Lord Hogan-Howe:

Moved by Lord Hogan-Howe

211: After Clause 36, insert the following new Clause—“Defence of historical importanceAfter section 141(7A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (offensive weapons), insert—“(7B) It shall be a defence for any person charged in respect of any conduct of that person relating to a weapon to which this section applies—(a) with an offence under subsection (1), or(b) with an offence under section 50(2) or (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (improper importation),to show that the weapon in question is one of historical importance.”.”Member’s explanatory statementThis Amendment applies a similar historical importance defence to that introduced by item (sa) (Zombie Style Knives and Machetes) and item (u) (Ninja Swords) of Section 141 CJA 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988. If the owner of a historic weapon can satisfy defence 7A (Ownership in private), then there is no good reason preventing them passing the item on to the next custodian in a similar manner to an item which is antique (100 years).

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 211, 212, 213 and 214 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support in these amendments.

This area is about producing consistency and fairness. I would not like anyone to be confused about thinking that I wanted to be more liberal—not Liberal Democrat, but liberal—about knife crime. It is about producing consistency for people who possess knives with innocent intent. Generally speaking, I welcome the update of the penalties associated with offensive weapons under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 and Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in line with more modern regulation. I suggest that, as well as reviewing the penalties, it is appropriate for us now to review the defences as set out in my Amendments 211 to 214.

The last two pieces of legislation on zombie knives and ninja swords have included a range of defences, such as historical importance, being a blunt weapon or skilled handmade items, in addition to existing global defences of religious ceremony, Crown and visiting forces, antique theatrical and media productions, museums —when the public have access—and ownership for educational purposes. In the new legislation, items such as zombie-style knives, machetes and ninja swords have the defence of historical importance, which applies to sale, gift, loan and importation. In my view, there is no good reason for that not to apply as a defence in a consistent global manner to the other 20 items in that schedule.

For example, if the family of a World War II veteran or a collector can prove that the item they own in private is historically important, it allows them to own it legally, so there is no good reason to prevent them passing it on to the next custodian. The defence relates to the nature of the item, not the person who owns it. We should feel confident that, in doing this, it will follow what happened in 2018, when many thousands of historical weapons from the trenches of World War I dropped out of the scope of the legislation because they became antiques. That was not accompanied by a surge in crime involving these knives. Historical knives do not play a significant role in crime; they are far too expensive for that, and, with the public interest in the end of World War I, the only surge seen was a rise not in crime but in the auction prices they realised because they became antiques and were, therefore, more valuable.

My Amendment 212 is about the removal of the prohibition of straight truncheons. My Amendment 213 would exclude agricultural tools from the curved bladed sword definition. I also think that we should review the items in sub-paragraphs 1(q) and 1(r) of the Schedule to the 1988 Act: straight, side-handled or friction-lock truncheons and curved swords. Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was intended to prohibit weapons of a more serious nature. As one or two of us will know, the bobbies’ truncheon of “Heartbeat”, which we carried at the beginning of our careers, hardly passed the test of being a very dangerous weapon.

In fact, I think that, in all the time I had mine, I never used it. I threatened one or two people with it but I never hit anybody. It broke a few windows. It was not a particularly effective weapon, even at the time. In fact, they are similar to everyday objects such as baseball bats, which are often longer and can be more dangerous. In the 20 years since they were included in the Schedule, many thousands have been sold in auctions and antique venues, with no apparent appearance of them on the street. Many hundreds have even been presented by police forces to retiring officers, of which there may be at least two in this Chamber. Some notable presentations have been to Members of this House and to Queen Elizabeth II.

Batons with side handles, martial arts weapons known as tonfa and friction-lock truncheons will remain prohibited, but the law on straight truncheons does not appear to have been actively enforced for many decades. It follows that the removal of the straight truncheon from the restrictions of Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 presents no additional risk to society; we should consider providing an exemption. Someone carrying a straight-edged truncheon in public as an offensive weapon—or, indeed, a baseball bat, or even a branch pruned from a tree—could still be charged with an offence under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which says that, as some of us remember, anything that is made, intended or adapted to cause injury to a person can be an offensive weapon. It may be made, such as a dagger, or intended, which is whatever you pick up in your hand; something can be made from a stick that has been sharpened, for example.

My Amendment 213 follows the inappropriate seizure on occasions by the police of sickles from garden sheds as being curved-blade swords, which I suggest was never the intention of the law. I believe that this item requires an exemption from the traditional tools grouping because it is used in agricultural work, conservation and, of course, gardening.

In Amendment 214, although I fully appreciate that defences for flick-knives are difficult to consider, we should all be very careful before we change anything there because they continue to be a problem. Six deaths were associated with flick-knives in the year commencing April 2023. The purpose of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 was to target the cheap, foreign flick-knives of the “Teddy boy” era. Not all of the defences in Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act are appropriate to copy, but there are three sections that, over the past 65 years, have a proven track record of not giving rise to crime and have been treated with a common-sense, Lord Nelson-type approach by enforcement officers.

The first concerns an exemption for Crown forces, visiting forces and visiting emergency services. Some museums, such as the Metropolitan Police’s Crime Museum, hold flick-knives. However, the public are not allowed access, so such museums do not have an exemption to hold those knives; you might think that that is ironic, but it does make their possession illegal. That museum holds old flick-knives from notorious historic criminals, but the lack of access to the public means that they cannot afford themselves the defence that is available in law.

ROWA Clause 1(7) does not apply to them. Some of our NATO allies and our Ukrainian friends, who we train in this country, issue gravity and flick-knives for paratroopers and airmen for use in self-rescue during parachuting mishaps. They are also used in Poland, Germany and the USA, and appear in the NATO stock-numbering store system, which allows any member of the UK Armed Forces to draw them. An overseas air person on joint exercise in the UK would be at risk of being picked up and prosecuted should they have them in public or even be in possession of them.

Secondly, there is the question of the film industry, which in this country contributed about £5.6 billion to our economy in 2024. By and large, film directors want their close-up shots to be authentic in terms of the look, sound and heft of real weapons. Clearly, these must be used in secure conditions, but we allow heavy machine guns, assault rifles and similar items to be used in films made in this country under conditions of strict control. There are licensed armourers who supply such weapons for dramatic performances and films. It does not seem to me that people who are trusted with such weapons should not be trusted with weapons prohibited under ROWA. They have appeared in half a dozen Bond movies over the decades, and to remove one from the script of the next film in the franchise would seem a little odd. I cannot see that by allowing an exemption for film and performance we are doing anything more dangerous than we allow for other weapons. This is a direction in which we should feel comfortable moving.

Thirdly, the same applies to antique weapons. The Offensive Weapons Act 2019 included a revision to the flick-knife definition, which had inadvertently included 18th-century and 19th-century flintlock and percussion firearms with spring-operated bayonets. These items are exempt from firearms legislation and have not been involved in acts of violence for a couple of centuries now. They should not be prohibited merely because they also have the flick-knife mechanism blade. They are not very practical street weapons of the modern era.

Many of our parents—at least in this House—were heavily involved in the Second World War. There are many items used in that war that were issued to members of the Special Forces or captured from German troops that are very properly considered collectible now. They are part of our national history, but they are not so unique that the British museums would want to end up with large collections of them. Perhaps we ought to allow these items, as we allow other weapons, to be part of collections. We allow old swords and other very dangerous weapons to be collected, so why not the weapons that we are now prohibiting under ROWA, as long as they are antiques?

I think 1945 is a convenient time to end the definition of antique, especially for the purpose of this Act. This is mostly because steel became contaminated with radioactive elements shortly thereafter, following the aerial atomic-bomb test in Japan, and in other parts of the world where tests were carried out, as well as when bombs were dropped as a weapon of war. We can distinguish old steel from new post 1945. Designs also changed a good deal after the war, and there was a long period when some countries did not produce; 1945, therefore, is a convenient cut-off point. We can tell what is pre-1945 and what is later. That is also where this intense period of history ends, when the world was at war and weapons were so prevalent. It might be sensible to allow us all to possess the memories or mementoes from the last world war and to prohibit weapons produced after it. Apart from anything else, in previous times these antique weapons have gone for a considerable price and have been viewed by enforcement officers as extremely low risk of being the cause of crime.

Those are my amendments. I turn at the end to the issue of delivering pointed items and weapons by post. One of the indirect consequences of some of the legislation passed with good intent over the past few years is that more and more restrictions have been placed on the delivery—quite properly—of these items by post, usually by courier. This means that the courier on delivery has to do far more; this Act expects more in proving age and authenticating that whoever made the order is the same person to whom the delivery is made.

This means that the courier has to spend longer there and, consequently, the couriers involved are not wanting to carry this type of weapon. Probably as important is that they do not want to carry pointed items. We are now down to only two courier companies being prepared to do this. While I am not suggesting this is an item for legislation, it might be something we collectively need to consider. If the industry that produces cookery knives cannot easily have those items delivered, that would have a significant effect, and it clearly is an unintended consequence of well-motivated legislation. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will just say a word about Amendment 213. I shall come back more fully to a discussion of the principles in the fifth group of amendments, but there is a danger that a range of agricultural and gardening tools will be caught. I have in mind, for example, machetes, bill-hooks and hand scythes—all of which will be found in various parts of my house. I think it is a very good thing that we should make the exemption clear.

My Lords, I agree with the points made and the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, supported by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. We are in the territory of unintended consequences. The Committee needs to take a pragmatic approach. Where there are lacunae and mishaps in complex swathes of legislation, with many successive Acts on knives and similar offensive weapons, we need to take the opportunity to correct those. I certainly support the derogation for agricultural, gardening or conservation purposes, and for weapons of historical importance, collectables and so forth. These seem to be very pragmatic measures, which I support.

I am not knowledgeable on the subject of truncheons. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, even with his experience did not use his. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, at Second Reading saying that he made “liberal use” of it in an arrest with the result of blood “being spattered” onto his uniform. I guess experience varies, but I support the noble Lord’s efforts today.

My Lords, I also support the amendments put forward by my friend and colleague, my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe. I will address the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for a short period. He was a Minister, as was one other person in this Committee, when I was a senior police officer. I do not remember the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, once instigating or taking through legislation that did not have an effect. That is a fact.

The other thing I am going to disclose—I was going to keep it secret, but I know I can trust all of you and that you are all positively vetted—is that when the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, left he was given a helmet, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. She was also an extremely effective Minister in my time. The noble Lord was offered a truncheon, but he decided that his shepherd’s stick was far more effective than a truncheon, so we did not give it to him. As a matter of record, I used my truncheon once. I was chasing someone down Tottenham Court Road. I hit him three times and it had absolutely no effect. From then on, I never used it. However, on the flying squad, when we were going to violent robberies where we had intelligence that weapons were being used, we used pickaxe handles. They are far more effective.

This is a move in the right direction. I think the noble Lord described it as a practical approach. We need a common-sense approach to things such as straight truncheons and all the other issues that have been raised this afternoon. It has been a great debate as far as I am concerned, but we will make a difference. Following the approach of my dear friend the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and his historical delivery in terms of what he delivered with the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in the time they were Ministers, we will make a difference.

My Lords, far be it from me to disagree with two former commissioners; that would be extremely inadvisable. We have heard the word “liberal” used twice in this debate, which shows that interpretations can vary.

In this House, we learn something new every day. I had no idea that we can trace pre-1945 steel in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, described. I thank him for his clear and expert introduction to his amendments, which seek to refine the definitions and provide necessary defences within the existing offensive weapons legislation.

His amendments that seek exemption for agricultural tools and historical and cultural items seem entirely sensible to us on these Benches. They would protect legitimate interests in the film, theatre and television industries, as well as non-public museums, and seek to prevent the law from becoming obsolete or unnecessarily broad. We are entirely comfortable with ensuring that while we crack down on those who equip themselves for violence, we do not punish collectors, farmers or those engaged in artistic production. To us, these are common sense amendments that safeguard the legitimate possession and use of articles that could otherwise be caught by broad definitions, and we support them.

My Lords, we on this side of the Committee are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for bringing forward this thoughtful group of amendments relating to the controls on offensive weapons. Each of these amendments raise practical questions about the application of current Laws that relate to offensive weapons and seek to ensure that legislation designed to protect the public does not inadvertently criminalise legitimate, historically important or professionally supervised activities.

Amendment 211 proposes a defence where a weapon is of genuine historical importance. The reasoning behind this amendment is eminently sensible and aligns the treatment of such items with existing defences relating to antiques and curated collections. This is a meaningful distinction between dangerous modern weapons intended for misuse and historical artifacts preserved for cultural or heritage purposes. There is an important question here on proportionality and the scope of reasonable excuse. I hope the Government will reflect carefully on whether existing provisions fully address the concerns raised.

Amendments 212 and 213 relate to the traditional straight police truncheon and agricultural tools. I can tell the Committee that in my 32 years as a police officer, I did not use my truncheon on anybody, but it is very useful for silencing alarms in business premises in the middle of the night when you cannot get the keyholder out of bed. Here too, we recognise the practical issues that these amendments seek to resolve. It is not a controversial belief that items with legitimate ceremonial, historical or agricultural uses should not inadvertently fall within criminal restrictions where there is no evidence of misuse. The examples provided in support of these proposals make clear that the law must operate with fairness and precision, and I hope the Government consider them with due regard.

Amendment 214 addresses a wide range of potential exemptions for visiting forces, emergency services, theatrical and film productions, museums and antiques. These are complex areas with operational realities that deserve serious thought. The amendment raises legitimate questions about how the law accommodates professional and historical circumstances without undermining public safety. I look forward to hearing the Government’s thoughts on, and response to, this amendment.

These amendments rightly probe the intersection of criminal law with the heritage and cultural sectors. These are sectors that must be protected. We cannot allow well-meaning legislation unintentionally to criminalise legitimate historical and cultural activities. We look forward to the Minister’s response and assurances that these matters will receive the careful consideration that they merit.

My Lords, I stand to ask for guidance from the Dispatch Box. When I was doing my national service in the Royal Navy in March 1957— I can date it precisely—I became a midshipman. With that ranking, I was awarded a midshipman’s dirk, which I still hold today. I cannot find that dirk falling under any of the exceptions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. Do I therefore have to table a special Amendment to make it lawful for me to continue to hold my midshipman’s dirk?

Before the Minister replies, I will briefly respond to the very kind remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington. To continue the love-in, I say that he was not only an excellent commissioner but a superb chief constable. He was a hands-on bobby as chief constable.

One night, he decided to go out in a squad car in plain clothes. He was sitting in the back, and a call came in for the officers about an incident around the corner. The officers said, “You just sit there, sir, we’ll go and have a look at it”. No sooner had the officers disappeared than the back door of the car was wrenched open, and a Geordie stuck his head in and said, “It’s okay, mate, you can scarper now—the rozzers have gone”. The noble Lord did not scarper.

Maybe this should be called the “afternoon of the long knives”.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for bringing these amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for explaining the intention behind them.

We can see the merit in Amendments 211, 212 and 214, but making changes like this would first require thorough consultation with the police and officers. Obviously, we are very privileged to have the testimony and experience of—I am not sure whether “brace” is the right collective noun for two former commissioners—the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, remarked on how you learn something new every day: indeed, I had no idea that truncheons have so many uses or non-uses. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, opposite for explaining the ingenious uses that he put his truncheon to from time to time.

While I am referring to comments from noble Lords, I say to my noble friend Lord Hacking that his issue depends on the question, “How long is your dirk?” I am not sure whether that is something I would want to say at any point in time, let alone at the Dispatch Box, but there we are.

More seriously, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the rest of the Committee that the Government will consider further the issues raised in the discussion that we have had on this group of amendments. In doing so, we will ensure that any changes to the existing defences and exemptions are made after thorough consideration of the impacts. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, they all deserve serious thought and thorough consultation. Although I am not suggesting for a minute that anything said by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, suggested otherwise, we must place the safety of the public in a paramount position. As such, I cannot undertake to bring forward any proposals in time for later stages of the Bill. However, I stress that, in any event, it would be possible to give effect to the sort of proposals that the amendments intend through existing regulation-making powers. Any such regulations would be subject to the draft affirmative procedure and, therefore, would need to be debated in and approved by both the House of Lords and the other place.

Amendment 213, on items used for agriculture, gardening or similar purposes, was tabled by noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and discussed by the noble Viscounts, Lord Hailsham and Lord Goschen. We believe the legislation is clear that it targets curved swords, and, if that is contested, it is ultimately for the courts to decide. We will work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ensure that police officers have access to appropriate guidance. I am sympathetic to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and other noble Lords, and the proposed amendments require further consideration and consultation.

Regarding Amendment 214—indeed, all the amendments—I stress that it is at the discretion of the police, the CPS and ultimately the courts to decide to take action against those holding weapons or items on the Schedule’s list for legitimate historical reasons, or indeed those using them for legitimate cultural sets of reasons. It is at the discretion of the police and the courts in taking a case forward. But I equally stress that we have existing powers to change the relevant law through secondary legislation. Given that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

I thank the Minister for both the tone and the content of his response. I agree with him entirely that the main purpose is to keep people safe, and I would never want to do anything to compromise that in any way. One reason for the amendments is that sometimes, the discretion of the police and the prosecution services that he urged has not always been exercised in a way that businesses and collectors have felt is appropriate. This has probably left them to manage that risk themselves. They are not trying to break the law, but they sometimes feel they are at risk of doing so. With all that said, I am reassured by the fact that the Government may be able to consider secondary legislation appropriate. That may be the best way to deal with this. I of course beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment 211 withdrawn.

Amendments 212 to 214 not moved.