PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES Public Bill Committee OFFENSIVE WEAPONS BILL Eighth Sitting Thursday 6 September 2018 (Afternoon) CONTENTS CLAUSES 16 TO 27 agreed to, some with amendments. Adjourned till Tuesday 11 September at twenty-five minutes past Nine o’clock. PBC (Bill 232) 2017 - 2019 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons, not later than Monday 10 September 2018 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2018 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 197 Public Bill Committee 6 SEPTEMBER 2018 Offensive Weapons Bill 198 The Committee consisted of the following Members: Chairs: MIKE GAPES, †JAMES GRAY † Atkins, Victoria (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Morgan, Stephen (Portsmouth South) (Lab) State for the Home Department) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † Foster, Kevin (Torbay) (Con) † Pursglove, Tom (Corby) (Con) † Foxcroft, Vicky (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) † Robinson, Mary (Cheadle) (Con) † Haigh, Louise (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) † Scully, Paul (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) † Huddleston, Nigel (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) † Siddiq, Tulip (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) † Jones, Sarah (Croydon Central) (Lab) † Smyth, Karin (Bristol South) (Lab) † McDonald, Stuart C. (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and † Timms, Stephen (East Ham) (Lab) Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) † Maclean, Rachel (Redditch) (Con) Mike Everett, Adam Mellows-Facer, Committee Clerks † Maynard, Paul (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury) † attended the Committee 199 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Offensive Weapons Bill 200 particular lawful purpose” into subsection (2), as my Public Bill Committee amendment would, would probably prove pointless in reality, on the basis that a buyer would simply make up Thursday 6 September 2018 a purpose to circumvent the rules. I may have picked that up wrong. However, the amendment’s wording simply reflects (Afternoon) virtually the same test that is already in subsection (3), which is about bespoke adaptations. Why is it pointless [JAMES GRAY in the Chair] for bespoke manufacturers to have to check the purpose of the instructions that they are given, but sensible, and Offensive Weapons Bill included in the Bill, for those doing adaptations to have to ask the buyer’s purpose and perform some sort of check? I do not know why there is that inconsistency. Clause 16 What is required of those doing bespoke adaptations in checking the purpose? Do they simply have to see DEFENCES TO OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 15 whether the adaptation seems to fit the purpose that they have been told it is for? Amendment proposed (this day): 45, in clause 16, page 15, line 26, at end insert As it stands, and as I pointed out earlier, the Bill does “for a particular lawful purpose.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.) not even require that purpose to be lawful—it only has to be a “particular purpose”. I suspect that it is implied This is a probing amendment to allow debate on the appropriate scope of defences under Clause 16. that it should be lawful, but that is not absolutely clear to me. For example, if I ask for an adaptation for the 2 pm purpose of making a blade even more lethal, that would be a “particular purpose”, but it certainly would not be Question again proposed, That the amendment be a lawful one. I would like some reassurance that that made. defence would not be allowed to be made. It may be that I am worrying over nothing, but it seems that there is The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the still a little bit of difficulty in working out where we Home Department (Victoria Atkins): On a point of stand with subsections (2) and (3). For now, I think it is order, Mr Gray. Having reflected, I want to ensure that probably best that I leave it to the Minister and her the issues that the Committee debated just before lunch officials to discuss. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the are clear,because hon. Members rightly asked me questions amendment. about screwdrivers and so on. As I said during the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. debate, the definition of a bladed product is in the Bill and does not include table knives, disposable plastic Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the knives, screwdrivers or things like them, encased razor Bill. blades, a folding pocket knife with a cutting edge of less than 3 inches or flick knives, gravity knives or any other Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab): I want to weapons prohibited under section 141 of the Criminal consider a couple of other areas that we have not Justice Act 1988. A bladed product might include bread covered on which the Committee received evidence. knives, steak knives, cut-throat razors and lots of other One such example is a request for a defence under the items, such as axes and swords, that I should hope clause for Scout groups and other such charities. We people would already think capable of causing serious have received evidence that a large number of people injury. In short, the definition is in the Bill, and I hope who buy knives from this particular business are Scout that adds clarity. groups and Scout leaders and, because of the way they operate, the majority of their orders are placed by The Chair: That is not technically a point of order, Scout leaders and delivered to their homes. They are but I know that Committee members will be grateful for concerned that this ban would stop that and force them the Minister’s clarification of her previous remarks. If to go and pick up from other access points. The evidence any Member wants to return to that matter they may do we received requested that a specific defence could be so shortly, during the stand part debate. made allowing charities to have knives delivered to their registered addresses. All Scout groups are registered charities. Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP): I thank the Minister for her The other area of concern that has been raised is explanation of the defences set out in the clause. I do antiques. I appreciate that in another part of the Bill we not think that anybody has a problem with the defence will be discussing antiques and the need for more controls set out in subsection (1), which seems absolutely reasonable. on antique firearms,but just for the purposes of clarification Subsection (4) seems fine, so far as it goes, although and to respond to the many people who are concerned there is some suggestion that it might be useful to add about this bit of the Bill, could the Minister tell us why some other purposes to that list. she has rejected the proposals to include purchases for charities and of antiques as a defence under this However,subsections (2) and (3) are what my amendment clause? is really about. I suspect and hope that they will work absolutely fine in practice, but they seem to have been drafted in a rather woolly manner. Subsection (2) is Victoria Atkins: In clause 16, we have responded to about bespoke manufacture. The Minister will correct the consultations made in the course of the Bill’s being me if I am wrong, but I think she said that adding “for a drafted. I am conscious that I read out some of my 201 Public Bill Committee 6 SEPTEMBER 2018 Offensive Weapons Bill 202 speech on this previously. With the Committee’s consent, Victoria Atkins: I am extremely grateful to my hon. I will not repeat that, because the evidence is on the Friend for reminding us that we have been in this world record. of expecting deliveries through the post because of We will come on to museums a little later in the knife online sales for only the last decade or so. He is right provisions. I am seeking to pass an amendment to that to buy a pair of kitchen scissors, a steak knife or include museums under the clauses outlawing possession whatever in the past a person had to go to a local shop. of weapons that are so offensive that Parliament has previously judged that they should not be sold, imported, Louise Haigh: That is absolutely right. But, apart or anything of that nature. We are just trying to close from the issues for disabled people and people living in that gap. We will seek an exemption for museums, which isolated areas, the burden is not really on the individual, may have flick knives or zombie knives in their collections. although it will be a pain to have to go to the local post office when previously something could be delivered to If I may, I will write to the hon. Member for Sheffield, people’s houses. The burden will be on business, in Heeley about charities, because I would like to explore having to separate out products that can, at present, be whether the definition of a business would also include delivered to someone’s home without any additional a charity. checks other than perhaps, for certain products, that the Question put and agreed to. recipient is over 18. Now businesses will have to separate Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. out those products and choose somewhere else to deliver them to. That is why we need clarity about which products can be delivered where, otherwise I fear the Clause 17 legislation will have a devastating impact, particularly on smaller online retailers.