HL Deb 28 April 1953 vol 182 cc5-17

2.43 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lloyd.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1 [Prohibition of the carrying of offensive weapons without lawful authority or reasonable excuse]:

LORD SALTOUN moved, after subsection (1) to insert as a new subsection: (2) For the purposes of this Act, any person suffering from bodily weakness or infirmity, whether caused by old age or otherwise, who carries a weapon for self-defence shall be deemed to have a reasonable excuse.

The noble Lord said: On the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill your Lordships decided very heavily against my Amendment not to proceed further with the Bill. I am not in the least discontented with that decision, but I am still anxious about this question of self-defence, and for that reason I have put down this Amendment. I want the Committee to consider for one moment the present situation with regard to the population. The National Health Service is limping because, amongst other things, it is impossible to get sufficient nurses to serve the hospital beds that have to be provided. In addition, it is impossible to get sufficient voluntary workers to carry out visits and so discover the cases that need attention. Some places, I believe, have no such voluntary workers at all. The mining industry is not pulling its full weight because there are not enough miners, and in just the same way there are not sufficient police for the tasks which they have to perform.

The Committee may think that improved conditions will increase the numbers of the police, but I am confident that that is not so. I am told that one great obstacle, amongst others, to an increase in the numbers of the police is that there are not sufficient people in the population of the required standard of physical fitness and character to fill the vacancies, For that reason, as well as because of the competition of other and more attractive occupations, it is very doubtful whether we shall ever have a police force sufficiently large to discharge the duties put upon them. In fact, one of the reasons sometimes given by the police for opposing bail is that that would require the services of more police to watch the culprits. On these grounds alone it is hopeless to expect the police to prevent all crimes of violence, and people must be prepared to protect themselves to some extent, or else to submit to violence. I repeat what I said before, that unless there is a fundamental willingness amongst the people to defend themselves, then the largest police force in the world will never be able to help them. I should like to put this point: That if every citizen is a constable in the defence of other people—and that is agreed on all sides—then he must of necessity be a constable in defence of himself. There is no reason why that should not be so. Everybody is liable to National Service and I think everybody is liable to help to preserver the Queen's peace.

On Second Reading I gave examples of cases of women in Glasgow who have defended themselves, but I can think of examples from all over Britain, and a. great many from London itself. Last; week, over seventy cases of assaults of various kinds were reported in the Press, and in reading through them one finds that one of the most noticeable features was the difficulty of getting evidence. In some cases the only evidence was that the woman who had been attacked had marked her assailant. If this is no longer allowed, there will be a very much larger number of cases in which, through lack of evidence, no charge is made. Alternatively, are people to go about armed to the teeth? They do not go about armed to the teeth to-day. There are many people who have to go out on duty at nights, and they take with them something with which they hope to defend themselves. A great many women have to go out at night—such as the girls in our hospitals, and in places like the Star and Garter. They come home late at night and sometimes they are attacked. They have a perfect right to defend themselves. If this Amendment fails, unless a girl is fortunate enough to be walking out with a policeman who is entitled to defend her, she is left in a very poor position.

In the Glasgow case, the schoolteachers defended themselves from attack by ruffians at night by arming themselves with water-pistols charged with ammonia. I think I owe an apology to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. In his reply on Second Reading I heard him talk only about pistols, and I did not hear the words that followed, "pistols which may discharge obnoxious fluids." It was entirely out of my mind that a water-pistol would be called a "pistol." and having misheard the noble and learned Lord I tried to correct what was my own error—an error due to my deafness. But when I read the next morning what the noble and learned Lord had said, I had a great shock, because what he said made it clear that he did condemn these Glasgow women who protected themselves from assault with these water-pistols charged with ammonia. I know that there is a Statute forbidding it—I think it is a very silly law. But, if I may say so, it is not surprising that Parliament, which passes between 100 and 200 General Statutes in a year, sometimes makes silly laws. I think this one which we are discussing to-day is another.

I want to ask the Government seriously—if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will answer me I shall be grateful—what is the answer in the case of women who are attacked? What are they to do? The Government say that they may not defend themselves; they may not carry anything with which they can defend themselves. Are they to sit in the Y.W.C.A. singing that they are "afraid to go home in the dark"? Or are they to submit? What is the answer? I have already shown, on Second Reading, that in many cases it is impossible for the police to defend these women, because when a constable is present no attack takes place. Attacks take place only when the coast is clear. These ruffians often have "signalmen" out to give them the word when conditions are favourable. My position is quite clear. I maintain that no Government have the right to deprive any respectable citizen of what is necessary to defend his person and the persons of his family. If the Government take a different view, I think I am entitled to be told what are the answers to the questions which I have put. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Saltoun.)

EARL JOWITT

If I may just intervene for a moment, I should like to do so, though I certainly do not want to hold up the answers to the searching questions which the noble Lord opposite has put. On the Second Reading of this Bill I indicated that there were certain respects in which I thought it might be improved. Since then I have ascertained these facts. The present Home Secretary, who is a very experienced person, thinks it right to introduce the Bill in the form in which it is now before us. His predecessor, the gentleman who was Home Secretary in the Labour Government, agrees with him that this is the right form in which the Bill should be introduced. That being so, since both these eminent authorities agree on that matter, it is clearly not for me, or anyone else, to rush in where such angels fear to tread. Therefore I do not propose to move any Amendments.

On this Amendment perhaps I may just say this: that it seems to me that anything drafted in a looser way it is difficult to conceive. What, for example, is the definition of someone suffering from bodily weakness or infirmity, whether caused by old age or otherwise"? It seems to me that a great many people suffer from bodily weakness. All of us do, more or less—except perhaps that gentleman who is whistling outside at the moment. The term "bodily weakness" is a purely relative term. I do not see how anyone could say what people come into the category and what people do not. Therefore I should be opposed to the Amendment.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD)

I did not quite clearly understand all that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, said, because a large part of his speech, if I may say so with respect, did not seem to be directed to this particular Amendment. I will try to satisfy him, so far as I can, why I think the Bill in its present form is preferable to the Bill as it would be if it were amended by his Amendment. The object of his Amendment, as I understand it, is to remove a certain class of people from the purview of the Bill altogether. As the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has said, it is a very loosely worded Amendment, and in fact there would be great difficulties of definition if it were accepted. There would be difficulties of definition with regard to the words any person suffering from bodily weakness or infirmity, whether caused by old age or otherwise. I presume the noble Lord would say that that is something for the court to decide. I have a certain sympathy for the purpose which underlies the noble Lord's Amendment. He wishes to try to defend the weak and infirm. That is something we should all wish to do, and of which we should all approve; but I suggest that his Amendment has a number of drawbacks which make it impossible for the Government to accept it.

Here, I think, I had better reiterate the principle upon which this Bill is founded. I must make it clear that the Government do not wish to lend themselves to the support of the proposition that it is right for the ordinary citizen to arm himself in self-defence. Our view is that the preservation of the Queen's peace is the function of the police. Nothing should be done explicitly by Statute to condone action which implied inability of the forces of law and order to maintain it and which encouraged persons to carry offensive weapons. Therefore, in accordance with that principle, the purpose of the Bill, is to discourage—I purposely use the word "discourage"—all citizens from carrying offensive weapons. I emphasize the word "discourage," because I use it advisedly. If the noble Lord will look at the Bill he will see that there is no absolute prohibition. There is always the safeguard of the words "reasonable excuse" for the law-abiding citizen. He asked me what the lady who has just come back from the "Star and Garter" should do—

LORD SALTOUN

I did not say the lady was coming back from the "Star and Garter": I was referring to the ladies who go up Nightingale Lane to the Star and Garter Home, where they work with disabled men.

LORD LLOYD

I am afraid that I did not quite follow the lady's movements, and I am not clear whether she was going to or coming from the Star and Garter. In any case I am sure that she is on an errand of which we should all approve, and on which she will probably have no lack of escorts, should she wish to have anyone to escort her. In any case, if she has reasonable cause for thinking that she goes in danger of her life she can carry a weapon. There is no absolute prohibition in the Bill. All we say is that if she does carry an offensive weapon, and if, in the unlikely and improbable circumstances which I explained on Second Reading—and I repeat that there are a great many safeguards for the law-abiding citizen—she is arrested by the police, she only has to show that she has a reasonable excuse for carrying a weapon. We feel that that is not such a terrific burden to impose on a law-abiding citizen. If she has to show reasonable excuse, under the Bill in its present form it is left to the courts to judge, in all the circumstances laid before them, whether or not a particular individual, whatever his or her age or physical circumstances, has such a reasonable apprehension about attack on his or her person as to make it reasonable for him or her to carry a weapon of self-defence.

I suggest to the noble Lord that, in any cases brought before them, the courts, before reaching a decision, will take into account all the circumstances, including the physical circumstances, of the individual concerned and the type of weapon carried. Really, I see no reason to suppose that in cases arising under this Bill the courts will act with anything less than their usual wisdom and justice. Therefore, for all these reasons, I suggest to the noble Lord that it would be far better that we left it to the courts to decide these cases on the merits of the individual cases, rather than to create a special and rather amorphous class of people who would be exempt from the provisions of the Bill altogether. For those reasons I hope that my noble friend will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.

3.0 p.m.

LORD HADEN-GUEST

May I say a few words on the medical side of the matter, in support of the Minister, and also a word on the drafting of this Amendment? The Amendment refers to any person suffering from bodily weakness or infirmity, whether caused by old age or otherwise. That means to say, suffering from any kind of physical weakness. To put in an Act of Parliament that any person so affected may use a weapon seems to me to be dangerous, especially as the noble Lord has mentioned an ammonia pistol, which I confess I regard as a very serious weapon—and there may be others of the same class. I think this would lead to much more trouble than leaving the matter to the decision of the courts. I am convinced that we do not want to go back to the Dark Ages. Does the noble Lord suggest that a man or woman with a bad hip, who has difficulty in getting along and must go slowly, ought to be allowed to carry a weapon on account of his or her weakness?—the noble Lord nods. That means to say that a very large number of people would be entitled to carry some kind of weapon, whether it be an ammonia-shooting weapon, a tear gas-shooting weapon or any other kind of weapon. I think that would excite much more antagonism than exists at the present time.

I do not know how many incidents of this kind take place in Glasgow, but I know that in Southwark, one of the poorest districts in London, where I conducted a clinic for schoolchildren for many years and was familiar with the whole district, when it was much poorer than it is now, the number of cases of this kind was extremely small. Except perhaps in special areas (which I do not want to specify),where there may be special reasons, I think this matter can be dealt with better by special reinforcement of the police force than by giving individuals opportunity of using weapons. If we do this, we are unloosing local wars, and I think that would be an extremely bad thing. Those inclined to use weapons of aggression for robbery and other purposes would be much more likely to use them than the ordinary innocent citizen going about on his own business. On that ground alone, I think the Committee should not agree to any amendment in the sense proposed by the noble Lord.

EARL WINTERTON

As one much interested in the police force, and as one who for a short time was assistant Minister at the Home Office, I should not like one remark of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, to remain unanswered. I agree with what the noble Lord who spoke for the Government and the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, have said. All expert opinion is against the ideas behind this Amendment—not only the two Home Secretaries, the present and the previous, to whom the noble Lord referred, but also the police and other authorities. I do not want to be unduly controversial, but unfortunately the noble Lord adopted a defeatist attitude towards the police force. He suggested that the existing police force was unable to protect people, because of its paucity, and that the police force would never reach the required numbers. This is not the occasion for discussing the police force, but, as one who has taken part in another place in debates on the organisation of the police force, I would say that if certain things were done in regard to matters of housing and pay, which I hope the Government may do, then I am sure sufficient recruits would very shortly be forthcoming. It would be most unfortunate if it went out to the world, through the medium of a debate in your Lordships' House, that there was as serious an increase of violent crimes in this country as the noble Lord seems to believe there is. Certainly there has been an increase since the war, but if we look at comparable figures of other countries, we see that the increase has been far greater in other countries than it has been here. It would be most unfortunate if the idea went out that there had been an exorbitant increase, and that the police force, properly reinforced, was not able to deal with this violence. I think that in regard to law and order we still have a very fine position in this country.

LORD SALTOUN

I am not in the least repentant. Last week I got together Press reports of seventy crimes of violence (I have them in this book), and they do not include cases where a husband or wife goes for the other partner with a chopper, or something of that kind. I am not at all satisfied with the answer of my noble friend Lord Lloyd. I am not going to press this Amendment, because if the Government do not accept it, even if I carried it to a Division it would be of no avail. But I am dissatisfied with the answer. I have not been told what a woman who has to go to and from work or amusement at night should do. I have been told that the police always protect these women, but this book is evidence that the police do not, and the cases reported do not include crimes for which there is no evidence to support charges. My own advice to women who have to do that is to assume that, so long as the crimes committed amount to this total, they have a reasonable excuse for carrying anything they may think necessary to defend themselves. With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, said, I would remind him that at the time of the garrotters London had far less crime, and far fewer of certain unpleasant crimes, than it has to-day; and in those days nobody thought anything about a man who had to go home at night carrying something with which to protect himself. With these entirely unrepentant words, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, because it is no use pressing it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

LORD SALTOUN moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause: . Where any person suffers any injury through helping any one who is being assaulted, such person shall be entitled to proper compensation out of moneys provided by Parliament.

The noble Lord said: As your Lordships know, everybody in this country has the duty of assisting the police if called upon and, where no police are present, the duty of acting like a constable and arresting anybody he sees committing an assault. If he has nothing with which to help him carry out that duty, it seems to me that he is liable to be injured.

On the Second Reading of this Bill, the noble Earl who leads the Opposition told me the position was perfectly simple: that an unarmed man should go to the assistance of anybody who is being assaulted. If I were asked to do that I hope I should do so, but the first thing I should do would be to see what I had about me which would serve as a weapon to enforce my duty. I know that a great many people do not take that view. For example, there was a bad case about two years ago where a man in a public-house, who had the duty of keeping order in the bar, turned some people out. Later on at night he was called out and violently assaulted by young men with hammers. In the report of the case the magistrate expressed surprise that it was in a crowded street, with people going to and fro. That man is still paralysed, and probably always will be. If I had been in the position of that man, I should certainly have preferred to have been killed; and possibly he would, also. Anybody who had tried to act as a constable and arrest those young men might have been seriously injured. I certainly believe that if anybody carries out a duty which is laid upon him by circumstances, and by the law of the land, then that law of the land should come to his help and compensate him if he is injured. I beg to move.

Amendment moved.— After Clause 1 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Saltoun.)

LORD LLOYD

I had hoped I had made clear to my noble friend what is the object of this Bill, but I feel that it is still not clear to him. At the risk of wearying your Lordships, I should like to try and enunciate it once again. It seems to me that both this Amendment and the next Amendment in the name of my noble friend are based on a complete misconception of the purpose of the Bill. This Bill is directed at the criminal classes and is designed to limit the extent to which offensive weapons are carried for criminal purposes. I cannot agree with my noble friend that the answer to the disturbing trend indicated by figures of crimes of violence is to be found in encouraging law-abiding citizens to take up arms in their own defence. That seems to me to be a completely defeatist attitude. After all, violence tends to breed violence. Surely, we do not want to give the criminal classes an excuse for increased preparations for the use of violence to achieve their ends. That is a fundamentally wrong approach to the whole problem.

May I take as an example the international field? In the present state of the world defensive armaments are a regrettable necessity; but they are a regrettable necessity because we still have not an international police force. But that is not the state of affairs with which we are faced inside this country. My noble friend Lord Winterton has left the Chamber, but I agree with every word he has said. I am proud that we have in this country the finest police force in the world. I have not the figures with me, but I had hoped to have them in order to show my noble friend how the recruiting of the police force is improving steadily year by year, partly as a result of the recommendations of the Oaksey Committee, and for other reasons into which I will not go now. In any case, I should like to try and persuade my noble friend that this Bill still does not prohibit the carrying of an offensive weapon. What it seeks to do is to ensure that a person carrying such a weapon in a public place may be called upon to satisfy a court that he has a reasonable excuse for doing so. That is all it does. In our submission, against the background of crimes of violence to which the noble Lord referred, that is not an unreasonable invasion of personal liberty.

As to the Amendment which the noble Lord has just moved, he knows very well that it is the Common Law duty of every citizen to take what steps he can to prevent a breach of the peace, and that this duty may include the bringing of assistance to the victim of an unlawful assault of which he may be a witness. The chance that an individual, in the performance of that duty, may receive an injury, has always been present, but it would be introducing an entirely new principle to suggest that such a person should have a claim for compensation under Statute. You might just as well say that anybody who jumps into the river to save a child from drowning and gets injured in the process should be compensated under Statute; or that anybody who has a traffic accident, not having control of the traffic, should have compensation on the grounds that he has been run into by somebody and that it is the fault of the police.

Somebody who goes to help the police may have an action against the person who assaulted him. He may equally have a claim in gratitude from the person to whose assistance he goes. If the person assisted were a constable—I proffer this to my noble friend as some consolation—it would be the usual practice for the police authority to make an ex gratia contribution towards any out of pocket expenses, such as damage to clothes. But on the general principle involved, however much sympathy may be felt for the person who receives injury in such circumstances, I really cannot believe—and I ask the Committee to agree with me—that it would be right to put him in a better position as regards compensation for injuries than other persons who may incur equally grave injury in other circumstances in which they are unable to look to the State for compensation. For all those reasons, quite apart from the drafting of this Amendment, which is not really satisfactory—there is no clear definition of the term "proper compensation"—I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, and I hope that my noble friend will not press it.

LORD SALTOUN

I feel I have not wasted time in moving this Amendment. My noble friend Lord Lloyd, who represents the Government in this matter, has stated emphatically that it is not the purpose of this Bill to prevent people from carrying weapons if they think it is necessary for their defence. I hope that that will be noted.

LORD LLOYD

May I correct my noble friend? I said "if, in the opinion of the court, they have a reasonable excuse"—which is a slightly different thing.

LORD SALTOUN

I accept my noble friend's correction. That is quite enough for my purpose. The noble Lord made an interesting point in his reply when he said that this Bill labels all weapons as offensive unless it can be proved that they are not. The weapons with which the country is armed are all labelled "defensive," yet they are much more potent weapons, and cost a great deal more. It seems to me that the words "offensive" and "defensive" are just used in either case to import a motive to the man behind them. I do not think that that makes a good Bill. In the circumstances, I propose to withdraw this Amendment and not to move the next one down in my name, as I am not likely to get very far with it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.20 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 1 stand part of the Bill?

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

Any slight criticism I have of this clause in no way means that I do not support its objectives. In fact, the only fault I can find with the whole Bill is that it does not go far enough by reintroducing flogging and much sterner institutions for persons guilty of offences of violence. I feel that our long-suffering police, as well as the courts, will have a great burden thrown upon them to interpret exactly what is meant by "offensive weapon" which, according to the second half of subsection (4) of this clause, means: …any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him. I am rather afraid that what we are going to see is that the type of miscreant who habitually uses weapons which are obviously offensive—such as, on the one hand, pistols or knives and, on the other, razors or sharpened pieces of bicycle chain—will take refuge in using other more innocent material which can be utilised for improper purposes. As I have no doubt that persons who would use them are already well acquainted with the knowledge, I do not think there is any harm in observing, for example, that a tobacco pipe, so I am informed, makes an excellent knuckle duster, and that a small strip of indiarubber tube wrapped round the knuckles and properly applied can split a face from ear to chin. I am afraid we are going to see many cases of the carrying of apparently innocent weapons or potential weapons of such a description.

I agree that our police force cannot be held in any way responsible for these outrages. It has already been said, and said correctly, that we have not nearly enough police. That is something which it is hoped to remedy by measures far outside this Bill. I feel that unless some extension of this subsection can be made to cover the use not only of an article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, but also of a completely innocent object which can be so misapplied, we are going to have, on the one hand, an intolerable burden thrown on the police and the courts in interpreting what an offensive weapon may be, and, on the other, the risk that some of these so-called "cosh boys" may endeavour to continue their evil practices by using such implements.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.