Justice 1 Committee, 11 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 11, 2002

Official Report 238KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Amendment (Scotland) Order 2002

I welcome Dr Richard Simpson, the Deputy Minister for Justice. We are ready to go. I refer members to the notes that have been provided by the clerk in paper J1/02/25/8. I call the minister to speak to and move motion S1M-3177.

Shall I speak only to the draft instrument that deals with offensive weapons rather than to all three instruments at once?

It will be clearer if we deal with the instruments one at a time.

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 introduced the power to ban the manufacture, sale and importation of specified offensive weapons. Fourteen weapons have been banned in that way including sword-sticks, push daggers, death stars and butterfly knives. Today, I will move to add disguised knives to the schedule of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988.

Extending the order to cover disguised weapons is another step towards improving security following the events of 11 September last year. Disguised knives pose a particular threat to airline security because they are easy to carry and to conceal. By legislating to ban the sale and import of such weapons, public safety will be improved not only in airports but in places such as nightclubs, football grounds and courts where screening facilities may fail to detect such items.

A wide range of knives, such as lipstick knives, comb knives and ink-pen knives, are easily available, mainly via the internet. Such knives serve no legitimate purpose. Legislation already covers the carrying of disguised knives in public, but there is nothing to prevent those very dangerous weapons being sold, imported or manufactured. We do not know how many disguised knives are in circulation, but they are freely available over the internet. Last year, HM Customs and Excise seized more than 2,000 offensive weapons at airports and seaports and in the postal system.

The draft instrument extends both to Scotland and beyond Scotland as a matter of Scots law. The Home Office is introducing equivalent legislation for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Subject to the agreement of the Houses of Parliament, that legislation is expected to come into force before Westminster's summer recess.

The fact that there has not been widespread consultation on the measure is in part due to the urgency of the situation. Wide consultation would unnecessarily and unacceptably delay the reduction in the threat that disguised knives pose to airports and to airline security. When the draft Scottish Statutory Instrument was laid last month, the Executive wrote to all chief constables, to the chief executives of Fife Council and of Dumfries and Galloway Council and to the clerks to the joint police boards to bring the matter to their attention. We have had no response to date.

Consideration was given as to whether our proposals should be notified under the terms of the European Community technical standards directive. The Executive takes the view that the directive does not apply to the statutory instrument on disguised knives. In our view, the directive is concerned with measures that affect the intrinsic characteristics of a product and is not concerned with instruments of a public order character whereby a product is identified by reference to its technical characteristics purely for the purposes of prohibiting a particular act involving that product.

In conclusion, prohibiting the sale, manufacture or import of disguised knives is a matter of public safety. I ask the committee to support the motion to recommend the approval of the draft instrument, which will add disguised knives to the schedule of offensive weapons under the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

I move,

That the Justice 1 Committee recommends that the draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Amendment (Scotland) Order 2002 be approved.

I am rather concerned that the Scottish Executive was not represented on the working group, especially given the fact that the area of Scots criminal law is not only devolved but has always been independent. Do you have concerns about that?

No, I have no concerns. We were fully consulted by the Home Office in the process on the position that was reached. Our position will be compatible with and will be no different from that of the rest of the United Kingdom. We are introducing the measure somewhat in advance of Westminster purely because of the timing of our respective Parliaments.

I take it that this case is likely to be a one-off case because of the urgency of the matter and that the practice will not normally occur when there is Scots legislation.

Yes.

Will the minister assure us that pipers or Scots who attend weddings wearing ceremonial kilts, dirks and sgian dubhs, for example, will not fall foul of the provisions and that dirks and sgian dubhs can continue to be worn for legitimate purposes?

The SSI is not about carrying weapons—that is already dealt with under Scots law. Provided that one can justify why one is carrying such an instrument, there will be no problem. The issue purely concerns the manufacture, sale and importation of disguised knives and the SSI will not change the situation that you describe at all.

Can dirks and sgian dubhs therefore be manufactured in Scotland as before?

I see no reason why they cannot be. I would not dare to come before the committee and propose to change that.

You have spoken like a good nationalist.

It was not clear from the minister's answer to the convener's question why no one from the Scottish Executive was on the working group.

We did not think that that was necessary. The issue was being progressed and we were consulted. The SSI is largely based on American legislation that was introduced after September 11—it proved extremely helpful in progressing the matter. UK emendation to that has been minimal and it was not thought necessary to go to the expense of sending officials to the Home Office to discuss the matter. We have been kept fully briefed and informed and have not thought it necessary to make many comments.

Did the Home Office issue an invitation?

I will get back to you on that. I do not know whether it did, but I know that we were consulted.

Would you inform the committee whether an invitation was issued?

I will find that out and whether we decided to take that up.

The question is, that motion S1M-3177 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Motion agreed to.

That the Justice 1 Committee recommends that the draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Amendment (Scotland) Order 2002 be approved.

---

Draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2002<br />Draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2002

I refer members to paper J1/02/25/9 on the Draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2002. The instrument is a draft instrument and has a complicated title. I invite the minister to speak to and move motion S1M-3178.

Can we consider both instruments together?

Yes. I refer members to paper J1/02/25/10 and motion S1M-3179 on the Draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2002. I invite the minister to speak to and move both motions.

I am happy to do so. The purpose of the affirmative Draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2002 is straightforward. They implement the commitments that Jim Wallace gave during the debate in March on the committee's report on legal aid. He announced the Executive's intention to increase the capital limit for advice and assistance to £1,300, the lower capital limit for civil legal aid to £6,000 and the upper capital limit for civil legal aid to £10,000. If the Parliament approves the changes, they will come into effect on 1 July and will make a valuable contribution towards access to justice. I invite the committee to approve both instruments and would be happy to answer questions.

There does not appear to be any provision for uprating the limits annually in the regulations, as we recommended. Do you have plans to uprate the limits annually?

We have taken advice on that matter. The regulations are affirmative regulations, which means that there are difficulties in the primary legislation about not coming to Parliament on each occasion. We would need to amend the primary legislation so that the regulations could be annually uprated and that raises an issue of legislative time. The Parliament must take into account the fact that if we were to amend the primary legislation, members would not be asked to consider the matter again. The regulations would simply be uprated.

The problem with many such regulations, as I discovered when I was a back bencher—

You are still among us.

The primary legislation has often been written in a way that requires the form of uprating that we are dealing with. Unfortunately, we cannot go ahead with the reasonable proposal that has been made. The Parliament will have to consider whether it wishes to give up powers of this kind by not having affirmative regulations on such matters.

That is something that we may come to. Was that your summing-up?

Yes.

Unless Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has a question, I am quite content.

I ask the minister to note the committee's view that annual uprating makes a lot of sense. I hope that the Executive will consider favourably the relevant legislative change when it next reviews the matter.

I take note of that.

We deal with such tiny amounts all the time.

Motions moved,

That the Justice 1 Committee, in consideration of the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2002, recommends that the Regulations be approved.

That the Justice 1 Committee, in consideration of the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2002, recommends that the Regulations be approved.—[Dr Richard Simpson.]

Motions agreed to.

That was short and sweet. We are required to report to the Parliament on the affirmative instruments. We need to prepare only a short, formulaic report, which will be e-mailed to members. Please let the clerks know if there are any problems.