My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pendry. Not for the first time—and, I am sure, not for the last—the Government Front Bench will find itself, on one issue at least, in a small squeeze between the noble Lord and myself.
I want to suggest to the noble Baroness that we should correct a couple of previous pieces of legislation involving sport. She will be aware of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 and its intention to raise the standards of the security industry in relation to licensed premises and to reduce criminality within the security industry. However, is she aware that the regulating authority—the Security Industry Authority— has subsequently sought to include stewards at sports grounds and major sports events? I am led to understand that even the PGA European Tour open golf championship, the Olympics, when they come, and all other major sports events of that nature could fall, as they do at present under the law, within that remit. This potentially causes a huge financial and administrative burden to all the sports involved.
I understand that arrangements are already in place for football events under a separate regulatory framework, and rightly so. The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, knows considerably more about the football world than I do. However, during the initial consultation on the licensing of door supervisors et cetera, and in the accompanying regulatory impact assessment, it was not made explicit that the proposals would apply in the case of other sports events. Nor were representative bodies on the consultation lists. This seems to suggest that sporting events were not intended to come within the scope of this Act. The Minister for Sport, Richard Caborn, has said that in other places. It may well have been an oversight that they were not excluded from the Act in the same way as cinemas and theatres were.
I understand that, as of last week, it has become illegal to work as a security guard without an SIA license, which means that organisers of sports events are now—today—potentially criminally liable for using unlicensed stewards. I also understand that consultation is going on between those representing sports events organisers and the Home Office. While this consultation is going on, however, members of the sports industry have been left in uncertainty about whether they will fall foul of the Act. As I understand it, they are relying solely on an informal agreement with the police that they will not be prosecuted. I am sure noble Lords will agree that that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The Bill presents us with an opportunity to rectify this unfortunate situation. I ask the Minister to table an amendment in Committee through which we can agree to sort this out, or perhaps I could speak to officials outside the Chamber and try to draft an opposition amendment that might satisfy the Government.
The second issue is another problem caused by previous legislation which also was mentioned earlier today by my noble friend Lady Anelay. It is the effect of firearms legislation on the ability of our pistol-shooting athletes to compete with foreign competitors on an equal footing. I acknowledge the sensitive nature of this issue. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 was passed after the terrible events at Dunblane. However, the ban on sporting handguns has had a disproportionate effect on would-be international and Olympic competitors who wish to represent their country in a perfectly legitimate activity.
I accept that there is a massive gun crime problem in the United Kingdom, but I am afraid that, since 1997, the current system has proved ineffective in preventing the rise in gun crime, while jeopardising the UK’s medal-winning attempts for the London 2012 Olympics. Three of the 15 Olympic shooting disciplines involve the use of banned cartridge-firing pistols, but the current situation means that our athletes have to store their weapons and train abroad for these events at great expense and inconvenience. I understand that, for the Manchester Commonwealth Games in 2002, special licenses had to be issued to allow the English team to import their pistols into the UK. While this may provide a temporary and expedient solution for a specific event, it does not address the lack of opportunity for young pistol shots to train regularly and cheaply. As the Government have just set a target of the UK being in the top four of the final medal ratings for the 2012 Olympics, now would be an excellent time to remove this impediment to our medal-winning hopes. I understand that the Great Britain Target Shooting Federation is in talks with the Home Office on this issue. The last thing I would wish would be for anything to jeopardise a successful outcome to those discussions, but given the context of the Bill, now would seem an appropriate moment to ask Her Majesty’s Government what their intentions are in this matter.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and to further discussions on the detail of the legislation at a later date.
Violent Crime Reduction Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Glentoran
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 29 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Violent Crime Reduction Bill 2005-06.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
680 c825-7 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-26 16:44:11 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_313903
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_313903
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_313903