HL Deb 15 April 1993 vol 544 cc1215-24

5.36 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is my first introduction of a Bill of this nature in your Lordships' House and I understand it is also the debut of my noble friend Lady Hooper in her new position. I congratulate her and hope that her tenure of office will be long. In contrast, I hope to be brief.

The Bill may have caused curiosity in your Lordships' House. It started in another place being introduced by my honourable friend the Member for Ayr, Mr. Gallie, to whom I am grateful for his wise counsel and advice. There was all-party support for the Bill and its objectives in another place, and I understand that it has all-party support in your Lordships' House. Apart from my gratitude to my honourable friend, Mr. Gallie, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, and not least my noble and learned friend who will give advice later today, the thanks of your Lordships' House are due in no small way to the honourable Member for Dumbarton, Mr. McFall. It was he who showed considerable interest in the measures contained in the Bill before us this afternoon and made a number of helpful points as well as giving his support to the measure which meets the problems that he sought to remedy in his Bill.

Many of us reading that wonderful Scottish newspaper, the Sunday Post a week or two ago—I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who will be familiar with this largest-selling newspaper in Scotland—would have been startled to see on the centre page the leader, Crimes even a worry in Kirrie". Your Lordships may be amazed by that statement; may be even my neighbour noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who alas warned me that he had a prior engagement today in the environs of Kirriemuir, my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, who is in Forfar today, and not least my noble friend Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne, who knows the town particularly well, and my noble and learned friend the Minister of State. We all know Kirriemuir to be a unique and beautiful town. The article goes on to cover various aspects of crime, taking views from various sources in the town.

While none of the sources mentioned the contents of the Bill before us today, other newspapers in Scotland have drawn attention to an increasing tendency to use knives of all kinds and adaptations in the furtherance of violent crimes. While the Bill is intended to cover the whole of Scotland, perhaps I may whet your Lordships' appetite with two statistics from the Strathclyde region. Last year, 1992, saw, unbelievably, 92 murders in Strathclyde, of which 47 were committed with a knife or other sharp object. Over two years, 1991 and 1992, serious assaults, often involving injury—quite often serious injury—doubled where knives or sharp objects covered by the Bill were used. The House will agree that we cannot deny the police or the courts any power that may be required to halt this increasing culture of knives, of carrying weapons and perhaps even of what one might call the "macho image".

The law in Scotland covering possession of knives in a public place can be found in Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. Under this section, an offence is committed by having an "offensive weapon" in a public place. The definition of an "offensive weapon" can be found in Section 1(4) and comes under three headings. I shall briefly spell them out. First, an "offensive weapon" is defined as being an article which is made for use for causing personal injury. Secondly, it is one adapted for use for causing personal injury. Thirdly, it is one which, while neither made nor adapted for such use, is intended for such use by the person possessing it at the time in the public place.

Our problem, and the one that the Bill seeks to remedy, is that the first two definitions do not cover many articles like kitchen, domestic, industrial or craft knives, or even letter openers, with which your Lordships will be familiar, as these are not designed intrinsically to cause injury. But clearly they are capable of doing just that. Mere possession in a public place is no offence. Under Section 1 there must be the intent. The onus on proving intent rests with the prosecution. Very often there is no clear intent. One fascinating case, with which no doubt my noble and learned friend will be familiar, of Farrell v. Rennicks in Scotland, among many others, presents a gap which the Bill seeks to fill.

The Bill replicates Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which covers England and Wales, in placing knives, bladed or sharply pointed articles on a similar footing to those articles made or adapted for use to cause personal injury. Perhaps I may quickly take your Lordships through the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 covers the offence of having in a public place a bladed or sharply pointed article. Subsection (1) covers the penalties for conviction either on summary conviction or on indictment. Subsection (2) covers an article that has a blade or sharp point, let alone both of those attributes.

Subsection (3) gives an exemption which will be of interest to your Lordships and which caused interest in another place. It gives exemption to a folding pocket knife which I believe all noble Lords would define as a penknife. Quite apart from the mention of a three-inch limit to the cutting edge of the blade of a penknife, the blade is not normally very sharp. Secondly, the folding nature of the blade of a penknife makes any stabbing motion extremely risky for the aggressor. Indeed, I think it was my noble and learned friend who suggested that the knife might fold back on one's fingers. Even in fishing or agriculture I tend to allow others to use these things, and so far I have kept all my fingers. In this definition and exemption I stress that any locking device—a button, stud or whatever —will turn the knife into one with a fixed blade for the purposes of the Bill. If any of those devices—button, stud or whatever—is part of the so-called penknife the knife no longer has a folding blade and no longer meets the exemptions in subsection (3).

Subsection (4) gives a defence to the accused—on whom the onus of proof is placed by the Bill—that he or she had good reason or lawful authority to have the article with him or her in the public place when challenged by the police. Subsection (5), like Section 139(5) of the 1988 Act, gives the additional defence that the person has the article for use at work, for religious reasons or as part of national dress. I am given to understand that the last exemption would cover a skean dhu, as carried by some of us in our kilts when we go in Scottish uniform, as well as a Highland dirk. I have certainly seen large dirks worn by some Highland chieftains, even though at grand balls it is quite dangerous to do folk dances or country dances while wearing one. I have also seen them worn by pipers in my regiment, the Scots Guards. They are part of the national dress and are covered by the exemption. Subsections (6) and (7) cover forfeiture of an article on conviction and the definition of what is a "public place".

Clause 2 of the Bill deals with stop, search and arrest by a constable. Subsection (1) parallels Section 4(1) of the Criminal Justice Act (Scotland) 1980 which gives constables power to stop and search for offensive weapons under the 1953 Act. Subsection (2) deals with the detainee being informed of the reason for his detention. Subsection (3) empowers a constable to arrest a person whom he has reasonable cause to believe has committed an offence. Subsections (4) and (5) deal with obstructing a constable acting under the clause and also with concealing an offensive weapon or knife. Clause 3 covers citation, commencement and territorial jurisdiction of the Bill.

That concludes my brief description of the contents of the Bill. I hope your Lordships will accept that it was necessary to spell out its provisions. If there are any points that the House would wish me to explain, I shall gladly try to elaborate. However, I am not a lawyer—I am a mere accountant and an Angus country lad—and danger lies in any noble Lord attempting to explain complex points. My deepest thanks are due to my noble and learned friends and to the Scottish Office who have sought to guide me in all aspects of the Bill.

I stressed at the beginning of my remarks the enormous importance of taking steps to curb the horrific habit of carrying knives and blades around the streets. The Bill obtained universal support in another place. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lyell.)

5.48 p.m.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on introducing this important Bill in relation to the law in Scotland. From this side of the House I should also like to join in the congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on what I may call her debut. We look forward to seeing her presiding over your Lordships' House on many occasions in the future.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

Without a knife!

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, even with or without a skean dhu, I may say.

The Bill has been warmly welcomed by all parties in another place because it closes what was an apparent gap in the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 in relation to the carrying of knives. The Bill is welcome because it does that and will help, we hope, to curb the recent increase in the incidence of horrific knife attacks in Scotland. It is to be hoped that the Bill will sound a warning to those who choose to carry knives and to use them in public places to inflict injury that they will be subjected to the full rigours of the law and that the public will look to the courts and the judges to take full advantage of the powers of fines and imprisonment contained in the Bill and to reduce violent crime in Scotland.

Perhaps I may say in passing—I trust that the noble and learned Lord the Minister will agree with me—that Scotland is not a violent place. In certain areas there has been an increase in the incidence of knife assaults and those have received the publicity which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, mentioned. But Scotland is still a place which one can visit for holidays and enjoy them in peace without being subjected to injury by knives. Those of us who have practised in the courts for a number of years are aware—the noble and learned Lords, Lord Fraser, and the Lord Advocate will know—that the damage done by knives and similar weapons is probably not appreciated by the public in general unless they are directly or indirectly involved in the incident leading to the various consequences. The consequences of the use of weapons such as knives are felt not only by the victim's family, but in many cases by the family of the assailant, particularly where a young person is involved. There are many instances where children aged 16 or 17 have used knives to inflict injury causing the death of other young people.

The charge of murder follows and one young life is lost in the physical sense; and another life is lost in the sense that the life of the person who has been guilty of using the knife, meaning to do so or not, is wrecked by the irresponsible carriage and use of a knife. Over the years we in Scotland have seen many occasions where what is known as the single stab wound has caused death when in effect the person never meant to inflict such a serious injury on the other. Where it happens in the case of a school child it becomes even more tragic.

One of the tragedies of life and probably throughout the United Kingdom, is that children see television programmes where people are seriously assaulted and indeed stabbed, but they get up and walk away and they are in the next programme the following week. That is not the reality of life. The reality of life is that whether it is a three-inch penknife or not, if it gets to the heart or lungs, the victim is not going to get up and walk away. The result is a body on a slab and a body in prison facing a life sentence not only for himself or herself, but for the families involved on both sides.

During the debate on this Bill in another place the Minister said that he hoped that the media would take note of it. As your Lordships' House must know, the media takes notice of what it cares to take notice of and not necessarily of what is important. I suggest that it is not enough for the Government to ask the media to take note of the Bill. What is required is a government-led publicity campaign about the use of knives and including an educational factor in it. As I understand it, the Government have spent millions on the AIDS publicity campaign. Knives lead to death and AIDS leads to death: why not have the same publicity conducted throughout the country for the use of weapons and their consequences? The dangers of carrying and using knives must be brought home and in particular to the young people of Scotland and the United Kingdom. What we need is a full-scale policy of publicity and education in schools even if it involves shock treatment by showing bodies on slabs and what prison is really like.

One of the most tragic sights that one can see—noble Lords on the other side of the House know this—is photographs from murder trials showing a body with a little two-inch slit in the chest. That is all that can be seen apart from the dead body. That reality should be brought home to the young people in the schools. It is of great importance. An educational process should start now so that people can realise what is going on.

I am told by the Government that this is a free-standing Bill which stands independently of the 1953 Act. If that is so, then it will be judged by its own operation. It will require to be carefully monitored. The Government in another place gave the promise that that would be the case because we are dealing with a very sensitive area of the relationship between the police and the public. I cannot remember the precise figure, but there was a massive stop and search campaign in Scotland recently. Speaking from the top of my head, I believe that about 15,000 people were stopped and of that number about two or three people had anything remotely resembling an article in the terms of this Bill or under the 1953 Act.

That means that this Bill has to be very carefully operated by the police because for every innocent person who is stopped unnecessarily by the police, antagonism is being set up towards the police. It has been said to me, "What has the innocent person to object to if a policeman stops him walking down the street and asks to search him?" That person may lose his sense of liberty. We must have some controls over the use of the powers of search.

Clause 2(3) is part of a very strange Bill. I know that this is a copycat of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which applies to England. In Clause 2(3) a person who has not been found in possession of an article in the terms of Clause 2(1), may still be arrested by the police although he or she has not committed an offence. In Clause 2(3) a person is asked to give his name and address or both. If that information is not given or the constable is not satisfied with it, or the constable has reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary to arrest him in order to prevent the commission … of any other offence in the course of committing which an article to which that section applies that person may be arrested without warrant.

That is a major intrusion into the rights of the citizen. If a person does not have an article on him in terms of Clause 2(1), what reason can the constable have for arresting the person because he believes that he might be using an article which he does not have, for committing some other offence? That is why I say that this Bill has to be very carefully monitored. Perhaps I may ask the Minister this question: if a person is stopped under the terms of Clause 2(1) and the result is negative, how does Clause 2(2) come into operation? Is that not an intrusion into the liberty of the subject?

Perhaps I may raise another point. In Clause 2(1) a person may be "detained"—that is the word which is used—without warrant for such time as is reasonably required to permit the search to be carried out. There is some vague time-scale there. However, in Clause 2(3) a person who is arrested for something he has not done and which is not an offence, has no time limit prescribed at all. Does that mean that a policeman can arrest somebody who has done nothing and just lock him up because the constable believes that that person may he going to do something somewhere else involving the use of an article under the terms of the Bill? I shall be interested to know the views of the law officers on that point.

There is one other matter. Clause 2(3) is derived from Section 1(3) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. I do not know whether it was spotted by the persons who drafted the Bill, but for England and Wales that section was repealed by Schedule 7 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. What has resulted from that is the code of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act which lays down very stringent controls over the police on the question of stop and search. It is a very sensitive area of public life. We all want to stop crime and we understand the difficulties under which the police are operating on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights in discos, pubs and clubs, but there has to be some monitoring and control. Controls are built into the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in England and Wales.

I shall not take up your Lordships' time with a great deal of detail because the legislation is there for anyone to read. For example, a constable is required to prove by documentary evidence that he is a constable if he is not in uniform. He must disclose his name and station; the object of the proposed search and the grounds for proposing to make it. The person searched can only be required to remove an outer coat, jacket and gloves. The constable must also make a written record of the search including many prescribed details. The chief constable's annual report has to provide information about the number of searches and the total number of persons arrested in consequence of the searches.

The code also deals with what constitutes a reasonable ground for searching someone. A reasonable ground is not the question of someone's colour or whether the policeman has previous information about the person's antecedents and criminal life. There must be a real reason for stopping people in the street. If that is not closely monitored, there will be trouble.

I am not suggesting for one moment that Scottish law should be brought entirely into line with the law for England and Wales because in Scotland we have a reputation for being pragmatic about life. In many ways, it is unrealistic to place too many constrictions on the operation of the police. However, perhaps I may ask the Government whether they would consider (either on a Scottish basis or on a United Kingdom basis) setting up a commission or committee to review the whole operation of stop-and-search procedures based on the operation of the code of practice, the 1984 Act, and what happens on the streets of Scotland and the United Kingdom.

Having said that, perhaps I may say from this side of the House that, although I am not entirely happy with the Bill's terminology, it has (as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, made clear) received all-party support. It will, however, be carefully monitored by all of us to see what happens. Although there may be some probing amendments in Committee, I make the promise that they will not be wrecking amendments. As was made clear in another place, the Bill will go through.

In conclusion, the maintenance and enforcement of law and order are not the property of any particular political party. The maintenance of law and order is the keystone of the civilised society in which we all have a vested and very personal interest. It is for that reason that this side of the House supports the Bill.

6.1 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)

My Lords, perhaps I may join others in extending my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, as she takes her seat on the Woolsack for the first time as we consider—and this may surprise her—this small but nevertheless very important Bill for Scotland.

On behalf of the Government, I am happy to welcome the Bill which has been so eloquently introduced this afternoon by my noble friend Lord Lyell. I hope that he will not only take it from me that we regard the Bill as important, but that he will have noticed that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, who enjoys in Scotland exclusive rights as public prosecutor, is with me on the Front Bench. I am sure that my noble friend will understand that that is indicative of the importance that we attach to the Bill.

We owe a debt to my noble friend Lord Lyell not only for introducing the Bill but also for giving us such a clear explanation of its terms. The Bill, which started life in another place, is needed to enable the authorities to tackle the scourge of knife-related crime in Scotland. While I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, that we do not wish to characterise or caricature Scotland as being a place where one and all carry knives, nevertheless there are circumstances, occasions and parts of our cities where the habit is all too frequent and where the consequences, as he graphically spelt out, can be all too tragic.

The Bill will tackle that scourge by making it an offence to carry a knife or similar instrument in a public place without good reason or lawful authority. The Crown will not be required to prove that the knife is being carried for illicit purposes. It will be for the person carrying the knife to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority. If he cannot, he will be guilty of an offence.

The Bill was amended in another place to provide that any person found guilty of such an offence will be liable to severe penalties. The maximum penalty proposed now is an unlimited fine and two years' imprisonment. The amendment was supported on all sides in the committee in another place and reflects the level of concern felt by the people of Scotland about the carrying of knives. I believe that these penalties will help to break the knife-carrying culture that exists in some parts of Scotland.

The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, suggested that we should have a publicity campaign. I am more than happy to see the maximum publicity given to this change in the law. We shall, of course, be bringing it to the attention of senior police officers if they are not already well aware of it. Operation Blade, which was mounted recently in Strathclyde, gave great prominence to the evils of knife-carrying. I welcome that and hope that with the introduction of this new, substantive offence yet further publicity will be given, first, to what the Bill covers and to the penalties laid down, but also to the appalling consequences of knives being carried and then used.

Concern was also expressed in another place (reflected in another amendment) indicating that Members were so concerned about this matter that they wished the Bill to come into effect immediately it was passed. Again, that was carried without any disagreement. I believe that that reflects the very real urgency of the situation.

I must advise the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that I view with some dismay his approach to Clause 2. It does not introduce new powers of arrest (in the sense that we have never had comparable powers in Scotland) because such powers can already be found in the 1980 Act. I warmly welcome his support from the Opposition Front Bench for the principle of the Bill, but I am a little concerned that at the same time he appears to walk back from what must be an integral part of the approach that we must take— namely, that there should not only be an offence, but that where people carry knives the police should be able to enforce the upholding of the law. We cannot simply have a substantive offence if the police are not to be given an opportunity to enforce the legislation. There is nothing radical in that. It is an extension in a sense of the power to stop, search and arrest without warrant which is already available to the police in relation to offensive weapons. If the noble Lord has any particular anxieties, they will doubtless be raised in Committee.

I have already paid tribute to my noble friend Lord Lyell. I am not entirely sure that Kirriemuir will be enchanted at being characterised as the crime capital of Scotland—"Thugs of the Thrums" is not exactly how one thinks of Kirriemuir. As I have said, I am most grateful to my noble friend for the way in which he has introduced the Bill. I am grateful also to the Opposition Front Bench for their support and for the support which I know comes from all parties and individuals in this House. I am grateful for that all-party support and trust that the Bill will enjoy a speedy passage through your Lordships' House, thus enabling it to get on to the statute book and to be applied in Scotland at the earliest possible opportunity.

6.8 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, nobody could fail to be touched by the support from all sides of the House that I have received for the Bill that I have introduced. I am very grateful for the reception given to it by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar. He rightly expressed concerns, as did his honourable friend in another place. He presented his points and gave your Lordships due notice of the fact that he may wish to ask for more information later. I hope that he does, and I hope that I will be able to give him full advice on the operation of the provisions. I am sure that my noble and learned friends will be able to do so.

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, raised two points, one of which related to publicity. He probably knows the figures, but I am advised that the Government are planning to spend in the region of £1.6 million in 1993–94, the current financial year, publicising not only Operation Blade and Operation Dove, but also the provisions of this Bill and, above all, in attempting to reduce the carrying of knives in public places. As the honourable Member for Dumbarton, Mr. McFall, pointed out in another place, that is now beginning, horrifyingly, to happen even in schools.

I understand that £560,000 or thereabouts is planned for publicity in the current financial year with £960,000 planned for the safer cities campaign. There is a programme called Crime Concern Scotland for which nearly £100,000 has been budgeted. If the noble Lord wants further information, I can find out how the money will be spent. I am sure that it will be well-spent. The noble Lord expressed concern about publicising the provisions of the Bill which we hope will soon be an Act. I am sure that the media will pay attention to what is going on in your Lordships' House even on an afternoon like this.

The noble Lord was right to express his anxiety about the stop-and-search provisions. I shall not attempt to follow him down the byways of stopping and searching by constables. I sought advice from the east division of the Tayside police in Forfar. I am grateful for the advice I received from Superintendent McBean. He said that in country areas and elsewhere the police will act as the noble Lord and everyone else would wish.

If the noble Lord wants to see how the measures, which appear at first sight to be draconian, will be carried out perhaps he will read column 38 of the proceedings in Standing Committee in another place. He will see described how various aspects of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act are implemented in respect of behaviour at football matches. An example is given of a young man with a can of Lucozade. I remember being in the position now occupied by my noble and learned friends in 1980 when I had to accept fierce criticism from the late and much honoured Lord Ross of Marnock about the draconian provisions contained in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 in respect of conduct and behaviour at football matches. I believe noble Lords will agree that in the past 13 years the culture at those games has improved.

I am sure that the House will agree too that it is the sensible application of what appears to be, and is intended to be, hard-hitting legislation which will achieve what we seek. I thank my noble and learned friend for the compliments he paid me. Of course Kirriemuir is not the crime centre of Scotland. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, will be aware, the Sunday Post has its finger on the pulse of feeling in Scotland. I believe that it is still the biggest selling Sunday newspaper in Scotland, and in Canada which does not have a national newspaper. The Scottish clans distribute it throughout Canada.

The Bill covers one aspect of crime. As my noble and learned friend pointed out, there is a knife carrying campaign—I hope I quote his words correctly—in various parts of Scotland. I am sure that the provisions of the Bill will be carried out sensitively and properly by the police in those parts of Scotland where they and the courts perceive that a problem exists. In that spirit, I ask that the Bill receive a Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.