| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Merchant: As a matter of fact, we do not legislate for the majority or the minority: we legislate for everyone across the board. That was the point that I was trying to make. The hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the law was necessary to deal with a number of cases. He is right to say that he did not specify how many there were, but his argument gave me the impression that he was talking about a large number. All I seek to do is to suggest that the number is extremely small and--this is the crucial point--the number of cases in which the ASA would not be able to solve the problem would be roughly equivalent to the number of cases in which the law could not solve the problem, if the amendment was accepted.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept and understand that the existence of a law does not prevent an offence from being committed. Even if the amendment were successful, people would still break the law, and place advertisements with no telephone number given, but with a discreet way of obtaining the goods concerned.
That happens now in other areas, including pornography, which is why there is a thriving, though illegal, pornography industry. The sole purpose of my remarks is to point out that the amendment would not have any effect and would not improve the situation. The self-regulatory system is extremely effective. For the most part, it achieves the objective, and when it does not, nor would the law.
Lady Olga Maitland:
I have great sympathy for the arguments put by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. We have discussed the issue in the Chamber, in Committee and outside. It would be a great pity if we dismissed the hon. Gentleman's concern out of hand, and I wish to demonstrate to him much thought I have given to the subject and how hard I have gone into his arguments. I hope that he will bear with me while I try to give him a real answer. I will not delay the House for too long.
It is appalling to see advertisements that appear to encourage vulnerable young teenagers or their older friends to buy vicious knives that serve no useful purpose, save to harm others. It is equally appalling to read advertisements that appear to incite or condone the possession of those knives for violent purposes. No one could dispute that.
I have read the report by the Advertising Standards Authority on weapons advertising, and I have a copy here. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has studied it; if not, I shall let him have a copy. The report contains some provocative reading. The ASA conducted a survey, and I found its attitude a trifle complacent. The authority said that it had received only four complaints in six years and that, therefore, there were not as many serious grounds for complaint and anxiety as we believe. However, in my view, the authority failed to recognise that the kind of magazines that publish those disturbing advertisements are read largely by people who enjoy or are somewhat excited by such material and they are not likely to complain. The complaints have to be brought in from outside.
Admittedly, the ASA was very concerned about a mail order advertisement for a wide variety of pocket, hunting and fishing knives. Although the advertisement contained no specific claims, its headline "KNIVES, KNIVES, KNIVES" was considered excessive. The report drew my attention to replica knives, which were given some very unhealthy descriptions. For example, a 13 in replica sword based on those used in the Napoleonic wars was described as being
A replica skean-dhu was described as a "wickedly effective fighting knife." The ASA conceded that such advertisements were questionable, but other descriptions are even more vivid. A "Terminator Terror Sword"--the name alone is sufficient cause for concern--was described thus:
It should be said that, usefully, the ASA has paid just as much attention to guns in its research. Guns do not come within the scope of the Bill, but in the light of the terrible Dunblane tragedy there is no doubt that there are
lessons to be learnt about the way in which some guns are promoted. Bearing in mind the time element which is pressing on us, I shall not go into that subject.
In clause 6, the proposal is to make it an offence to sell certain articles, including knives and razor blades, to those under 16. The offence would be one of selling rather than buying. The onus would be on the seller rather than the buyer. I think that that is right, given that there is already an offence of carrying a knife in public. The additional offence of buying would create too great a concentration of offences. The problem is adequately catered for by having selling and carrying offences.
The proposal behind the amendment is to create an offence of encouraging and inciting the purchase of a knife or other banned article by someone under 16 years of age. We cannot have an offence of inciting someone to commit another offence that does not exist. Someone could be held to be inciting another to carry a knife or other offensive weapon in public without good reason, but that would not require legislative change. We must reject--
Mr. Michael:
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Lady Olga Maitland:
I shall continue. It may be helpful if I complete what I am saying.
We must reject the proposal that is set out in the first part of the amendment on the basis that it is flawed. It would create an offence of incitement to do something that is not of itself an offence.
It is proposed also to create a different offence, which would be to advertise one of the articles whose sale to people under 16 we proposed to ban in a way that appears to incite or condone the possession of that article for violent purposes. It is already a common law offence for a person to incite or encourage another to commit a crime. To advertise an article for sale, representing its virtue to be that it may be used to undertake an act that is an offence, is an incitement to commit that very offence. That is true even when the advertisement is accompanied by a warning that the act is an offence.
I am trying to say that we are already covered by existing legislation. We do not need to go that bit further, as is proposed by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. It is clear that the amendment would add nothing to existing law. Although incitement can arise in relation to any offence, it is not general practice to include specific provisions for incitement for each offence. The result would be cumbersome and unnecessary.
Despite the findings set out in the ASA's report, I am concerned that it appears to be lacklustre when it comes to what it would like to do next. Surely the onus is on the ASA. It should monitor the media annually. Having said that it will take its responsibility on board, the ASA cannot duck it and say that the job is too large. It seems that there are many people who would help the ASA to undertake its task. There is plenty of evidence that the relevant material can be brought to light.
The ASA should not wait for a complaint to be brought before it before taking action. It should move rapidly as soon as it sees an advertisement that is downright dangerous and inflammatory. It must put much more direct pressure on advertisers, publicising what has been done and forcing them to withdraw such advertisements.
We should also encourage the police to take action when material that clearly incites others to commit crimes is brought to their attention. The police, after all, have the powers, and they should feel free to use them.
In view of those matters, I feel that it is not realistic to support the amendment--much as I sympathise with its spirit. Because of the ASA report, I believe that we should be keeping an eye on the situation and pressing that agency to be vigilant in exercising its responsibilities. At a later stage, if the system is not working, we will have to think again.
Mr. Kirkhope:
I cannot say that I am without sympathy for the views that have been expressed. We had a very interesting debate on this matter in Committee, when I expressed some sympathy for the concerns expressed not only by my hon. Friends but by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam that the amendment--although it is well meaning--is flawed in one part, and I believe that the other part is unnecessary. I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will in due course withdraw it.
I believe that the amendment is aimed at, among other things, dealing with the serious issue of how such articles are advertised and how that advertising is controlled. I should like to comment on the advertising of weapons in the context of the Advertising Standards Authority's recent report, to which hon. Members have referred.
The ASA has just reported on its survey of weapons advertising in the non-broadcast media. I understand that the report, which some us have already received, will be made more widely available in due course. The report is of very great interest, although the Bill, as we know, does not contain proposals directly affecting advertising.
The survey's aim was to ascertain the prevalence and presentation of weapons advertisements in the United Kingdom. Those conducting it monitored a range of newspapers, magazines and mail order catalogues during the first two weeks of February this year, and they made the following findings. They found a total of 259 advertisements, which included duplicates. The advertisements were for guns, knives, sports goods--ranging from martial arts weapons to archery equipment--replicas and catalogues. Of the total, 226--or 87 per cent.--of the advertisements were for guns, including air rifles, pistols and so-called "soft firers", which are guns that fire balls at very low velocity. The great majority of advertisements came from titles dedicated to such subjects as martial arts, fishing and field sports. About half were classified as advertisements for guns.
The ASA reports its views on the acceptability of advertisements under the British codes of advertising and sales promotion. I shall deal in a moment with what the ASA can and cannot do in situations in which it considers that advertisements are in breach of the codes.
The codes lay down the criteria for advertising standards and state that advertisements should be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and society,
and that they should not contain anything that might condone or encourage violent or anti-social behaviour. Advertisements that were presented in a manner that might appeal to the immature or unstable mind, for example, would be unacceptable. Similarly, if a weapons advertisement were emotive or aggressive, it would come into conflict with the codes.
I turned with interest to the section of the ASA report that considered whether the advertisements picked up by the survey were considered to be acceptable or unacceptable. That is of interest for two reasons. The first reason is that we all, I think, want to know whether advertisers are behaving themselves. Secondly, however, I believe that it is helpful for us to have some insight into the way in which the ASA judges whether an advertisement is acceptable.
Of the 259 advertisements picked up by the survey, the great majority--94 per cent.--were considered to be acceptable under the codes. The remaining 6 per cent. were considered to be questionable. I should say that the low level of questionable advertisements should not lead us into complacency. As I mentioned earlier, 97 per cent. of the advertisements came from titles dedicated to subjects as diverse as martial arts, fishing and field sports. I believe that most advertisers will be responsible about the manner in which their advertisements are presented.
Although the ASA's report does not make it explicit, I believe that the majority of advertisements that were found to be offensive were at what one might call the "seedy end" of the range. Much of this relates to guns and knives rather than other offensive weapons--it is the latter with which we are mainly concerned now--but it would be helpful if I referred to the report as a whole because of the light that it sheds on the ASA's general approach.
In my opinion, certain mail order publications pander to the immature with advertisements of the type that I mentioned in Committee and that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned again a few moments ago. The ASA stated:
That certainly seems to be a promising starting point.
The report went on to say that six advertisements caused concern by referring to
and
and that phrase is followed by the brand name. The ASA states that, although these expressions could be relatively harmless if used purely in the context of the Olympic sport of shooting, in other contexts the descriptions could be inappropriately emotive.
Five of the advertisements picked up in the survey were considered questionable by the ASA because they seemed unnecessarily provocative. A mail order advertisement placed by a retailer of air guns, swords, knives and replicas was considered irresponsible because of the use of the following language:
I do not pretend to understand all that, but I understand enough to find it highly offensive. The ASA viewed that advertisement as aggressive and likely to appeal to the immature. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam cited similar examples which I do not need to repeat.
I take some heart from the ASA's criticism of advertisements that appear to take a frivolous approach to the advertising of potentially dangerous weapons. I know that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is especially concerned about that. The ASA's report mentions a mail order advertisement for rifles. It is in the style of a comic strip in which the characters use expressions such as "Brill!", which we all know is an abbreviation of "brilliant", and "Get this!" The ASA considers that an immature way to promote guns.
Three of the mail order catalogues were considered to contain questionable advertising material. One advertisement for a gun referred to a "fistful of fun" along with the statement:
The ASA considered that a frivolous and irresponsible way to promote an air gun. As has been said, many immature people, or those with psychological difficulties, do not look at advertisements in the way that people with a more mature mind might. That certainly causes me great concern.
I shall deal now with the ASA's follow-up action to the survey. The purpose of the survey was, given current concerns about the sale of weapons, to ascertain the prevalence and presentation of weapons advertising in the United Kingdom. The ASA will distribute the report widely, which is good because it needs careful scrutiny. It will ask all the companies whose advertisements it considers unacceptable or questionable to amend them in future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) referred to the nature of the ASA's approach when it feels that sanctions might be necessary. Judging from its past performance, I believe that the ASA will be successful, but I remind the House that the ASA has no statutory powers. It was established in 1962 as an independent body to administer the British codes of advertising and sales promotion. The codes regulate the content of all non-broadcast media in the United Kingdom. The authority seeks to ensure that everyone who commissions, prepares, places and publishes advertisements observes the codes.
In this context, it is important to realise that many sanctions are available and that they are widely spread throughout the non-broadcast media. They include adverse publicity, the refusal of further advertising space when codes are broken, the removal of trade incentives, which is often very important, and legal proceedings if advertisements are in any way misleading.
"carried by riflemen for vicious hand to hand combat."
"an explosive power radiates from this monstrous double handed sword . . . fearsome death's head skull that grins menacingly . . . absolutely awesome 56" overall."
The ASA conceded that the words were sinister, menacing, monstrous, unnecessary and excessive.
"Advertisements should not glorify violence nor should they suggest that psychological excitement is to be gained from owning and handling weapons. Claims which refer to power and strength (even by using exaggerated exclamation marks) could appeal to the immature or unstable mind."
"The lightweight rifle packing the heavy punch!!"
"Pistol power! shooting fun starts with",
"How cash crunching prices leave competitors heads rolling like lemons on lino. Battle burgers, had enough of pledgee wedges and stench warfare? . . . Sadistic ballistics".
26 Apr 1996 : Column 706
"it's the kind of gun you just can't put down".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |