§ Lady Olga MaitlandI beg to move amendment No. 11, in line 1, leave out from 'about' to end of line 12 and insert
'persons having knives, other articles which have a blade or are sharply pointed or offensive weapons; and about selling knives or such articles to persons under the age of sixteen years'.I tabled the amendment as a result of concern expressed about the long title of my Bill. It is a very long title and we feel that the Bill should now be given a better title and a relatively short one. I am assured by the draftsmen that the shorter version that I proposes is no different in substance from the one that it replaces 712 and does not affect the Bill's scope. It is therefore an uncontentious, technical amendment, about which there is not a great deal more to be said.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Order for Third Reading read.
12.34 pm§ Lady Olga MaitlandI beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is an important Bill. It is a sad reflection on the times that it needs to be introduced at all. The knife culture is set to engulf us all unless we take a firm hand and curb it now. There must be tough condemnation from society for young thugs who indulge in mindless violence, and the backing of Parliament to ensure that we have legislation that will work. We want to ensure that those who carry knives do so at their peril. They are not heroes; they are common little criminals. They will be caught, they will face stiff penalties, and wherever they turn they will face a wall of obstacles preventing them from obtaining their vicious weapons. The Bill will achieve all that.
It might be helpful if I set out the context in which the Bill came about. I have personally campaigned for years against the knife culture. I know one family in particular—Bill and Valerie Dennison—who were shattered when their 17-year-old son, John, was mindlessly stabbed to death. We owe a debt to headmaster Philip Lawrence, slaughtered by a teenager: his courage and sacrifice spurred me on, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister helped me to put the Bill together.
Tragically, Mr. Lawrence's death is one in a long series of statistics. Knife-related offences are increasing year on year, and the victims are of all ages—children, teenagers, middle-aged people, pensioners and, above all, the police. In 1994, 1,000 police officers were seriously assaulted and injured in England and Wales. Prosecutions rise every year, and in 1993–94—the last year for which figures are available—there was a sharp jump of almost 1,000, to 3,367, in London alone. That is a good example of just how serious the problem is. Despite the appalling tragedy in Dunblane, more people die from being stabbed by a knife than from being shot by a gun. Of the 677 people murdered in this country that same year, 236 were stabbed. In London, 41 per cent. of all murders involved knives or other sharp instruments. In short, the knife is more lethal than the gun, and we have no choice but to tackle the knife culture with great urgency.
Such offences are taking place all over the country. The decent suburban areas and the peaceful rural countryside are not immune to the violence. In my constituency. a pleasant, green and seemingly tranquil part of the world, 54 people were arrested for possessing offensive weapons in just six months of last year. We have had our share of stabbing incidents. Youngsters as young as 10, 11 and 12 years old have been caught with knives.
A regular survey of the press will come up with its own catalogue of tragedy. Barely a week passes without one hearing of a terrible death. I look back, for instance, to February, when a 14-year-old boy was stabbed in the chest while playing with school friends. Last year, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Barbara Mills, reeled in horror when her husband, John, was stabbed just yards 713 from their front door. Just two months ago, a gang fight in west London resulted in death, and in March an amnesty produced 37,000 knives. I imagine—sadly—that that is only a tiny percentage of those still at large. And so the awful tragedy goes on. The nation may be horrified, but with determination, we should be able to prevent our country from sliding into the violent chaos that dominates major US cities such as New York, Washington and Chicago.
The Bill tackles the problem from the bottom. A week ago, the Evening Standard published a despairing article which accused Scotland Yard of being
soft over war on knife culture".The article suggested that the police were weak in view of the fact that although 60,000 people had been cautioned or prosecuted for having offensive weapons between 1990 and 1994, a mere 1.7 per cent. had been gaoled. The paper was right in one respect, because the law needed to be tightened up, but it was wrong to suggest that nothing was being done.In many cases, the police were powerless to do more. The Bill will greatly help the police to make an arrest on the spot when they find a person carrying a knife without good reason. Until now, the policeman was powerless. He was empowered only to issue a caution, a warning or a summons, which could sometimes take weeks to go through the system.
In future, the thugs will have a shock when they are caught. Their swaggering arrogance will disappear when they are frog-marched down to the police station. Furthermore, on conviction, they will no longer get away with a ticking off. They will face stiff fines and, according to the circumstances, they may face gaol sentences of up to four years. There will be no hiding place for these mobsters.
Tragically, school premises have been the scene of far too many knife incidents. Until now, schools were a sanctuary, like a church, which the police could not enter to search and arrest. We have therefore taken a significant step in Committee by including in the Bill a provision permitting the police to go into schools to search and arrest. They were not able to do that before because the sanctuary aspect of schools prohibited them when they wanted to go inside. It meant that children felt that they could get away with it.
It is significant that the important step of allowing the police into schools has been welcomed by 14 different teachers' unions and associations. Regrettably, the chief education officer in my Liberal Democrat-controlled authority admitted to my researcher that he could not see any advantage in allowing the police to go into schools and that he was against the suggestion. He speaks for himself and for the Liberal Democrat attitude towards being tough on crime. The Liberal Democrats are certainly out of step.
We shall not rest there. Not only do we want the police to have permission to go into schools, but we want to forbid the sale of knives to under 16-year-olds. We have therefore taken a major step by including in the Bill a provision whereby retailers will not be able to sell knives to teenagers under 16. The truth is that these teenagers feel that buying a knife is smart. It is not; it is cheap and cowardly. The retailer is now protected by the fact that he cannot sell knives to under-16s. If he does and is caught, he will face a fine of up to £5,000.
714 I trust that the Bill will be the breakthrough that we crave. Society has had enough of this thuggery. There may be many causes. I believe that the breakdown of the family structure has a great deal to do with the problem. Parents who love and control their children, bringing them up in a stable and disciplined environment, are far less likely to find that they have offspring who turn into street thugs. However, this is not the time to apportion blame; it is time to recognise the difficulties that we face and to take firm action.
I am grateful for the support that I have had from my hon. Friend the Minister, from my colleagues and from the Opposition in bringing this important Bill through all its stages. I commend the Bill to the House. I trust that it will have a safe passage when it is piloted through the other place by my father, the Earl of Lauderdale.
§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on her Bill and on the campaign that preceded it. In each case she has done the community that she represents in Sutton and Cheam, and our nation, a great service. I hope that she will not think it a discourtesy on my part if I leave to see constituents shortly after speaking.
As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Philip Lawrence was my constituent and friend, so I have been extremely close to one of the main triggers of the Bill. I would like to say a word or two about that situation, without prejudice to the forthcoming trial of those charged with his murder.
The position would have been different, and Philip might have been with us today, if the Bill had been in place on 8 December 1995. Philip Lawrence saw a group of thugs outside his school, St. George's, behaving in a menacing way. If such a thing happens now, a headmaster will be able to call the police, who would have power to search those involved, on the suspicion that one of them was carrying a knife, and they would be able to disarm that individual. If that had been the case in December, a brave headmaster would not have had to face a group of thugs who were interfering with one of his pupils—a vulnerable 13-year-old—and then, when his intervention failed to deal with the problem, had to chase them up the road for 200 or 300 yd. Think of the courage of that. At that distance from his school, Philip Lawrence still could not resolve the situation, and he was stabbed in the heart. Somehow he got back to his school, collapsed outside it, was carried in by his colleagues and the children, and died 20 minutes later.
That has been such a tragedy for Philip's family—his dear wife Frances, his brave mother, who is nearly 90, and his four children. It has also been a tragedy for my community and for the nation. I believe that that sort of thing will be prevented in future by the Bill. For that reason alone, the Bill is right and proper.
What more can we say about the Bill's effect on schools? It is profound. For the first time, the police will have the power to enter schools and search for a weapon. My 23 years in teaching included my time as deputy headmaster at a school for 1,100 boys at King's Cross—fine boys, but it was not the easiest of areas. I was subsequently deputy headmaster of a school for 2,200 children from 11 to 19 the Bellingham estate in 715 Lewisham, and I ran that school for periods of time. So I know that in running a school one often has to face physical challenges. As you know from your own professional days, Madam Deputy Speaker, in schools there are children who will go to Oxford or Cambridge, and there are those who may become criminals if we do not succeed in doing what every school seeks to do and handling them in the best possible way. From time to time I have had to disarm boys with knives and other aggressive weapons—boulders, great pieces of wood, and so on—just as other teachers, head teachers and deputy heads have had to do over the years.
Once the Bill is enacted teachers will not have to do that any more. If there is a suspicion that a pupil has a lethal weapon such as a knife, and if the head and deputy head feel that they cannot handle that difficult situation, they will be able to call in the police to deal with it. That is a sad development, because in one's professional days one liked to feel that one was king of one's classroom and of one's school—as, indeed, one was, and as head teachers, deputies and teachers still are, but they now need the assistance of the facility that the Bill provides to help them handle the serious and growing difficulties which, as we know, have led to the murder of a great headmaster.
I have nothing but praise for what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has sought to do, for the way in which she has gone about it and for her achievements in getting the Bill to Third Reading today. I congratulate her.
§ Mr. David NicholsonI congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on her work in promoting the Bill and on responding to the horrific statistics and cases that she cited in her speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) described in detail the tragic murder of his constituent, and we shall all remember that case for a long time.
I wish to take the House back some 20 years when, perhaps rather rashly, I intervened in an incident in the west end of London. A person was lying on the ground being kicked by a group of four or five thugs and, in coming to his assistance, I was thrown to the ground and sustained a kick under the ribs. The police arrived rapidly, so I and the victim of the assault did not suffer worse damage. I fear that such incidents have become more common in recent years, and I wonder what would have happened to us if the assailants had been armed with knives.
Shortly before that episode, I had moved into a new flat and one evening I disturbed a burglar—a new residence is often burgled at the time of handover. The burglar did not steal anything from my flat, but when I discussed the incident with the owner of the flat downstairs he told me that the burglar had stolen some money from him. I said, "I'm very sorry—I wish that I had tried to apprehend him, but it all happened so suddenly." My neighbour replied, "It's a good thing you didn't do that because he also stole the bread knife." That brings home to us the danger faced by the police—to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam referred—and others going about their business who try to prevent street crime if they tangle with someone who is carrying a knife.
716 I hope that the Bill will proceed successfully through Parliament. My hon. Friend referred to the powers that the legislation will afford the police to arrest a person for carrying a knife without good reason. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred to the powers to search schools on the suspicion that students are carrying knives. We were appalled by the comments of the director of education in the borough of Sutton. I hope that there will be no resistance to the new extremely important powers that the Bill confers on the police to enter schools. They are a way of commemorating Philip Lawrence.
It may be quite easy for students in school who are carrying knives to arouse suspicion. Other students get to know about it, and therefore the staff will become aware that knives are present at the school and that they should call in the police. However, I am concerned about those armed with knives who seek to commit burglaries or street crimes or who simply meet up at the pub and are involved in an affray.
We have heard about the traditions of the Scots and the Sikhs, but people in this country do not carry knives like the characters in Romeo and Juliet—stuck through their belts so that everyone can see them. Most people conceal such weapons. I tried to address earlier—it appears that I was not successful—the problem of how one arouses suspicion and how the police will deal with this matter. Perhaps the police should have more flexible powers to stop and search people so that those who carry knives will run the risk of detection and prosecution.
I welcome the Bill and the powers that it confers, but is it enough? Perhaps in a year or two shall look back and say, "That was the major turning point for the knife culture"—not only because of the penalties, which are the Bill's biggest innovation, but because of the ability of the police to apprehend those who conceal knives on their person. Leaving that concern with my hon. Friends the Member for Sutton and Cheam and the Minister, I welcome the Bill and wish it success.
§ Sir Michael ShersbyI join colleagues in all parts of the House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam on her achievement in bringing her Bill to its Third Reading and taking a signal step in the progress that Parliament is making towards dealing with the difficult problem of the knife culture. The Bill is important to my constituents as to those of every other Member of Parliament, and I am sure that it will be welcomed by many head teachers and others responsible for the safety of children in school.
My one regret is that the Bill does not deal with a major obstacle in detecting whether a person is in possession of an offensive weapon—the inability of a police constable to stop and search a person unless the officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find a stolen or prohibited weapon. The introduction of the concept of reasonable grounds is the responsibility of the House, following the Brixton riots in the early 1980s and with the subsequent passage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1994. That concept was backed by a code of practice for the exercise by police officers of statutory powers of stop and search, which set out the circumstances in which an officer can stop and search a person with reasonable grounds for suspicion.
The manuals used to educate and train probationer constables advise that the level of suspicion required to establish reasonable grounds in exercising the power to 717 stop and search is no less than the level required before an officer arrests a person without warrant for an offence that carries such a power of arrest. The existing legislation and its associated guidance are too restrictive in providing police officers with the flexibility to use their powers of stop and search as a preventive measure, which I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam is of utmost importance.
It is important that the House should recognise that police officers cannot use their substantial experience, knowledge, intuition and training in dealing with potential problems in a proactive way. We all admire the intuition, training, hunches and skill that police officers bring to their work in protecting the citizen, but they are restricted by the provision that I mentioned.
The current restrictive legislation and guidance can be effectively highlighted by an example that is relevant to the Bill, relating to the carrying of knives in or within the vicinity of a school. A police officer might come across a group of youths outside a school, knowing that they do not attend it. He suspects that there could be trouble if the youths remain in the vicinity of the school grounds. He could also be aware that trouble has occurred outside the school before and that knives have been brandished. Nevertheless, unless the police officer has a description that fits the youths concerned, it is unlikely that he would be considered to have reasonable grounds to justify a search. Unfortunately, as the present legislation and guidance is framed, the officer can take little or no positive or preventive action to stop and search the youths.
Since the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, police officers have been forced to be extremely cautious in their use of stop-and-search powers, which has had a detrimental and negative effect on preventive policing. That does not have to be the case. The legislation and guidance should be framed in such a way that officers are given greater flexibility to execute stop-and-search powers to prevent crime while still being responsible for their actions.
§ Mr. David NicholsonMy hon. Friend is enunciating the concerns that I was trying to address, and we have had conversations on the subject. Does he agree that the law is different in Scotland and that because the law is more flexible there it has had a significant effect in reducing the knife culture?
§ Sir Michael ShersbyI agree entirely. The Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993 is an excellent example of my hon. Friend's point. That legislation relies on an officer having reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has a prohibited article, and in Scotland the meaning of that phrase is not constrained by the guidance contained in the codes of practice introduced by order in England and Wales alone under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. On its implementation, the Scottish legislation had an immediate and positive effect on crime levels, especially in the Strathclyde area, which was undoubtedly due to police officers' ability to use the power given to them. That power is necessary in England and Wales. In terms of destroying the rapidly expanding knife culture in England and Wales, it is a pity that the Bill will not amend the current legislation and allow officers the power to stop and search, in a preventive manner, in order to protect defenceless and innocent citizens and to allow all members of the public services to perform their duties safely.
718 One change since the 1984 Act was very welcome and received wide support in the House. That change was contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, section 60 of which gives limited powers to a police officer
of or above the rank of superintendentto authorise stop-and-search powers in a specific geographical area for a specific period of time. The powers can be used to search for "dangerous instruments", which are defined asinstruments which have a blade or are sharply pointed".Welcome though the Bill is, I hope that there is still time for my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and the Government to consider, before the Bill reaches the statute book, whether the time is right to take a further step to restore to our police service the powers of stop-and-search that police officers enjoy in Scotland and which they operate without any difficulty whatever. The Government should have the courage to address the problem, difficult though I realise it is. It is important for the ethnic minority community to understand the importance of restoring to the police the powers that they had before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and now have in Scotland, because that would be in everyone's interest.I have one simple message: we have to trust our police. They are highly responsible individuals whose expertise and training are the envy of the world. They should not be restricted by the outdated provisions of the 1984 Act and the codes that have been drawn up under that Act and which every constable has to learn by heart as they go through training school.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam will be kind enough to consider the points that I have made today and use her good offices to see whether, even at this late stage, we might make that change. If she were to be successful, she would have made a magnificent and substantial contribution to improving the policing of this country and to achieving the objectives of this admirable Bill.
§ 1.5 pm
§ Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)I consider it to be something of an honour to be a supporter of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) in bringing forward such an important Bill. Throughout all stages of its consideration, we have heard many cases that exemplify why the Bill is necessary. Nevertheless, it came as something of a shock last week when I read the judgment in an especially horrifying case involving some of my constituents. The case was heard at Maidstone Crown court on Thursday last week.
The case concerned four of my constituents, who went out for an evening's entertainment. They were involved in an incident in which they were all stabbed. One of them died. A 23-year-old lad called Mark Simpson, with his young brother Lee and two friends, went out for the evening. The boys were described by a detective sergeant as decent, hard-working young men.
My constituents saw a young girl being harassed by a youth outside a pub in Gillingham. In a public-spirited nature, they intervened to try to save her from harassment. As a result of the affray, all of them were stabbed and, as I said, one of them died. I shall give the House an idea of 719 the nature of the wounds that were inflicted. As for the wounds of my constituent who died, two of the blows were delivered with considerable force, enough to pierce his breastbone and strike his heart, and he had knife wounds to his stomach, ribs and lower spine. What of the three other young lads? It was reported that Lee Simpson had been knifed in his left shoulder blade. Mr. Higgins suffered three stab wounds, one of which damaged his liver. Mr. Shea suffered wounds to his shoulder, back, arm and chest.
Who delivered such grievous wounds? The accused was a certain Daniel Latham, aged 21. He was a chef in a local restaurant. Apparently, he thought it necessary to carry a knife about his person to act as a deterrent because, he said, he had been beaten up in the neighbouring town of Sittingbourne. He thought that he should carry a knife as a deterrent, to show to his mates and to anybody else that he had a knife and that he would use it. And use it he did. It left one of my constituents dead and three others badly wounded.
That incident shows so graphically what remains wrong with the criminal justice system. It shows graphically also why the House needs to pass the Bill. The young thug to whom I referred would not have been carrying a knife if the provisions set out in the Bill had been in force.
What was the sentence that befell the young thug, having been proved to have killed one of my constituents and grievously wounded three others? He received a five-year sentence. My constituents and the grieving family of the boy who died are horrified at what they deem to be a travesty of British justice. Not only did the villain receive a mere five years for having killed a man and grievously wounded three others, but he will serve a prison sentence of only 20 months, by which time he will be eligible for parole. He will serve 20 months for a life.
I strongly support my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his announcements on honest sentencing because of such cases. Five years' imprisonment in this case patently is not sufficient. When that sentence means only 20 months, I say: how we need honest sentencing.
I was completely flabbergasted at the leniency of that sentence. Mr. Justice Wright, in Maidstone Crown court, told the accused that he, the judge, had a duty to "reflect the public revulsion" over the use of knives. He went on to say:
If you and those like you had the sense to realise the stupidity of such behaviour you would not find yourself in the position you now do … It is the kind of offence I cannot treat leniently. As a result of your folly and stupidity in carrying that weapon, a man lies dead.Nevertheless, the sentence was a mere five years.Could it be that, as I suspect, some kind of plea bargaining had something to do with the sentence? The villain admitted manslaughter. I should have thought that carrying a knife and killing a person was murder, but I am not a lawyer. What irritates me and so many of my constituents is that there currently appears to be some type of grand judicial game-playing in the courts and legal system, which takes no account of the interests of justice or of public protection.
I intend to write to the Attorney-General about that case and to ask him to exercise the opportunity given to him by legislation to refer the case on the ground of undue leniency.
§ Mr. MichaelI am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly on a helpful and positive measure, which we have supported from the start. Some of the debates on the Bill have been constructive and interesting, and have had a positive effect, as did the amendment that was tabled and agreed in Committee.
I must make one serious point about the violence that is being experienced in British society. We have heard speeches today about how violence is increasing and about how tough we need to be to tackle it, and I agree with the general thrust of those remarks. In recent months, however, we have heard from the Home Secretary, time and again, that the level of crime is going down, and that there was a drop of 2 per cent. in crime last year. He has exhibited a degree of complacency that is probably shocking to the Conservative Members who have taken part in today's debate.
We have had a serious and important debate on an important Bill, and I share the worry that has been expressed on both sides of the House about the dangers of a growing knife culture. I also share the sense of urgency with which we should seek to nip that culture in the bud.
It is particularly important to realise that each attack involves a person's injury or death. Events such as Dunblane and the death of the head teacher Mr. Lawrence bring home to us our responsibilities as Members of Parliament in getting legislation right.
The statistics make some extremely important points: last year, the level of violent crime in England and Wales went up by 2 per cent., and the figure for robberies—some of which involve the type of weapons that we are talking about today—increased by 14 per cent. That is not happening only in some parts of the inner city.
The increase in total violent crime in Kent last year was 4 per cent. and robberies in Kent increased by 23 per cent. The figures for London are also very worrying. They show an increase of 2 per cent., which is quite considerable when one considers the size of the metropolis. Robberies in London increased by 17 per cent. Such increases in recorded crimes of violence are extremely worrying. It is important to understand them and not try to brush them under the carpet.
We have debated some of the ways in which the Bill could be extended. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has succeeded not only in promoting an important Bill, but in having it improved without delaying its passage through the House. That is quite an achievement and I pay tribute to her for that.
I am a little disappointed that we have not managed to go a little further. We need to target those who encourage or incite people under 16 to purchase weapons. The encouragement and incitement of youngsters to become involved in violent activities does occur. Football hooliganism, gang fights and racial violence do not just happen—they come about because impressionable people, and especially impressionable young people, are encouraged to get involved in violence and are drawn into the culture of violence. We need to tackle those issues as well as implementing the Bill's provisions.
We also need to target those who advertise weapons for sale in a way that incites or condones the possession of a weapon for violent purposes. I shall not rerun our 721 previous debate, but I hope that the Minister will reflect on what has been said today and read not only my comments, but those of my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam and for Uxbridge and others, which have drawn attention to the horrific nature of some advertisements.
There is still time for the Minister to persuade the Home Secretary that, when the Bill goes, as I hope it will, speedily and efficiently through its stages in another place, it should have added to it a provision to extend its scope, which would tackle the problem of the advertising of weapons.
We certainly give two cheers today—one for the Bill and one for extending it to make it illegal to sell weapons to young people under 16, as my hon. Friend suggested. I plead with the Minister to think again and extend the Bill's scope to tackle the small and preventable problem of mail order catalogues and advertising which can put dangerous and potentially lethal weapons into the hands of those who should not have them in their possession. That would be an important addition, which would protect the public, and I am sure that it would win the third cheer from both sides of the House.
§ Mr. KirkhopeI must express the Government's gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam for agreeing to take forward this very important Bill. I know that that gratitude is shared by the whole House. My hon. Friend has also been very much involved in considering the proposals that were added to the Bill in Committee.
It is fair to say that there is a high degree of acceptance by hon. Members on both sides of the House not only of the notion that the evil of knife carrying and other knife-related crime should be stamped on, but of the type of measures that we should be looking at to achieve that. The Government have long recognised the need to empower the police to deal with such problems.
The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 made it an offence to carry an offensive weapon in public without good reason or lawful authority. A knife is not an offensive weapon in itself, as it can have all manner of legitimate uses. It can, however, be regarded as an offensive weapon when the prosecution can prove that the carrier intended to cause injury with it. The police were experiencing difficulties in proving intent in many cases, even though common sense dictated that knife carriers were not carrying knives for use as, say, legitimate kitchen implements.
Because of that difficulty, we introduced in section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 an offence of carrying a knife without good reason or lawful authority. In addition, we introduced in section 141 of that Act the power to prohibit the manufacture, sale and importation of specified weapons. An order made under that section specifies 14 articles, including swordsticks and knuckledusters. That is in addition to flick knives and gravity knives, which are already prohibited under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
The provisions in the Bill build largely on the foundations already provided in other legislation. The proposed ban on the sale of knives to people under 16 is a new and radical measure, and one that is entirely justified. Common sense cries out that people in that age group should not be able, for the most part, to buy knives.
722 Let me explain about exclusions. In drawing up clause 6—which the Government introduced as an amendment in Committee—we gave careful consideration to the definition of precisely what we wished to cover in the ban on the sale of knives to people under 16. We need a workable provision and, if we introduced a long list of exceptions, I fear that that would not be achievable. We none the less recognise that certain articles covered by the definition proposed in new section 141A(2) should be excluded, and can be without undue threat to the clarity of the measure.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary proposes to exclude two articles in that way. The first is the folding pocket knife with a blade no longer than 3 in. The reasons are simple. First, buying a penknife has been a natural experience for many a child, on holiday, in souvenir shops, before going camping with the boy scouts or girl guides or for fishing. There is an argument that, if a child wants such a penknife, it should be bought for him by a parent. I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of maintaining the freedom of children to buy penknives, but I think it important to make that concession. Another reason is that penknives are not a significant part of the knife culture that many police officers are now witnessing.
I said that two articles were covered by the ban. Let me explain what is meant by a knife blade. It is simple, although unpleasant, to explain. Most of us are familiar with craft knives of the Stanley knife variety, which are extremely useful for a variety of tasks but also much favoured by young knife carriers for their slashing qualities. The blades of such knives can be easily detached and replacement blades purchased. Those blades are not covered by the definition "any knife". By themselves they are not very bulky, and they are therefore sometimes carried by young thugs who wish to evade searches on entering, for example, football grounds. Even without the handle, the blades can inflict great injury, and it would be a mistake not to include them in the ban.
Clause 6(2)(a) refers to "any … razor blade". What most of us understand by a razor blade is a blade used in an old-fashioned safety razor. That needs to be included in the ban for reasons similar to those that I have just given in relation to replacement blades for craft knives. Razor blades are not, however, covered by the definition "knife blade", and therefore need to be specified separately. That creates a difficulty—which brings me to the second of the two articles to which I have referred.
In Committee, I said that disposable razor blades should be excluded from the ban. By "disposable razor blades", I mean the plastic cartridges with two short blades protruding. Not much damage can be done with those, beyond the superficial injuries that may be self-inflicted by the inexperienced shaver. It is perfectly right that someone under 16 who has begun shaving should be able to purchase his own disposable razor blades.
The Bill has enormous support throughout the House. It has been presented and prepared admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. The support of the House has continued throughout the Bill's stages. I am disappointed only by the fact that, a few moments ago, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth accused my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary of being complacent. Whatever the political grounds on which the hon. Gentleman might wish to criticise my right hon. and learned Friend, to describe him and his vigorous attacks on 723 crime as complacent strikes me as inappropriate and very much against the general tenor of our consideration of the Bill.
§ Mr. Michaelrose—
§ Mr. KirkhopeNo, I will not give way. I have made my point, as the hon. Gentleman made his.
I noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks carefully. As I said, in certain respects the Government will continue to look carefully not only at his remarks, but at elements affecting the general area of the advertising and sale of knives.
I shall finish as I started. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam on her wonderful achievement. This important legislation will do an enormous amount of good.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.