Violent Crime Reduction Bill

This amendment seeks to confine the definition of the term ““modern firearm”” to purposes connected with the Violent Crime Reduction Bill and no wider. It might help if I briefly reminded the House that the reason we introduced the concept of a modern firearm was to allow realistic imitations of what might loosely be classed as antique firearms, being of a type which the modern criminal is unlikely to use in pursuit of his nefarious activities. However, there is no cut-off date in the legislation for antiques. Indeed, there are some firearms which are regarded as antiques by virtue of the fact that they are chambered for obsolete cartridges or use obscure ignition systems. Many of these look pretty much like firearms in use today and it would not have made sense for realistic imitations of these to be allowed. Instead, we have confined the ban to realistic imitations of modern firearms which will exclude those which have a design and mechanism of a sort first dating from before 1870. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, readily acknowledged, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, explained at Second Reading why we chose this date. It was because that was when the manufacture of a particular type of breech-loading firearm became more widespread. I am happy to put on record again that we intend this date to apply only to the Violent Crime Reduction Bill; it has no effect on Section 54(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 which deals with the status of real antique firearms. It would be otiose to add the wording suggested by the amendment. Moreover, there is a danger that its inclusion might suggest in relation to other pieces of legislation that specific provisions could indeed be used more widely in interpreting other laws unless there was a clear expression to the contrary. I hope that I given a clear assurance. I believe that I have. I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.