Clause 2 - Prohibition of tobacco advertising
Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [Lords]
9:00 am
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
One of the reasons that the hon. Gentleman does not follow my argument is that I have not yet had a chance to develop it. However, in due course, as I do so, perhaps all will become clear to him.
His example of a motor car salesman is interesting, because it makes my point.
I am not suggesting that in common law someone who sells computers might be caught. The hon. Gentleman is right. In common law, someone who sells a car cannot be held responsible for anything that the car is used for afterwards, provided that the car is in a proper state when sold. However, the difference between the hon. Gentleman's example and the matter under discussion is that the Bill would, if applied to the motor trade, provide that, irrespective of whether people know or do not know, if they sell a car that is later used for a crime, they would be caught.
That is exactly my point. The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that it would not apply to motor cars. My argument is that it should not apply to those who work for PC World, Dixons, Currys or anyone else, or people in the second-hand business. If I want to get caught up in the tobacco advertising business and buy second hand from a colleague a computer that is surplus because he uses stuff provided by the House, presumably under the Bill the person who sells me his surplus computer that I subsequently use for that purpose is providing a means of transmission. The hon. Gentleman is right in thinking that that is absurd. That is exactly my point. The clause is absurd and should not be in the Bill.
That is the situation with hardware. I understand my computer and, with my limited knowledge of websites, I know that I need software to make my hardware work. Are we seriously suggesting that everyone working for a software house based in the UK that provides software for my computer will be involved? My knowledge is limited, but I get the impression that many items of software are of a general nature. It is not as if one can go into a shop and say, ''I want to buy software that will do only this.'' A range of software will enable one to access all sorts of information.
Unless the Bill is amended, every person involved in the software business will be guilty of
''providing the means of transmission.''
I hope that the Minister acknowledges that that is absurd and does something about it. The Bill catches all the shop assistants in PC World, Dixons and Currys, and all those who work in software houses. We are doing well.
I tend to use mail order to buy IT equipment, whether software or computers. I place my order, and for as long as Consignia still exists and is willing to deliver packages, it will bring me my goods. Presumably, everyone involved in the delivery of my package, including the freight forwarding business that collects the computer from PC World and delivers it to my house, will also be
''participating in . . . providing the means of transmission.''
The Bill has managed to catch all those people as well. We are doing well.
I tend to use my credit card to make purchases. I buy computers and software by using my Visa or MasterCard. Therefore, those companies are funding
the purchase. People in the banking and credit card industry are making it possible for me to buy IT goods, so they are also
''participating in . . . providing the means of transmission''
because they have made the money available for me. Those working in Dixons, Currys, PC World, the Post Office or Consignia, lorry drivers and the entire banking industry are caught by the Bill.