Proceeding contribution from Lord Pannick (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Monday, 4 March 2019. It occurred during Debate on bill on Offensive Weapons Bill.

Offensive Weapons Bill

The Minister has expressed concern—she may well be right—that, if the Bill were amended to make clear what is and is not covered, there is a risk that sellers would seek to use that definition to try to get around the contents of the Bill. Given that she says that these matters will be dealt with by guidance, is there not the same risk? Would it not be better to define in the Bill what the Bill covers and does not cover, not least because guidance will not bind the courts? It is for the courts to interpret. The problems of uncertainty will inevitably arise if the Government rely purely on guidance. That is the point.

Secondary information

Type: Proceeding contribution
Reference: 796 c151
Session: 2017-19
Chamber / Committee: House of Lords chamber
Subjects: Disability Compensation Armed forces Agriculture Age Antiques Delivery services Licensing Gun sports Film Forestry Equipment Internet Knives Medical examinations Northern Ireland Public places Public consultation Offensive weapons Scotland Sales Young people Theatre Sikhs Food technology Rifles Tools UK Border Force Archery Corrosive substances Knife crime prevention orders
Legislation: Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19
Link: View this Proceeding contribution on hansard.parliament.uk

Offensive Weapons Bill

Secondary information

Librarians' tools