Violent Crime Reduction Bill

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, who, as we all know, has served the world of sport with great distinction, as have the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Addington. I shall try to be as helpful as I possibly can. This issue has followed me around for the past five or six years and, like everyone else, I shall be delighted if we can finally put it to bed and find a resolution to some of the difficulties that have arisen as a product of the unintended consequences of legislation which I thought at the time was extremely useful—although I was warned by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that one should be very careful in legislating that one does not create more of a problem than one is solving. This situation reminds of that occasion. His words have turned out to be rather wiser than I thought at the time, although I always listen very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has to say. I also thank all noble Lords who have taken part in discussions outside of your Lordships’ House because they have been very helpful indeed. No one is seeking to make a cheap, low-blow political point. I know that everyone is trying to be helpful and I am grateful to all those involved for working in a very constructive way. I want to restate that I am equally committed to working with the representatives of the organisations which have raised this issue in the way they have to find an agreeable way forward. To recap, noble Lords will recall from the Second Reading debate of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 that a measure was introduced to protect the public by reducing criminality and raising standards within the security industry, a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, rightly made reference. There was a concern at that point about the activities of security staff on premises licensed to sell alcohol. Coming from Brighton, where we have a great many clubs, I had been frequently pressed over the preceding 20-odd years to get some effective government action because of some particular incidents of concern. This was a national issue. There is a need to protect the public, but that need has to be balanced against the need to avoid over-regulation in the industry. It is important that both effective and appropriate security measures are in place whenever they are needed and that the legislation is effective where it adds value. There have been some differences of opinion on whether or not the 2001 Act was intended to cover sports stewards. When I took the Private Security Industry Bill through the House, I said that it would not cover in-house football stewards and would cover those provided under contract. I also said I thought it was appropriate that one-off events such as pop concerts should be covered. It was also clear that in-house staff needed to be licensed when they were working on licensed premises. That latter point brings in security staff at sports grounds, which include licensed premises, and is the point, in essence, of the amendment. I want to move on from history and focus on where we are and where we want to end up. Not everyone who works as a sports or events steward needs to be licensed—far from it. Those who do not need to be licensed include volunteers, ticket collectors and all safety stewards who do not undertake any guarding responsibilities. Broadly speaking, in-house security staff do not need to be licensed unless they work in licensed premises or as wheel-clampers, or also provide security services under contract to someone else. Only those who undertake security activities or hold certain responsibilities within the company need licensing. At sports events where the risk of disorder or other relevant crime is low, I expect that there would be need for few security staff, with the great majority being safety stewards. Some events might not need any, but where they do, there is much to be said for common standards. The licensing of sports and events staff has, I readily acknowledge, been a contentious issue. Some of those from the sports and events industry who are directly involved have made clear their views that their stewards should not be required to be licensed. However, other groups have made equally clear their views that all people undertaking licensable activity should be licensed, and that to remove sports and events stewards from the remit of the Act would not be justifiable. For that reason, the Home Office has—conveniently, in a sense—recently issued a consultation document on how the Private Security Industry Act 2001 is applied to security staff at sports and other events. The deadline for responses, as has been astutely observed, is 16 June. The amendment goes to the heart of that consultation paper, and accepting it now would be premature. But it will, I hope, be helpful if I set out some considerations we will be likely to take into account once the consultation period is over. The Act allows for exclusion of premises from additional controls—that is, from the control that in licensed premises, in-house stewards must also be licensed. I am happy to confirm that exclusions can be achieved through secondary legislation. The Act does not set a framework within which applications for exclusion could be considered. There is an obvious need for such a framework to ensure clarity for those who may wish to apply and consistency in the Government’s decision making. The establishment of such a framework might be one outcome of the consultation process, along with guidance on the sorts of evidence that would need to be provided by applicants. That evidence might include, for example, the benefits brought by a sports safety certificate. Other outcomes might include decisions on whether anything within the current licensing regime, as described in the Act or as operated in practice, needs clarifying or amending. Some stakeholders may have a variety of concerns, while others may find that greater understanding of what is required, or the provision of guidance or worked examples, will be sufficient to remove whatever concerns they have. I am hoping that we will get some valuable responses to the consultation paper, and today’s debate suggests that we will. Other points will be raised that are not covered in the debate. The better the quality of the responses, the more likely we are to be able to reach speedy decisions that result in proper and professional security arrangements for the public, and regulation which bites where it needs to add value. My colleagues at the Home Office and the DCMS have had helpful meetings with my noble friend, and officials have had constructive discussions with a variety of sports bodies, including those covered by the amendment. These discussions will feed into the consultation process. The purpose behind the amendment is much better addressed in that context than in isolation, which would leave a lot of stakeholders’ concerns unmet and make the licensing of security less coherent. However, I take the concerns behind it very seriously. Members of the Committee were pressing me for a timetable. I hope it will be possible for those responsible for ordering the business of this House to ensure that Report is not reached until after 16 June, when the consultation period closes. That would result in a debate on much clearer ground next time round. I hope that we will be able to look afresh at this at Report stage, taking carefully into account the comments that have been made. We will have the benefit of the consultation period behind us and the comments made by the organisations consulted to ensure that we achieve, in broad terms, the objective that noble Lords have raised in the debate. The noble Baroness asked a specific question about golf. I had not thought that golf stewarding would be a major issue when I came to this debate but, having watched a little golf myself, I can see that there could be problems. We will obviously consider the position of golf as we reconsider the other issues through the consultation process. The noble Baroness’s comments were very helpful. This has been a very helpful and constructive debate. I am grateful for the spirit in which the amendment has been tabled. I hope that we can continue the process of consultation and that it is as constructive as it has been to date. I hope that we can reach an outcome that satisfies those in the various sports involved so that we can finally put this issue to rest and that the regulation of security at sports stadiums and venues is proportionate and effective and not as burdensome as some noble Lords have described or as has been made plain to us through representations. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will feel confident in withdrawing his amendment.