Violent Crime Reduction Bill

I welcome government Amendment No. 126, because it addresses the concern I raised at Second Reading regarding museums and galleries. The Minister referred to Amendment No. 127, on airsoft, and Amendment 127C, which asks about the impact of the Bill on historical re-enactors. I shall deal with historical re-enactments first because I can be briefer on that. I understood from what the Minister said that, in a sense, it does not matter what those organising historical re-enactments fire, provided they fall within the definitions of those persons in the clause. They will not necessarily contravene the law if they are using blank-firing realistic imitation weapons. The Minister may well have given me the assurance that I need. Last week I explained my reasons for tabling this amendment to the head of the Bill team. The Minister attacked the drafting of the amendment, but this was only a tool, not an end in itself. It was a probing amendment because I had received a letter of concern from Mr Owen David Powell, secretary of the Great War Society. The society fulfils an important educational role in helping to preserve a piece of this country’s history and heritage. It honours the memory of the British soldiers of the Great War. It also does a lot of work raising money for the Royal British Legion. There is urgency about this inquiry because this summer the society is due to play a major part in the ninetieth anniversary commemoration of the battle of the Somme. It has planned this in conjunction with the French Tourist Board and has approval for its activities from French local government officials. Again, with this event it will be raising money for the Royal British Legion. They will be followed by British Forces TV. It is a big, prestigious and serious event. The society welcomed the Government’s decision to drop deactivated firearms from the scope of the Bill, and the inclusion of a specific defence, in Clause 33, for the use of realistic imitation firearms in historical re-enactments. Just one area of concern remains. I shall ask about it very clearly, because the Government’s answer may have given the assurance, but in rather occluded language. The society is concerned that the legal use of blank-firing realistic imitations may still be in question once the Bill reaches the statute book. In that case it would cause it a problem because it owns a blank-firing imitation Lewis gun, for use in demonstrating infantry fire and movement tactics for the period at public displays. The society will take the gun abroad this summer as part of the display at the Somme. Having taken it to France, the society does not want to then be in the position of not being allowed to bring it back into this country because it is illegal. All I want is an assurance that it will not be contravening the terms of this new Act—as it will be by the Summer Recess, I imagine—once it has taken the Lewis gun out of the country and then wants to bring it back in again. They are very law-abiding people. It may seem odd to think that that was the shorter part of the explanation; the longer part concerns airsoft. I was very content that both my amendments were grouped with the government amendments. It made sense to do so, but it means that I need to refer at some length to the question of what is likely to happen to those who take part in the sport of airsoft. The Minister has said that he rejects my amendment and that the Government are looking at the issue of those who take part in airsoft activities, but there is no compelling reason for them to use realistic imitations. I think it is right that I put on record the background of why I tabled the amendment and why the Association of British Airsoft has a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed in the Bill. Amendment No. 127 has as its objective to ensure that those who engage in airsoft activities can continue to do so in their current form. It would give them a defence to the offence of using a realistic imitation firearm. It would only enable them to continue their sport following the regulations set down by the Secretary of State. I am being reasonable; the Government could thereby ensure that the sport was only carried out under regulated and safe conditions and ensure that those weapons could not be available to those who wanted to use them for illegal purposes. I am very grateful to the Association of British Airsoft for its careful briefing on these matters. I appreciate that the amendments passed on these matters in another place may not have quite the beneficial effect that the Government intended, and that the sport of airsoft is under threat as a result. Airsofters have said to me that it is vital in skirmishing that they should be able to use realistic imitation weapons, and that is where there is a mismatch between them and the Government. There has been a degree of misunderstanding on this point by the then-Minister Hazel Blears. She continued to hold discussions with airsofters until the reshuffle, in what I feel was intended by her to be a constructive way. Her letter following a meeting on 7 February reveals the basis of this misunderstanding:"““While I do accept that realism is an important aspect of airsoft activities, having carefully considered the representations which you made, together with those made to me direct by individual players, I have to say I am not persuaded that the tactical and other skills you referred to cannot be developed using imitation firearms that are distinguishable from the real thing””." It is not tactics and skills that are the core reasons for airsofters’ need for the continued purchase of realistic imitations; it is the realism of the whole experience. Since the Minister said that he does not think that is a compelling argument, I ought to put on record briefly what airsoft comprises. I am aware that many noble Lords will not yet have been briefed on the sport. In layman’s terms, airsoft skirmishing is an action game based on military simulation. Airsoft is much more than a simple game of tag, as paintball tends to be. I am advised that it is an all-encompassing experience, which constantly evolves and changes. In that respect, it is much more akin to the film industry or re-enactment than either to paintball or laser tag. The experience of creating an alternative reality is no different from that of the film industry or re-enactment; both use special effects and props to entertain their audience. It would be unfeasible and ridiculous to suggest that the film industry or re-enactors should give up replicas that are realistic, and the Government are not asking them to do so. But they are asking airsoft skirmishers to do just that and give up their realistic imitations. The Association of British Airsoft showed me photographs of skirmishing with realistic imitation weapons, and photographs in a mock-up situation with the brightly coloured weapons that would be allowed under the legislation. Instead of standing with a realistic imitation firearm, you would have a great big piece of yellow or orange, perhaps see-through, plastic; it does make the whole sport look ridiculous. To say that there is any way that one would be taking part in an experience would become laughable. To create the illusion and the experience, airsofters need the props that are fit for the job; bright yellow guns are not fit for the job. Exemptions have been given to the film industry and to re-enactors, and I am seeking a similar exemption for airsofters. I heard the very firm response by the Minister that there was no compelling argument. I certainly am not giving up on this matter, as I feel there is a reasonable argument. I do not seek to divide the House today, because I feel that it may be possible to benefit from further discussions before Report stage, if the Government are prepared to continue with those discussions. I hope that the Minister is prepared to say today that he will look kindly on saying to the Home Office that we should have some kind of discussion, both on a political level and with the Association of British Airsoft, before Report stage.