I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Hampton, for setting out the case for these amendments, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for bringing his front-line experience of the tragedy in the school in which he currently works. I am also grateful for the comments of other noble Lords and I will try to respond to those in due course. I note the broad support from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for the amendments before the Committee today.

I want to start with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I accept that there have been numerous attempts by numerous Governments to take numerous courses of action to reduce knife crime and that this is another one. But I just say to him that it is still worth trying, and it is still worth examining how we can best reduce the level of knife crime. The measures in the Bill before the Committee today are an honest attempt by the Government to put further obstacles in the way of individuals who might use those knives for nefarious purposes. I simply say it is worth trying, and we are seeking to do that.

As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, explained, Amendment 122 would require the Home Secretary to review the effectiveness of Clauses 31 and 32 in preventing sales to under-18s within two years of those clauses coming into force. I agree in principle that we should have to keep under review the impact of those measures, for the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned: to look at what works and what has not worked.

The Government are providing £1.75 million of funding for a new national police co-ordination unit to tackle the online sale of knives, and the police will be responsible for enforcing this legislation. I hear the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about enforcement but it is for the police to understand the legislation’s effectiveness and what more can be done to tackle knife crime. I will return to the other points that she mentioned in due course.

It is standard practice—I hope this helps the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—that all measures in the Bill will be subject to post-legislative scrutiny three to five years after Royal Assent. This scrutiny will consider the effectiveness of the measures in the Bill; self-evidently, that includes Clauses 31 and 32. The noble Lord is asking for a two-year review; it will be undertaken within three to five years. I hope that reassures him that the measures will be reviewed in a timely and appropriate way—and, again, to learn the lessons that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned that we need to examine.

Amendment 123 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, would require the Government to consult on regulating the sale of sharp-tipped knives and provide a report to Parliament. The design of knives is also addressed in Amendment 122, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.

I share the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham: bladed articles with pointed ends have legitimate uses. They are often needed for a wide range of purposes: they are used as tools in work, and for farming, fishing and cooking. The Government are keen to try to strike the right balance between allowing access to knives for legitimate reasons, which the noble Viscount ably outlined, and the need to protect the public from dangerous weapons.

If it helps the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the Government are actively exploring options for how we can strengthen enforcement and prevention measures, including consulting on a licensing scheme for all knife sellers in the future. I hope that the noble Lord can accept that as I progress the discussion today.

Amendment 194 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would require regulations relating to the reporting of remote sales of knives to ensure that such reporting takes place as soon as possible following a bulk sale. I am sympathetic to the overall aim of the amendment. Clause 36 provides for a duty to report remote sales of knives in bulk. It makes it mandatory for online sellers to report bulk sales. It defines those bulk sales as purchases of six or more knives, two or more qualifying sets of knives or one qualifying set or five knives, in a single transaction or made over two or more occasions within a 30-day period. That is set out in Clause 36. In the latter case, relevant sales include those made to a single person or two or more persons where they are believed to be delivered to the same residential address.

The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to make it a requirement to report those in real time or as soon as is reasonably practical. Clause 36 already provides that regulations will be made to specify how and when reports should be made and what the details of those reports should be—including the detail of regulation to allow future changes of reporting requirements through secondary legislation. We are working very closely with the police to ensure that the regulations set out appropriate information and that all reporting systems are ready as soon as possible. We continue to work with stakeholders, including the police, to develop those regulations to ensure that their reports are received within appropriate timescales.

I agree entirely with the noble Lord that the reports have to be of value to the police in preventing knife crime and therefore need to be received and actioned in a timely manner. There is little benefit if the reports are made days or weeks after the remote sale has taken place. I hope the noble Lord will understand that I cannot commit today to the formula of the timelines of the report because we need to consult the police and others. The points that he has raised today are well made. I will take them into account when we examine those regulations again. I hope that the regulations and the comments that I have made today are helpful.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned improved data collection. She is right that improved data collection was a recommendation of Commander Clayman in his end-to-end review of online knife sales. We have implemented the Majority and most pressing of the review’s recommendations under Ronan’s law, which includes measures such as stricter rules for online sellers. We are also considering the other recommendations in the review. I will be able to return to those, I hope, at some point in the future.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, also raised the valid question of what happens about knives imported from outside the United Kingdom. Products from overseas sellers will be subject to the same age checks on delivery if they are marked as containing a knife, as part of the verification checks that are in the legislation. I refer her to page 43 of the Bill. There she will see in new Section 42A, “Delivery of bladed articles sold by non-UK seller to premises: England and Wales”, a number of issues which will cover, I hope to her satisfaction, the issue of imported knives. If she can look at those at her leisure, there will be opportunities to test them again on Report if she feels unhappy about them.

These issues in relation to knives are extremely important. I say finally to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that we are actively exploring options to strengthen enforcement and prevention measures, particularly in relation to the pointed ends of knives. That will form part of the discussions that we have. I say to both noble Lords that this is a work in progress. We will consult still further. I hope that with those assurances the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.