HC Deb 26 April 1996 vol 276 cc673-92
Mr. Piers Merchant (Beckenham)

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 38, leave out from 'reasons' to the end of line 39.

The amendment would affect clause 4, which was added in Committee for very good reason, because it deals with the carrying of bladed articles in schools. I wish, in passing, to make it clear that I fully support the clause and I was delighted that it was added. It deals specifically with the sort of violent incidents in schools that have caused so much concern to the nation of late. It also has some bearing on one of the motivations behind the Bill, which was the unfortunate murder of headmaster Philip Lawrence, although that took place just outside school premises.

Because clause 4 was added in Committee, the House did not have the opportunity to consider it on Second Reading or to table amendments to it in Committee. For that reason, I tabled the amendment today. It would strike out subsection (4)(d), which is a reference to national costume. To explain the relevance of that, I need briefly to refer to the earlier part of the clause.

The main purpose of the clause is to make a specific offence of the carrying of bladed articles—which are banned under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953—on school premises. The clause also specifies exemptions or clear defences on those two offences, and subsection (3) provides the general defence of being able to prove … good reason or lawful authority for having the article or weapon … on the premises". Subsection (4) extends the defence to provide specific defences. In my view, most genuine defences would be covered legitimately by subsection (3), so I slightly question the need for subsection (4) at all. I assume that it is included to clarify the situation for people who, quite legitimately, carry pointed instruments or weapons, which action would otherwise constitute an offence. The four specific additional defences are defined as follows:

  1. "(a) for use at work,
  2. (b) for educational purposes,
  3. (c) for religious reasons, or
  4. (d) as part of any national costume."
I seek to remove paragraph (d).

It would seem that the wearing of the Sikh kirpan would be fully covered by subsection (4)(c), if it were not covered, as I believe it probably would be, by subsection (3). There will be examples of individuals wearing the full Sikh regalia in schools, and the kirpan is part of that regalia. The Sikh community inherits rich cultural and national traditions that are linked to religion, and the wearing of various garments is a requirement for strict adherence to the Sikh religion.

10 am

I wish to do nothing to detract from the ability of a Sikh to carry out his religious observances. They are a fine body of people and I would hate to see either their religion or their tradition inhibited in any way. I believe, however, that Sikhs would be fully protected by subsection (4)(c) as a result of a religious imperative. I do not believe that the removal of subsection (4)(d) would have any impact on them.

That leaves us with a simple question: to what would subsection (4)(d) apply? I need to be thoroughly convinced that there is a good and overwhelming reason for the specific reference to "national costume" to be included. I have nothing against the wearing of national costume.

As something of a romantic, I rather approve of people dancing or walking around in various national costumes. I would hate in any sense to be destructive of tradition.

Mr. Michael

The hon. Gentleman seems almost to be ridiculing his amendment. Is he aware that the amendment has been seen in some quarters as an attempt to inhibit the wearing of the Scottish national costume and the purely ceremonial element that is involved in the wearing of that dress? Is he not diminishing respect for that costume and that activity in the rather flippant way in which he is introducing the amendment?

Mr. Merchant

I fail to follow what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I am not being flippant. I made it clear that I took national tradition seriously, otherwise I would have not made the remarks that I did. As for Scotland, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have observed that the amendment does not apply to the relevant area of Scottish law. The amendment is directed to English law.

Mr. Michael

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that many Scots wish to wear their national costume in England and Wales? Therefore, the amendment applies to citizens of the United Kingdom when they are seeking to wear Scottish national costume in England and Wales. Is the hon. Gentleman serious, or is he intent on arguing in support of the amendment to take up time, only to withdraw it?

Mr. Merchant

I am concerned about these matters. I am aware that there are Scotsmen in England who wear national costume. I am not aware, however, that that happens very often in English schools. To the extent that it does, I believe that there would be protection in any event.

Mr. Nicholas Baker (North Dorset)

Will my hon. Friend ignore the filibustering attempt of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who is clearly trying to disrupt the argument? There is a distinction between United Kingdom national costumes, such as the Scottish costume and the equipment that is worn with it, and the national costumes of other countries. Is subsection (4)(d) an attempt to protect Greek evzones who wear their costume? I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with the distinction between United Kingdom national costumes and national costumes of other countries.

Mr. Merchant

That is an extremely relevant point, as is that of weapons that are linked with national costume.

I shall pose three questions that I think are relevant to the amendment. First, are there clear and specific examples that show it to be necessary for someone to attend school premises wearing a national dress that has, as an essential part of it, a sharp or bladed object?

Mr. Bill Walker (North Tayside)

I draw my hon. Friend's attention to pipe bands, which regularly appear on school premises throughout the United Kingdom. An essential part of a pipe band's proper costume or outfit—highland dress—is the skean-dhu. I wear it on school premises and in Parliament.

Mr. Merchant

No doubt my hon. Friend also wears it in the street from time to time. I feel sure, however, that he would not fall foul of the main part of the Bill, even though there is no specific exemption for national costume in the rest of the Bill.

I believe that Scottish pipe bands would be absolutely and fully covered by parts of the Bill other than subsection (4)(d). For example, they would be covered by subsection (3), because they would be able to prove that they had "good reason" for wearing a national costume, including the skean-dhu. If not, they would be able to illustrate that the full costume was being worn for "educational purposes". Pipe bands would not walk on to school premises out of a whim. No doubt they would have been invited. There would be a good educational reason for their being on the premises. They would probably not be able to defend themselves for "religious reasons", even though I know that many Scotsmen—especially highlanders—feel extremely strongly about their national costume.

I return to the three questions that I have been attempting to pose for the past five minutes. First, are there relevant examples that show the absolute necessity of subsection (4)(d)? I question that. Secondly, if people are wearing national costumes at school, why is that? If there is a good educational reason, that is fine. But are we really saying that we want to encourage those attending school to wear an array of national costumes from different parts of the world? That would be inadvisable in itself. Thirdly, is it always necessary to carry a weapon as part of a national costume? Given the various degrees to which I have been pressed over the past few minutes, I exclude the Scots.

There have been many precedents created for the display of national costumes. There have been some exemptions for usual practice in occupations that require a uniform to be worn. In those instances, there has nearly always been a specific reason. For example, railway conductors have long been allowed, if they are genuine Sikhs, to wear the required items to which I have referred. That exemption has not been extended to people who happen, on a whim, to wish to wear a national costume. We do not see bus conductors wearing Dutch clogs, for example, or Lederhosen. It would be rather absurd if they were allowed to do so. A schoolteacher would not be especially well thought of if he suddenly took to arriving at school and conducting lessons dressed in Lederhosen and wearing Dutch clogs, not necessarily together. There is a clear distinction between national costume and clothes that are part of religious observance.

There will of course be exceptions, and no doubt a school might wish, as part of its curriculum, to show national costume. A school might have a day on which people would be encouraged to dress in national costume as part of a history lesson or for cultural studies, and that would be covered under "legitimate educational purposes". In the vast majority of cases, however, the legislation would not even begin to apply because there would be no likelihood of sharp instruments being carried.

I should like, finally, to refer to Scotland and to the Scots, although my remarks have been anticipated to some extent. I stress that I deliberately did not table an amendment to the latter part of the Bill, which refers to Scottish law, because I take seriously the matter of Scottish national costume. I accept that national costume is regarded differently in Scotland, and I can think of no reason why it should not be so regarded under the law.

Scottish costume requires the carrying of the skean-dhu, which might be ruled, in other circumstances, as contrary to the Bill—under clause 4 or elsewhere—because it is of course a sharp and pointed instrument. I do not have a great deal of experience of how sharp and pointed it is—perhaps luckily. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) will no doubt be able to enlighten us on that point.

My hon. Friend might also be able to explain why it is necessary to carry the skean-dhu as part of national costume. Sometimes I wonder whether it is entirely necessary, or whether it might be more sensitive for a Scotsman visiting a school not to include it as part of his national dress. I am willing to be corrected on that point if I can be assured that wearing a skean-dhu is absolutely essential, and that a Scotsman would feel naked without that part of his dress.

I think that a Scotsman would still find that there was little doubt that he would be able to defend himself fully against any absurd charge that might be attempted under the Bill, either under subsection (4)(d) or under any of the other clauses to which I have referred. Therefore, Scotsmen, however sensitive they may be about it, need not feel threatened in any sense by my amendment.

For all those reasons, I argue that subsection (4)(d) is unnecessary. This is a probing amendment, to the extent that I am asking to be convinced that it is necessary. I cannot think of any convincing argument that it is, but I have a sufficiently open mind to allow myself to be persuaded, if other hon. Members are able to do so.

10.15 am
Mr. Bill Walker

I shall speak against this amendment, which will not surprise the House, and take up the challenge thrown at me by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant).Perhaps he will now be able to understand why we Scots regularly have no remind everyone it was our king who came down to sit on the Union throne and why, from time to time, we have to remind everyone that the Union between Scotland and England was voluntary. There may have been an element of bribery involved in it, but the Union was made by voluntary agreement.

In forging that Union, the Scots brought to the United Kingdom a certain colour and a certain heroism—which was found on battlefields, to the great advantage of the Union. Part of that Scottish tradition is the wearing of highland dress. I underline the fact that we are talking about highland dress, which is not worn by all Scots.

Lady Olga Maitland

Pity.

Mr. Walker

Yes, it is a pity.

One can, therefore, recognise that there is a great danger of alienating a part of a minority in the United Kingdom. We live in a world in which minority interests have to be considered with great care; we constantly see people introducing legislation to protect minorities. I am a minority of a minority in many ways, because not only am I a highland Scot but I am a highland Scottish Conservative Scot, and we really are a minority.

I am one of the few Scots who come to the House fairly regularly wearing my national dress. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will know that I always wear it in matters in which the scouts have an interest because scouts throughout Scotland regularly wear highland dress.

Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham)

Will my hon. Friend clarify something for me? I understood from books of Scottish etiquette that the kilt should never be worn below the highland line.

Mr. Walker

That was probably written by a Campbell. The hon. Gentleman must understand that the Scots were on both sides at Culloden. As is often the way with the Scots, they hedged their bets—which was reason for sending our king down to sit on the throne. The truth is that the Scots always wear the appropriate dress when facing the enemy.

Mr. David Nicholson

I hate to spoil my hon. Friend's paean in support of the highlanders, but is not it true that at Culloden there were more Scots in the Duke of Cumberland's army than in the prince's army?

Mr. Walker

That was why the king's army won. I do not know why anyone should be surprised about that. That was the most astonishing intervention. The king's army would not have won if there had not been more Scots on Cumberland's side. So that there is no doubt on this matter, I should tell my hon. Friend that my mother's side was on the king's side and my father's side was on the losing side. Such situations were not uncommon in the highlands and among those who married lowlanders.

I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson)—it is a very important point—that the highland regiments, until well into the second world war, went into battle wearing the kilt, as they did in the first world war and in all earlier campaigns. I ask him: how can anyone possibly suggest that it was not proper to be wearing the kilt south of wherever? As I recall, most campaigns were fought far south of wherever. Scots all over the world, and particularly in England, demonstrate at every opportunity the fact that we reached an agreement on the Union, of which we are proud to be part.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham properly asked whether it would be right to remove the skean-dhu—the weapon with which he is concerned. The skean-dhu should be worn in the stocking and should not be unsheathed in public. I have occasionally shown my grandfather's skean-dhu, which is the one that I wear. He wore it during the Boer war campaign, the first world war in Mesopotamia and in two tours in India, when he was in the Black Watch.

We wear the skean-dhus because they are much more than symbols. They reflect family inheritance and tradition, and they cannot easily be replaced. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham suggests that it should not be worn and asks whether one would feel naked without it. If one were not to wear it, one would feel that one was not continuing the traditions that make us what we are—beautifully different, yet part of this collective whole called the United Kingdom.

Given the opportunity, I shall in a later debate deal with the question of this beautiful United Kingdom of which I am proud to be part. I am proud to be part of it because I am in a minority of a minority. I am a highland Conservative Scot, which is why I have to demonstrate clearly to the vast majority who are not of my background that we Scots have contributed massively to the Union.

It rarely, if ever, happens that the skean-dhu is unsheathed in public. I have the police's assurance on that, because the matter arose some years ago when we were debating legislation proposed by my former right hon. Friend who came from Grantham. I tabled an amendment to ensure that the skean-dhu was not covered by the type of provision that we are debating again today.

My advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham is that there are no problems with the skean-dhu. There is no history of Scottish boys or members of school pipe bands behaving badly, and, "If it's not broke, you don't mend it."

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. Merchant

rose—

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.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham was right to raise the matter, because we must be sure to get the legislation right, but I hope that, on reflection, the House will not support the amendment.

10.30 am
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 amend, he will see that national costume provides a defence only if the person wearing it has no ulterior motive.

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 place to which … the public have … access". 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.

The amendment proposes to remove the specific defence in relation to national costume. I note that a similar amendment has not been tabled in relation to Scotland. I think I understand why—my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside gave us a very good description—but the traditional Scottish dagger, or skean-dhu, is part of that country's national costume, and there will be occasions on which it is worn on school premises: open days, speech days and, in boarding schools, on Sundays. I have seen them worn in church. Although a person wearing highland dress, complete with skean-dhu, would not often enter school premises in England and Wales, he could do so.

What is more likely is the extraordinary development that Scottish country dancing classes involving full highland dress, including the skean-dhu, would suddenly become unlawful. Pupils from a Scottish school visiting a school south of the border might well wish to go formally dressed as a courtesy, but under the amendment that could be construed as an offence. Similarly, pupils might take part in a school play in national dress, including a dagger.

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 are many people of Scottish ancestry in this country. I include myself in that. My only problem is that, having heard the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), I am not sure into what grade or category I fall. I am descended from a lowland rather than a highland family. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside will not be too prejudiced against me. There is some argument about whether I am entitled to wear a hunting Stewart tartan or whether, must be confined to the Galloway tartan of my own family.

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 'or a fine, or both'. 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 'or a fine, or both'. 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 'or a fine, or both'. 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 'or a fine, or both'.

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.

Removing the option of a fine leaves the penalty as a mandatory prison sentence. However, this is not so harsh as it may sound because the term of imprisonment that would be applicable for the offences will not exceed six months, two years or four years, depending on the clause to which reference is made.

10.45 am

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.

For those reasons, the amendment is not a good idea, however well intentioned it might have been. I return to the point that I made in the discussion on the previous amendment. Were anyone to be so foolish as publicly to draw a knife or pointed instrument from their person on any premises, the powers in the clause to impose extremely tough penalties can be used. The amendment imposes a penalty simply for an absolute offence of someone having such weapons on their person. It is possible that a relatively innocent offence could be committed.

It is right that we should accept the Bill, but equally it is right that we should allow the courts sufficient discretion to deal with the circumstances with which they will be confronted whenever this charge is brought, which we cannot necessarily foresee today.

Mr. Tim Smith

At about the same time as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) was Detective Constable Greenway operating out of Savile Row police station, I was a young law student studying what Oxford university pompously calls jurisprudence, and I have a vestigial memory of some of the basics of criminal law. One of the things that we learned was that normally the criminal offence consists of two parts: a guilty act and a guilty mind. My hon. Friend has made the point that this is an absolute offence: there is no mens rea. It means, in effect, that the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the defence. That is why the defences in the clause and in section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are so important.

If all that one has to prove is that someone was carrying an offensive weapon, it is not reasonable that the only penalty that could be imposed on such a person is a prison sentence. At present if someone is convicted of an offence under section 139 of the 1988 Act, the court cannot impose a prison sentence; only a fine can be imposed. Clause 3 of the Bill increases the penalties.

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) is doing. She is saying that Parliament believes that the position is now sufficiently serious that in certain circumstances the courts should have available to them the possible imposition of a prison sentence, but the Bill makes it clear that, until it becomes an Act of Parliament and is brought into effect, the only penalty that can be imposed is a fine.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) wants us somehow to distinguish school premises from public places generally. I understand why he says that. We all know of the recent horrific cases on school premises and of criminal offences close to school premises involving school teachers. We all share his deep concern about that, but we cannot therefore conclude that in the case of school premises the possibility of a fine should be ruled out altogether.

In those circumstances, taking into account the fact that only a prison sentence is available, not only injuries, but perhaps magistrates might be reluctant to convict in certain circumstances. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale that it would be wrong to remove from the courts the discretion to decide what should be the appropriate penalty in any case.

Mr. Bill Walker

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this subject. Earlier, I mentioned the wearing of the skean-dhu. I was reminded by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) of an interesting event that occurred in my life, where discretion was important and where certain leeway was required.

I was to be joined at the United States Democratic convention in San Francisco by my wife and daughters. Before they boarded the aircraft at Heathrow airport, they were advised by the chap who was looking after them that Bill had been arrested in San Francisco because he was wearing a knife. The Democrats got themselves in an awful mess. Eventually, I met the head of the secret service, who was in charge of security. Being a sensible fellow, he said to me, "You and I had better come to an agreement and an understanding. You can come in the morning wearing your knife. They'll tannoy for me and I'll come. You will hand over your skean-dhu to me publicly so that everyone can see and then we'll go off for a cup of coffee and I will give you it back."

My arrest hit the headlines in the United Kingdom. I followed that with a visit to the Republican convention—this is important because this is where discretion comes in. The Republicans were determined that I was not going to be arrested at their convention, so they advised everyone at the convention that this chap wearing the kilt and the knife in his stocking was to be treated with kid gloves—British Member of Parliament and all that. Unfortunately, they forgot to tell the Dallas police. In Dallas, people can wear as many guns as they like, but they are not allowed to wear knives in public and I was arrested by the Dallas police on my way into the convention centre. They called up on their radio telephone and said, "We've got this guy, " and all the rest of it. Eventually, it got through to the head of the police. He came on the radio to the car and said, "Look. We had better handle this with great care. This guy is a British Member of Parliament." So they photographed me dressed in my finery with my knife in my stocking and dropped the arrest charges. This is the discretion part. They realised that, although it contravened the law in that part of Texas, they had someone wearing his national dress. They took a photograph of me and distributed it to every policeman in Dallas to make sure that I was not arrested again. It is that sort of discretion that the courts need as innocent individuals could otherwise be caught by the Bill.

Mr. Michael

Is the hon. Gentleman sure that his photograph was distributed for the purpose he suggested? It is more usual for photographs of individuals to be distributed widely within a police force for a rather different purpose.

Mr. Walker

It might have been because I am such a good looking fellow and the police thought that all the ladies of Dallas should know that I was visiting—like pop stars and other people of substance. It probably had nothing to do with the fact that I was wearing my kilt, with a skean-dhu in my stocking. The hon. Gentleman's intervention was interesting. So far as I am aware, no one has ever found any reason, other than the wearing of my skean-dhu, to distribute my photograph. If he has evidence to the contrary, I would be delighted to hear of it. We could then discuss what a suitable penalty would be.

11 am

Lady Olga Maitland

The remarks of my hon. Friends in response to the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) have been of one mind. We need flexibility and it would be a great mistake to remove the degree of decision making and options that should be available to the courts. Indeed, it would be unusual for the option of a fine not to be available as one of the penalties.

I understand that in 1994 fines were imposed on almost three quarters of offenders sentenced in magistrates courts, covering a very wide range of offences and involving about 1 million people. Six months' imprisonment and/or a £5,000 fine are the normal maximum penalties for trial in a magistrates court. The courts must have the power to deal with the whole range of serious incidents that may occur under the proposed offence of carrying an offensive weapon or knife on school premises. Some examples of that offence will be so serious that gaol must be the penalty—there is no doubt about that. That will be especially true where it is clear that the defendant went out intending to stab a victim viciously, not caring whether it caused injury or death.

Nevertheless, there will be offences where there are strong mitigating factors, such as those described by my hon. Friends, which must be regarded as being at the lowest level of seriousness. Indeed, there could be considerable misunderstandings. In those circumstances, it would be wrong to imprison the offender as such a penalty would be quite disproportionate. Without the power to impose a fine, magistrates would often feel obliged to impose very short terms of imprisonment, which could be far less effective than a fine for some offenders, as a fine would hit their pockets very hard. Many of them could not give a hoot about spending a few days in gaol. However, if they do not have very much money and what they do have is regularly docked so that they no longer have beer money, they might think twice.

Mr. Tim Smith

Does my hon. Friend know whether there are any precedents for what is being proposed in the amendment? Are there any criminal offences for which magistrates can only send people to prison and cannot fine them?

Lady Olga Maitland

I am not aware of any. I understand that it is not the practice of this country to shackle magistrates or justices in that way.

The amendments are somewhat spurious. It should be remembered that there is a power to override gaol sentences under section 31(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. That gives Crown courts the power to impose fines, of any amount, regardless of any restrictions imposed in specific pieces of legislation. It is also important to remember that providing for a fine in legislation can actually increase the severity of the penalties available. A long gaol sentence together with a fine is obviously more severe than just a prison sentence. Furthermore, it is arguably the case that a large fine may be taken more seriously by the offender than a short prison sentence, depending on the circumstances of the case. I therefore support my hon. Friends' call for the amendment to be withdrawn.

Mr. Kirkhope

I agree with the arguments deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and others of my hon. Friends, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale and for Beaconsfield. We all want strong measures to be taken against knife carriers, but to remove the option to impose a fine or to impose a fine as well as a prison sentence would not only reduce the flexibility that the courts can exercise, but in some cases, as has been stated by my hon. Friends, it would actually weaken the severity of sentencing.

Mr. Merchant

I hope that I have at least given the House an opportunity to examine, in a little more detail, the nature of the punishment that should fit the crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale felt that it would be inappropriate to have only a prison sentence. Perhaps I take a tougher line on crime than he does. I strongly believe that prison is a tough deterrent—in most cases, the ultimate deterrent—and I am not entirely convinced by the argument that a fine, however unwelcome, can be a tougher way of dealing with offenders.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) referred to mens rea. Given the clarity of the offence and the wide knowledge of the existence of this legislation when enacted, as I hope it will be shortly, people—especially youngsters—will know full well that they are committing an offence if they carry a weapon as described. Therefore, it could quite easily be said that if someone is carrying such a weapon, he has a guilty mind as well as carrying out a guilty act. I doubt whether there will be many instances of someone saying, "I had no idea and no intention of breaking the law by carrying this weapon." Hon. Members should remember that we are talking about the carrying of the weapon; we are not referring to any intention that it may be used, which in itself would constitute a separate offence.

I feel strongly that the carrying of knives on school premises is a very serious matter. It happens a great deal more in some areas than hon. Members may be aware. It is therefore incumbent upon us to take a tough line so that we can avoid some of the disasters that have occurred and might occur again.

I make no apology for moving my amendment or for wanting a debate to draw attention to the risks posed by people carrying knives. The House needs to ensure that tough action is taken against such offences. Having said that, I accept that I am once again cast in the role of a minority. Having drawn attention to my point, and its having had a good debate, I hope that at least some of my motives for introducing it will be taken on board.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lady Olga Maitland

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 15, at end insert— '(7) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland—

  1. (a) the reference in subsection (2) above to section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 is to be construed as a reference to Article 22 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987; and
  2. (b) the reference in subsection (6) above to section 14(5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 is to be construed as a reference to Article 2(2) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 3, line 32, at end insert— '(4) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland the reference in subsection (1)(b) above to section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 is to be construed as a reference to Article 22 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.'. No. 6, in page 3, line 32, at end insert— '(1A) In section 172 of that Act (extent), in subsection (3), for "section 139" there is substituted "sections 139 to bE".'. No. 9, in page 4, line 44, leave out 'and' and insert 'to'.

No. 10, in clause 7, page 5, line 39, leave out 'and 3' and insert ', 3 and 4(1), (1A) and (3)'.

Lady Olga Maitland

These amendments fulfil a commitment given by the Minister during the Committee stage on 6 March. He informed the Committee of the intention, which I fully share, to extend to Northern Ireland the new offence of having an article with a blade or point on school premises. That is the effect of the amendment.

The amendment would add subsection (7) to new section 139A—the offence of having a article with blade or point on school premises—of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, to provide the relevant adaptions in application of the new section to Northern Ireland. Thus, any reference to section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953—which refers to the prohibition of the carrying of offensive weapons without lawful authority or reasonable excuse—will be construed as a reference to the equivalent offence in the law of Northern Ireland. That is found in article 22 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which refers to the carrying of offensive weapons in a public place. A similar amendment is made in new section bI of the 1988 Act.

Provision is made for references to section 14(5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 to be construed as references to article 2(2) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which contains the definition of a "school" in Northern Ireland. A new clause 4(1A) is inserted to amend the extent section of the 1988 Act to apply to the new sections 139A and 139B to Northern Ireland, and a consequential amendment is made to clause 4(3) as a result.

The amendment fulfils a commitment that my hon. Friend the Minister made in Committee, and I am therefore only too glad to table it on Report. I hope that it will be supported by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Michael

I am happy to confirm the Opposition's support for the amendments. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, it introduces an element of consistency by extending the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland, which is to be welcomed. I am glad that she and the Minister have been able to fulfil the undertaking that was given in Committee.

Mr. Kirkhope

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has said, the amendment fulfils a commitment that I made in Committee. I therefore naturally support it, and welcome the support of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).

Amendment agreed to

Lady Olga Maitland

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 27, after 'article', insert 'or weapon'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 4, in page 3, line 28, after 'article', insert 'or weapon'.

No. 7, in page 4, line 38, after 'article', insert 'or weapon'.

No. 8, in page 4, line 39, after 'article', insert 'or weapon'.

Lady Olga Maitland

This is another somewhat technical amendment, but important to the overall purpose of the Bill. Its intention is to clear up a small and entirely unintended ambiguity in relation to police powers of seizure of knives and offensive weapons on school premises. It is proposed in clause 4 to extend the offences of carrying a knife or offensive weapon in public to school premises. Those two separate offences are referred to in the proposed new section 139A, subsections (1) and (2), of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in relation to England and Wales. The equivalent Scottish offences are referred to in the proposed new section 49A, subsections (1) and (2), of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995.

The problem arises in relation to the associated police power of seizure of a knife or an offensive weapon if an officer discovers such a thing in the course of a search on school premises. The proposed powers of seizure are referred to in subsection (2) of the proposed new section 139B for England and Wales, and subsection (2) of the proposed new section 49B for Scotland. Both provide that a constable may seize an article—I emphasise the word "article"—of a kind described in subsection (1). That may conceivably be taken as omitting the power to seize offensive weapons. The amendment merely rectifies that.

Mr. Michael

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has given a technical explanation of the need for the amendment, but not one that is easily understood by a lay person. Surely the word "article" includes weapons, especially when one considers the context of the Bill and other legislation under consideration. As the Minister is to comment, perhaps he will deal with that point.

I clearly understand that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam wants to ensure that items are not accidentally omitted so that powers given to police officers in the Bill would therefore be faulty. I share that aspiration, but I do not understand why the amendments are necessary. The Minister may not be all that distant from the drafting of the amendments, so I ask him to explain in lay terms why the wording as it stands is not satisfactory and why the word "article", as one would commonly understand it, does not include weapons as a matter of legal definition.

11.15 am
Mr. Kirkhope

One of the problems is that the amendment is essentially technical. I fully understand that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is saying that without the amendment problems may not be caused—but problems could be caused. As the matter is currently framed, it is possible to construe the clause as proposing a police power of seizure for knives, but not for offensive weapons. I am advised that the amendment must be technical.

Mr. Michael

I am not trying to delay the Minister; I am simply trying to understand what is being said. If offensive weapons other than knives are not included, would the Minister illustrate the sort of articles of which he is thinking? That might make the matter wholly transparent.

Mr. Kirkhope

I cannot really do that because the term "offensive weapons" covers a large range of items. The word "article" does not help us. We believe that the word "article" does include weapons, but we still think that there is a possibility of doubt in legal argument; that is why we are trying to remove the ambiguity. In talking of offensive weapons, a sharpened screwdriver comes to mind, for instance. Nevertheless, the amendment has to be technical. It is important that in such an important measure we should remove any possibility of misunderstanding or ambiguity, and any opportunity for the extension of legal argument and of justice not being done. The amendment is very sensible and, uncontentious and would clarify matters.

Mr. Michael

The Minister's illustration is very helpful. Am I correct in thinking that he is saying that the wording is basically to act as belt and braces, and that it does not change what was intended by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam or those who were originally involved in drafting the Bill or what we understood that we were doing in Committee, and that it is merely to ensure that there is no doubt?

Mr. Kirkhope

I can confirm that. While the hon. Gentleman and I may think that it is perfectly reasonable to interpret the matter in a certain way, lawyers might use the opportunity in certain circumstances to misunderstand the wording unless it is absolutely crystal clear. That is the reason for the amendment, which we support.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 4, in page 3, line 28, after 'article', insert 'or weapon'.

No. 5, in page 3, line 32, at end insert— '(4) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland the reference in subsection (1)(b) above to section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 is to be construed as a reference to Article 22 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.'.

No. 6, in page 3, line 32, at end insert— '(1A) In section 172 of that Act (extent), in subsection (3), for "section 139" there is substituted "sections 139 to 139B".'

No. 7, in page 4, line 38, after 'article', insert 'or weapon'.

No. 8, in page 4, line 39, after 'article', insert 'or weapon'.

No. 9, in page 4, line 44, leave out 'and' and insert 'to'.—[Lady Olga Maitland.]

Back to
Forward to