Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Every hon. Member has said that tackling violent crime and intimidatory antisocial behaviour is a priority for our constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe) was right when he said that people want to know not just that we are concerned about such things, but what we are going to do about them. The Bill is an important step along the road in tackling alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour. I want to address part 2. The link between replica firearms and violent crime is clear. The statistics have been mentioned and are widely available. We must tackle that problem and do something about replica firearms. Although the Bill will probably contribute to that, I share some of the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). I hope that the Committee will consider the problems of definition, because they could give us problems. It is only right that the Bill covers possible exemptions, but jumping too far one way will drive a coach and horses through our legislation while jumping too far the other way will outlaw collectors’ items. We need to consider that in detail. I want to concentrate on selling guns and knives. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green made a good point about internet sales. I have concerns about holes in existing legislation and its implementation as it relates to existing retail outlets. According to the Knives Act 1997,"““A person is guilty of an offence if he markets a knife in a way which . . . indicates, or suggests, that it is suitable for combat; or . . . is otherwise likely to stimulate or encourage violent behaviour involving the use of the knife as a weapon.””" That is relatively clear. Looking at some of the retail outlets in my constituency and other places, however, I find it difficult to relate what is on sale, and how it is marketed and advertised, to that legislation. A market stall in my constituency is called Guns and Knives, and it is a bit like the ad that says, ““It does what it says on the tin””, because it has an array of everything from crossbows to ninja knives, to all kinds of blades and BB guns. Today it advertised an Uzi sub-machine gun at cut price, although I do not know whether it was a replica or BB gun. I am not suggesting that the retailer is breaking the law or selling knives to children. The evidence is that he is not. It is also true to say that he has signs up saying, ““For collectors’ use only””. However, residents are concerned about how the products are marketed and the fact that they are in their face when they walk into the stall. In fact, they are so concerned that when the local Labour party organised a petition a month or two ago on the marketing of guns and knives in the open, people queued up to sign it. There was no doubt about the concern. I pay tribute to my constituent, Lucy Seymor-Smith, who brought the petition together and presented it to the local council, which is considering it. I am pleased to say that the local paper, the Birmingham Evening Mail, has taken up the problem and did a fairly major piece on the stall. It has raised some of the concerns felt by my constituents. The article brought out the suggestion that a blade from the stall was used in a violent incident not far from the constituency. There is a problem with how knives are marketed. Bearing in mind what the 1997 Act says about blades not being marketed in a way that suggests they are used for combat, it is significant that another shop in my constituency is called Combat. It sells things to do with legitimate martial arts—kendo and forms of unarmed martial arts—but there are also various forms weapons or imitation weapons in the window. I am not suggesting that the trader does not draw a distinction between selling equipment for kendo and having a Samurai sword purely for ceremonial purposes. Perhaps he does. If we are trying to counter the culture of violence, we need to be a lot firmer and more focused on breaking the link between legitimate martial arts and the glorification of violence that is all too often associated with the marketing of imitation guns, blades, crossbows and so on. Where blades are concerned, it is not just a case of new legislation; the issue is one of enforcement. However, retailers have a responsibility not simply to put up a sign saying ““For collectors’ use only”” and then to market and advertise the items in a way that runs counter to the message that that sign gives. If they advertised their goods on television or in the press, they would be covered by an Advertising Standards Authority code of practice that would severely limit the way in which they did so. Yes, it is a system of self-regulation, but there are ASA rules. However, a retailer selling from a market stall or a shop can put what they want, how they want it, in their shop window as long as they can point to their sign saying ““For collectors’ use only””. They are under little obligation to adopt reasonable standards and to market their items in a way that indicates that they are for collectors’ use, rather than in a way that glorifies violence. There is a link between the way in which such items are marketed and the culture of violence that can lead to people seeing guns or knives as attractive fashion accessories and, further down the line, to the committing of violent crimes. As well as giving the Bill its Second Reading and examining it in detail in Committee, I ask the House to think about how we can be more proactive about ensuring that the provisions of existing law—in particular the Knives Act—are enforced. Ministers should also consider negotiating and drawing up with the retail trade a code of practice similar to the ones relating to print and electronic media, so that there is some oomph behind the legislation. In that way, police and trading standards officers will have an extra tool to use when they visit retail premises. We must have some means of ensuring that marketing to the legitimate collector—the person who wants to have a ceremonial dagger on their wall, for example—is not used as a cover for the glorification of violence and weapons.