HL Deb 14 November 1988 vol 501 cc855-60

4 p.m.

The Earl of Dundee rose to move, that the draft order laid before the House on 10th October be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Earl said: My Lords, we are debating today an order which, with the approval of the House, will make it an offence to manufacture, sell, import, hire, give or lend the various weapons specified in the order. Lest there is any misunderstanding, let me say from the outset that the order is not concerned directly with the possession or misuse of weapons: anyone misusing a weapon or brandishing one around in a public place is already subject to the provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. This order is designed instead to cut off at source the supply of certain weapons.

The present state of the law in this area is that the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 outlaws the sale and manufacture of flick knives and gravity knives only. This order, pursuant to Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, will outlaw 14 other weapons. I need hardly say that in the wrong hands almost any item is capable of being used as an offensive weapon—a pair of scissors, a bottle, a bicycle chain and all manner of other everyday items—and we clearly cannot legislate against all possibilities. That is not, however, the purpose of this order. It is instead a measured response aimed at removing from circulation a range of weapons which, unlike the examples I have suggested, have no legitimate use.

The weapons which we propose to outlaw range from the knuckleduster, which most of us would no doubt at least be able to recognise, to some less familiar martial arts items such as the footclaw and the kusari gama—fearsome items one and all.

There are no comprehensive national statistics to show the extent of the misuse of the type of weapons we are seeking to prohibit. Indeed, information provided by police forces across the country indicates that, whereas weapons of a more offensive type do feature in crime, the number of cases is relatively small. But that is hardly the point. Does there have to be a wave of violence before action to outlaw them is justified? Of course not. The order is therefore founded less on direct evidence of misuse than on the conviction that the items involved are quite beyond the pale. Apart from the potential danger—the risk to life and limb—posed by death stars, knuckledusters and the like, weapons of that kind increase the level of fear in our society and add to the climate of violence. It is clearly right therefore that the sale and manufacture of such objectionable merchandise should be banned.

I should say that we did not prepare the order without consulting other interested parties. We have been in touch with, for example, other government departments (Customs and Excise, the Department of Trade and Industry), trade organisations, private companies, sports bodies and others. The exercise was genuinely consultative and we made a number of changes to our proposals in the light of responses which we received. By August we had prepared a preliminary order, and that too was circulated to consultees for further comment. Inevitably some differing views were expressed as to the legitimacy of certain weapons and types of weapon which we were proposing to outlaw. That is precisely why the consultation process was so important. There was no disagreement, however, about the primary purpose of the order, and we have now secured a broad measure of support from those we have consulted over which weapons should be prohibited.

I do not need, I am sure, to take your Lordships through the catalogue of 14 weapons in detail. Their distinguishing feature is that they have no legitimate use. Articles such as handclaws, death stars or free-swinging butterfly knives are a menace to society: likewise knuckledusters, blowguns, footclaws and the various unfamiliar sounding martial arts weapons—the kusari gama, the manrikigusari. There is every reason for government to take this kind of hardware out of circulation.

Of course there is a balance to be struck, even where potentially dangerous weapons are concerned. There are one or two items on the list, such as swordsticks, which although having no proper use on the streets or elsewhere may in some cases be of considerable historical and cultural interest. That is why the order specifically excludes articles manufactured more than 100 years before the date of an alleged offence. It is not our intention that the trade in genuine antiques should be prevented. I might add, incidentally, that similar considerations lay behind the exemption incorporated in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for transactions on behalf of museums and similar institutions. Museums will remain free to acquire (and lend to each other) items of educational and other recognised interest.

Care has also been required in drawing up the definitions of individual weapons in order as far as possible to exclude versions which may have acceptable uses. That is why, for instance, the description of butterfly knives, drawn up in consultation with a knife manufacturer, includes a reference to the operation of springs. The more inherently offensive free-swinging models really belong to the family of flick knives and gravity knives whose sale has been banned since 1959. On the other hand, slow-opening, spring-operated versions have more in common with ordinary pocketknives and are used, perfectly properly, by fishermen for example. We concluded therefore that the latter version should not be prohibited.

Our consultations were also helpful in enabling us to identify two weapons we originally had it in mind to specify but which it became clear had genuinely legitimate functions. We learnt in particular that all types of catapults, including some of the most powerful models, were used by large numbers of perfectly law-abiding anglers for casting bait. We are aware that some catapults are capable of causing serious damage or injury, but we found that there was no practicable way of distinguishing between the different types (including those so easily made by children at home) without curtailing the freedom of anglers to pursue their chosen sport. For the moment we have therefore judged that catapults should not be included in the order.

In considering the range of martial arts weapons, we learnt that the weapon known as a rice flail (or nunchaku) has a legitimate use as a training aid in certain recognised classical martial arts disciplines, and that it is regularly used by thousands of reputable enthusiasts. On balance, we concluded that their supply should not be prohibited.

During our consultations we received a number of representations regarding the sale of knives. The difficulty is that it is not possible to outlaw the sale of every artefact which is capable of inflicting serious injury and death. The "Rambo" type knife, if I may put it that way, is a fierce weapon, but in the wrong hands, so is a perfectly commonplace breadknife, do-it-yourself knife, carving knife or pruning knife, none of which we would ordinarily regard as weapons. Any one of those knives can do as much damage as the next. And it simply would be impossible to distinguish in law between differing kinds of knife. That is why we have instead taken separate powers under Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 strengthening the law on possession of knives and similar weapons in public. Under the Act it is now an offence to have a bladed or sharply pointed article (other than a small folding pocketknife) in a public place without good reason, with the onus on the knife-carrier to show that he has good reason.

I believe that in most respects this order speaks for itself. I am sure that none of your Lordships is opposed to the prohibition of any of those weapons. Indeed, some of you may say that it does not go far enough. For the reasons I have outlined, however, we feel that we have got the balance about right. It is always possible that less scrupulous traders might attempt to circumvent the order by, for example, making small design variations or that other versions of weaponry will come onto the market. That is precisely why the Government took enabling powers in the Criminal Justice Act: a further order under Section 141 will be brought before Parliament to outlaw other weapons should circumstances so. dictate.

I believe that the order we are debating represents a firm but measured response to the threat posed to the general community by the general availability of offensive weapons. It strikes a balance between removing the supply of cheap, nasty items, which we would all wish to see banned, while at the same time allowing the trade in weapons of genuine historical interest to continue. Equally, while the order is intended to take out of circulation weapons which have no true sporting use, it has also been designed to avoid prohibiting equipment used by bona fide sportsmen.

I believe that the order has an important part to play in both protecting us all from the threat of violence and reducing the overall level of fear and concern caused by the unrestricted circulation of offensive weapons. I commend the order to the House, and I beg to move.

Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 10th October be approved (35th Report from the Joint Committee).—(The Earl of Dundee.)

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Earl for the clear way in which he explained the purposes of the order that is now before us. He also deserves congratulation for the way in which he pronounced the names of certain weapons which I am sure were unknown at least to the more civilised of your Lordships.

It would be difficult for anyone who has studied with deep grief the growth of street crime in this country in recent years to oppose an order of this kind. We on these Benches most certainly do not oppose it.

I should like to put forward a couple of obversations for consideration by the noble Earl. First, I noticed his remark that some people complain that the order does not go far enough. I think that he was referring merely to the numbers of weapons which are covered by this order. If I may say so, that may be true, but it is rather more serious that the order does not go far enough in regard to young people—I refer to those under the age of 16 years—the number of whom, among those who commit violent crime, is worrying to all of us.

It seems odd, for example, that there should be restrictions on the supply of fireworks and solvents to young people under the age of 16 yet there is no prohibition on the supply of knives and similar weapons. I hope that when the noble Earl discusses this debate in your Lordships' House with his right honourable friend, he will mention this matter to him in the hope that something can be done about it. It will be necessary to keep a very strict eye on the review of these weapons. One does not know what type of person manufactures and supplies them. One can only guess, and build up a not very comely or homely figure. I mention that point because one cannot put it past those manufacturers or suppliers so to alter the weapons that are prohibited by this order as to bring them just outside it and make them a permitted sale. This matter has to be kept well under review and I hope that the Government will do that.

Having made those observations, these Benches have no hesitation whatever in supporting the order.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, subject to the points made by the noble Lord, we on these Benches agree with this proposal and have no anxieties about the order.

Lord Kinnaird

My Lords, I heard the noble Earl say something about a swordstick. I happen to have inherited a very nice swordstick which I often use as a walking stick, particularly when I go out in the evening. Is the noble Earl saying that this is out of order?

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and interested to hear about his swordstick. I do not know whether he was present when I began to speak on this subject and he may not have managed to hear the reference to swordsticks that I made in the course of it. I can reassure him that unless his swordstick happens to be a relatively modern one, he will not be required to hand it in. Indeed, if it was produced earlier than 1888 he is quite safe.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I should make it absolutely clear to the noble Lord opposite that none of us consider him to be a hundred years old!

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the welcome that he has given to this order. He referred to an apparent inconsistency in regard to people under 16, in that we prohibit fireworks but there is not the same prohibition on knives. I shall certainly draw the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.

Strictly speaking, this is outside the scope of a statutory instrument debate. However the question of prohibiting the sale of knives and other offensive weapons to people under a certain age was examined prior to the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act. Where weapons have no legitimate use there is no reason why they should be available to anyone, of whatever age. The powers in the Criminal Justice Act therefore enable the Secretary of State to prohibit altogether the sale of such items. There are also serious problems of definition. In statutory language a Rambo knife is exactly the same as a bread knife. However, as your Lordships are aware we have strengthened the law on the possession of knives under Section 139 and the onus is now on the knife user to show that his possession of the knife is a legitimate one.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for his welcome to this measure.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down can he give us any indication as to who manufactures these items? They are inherently vicious and intended to be used for purposes other than proper and lawful ones. Who are the characters who manufacture these things? I do not know whether it is fair to throw that question across the Table at this time but I should be grateful for any light that can be thrown upon that question. It is rather a sinister scene.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, in the course of his remarks the noble and learned Lord's colleague, Lord Mishcon, made a comment to the effect that he rather hoped that many of your Lordships would be unacquainted with some of these rather horrible-sounding weapons. Equally I must say to the noble and learned Lord that I cannot give him all the information that he seeks. However, having said that, I can tell him that the weapons are mainly imported from Taiwan.

On Question, Motion agreed to.