Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2008

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2008. The noble Lord said: The Criminal Justice Act 1988 introduced an order-making power to ban the manufacture, sale and importation of specified offensive weapons. Currently, the offensive weapons order prohibits 18 weapons, including sword sticks, knuckle-dusters, disguised knives and batons. On 6 April 2008, samurai swords were banned by adding swords with a curved blade of 50 centimetres or more to the offensive weapons order to address concerns of public safety. In the parliamentary debate on this ban, which was held on 18 March 2008, I gave an undertaking to listen to representations of groups with concerns that their legitimate activities had been affected by the ban. That was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. The amendment order we are discussing today acts on that undertaking. Collectors had expressed their concerns to Vernon Coaker, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Crime Reduction, that the ban had unfairly impacted on valuable curved military swords from the First and Second World Wars. He was also lobbied by makers of high-quality swords who told him that they sell handcrafted curved swords, worth £1,000 to £8,000, for export. The Government’s intention was not to disadvantage craftsmanship, nor was it to stop the trade in swords of historical and cultural significance. The intention was to ban the cheap, readily available samurai swords used in violent crime, including murders. I understand that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State met collectors and manufacturers in April 2008 and he asked officials to work with them to explore ways of protecting their legitimate use of curved swords without impacting adversely on the overall effectiveness of the ban. The amendment order we are discussing today contains some small amendments, agreeable to stakeholders, which address their concerns without impacting on the effectiveness of the ban. The amendments are minor in detail but significant in effect. They focus on broadening the current defence to any curved sword made before 1954 rather than just those made in Japan, and to any curved sword made after 1954 according to traditional methods of making swords by hand—again, not just those made in Japan according to traditional methods. For thoroughness we are also amending the order to allow swords for use in religious ceremonies. While we have had minimal lobbying on this point, I understand from the Department for Communities and Local Government that curved swords are an integral part of Sikh wedding ceremonies and we have no wish to hinder such activities. On whether the new defences would cover swords used in folk dancing and sword dancing, I cannot offer a definitive view on whether the swords used in any one particular activity would be banned under the new legislation. Groups who think that they may be affected should seek advice. I should emphasise, however, that the ban applies only to swords with curved blades and not swords with straight blades which, perhaps, are more likely to be used in such dances. Ministers have also been asked if there are any plans to add a specific defence for swords used in belly dancing. I found that rather surprising. I thought snakes were used in belly dancing. There are no such plans, but Section 43 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 introduced a defence for those supplying offensive weapons for TV, theatrical performances and film productions. This measure provides those companies and individuals who sell and hire offensive weapons for film, television and theatre productions with a defence from prosecution. That came into force on 6 April 2008 and I suggest that individuals contact the trade union for artists and performers, Equity, for advice on whether they would be covered by this defence. Even if the sale of swords used in folk, sword and belly dancing were banned, possession would not be affected and individuals should still be able to use their current swords in those activities, as before. The changes are in line with the Government fulfilling their undertaking, provided during the parliamentary debates on the original order, to listen to representations from groups who consider that their legitimate use of swords has been unfairly impacted upon. The amendments would not weaken the ban, nor adversely impact on the intention behind the ban to target the cheaply available replica samurai swords used in violent crime. The Association of Chief Police Officers supports these amendments. As such, I commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move. Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2008. 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord West of Spithead.)