listen to representations from groups who consider that their legitimate use of swords has been unfairly impacted upon. The amendments would not weaken the ban, nor adversely impact on the intention behind the ban to target the cheaply available replica samurai swords used in violent crime. The Association of Chief Police Officers supports these amendments. As such, I commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2008. 21st report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.(Lord West of Spithead.)
Viscount Bridgeman: In the tragic environment in which we live, with its large incidence of knife crime, committed so often with short blades from the kitchen drawer, we might be forgiven for feeling that we were taking part in a fringe performance. However, we must support the Government in seeking to apply common sense to specialised uses which would otherwise be caught by the legislation. I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on listening to the various representations. I join my noble friend Lady Hanham in thanking him for that. There are two specialised uses on which my honourable friend James Brokenshire did not get a totally satisfactory answer. I refer to historical re-enactment groups and martial arts. Is there a defence for both of those? Otherwise, we support the order.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: It does not seem long since we welcomed the previous order on 6 April. We understood why the Government were going to introduce that provision. The fact that they have listened to the various groups and made some further exceptions is useful, but my questions relate to whether the various widening of the exceptions will mean that the defences are widened in the case of people using swords for offensive purposes. Obviously,
16 July 2008 : Column GC134
My questions relate to the Gurkha kukri knife, which has very important ceremonial qualities. Will this be exempt? Will they count the ceremonial athame for followers of hermetic magic and paganism? Freemasons traditionally carry swords as part of their regalia; I have no idea whether they are curved or not, but would they be exempt if they were? Presumably they would because they are ceremonial. But when people die, for example, those swords go to the antique or the collectors markets. What happens to them then? Is that a defence if you have bought one of them?
The Minister made the point that it was a defence if the weapon was made by hand, but what is the definition of that? Can it be made in a factory and simply finished by hand? Furthermore, having mulled this over, I wonder why the provision refers to blades of 50 centimetres and over; are blades of 49 centimetres any less likely to be deadly?
I associate myself with the comments of those who have said that these provisions, while worthy, merely touch the tip of the problem, including the comments from the Front Bench about knife crime and knives from the kitchen drawer. I am sure that that is something that we will debate in future.
Lord West of Spithead: The noble Viscount and the noble Baroness have got to the nub of the matter. One problem is to capture all the sorts of knives that one would like, which is just so difficult. There is such an availability of knives, including kitchen knives. The noble Viscount is absolutely right that they are more often used than ceremonial weapons. But the police were particularly concerned about these copies of samurai swords which had been used for a number of violent incidents. They were not the original swords made by the Japanese, which are so expensive and are made in a traditional style; apart from anything else, you know straight away from the cost. But the police were really concerned about these imitation samurai swords, which is why we went down this route. In the past few days, noble Lords may have seen people talking on television about knife crime, and there were pictures of three youths showing off with exactly those swords. They are extremely dangerous. So this is the right thing to do, but we have to ensure that other people are not captured by the provisions.
Enactment societies will be protected. The Sealed Knot society will be protected, for example, and so will the Gurkha kukris. The only swords that are over that length are used largely for ceremonials, particularly when an ox is ceremonially killed, for instance.
I do not know the answer to the Freemason question and I shall get back to noble Lords in writing. We are not meant to know what happens in freemasonry, are we? Noble Lords clearly have knowledge about that. I do not know the answer to that question, but with traditionally made swords one can tell the difference. This provision is not aimed at them.
We are in a very difficult area; there are much broader issues than simply removing knives, which are behind all these proposals. We will debate all these
16 July 2008 : Column GC135
Viscount Bridgeman: Can we have clarification on martial arts?
Lord West of Spithead: I am informed by my team that martial arts are protected. I commend this order to the Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead) rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) Order 2008.
The noble Lord said: The Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 streamlined and modernised the United Kingdoms mutual legal assistance relations with the rest of the world when it came into force on 26 April 2004. Today, in an effort further to improve international co-operation and in order to comply with our international obligations, we are seeking to designate the United States of America under various sections of that Act.
One of the advantages of the new arrangements is that they will improve our ability to achieve justice for British victims of serious crime. The order reflects the fact that on 25 June 2003 an agreement on mutual legal assistance between the United States of America and the European Union was concluded. As a result of the provisions of this agreement, it was necessary for the United Kingdom to amend its bilateral mutual legal assistance treaty with the United States.
The terms of the amended bilateral treaty make provision for the parties to make and execute requests for assistance in locating bank accounts and to provide banking information relating to criminal investigations. This is in similar terms to European agreements aimed at tackling serious international crime, in particular, economic crime and money laundering. The domestic powers to make and receive such requests are found in Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the Act.
Designation of the United States of America under Section 51(2)(b) of the Act for the purpose of Sections 32, 35, 43, 44 and 45 will allow requests for such orders to be executed in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and for such requests to be made to the United States of America by certain judicial and prosecuting authorities in the United Kingdom. Designation under Sections 35
16 July 2008 : Column GC136
Likewise, no express provision has been made to limit the designations to terrorist and money laundering cases, as is permissible under the agreement, because the Home Secretary retains a discretion whether to issue a direction under Section 35. It would be open to the Home Secretary to refuse to make such a direction where the request was made in a non-terrorist or money laundering case. In relation to outgoing requests, there is no such discretion. It will be up to the United States to decide whether to refuse a request to it on the basis that it was outwith the treaty.
The amended treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States of America will provide both Governments with a sound framework for future co-operation. We are clear that we will not allow criminals to escape justice simply because the evidence required is located overseas, and we are committed to assisting our international partners in doing the same. That is what the order seeks to achieve and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That, the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) Order 2008. 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.(Lord West of Spithead.)
Viscount Bridgeman: I am most grateful to the Minister. We accept that this is a technical amendment, which is necessary in order to designate the United States of America a participating country. However, I should like one or two reassurances from the Minister.
I have two quotes, and if the Minister feels that it is easier to reply in writing, I shall quite understand. The first is from a newspaper report:
of Homeland Security in America,
The second quote is from Barry Steinhardt, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union:
Those are emotive statements, especially in the light of the recent debates over the Lisbon treaty and of concern over what appearscertainly in the eyes of the publicto be the very one-sided procedure for extradition. I think that the House, and indeed the public, will be seeking reassurances on these matters, which I hope the Minister will be able to give. As I said, if that is by way of a letter, that will be perfectly acceptable to us.
My other question concerns the cost to the private sector of the order. I think that it has been put at between £1.5 billion and £2.5 billion over the next 10 years. I shall be grateful if the Minister can give us further information on that.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I think that the Committee is somewhat scarred by the experience of the very unilateral nature of the extradition agreement with the United States. There is certainly still a perception that the US is not a very equal partner in bilateral treaties, in that it takes what it wants but gives very little or nothing in return. It was in that vein that in a debate on 6 December 2007 the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, described a bilateral assistance deal with the US as unilateral. In that spirit, I have several questions for the Minister. What are the rights of access to data held or the rights of correction and deletion? Are they included? Are the rights expressly guaranteed by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the EU data protection directive?
At the time the EUs agreement was made, Statewatch concluded that there were no effective data protection provisions worth speaking of and that there was nothing to ensure that the considerable body of EU data protection legislation was respected. What right of access is available for people to find out what data about them have been shared and stored, and what guarantees are in place to ensure the proper protection of those data? How many parties are they shared with once they arrive in the United States, and does the deal include any protocol for the deletion of data supplied to the US authorities at any time in the future, or are they simply kept indefinitely?
The Minister mentioned that the Secretary of State would have within his discretion the power to refuse a request. Can he give any examples of when he would be likely to refuse such a request? The Minister said on 6 December, in the debate to which I referred, that it is very unusual that this matter has come to light and that it is something that we cannot talk about in detail because it involves criminal action. He then went on to talk about the volume of requests, which I think was 5,000 to the UK each year. I wonder what volume of requests we make to the United States. What is the balance of requests made and received? Can he give any idea of the balance of requests that are likely to be granted?
Lord West of Spithead: I thank noble Lords for those points. The noble Viscount is right that this is a technical amendment. It is much more constrained than the noble Baroness thinks. It is important to remember that once this designation order comes into forcethere are a number of countries in Europe where it will also be coming into forceit will allow
16 July 2008 : Column GC138
The large amounts of data being asked for do not relate to this order as it is not in force as yet. We do not think there will be that many requests under this order, but we think it is right because once they have signed it off, we will have an agreement covering every country in the EU. The EU and the US have now signed up, so clearly we need to be part of that. We think the order makes sense because if we are conducting a criminal investigation against a person, it is important to be able to get information about his bank account, if it is held somewhere else.
This order is much more restricted than the noble Baroness thinks. I know her concern about the amount of data that can be pulled out and used. This order is much more technical and specific. Her fears and concerns are unfounded in this case. They often are in the other cases, but in this case they certainly are, because the order is much more focused.
The noble Baroness asked if I could think of an example of requests that the Secretary of State could refuse. I find it difficult to think of an example because the order is so narrow. It would be strange if a request for data about some details about the bank accounts of someone being investigated was refused. I cannot easily think of a specific case where that would occur. However, it is right that the protection is there just in case there is an occasion to stop the sort of thing that the noble Baroness has fears about. If I have not answered all the questions that were asked, I will get back in writing on them when I have looked at Hansard.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reassurances. We on these Benches appreciate the need to tackle globalised crime in a globalised world. However, if the criminal investigation finds that the person is innocent, are his data deleted?
Lord West of Spithead: I do not know the details on that, but I will get back to the noble Baroness in writing.
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |