Violent Crime Reduction Bill

moved Amendment No. 126:"Page 36, line 8, leave out ““that does not distribute any profits it makes””" The noble Lord said: This group contains government amendments and those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I shall try to cover both sets. Amendment No. 126 is a small but important amendment which will benefit private museums and galleries. I believe that for that reason it will be broadly welcomed. The Government believe that the ban on manufacturing, importing, selling or modifying realistic imitation firearms is necessary to curb the alarming level of imitations used in crime. But we do not want to interfere unduly with legitimate activities where there is no alternative to using realistic imitations. For that reason, the Bill includes a range of exceptions and defences. One such defence relates to museums and galleries, which sometimes use realistic imitations in place of rare and expensive real guns. The defence for museums is drafted along the same lines as the provisions relating to offensive weapons in Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988: it applies only to museums that do not distribute their profits; in other words, to public museums. We have received representations, on behalf of private museums open to the public as tourist attractions, to the effect that this requirement is unnecessarily restrictive. Our overriding concern is, of course, public safety. We therefore want to ensure that the defence is available only to bona fide museums. This is already achieved elsewhere in the clause and, on reflection, we agree that the requirement not to distribute profits is unnecessary. We are content to apply the defence to all bona fide museums, public and private. Amendment No. 127 provides another defence against the new offence of manufacturing, importing, selling or modifying realistic imitation firearms. The proposed defence would apply to people participating in organised airsoft games. This is an activity in which battle scenarios are acted out, using realistic imitation guns. The Government have received many representations for a defence or exemption for airsoft activities. We met a delegation of representatives from the airsoft sector. Their case is that, for them, using realistic guns is an important part of the ““airsoft experience.”” They have proposed a system of self-regulation, as a basis for exempting their activities from the ban. The Government have carefully considered the arguments put forward by the airsofters, but we see no compelling reason why they should not use non-realistic imitations for their activities. Airsofters will be able to take advantage of provisions in Clause 34, which will allow imitation firearms to be sold if their size, shape or principal colour is unrealistic. I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment on that point. However, government Amendments Nos. 127A and 127B will be of some assistance to the airsoft industry, as well as to users of imitation firearms more generally. In addition to airsofters, there will be a demand for non-realistic imitations from people such as dog trainers and race starters. We understand that the great majority of guns used in airsoft are made in Pacific Rim countries, and it is highly unlikely that manufacturers there will be prepared to modify their products to look non-realistic. Amendments Nos. 127A and 127B therefore provide a defence for business to import realistic imitation firearms solely for the purpose of modifying them to make them non-realistic. This will ensure that non-realistic imitations will be available to all those who have a real need for them. We have already demonstrated our attempts to be proportionate in what is covered by the provisions in the Bill on realistic imitation firearms. In particular, we have been clear that we do not wish to hinder historical re-enactment activities. To that end we broadened the scope of the defence in Clause 33 and defined ““realistic imitations”” in such a way as to exclude imitations of antique firearms. In case there are further difficulties, we have retained a power to make regulations. Amendment No. 127C seeks to extend the meaning of ““historical re-enactment”” to include any presentation or other event at which people use blank-firing realistic imitation firearms. Arguably this goes wider than intended, because there is no link to past events or conduct. However, even if it is not defective in this respect, such an amendment seems unnecessary. Clause 33 does not differentiate between realistic imitation firearms which are totally inert and those which fire blanks; they are all the same. It does not therefore matter whether an historical re-enactment is staged using inert realistic imitations or blank-firing ones. If it is organised and held by persons specified or described in regulations made under subsection (2)(e), they will still be able to obtain the same type of imitations they currently use. For those reasons, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. I think I have covered all the amendments covered in this group and beg to move.