Violent Crime Reduction Bill

moved Amendment No. 106:"Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause—" ““SPORTS GROUNDS: EXEMPTION FROM PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY REGULATION In Schedule 2 to the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (c. 12) (door supervisors etc for public houses, clubs and comparable venues) after paragraph 8(3)(d) insert— ““(   )   on any occasion on which a licence is in force in respect of the premises under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and where they are being used wholly or mainly for purposes for which such a licence is required, other than at a football match designated as such for the purposes of Part 1 of the Football Spectators Act 1989””.”” The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 106, which stands in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran, Lord Addington and Lord Hoyle, seeks to address an anomaly inadvertently created by the Private Security Industry Act 2001, which has led to the unnecessary and burdensome regulation of stewards at sports grounds by the Security Industry Authority. Before I cover much of this in detail, I declare an interest by reminding the Chamber that I am chairman of the All-Party Sports Group as well as president of the Football Foundation, having served as chairman of that body and its predecessor, the Football Trust. The Minister will recall that I expressed these concerns briefly on Second Reading, as did other noble Lords—particularly the noble Lords Lord Glentoran and Lord Addington. But it is worth reminding the Chamber that the Private Security Industry Act 2001 was intended to raise security standards on licensed premises and to reduce criminality in the security sector. In effect, it was intended to deal with bouncers and wheel-clampers. It is worth noting that the Government have intended to regulate the private security industry since March 1999, and at no stage since then—the White Paper, the passing of the Bill and the establishment of the Security Industry Authority—has there been any consultation on matters with any English sporting authority. Under the 2001 Act, the SIA is required to communicate with and to consult key stakeholders. I could go through a whole list of those who were consulted, but I will not. In all, 51 organisations were consulted. Yet again, however, not one organisation that represents any sporting body was consulted. So it is unsurprising that sporting bodies are amazed that the Act was drafted in such a way that it inadvertently caught sports stewards within its remit. Indeed, it is clear that not only sport was surprised by the sudden appearance of the SIA on its territory. By happy chance of fate, the Minister who took the original Act through this House is now once again at the Dispatch Box for this Bill. He will recall that he told this House during the passage of that Bill that the Private Security Industry Act 2001 would not apply to in-house sports stewards. More recently, Paul Goggins, the then Home Office Minister in charge of this legislation in the other place, told a sporting audience at the CCPR last October that it was not envisaged that the Act would apply to sport. We now know that it does. He said that we needed to find a way of dealing with it. At the same meeting he promised to consider the possibility of amending primary legislation to correct this anomaly. Today, this Chamber has that chance. Proportionality is key to the debate. There is no evidence of criminality or poor standards in the stewarding of security at sporting events. Yet the cost of licensing them under the SIA is prohibitively high. For many stewards involved in quite standard activity, the requisite qualifications would cost several hundred pounds and require hours to be devoted to training time. The Better Regulation Task Force has reviewed the matter and concluded that sport should not be regulated in this way. Clearly, the financial and administrative costs of licensing enough stewards to work at events held at venues such as Twickenham, Lord’s and Wimbledon championships would be huge. And we are not talking simply about the loss of financial revenue. As well as threatening to increase costs for sports events, it also threatens to divert resources away from investing in effective stewarding to licensing costs and training procedures that are not appropriate. It would reduce the levels of protection at our sports grounds, where those who run them are deservedly proud of their worldwide claim on safety standards. This amendment, which I am pleased has received widespread support across all sides of the Chamber, is intended to establish a point of principle; namely, that sports grounds already regulated through a safety certificate mechanism overseen by local authorities and the police should be exempt from the SIA licensing. That would give sport the same exclusion already applied to other sectors, such as cinemas and theatres. There is no reduction in standards of public safety as those safety licensing requirements would still apply. It was perhaps no coincidence that on the same day that I raised the issue at Second Reading, the Home Office published a consultation document on the subject. Since then there have been meetings between the Home Office, the SIA and some of the major sporting governing bodies, including Rugby Union, Rugby League, tennis and cricket. I am very encouraged to have received feedback, as no doubt have many of my colleagues, from these meetings. I am told that they have been very constructive. The Home Office is now actively looking at bringing forward measures that would have exactly the same effect as the spirit of this amendment. This would include making sure that all sports stadia covered not only by the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 but also by the 1987 fire safety certificates will be excluded from the SIA licensing. I look forward to the Minister’s reply. It is important that the Minister makes a clear indication of the timetable he proposes in order to address this issue. I am told that the consultation is due to end on 15 June. It would reassure me, and my noble friends who support this amendment, if this Chamber is given assurance from him that Report stage will be scheduled after that date, so that we have time to consider the best way forward. I beg to move.