Justice Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Official Report 859KB pdf

---

Offensive Weapons Bill

The next agenda item is consideration of a legislative consent motion relating to the Offensive Weapons Bill, which is currently before the UK Government. The bill touches on devolved matters and the Scottish Government recommends that this Parliament gives our consent to the UK Parliament in relation to the relevant provisions in the bill. I refer members to paper 4, which is a note by the clerk, and I invite the cabinet secretary to make a very brief opening statement.

I got the emphasis there, convener.

The Offensive Weapons Bill was introduced into the House of Commons by the UK Government in June this year. It contains a wide number of provisions that apply across the UK, with many provisions extending to Scotland. Some of those provisions, such as the new offence banning the sale of corrosive products to under 18s, fall in reserved areas but many are devolved. The following provisions are in devolved areas: the new offence of possession of a corrosive substance in a public place; new controls over the sale of knives and other bladed articles when bought remotely; and the banning outright of the possession of certain dangerous knives and other offensive weapons. A number of further technical and minor provisions also fall into devolved competences.

As the Scottish Government’s legislative consent memorandum explains, the area of law is a complex mix of reserved and devolved. I could give you examples of that but, given your need for brevity, I will not do so. One option would have been to legislate for the devolved areas through a bill in the Scottish Parliament, but it is preferable to have a UK-wide framework on the issues. The desire to have consistent laws operating across the UK is sensible in this case. The Scottish and UK Governments agree that it makes policy sense to ensure that, as far as possible, the restrictions operate consistently across the United Kingdom.

I can advise that the Scottish and UK Governments have worked constructively together on devolved areas contained in the bill, in particular in relation to a new restriction on the sale of knives and other bladed articles. I have concerns about what we see as a delay in the process from the UK Government as the bill goes through the House of Commons and about some of the reported reasons for the delay. However, we will continue to work collaboratively with the UK Government. I am happy to answer any questions.

On that last point, you mentioned that the bill has been delayed again in Westminster. Do you know anything surrounding the details of that and will it affect our LCM?

Largely, I only know what has been reported. We have been working collaboratively with the UK Government. I caveat what I am about to say with those remarks but, frankly, if what has been reported is true, it is a disgrace. If the reason why the legislation has been postponed is that it might make life difficult for the UK Government because Tory and other rebels on the Brexit issue might look to cause a defeat for the UK Government, that is an utter disgrace.

We have a particular interest in Scotland in the legislation. Every single member round the table will remember the tragic case of Bailey Gwynne, and the legislation looks to put further enforcement in place to prevent that kind of situation from happening again. When knives are purchased online, they will no longer be able to be delivered to somebody’s house or residence—people will have to collect them and show identification. That is a further check on who is picking up the weapon. Frankly, the fact that the legislation could be delayed because of party politics does not do justice to the memory of Bailey Gwynne.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. You have outlined exactly why it is so important that we get on with this now, which is helpful.

I was hugely concerned to hear about the potential delay. Will you expand on the potential impact of that? Will you make representations to the UK Government about that delay and ask what it is going to do about it? Could you keep the committee informed about the progress of those discussions? Given that it covers important things such as acid attacks, about which there is huge public concern, and online knife sales, any delay would be extremely unforgiveable. Will you expand on what communications you will have on the issue?

12:45  

I will write to the UK Government. I hope that the reasons that have been reported in the press are not the actual reasons and that there are other good reasons, but it is the second time that a delay has occurred, so it is extremely worrying.

I understand that there are legislative pressures with Brexit—everybody understands that—but the day job cannot be ignored and this is not just any piece of legislation. It is a hugely important piece of legislation, and not just for Scotland. Shona Robison is absolutely right that, given the increases that we have seen in the use of corrosive substances, particularly in the London metropolitan area, the legislation is important for the entire United Kingdom.

Restricting access to, and therefore the sale of, offensive weapons is hugely important. However, the proposed legislation will increase the categories of items around which we ask retail workers to enforce the law and therefore to act as agents of the law. We know that enforcing age restrictions can be a source of abuse and violence. As the cabinet secretary may know, I am drafting a member’s bill on the issue. Is there a need to reflect on what we ask retail workers to do? What are your thoughts on the protection that retail workers need and the elements of the law that we ask them to uphold in the round?

I will reflect on that. Daniel Johnson and I have not had an in-depth discussion about the member’s bill that he is taking forward but, if he would find it helpful to do that, I am happy to commit to it. I still need some persuading on that, but I am happy to enter into a discussion. I am open-minded on the member’s bill. It is a good point that is probably lost in much of the discussion on the offensive weapons legislation that is being brought forward, so it is important to put it on the record.

I share the cabinet secretary’s concern about the delays in taking forward the legislation at Westminster. You have talked about the consensual approach to date. If this is the second delay that has taken place, I am slightly surprised that you are talking about writing to your equivalent to seek clarification on the reason for the delay rather than an urgent phone call to establish that and to impress on your counterpart the reason why the legislation needs to be taken forward now. Nobody wants the bill to be taken forward at UK level and defeated for whatever reason. We all appreciate that the management of taking legislation through Parliament can be a precarious business, but it seems beyond understanding that the bill would fall into that category. Therefore, I am slightly surprised that that conversation has not already happened between you and your counterpart.

I know from my various ministerial roles that it can sometimes be quicker to send a letter by email than to wait for diaries to match up. I would be available for a phone call today with the relevant UK Government minister to discuss the issue and I will reflect on what he says.

What conversations have there been at official level, even as a precursor?

I will bring in my officials to talk about their conversations with UK Government officials.

I do not doubt that there are legitimate issues that need to be discussed. For example, I know that there are points of contention and discussions around high-calibre rifles, which are a reserved matter. I do not doubt that there are issues that need to be worked through but, if the legislation is continually being delayed for the reasons that have been reported, that is extremely worrying.

I am happy to bring in Philip Lamont to give more detail on the official discussions that have taken place.

I can confirm that we did not have advance notice of the delay. We found out in live time, in that the bill was due to go through its third reading last Monday but that did not happen on the day, and the same happened yesterday. We did not get advance notice that the UK Government had made that decision.

What efforts have you made at official level to establish the rationale for the delay? At the moment, we are relying on reports.

We can certainly ask, at official level and ministerial level. The information that we have received is that the delay is due to parliamentary scheduling, without any further detail.

That would be helpful.

You have impressed on us the need to move on with the matter, so any way that we can get the information that we need in the best, most efficient and fastest manner possible would be in the interests of all concerned.

As there are no further questions, do members agree that we give our consent and to delegate to me the task of working with the clerks to produce and publish a short factual report?

Members indicated agreement.

I suspend the meeting for about 30 seconds to allow the officials to change over.

12:49 Meeting suspended.  

12:50 On resuming—