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.)

In the tragic environment in which we live, with its large incidence of knife crime, committed so often with short blades from the kitchen drawer, we might be forgiven for feeling that we were taking part in a fringe performance. However, we must support the Government in seeking to apply common sense to specialised uses which would otherwise be caught by the legislation. I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on listening to the various representations. I join my noble friend Lady Hanham in thanking him for that. There are two specialised uses on which my honourable friend James Brokenshire did not get a totally satisfactory answer. I refer to historical re-enactment groups and martial arts. Is there a defence for both of those? Otherwise, we support the order.

It does not seem long since we welcomed the previous order on 6 April. We understood why the Government were going to introduce that provision. The fact that they have listened to the various groups and made some further exceptions is useful, but my questions relate to whether the various widening of the exceptions will mean that the defences are widened in the case of people using swords for offensive purposes. Obviously, in widening the group substantially, the Government are widening the supply of the weapons that are likely to be lent, given away or sold.

My questions relate to the Gurkha kukri knife, which has very important ceremonial qualities. Will this be exempt? Will they count the ceremonial athame for followers of hermetic magic and paganism? Freemasons traditionally carry swords as part of their regalia; I have no idea whether they are curved or not, but would they be exempt if they were? Presumably they would because they are ceremonial. But when people die, for example, those swords go to the antique or the collectors markets. What happens to them then? Is that a defence if you have bought one of them?

The Minister made the point that it was a defence if the weapon was made by hand, but what is the definition of that? Can it be made in a factory and simply finished by hand? Furthermore, having mulled this over, I wonder why the provision refers to blades of 50 centimetres and over; are blades of 49 centimetres any less likely to be deadly?

I associate myself with the comments of those who have said that these provisions, while worthy, merely touch the tip of the problem, including the comments from the Front Bench about knife crime and knives from the kitchen drawer. I am sure that that is something that we will debate in future.

The noble Viscount and the noble Baroness have got to the nub of the matter. One problem is to capture all the sorts of knives that one would like, which is just so difficult. There is such an availability of knives, including kitchen knives. The noble Viscount is absolutely right that they are more often used than ceremonial weapons. But the police were particularly concerned about these copies of samurai swords which had been used for a number of violent incidents. They were not the original swords made by the Japanese, which are so expensive and are made in a traditional style; apart from anything else, you know straight away from the cost. But the police were really concerned about these imitation samurai swords, which is why we went down this route. In the past few days, noble Lords may have seen people talking on television about knife crime, and there were pictures of three youths showing off with exactly those swords. They are extremely dangerous. So this is the right thing to do, but we have to ensure that other people are not captured by the provisions.

Enactment societies will be protected. The Sealed Knot society will be protected, for example, and so will the Gurkha kukris. The only swords that are over that length are used largely for ceremonials, particularly when an ox is ceremonially killed, for instance.

I do not know the answer to the Freemason question and I shall get back to noble Lords in writing. We are not meant to know what happens in freemasonry, are we? Noble Lords clearly have knowledge about that. I do not know the answer to that question, but with traditionally made swords one can tell the difference. This provision is not aimed at them.

We are in a very difficult area; there are much broader issues than simply removing knives, which are behind all these proposals. We will debate all these issues; they have been discussed for many months, but they have come to a head in the past week or so. Many other things impact on this; it is extremely difficult to capture all of them, but we have to change how people behave and act. That is the only real way in which to end these problems. But this small step is necessary. I hope that these changes make sense and will protect people who have a valid reason for having these weapons and are not the sort of people who go out and cause problems. I commend the order to the Committee.

Can we have clarification on martial arts?

I am informed by my team that martial arts are protected. I commend this order to the Committee.

On Question, Motion agreed to.