Offensive Weapons Bill — Knife Crime Prevention Orders — Continuation After Pilot Schemes — 26 Mar 2019 at 16:30

The majority of MPs voted against the House of Commons deciding if to continue Knife Crime Prevention Orders following the release of information including a detailed report on a pilot scheme.

MPs were considering the Offensive Weapons Bill[1].

Lords amendments to the Bill[2] had introduced provisions on "knife crime orders" which enable courts to place requirements and prohibitions on a defendant:

  • (a) to protect the public in England and Wales from the risk of harm involving a bladed article,
  • (b)to protect any particular members of the public in England and Wales(including the defendant) from such risk, or
  • (c)to prevent the defendant from committing an offence involving a bladed article.

The amendment rejected in this vote was:

  • Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 23.

Lords amendment 23[3] proposed the addition of a new clause to the Bill titled Piloting and stated:

  • (1) The Secretary of State may exercise the power in section 43(1) so as to bring all of the provisions of this Part into force for all purposes and in relation to the whole of England and Wales only if the following conditions are met.
  • (2) The first condition is that the Secretary of State has brought some or all of the provisions of this Part into force only—
  • (a) for one or more specified purposes, or
  • (b) in relation to one or more specified areas in England and Wales.
  • (3) The second condition is that the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report on the operation of some or all of the provisions of this Part—
  • (a) for one or more of those purposes, or
  • (b) in relation to one or more of those areas.
  • (4) Regulations under section 43(1) which bring any provision of this Part into force only for a specified purpose or in relation to a specified area may—
  • (a) provide for that provision to be in force for that purpose or in relation to that area for a specified period;
  • (b) make transitional or saving provision in relation to that provision ceasing to be in force at the end of the specified period.
  • (5) Regulations containing provision by virtue of subsection (4)(a) may be amended by subsequent regulations under section 43(1) so as to continue any provision of this Part in force for the specified purpose or in relation to the specified area for a further specified period.
  • (6) In this section “specified” means specified in regulations under section 43(1).
  • (7) References in this section to this Part do not include section (Guidance) or this section (which by virtue of section 43(5)(za) and (zb) come into force on the day on which this Act is passed).”

An explanatory note to Lords amendment 23[3] described its effect as:

  • Knife crime prevention orders will be subject to piloting. The Secretary of State is required to lay before Parliament a report on the outcome of the pilot before the orders are rolled out nationally.

The amendment rejected in this vote[4] stated:

  • Line 14, at end insert—
  • “(3A) The third condition is that both Houses of Parliament have passed a motion of the terms “That this House notes the findings of the report on the pilot of Knife Crime Prevention Orders and approves their continued use”.
  • (3B) A court may not be given the power to make knife crime prevention orders until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament setting out—
  • (a) an explanation of the Government’s decision to introduce knife crime prevention orders and all departmental evidence relating to the decision,
  • (b) an explanation of what consultations have taken place relating to the Government’s decision to introduce knife crime prevention orders,
  • (c) guidance given to authorities on the burden of proof required to sanction a young person through this order,
  • (d) the predicted impact of knife crime prevention orders on different racial groups as defined in section 9 of the Equality Act 2010,
  • (e) an explanation of what restrictions may be implemented as part of knife crime prevention orders and their impact on the rights of children, and
  • (f) an assessment of the causes behind knife crime, including but not limited to consideration of—
  • (i) the effect on the levels of youth violence with offensive weapons of the reduction in police numbers,
  • (ii) the effect on the levels of youth violence with offensive weapons of the reduction in public spending on—
  • (a) children’s services,
  • (b) Sure Start,
  • (c) state-maintained schools,
  • (d) local authorities,
  • (e) youth offending teams,
  • (f) Border Force, and
  • (g) drug treatment programmes.
  • (3C) A court may not be given the power to make knife crime prevention orders until the Secretary of State has consulted—
  • (a) each devolved authority,
  • (b) each police force,
  • (c) organisations representing different racial groups as defined in section 9 of the Equality Act 2010,
  • (d) non-governmental organisations, including charities, which in the opinion of the Secretary of State have a relevant interest,
  • (e) organisations representing those working within children’s services, state-maintained schools and youth offending teams, and
  • (f) the wider public.
  • (3D) A court may not be given the power to make knife crime prevention orders until the Secretary of State has laid a report on the consultation under subsection (3C) before both Houses of Parliament.
  • (3E) In each year in which a court has made a knife crime prevention order, the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament setting out—
  • (a) how many individuals have been given a knife crime prevention order, broken down by
  • (i) region,
  • (ii) age groups,
  • (iii) different racial groups as defined in section 9 of the Equality Act 2010,
  • (b) how many individuals under subsection (4)(a) were under 18 years old at the time the order was made,
  • (c) an assessment of what restrictions have been implemented as part of knife crime prevention orders and their impact on the rights of children,
  • (d) an assessment of whether knife crime prevention orders have had any impact on the levels of violent crime,
  • (e) an assessment of the impact of knife crime prevention orders on the relationship between vulnerable young people and law enforcement,
  • (f) an assessment of the impact of knife crime prevention orders on different racial groups as defined in section 9 of the Equality Act 2010,
  • (g) an assessment of the impact of knife crime prevention orders on access to child protection and diversion activities for young persons aged under 18,
  • (h) whether the Government intends to maintain or revoke the power for courts to make knife crime prevention orders, an explanation of the Government’s decision, and all departmental evidence relating to the decision,
  • (i) an assessment of whether knife crime prevention orders have had an impact on the prison population,
  • (j) guidance given to authorities on the burden of proof required to sanction a young person through such an order.”

The rejected amendment sought transparency in respect of evidence and consultation relating to government policy on knife crime orders, and set out detailed requirements for reports on the pilots to be required to be put before Parliament in advance of a motion to decide if they were to continue in use.

Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con298 (+2 tell) 0095.5%
DUP10 00100.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 7033.3%
Lab0 227 (+2 tell)093.5%
LDem0 110100.0%
PC0 3075.0%
Total:308 249092.6%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive