Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) Order 2008

Up until the day before yesterday I would have thanked the noble Lord and said that I had no questions to ask. However, on that day I received a briefing from an organisation called the Early Medieval Alliance. It raised a number of apposite questions which I should like to put to the Minister. I make it quite clear that we fully understand the rationale behind the order and are basically supportive of it, but these areas would benefit from being clarified. The Early Medieval Alliance has put to us that the order will not ban all samurai swords, as Japanese-style, straight-bladed swords will still be legal; that it will not ban Japanese-style swords under 50 centimetres, which I believe are sometimes called ninja swords; and that it will not deal—the Minister touched on this—with cheap, fantasy-type swords. Therefore, it looks as though three fairly large areas will not be covered. The definition of ““third party insurance”” in this order is not as comprehensive or as correct as the definition in the measures in the imitation firearm section of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006. That Act also refers to liability insurance but the definition there is considered better and more appropriate than the one in the order. Were sword manufacturers consulted during the consultation process? Can the Minister say with confidence that the order will do what is intended and that the definition of ““samurai swords”” is sufficient to ensure that all similar weapons will be banned? If it is found that it does not cover the full gambit of such weapons, will the order be revisited? Does the Minister agree that it will still be worth while for the Home Office to have discussions with those involved in the manufacture and use of these swords for historical re-enactment and historical martial arts to ensure that the effects are as anticipated and that they do not go counter to what is intended and hold up any historical re-enactments that might be envisaged?