Violent Crime Reduction Bill

My name has been added to this amendment, which I strongly support. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Glentoran for taking this matter forward and for doing so in such a measured and constructive way. As he said, he was not seeking to apportion blame for the results of the 1997 ban. I came to this House in 1996 and listened to the debates at that time. I was aware of the very strong feelings around the House about the impact of a ban on the very responsible sportspeople and users of firearms, particularly in rural areas. I know that there was also a determination around the House to ensure that no further atrocities could prevail. There was a very constructive discussion at that time and I know that that will continue. As my noble friend pointed out, the difficulty is that the legislation has had a disproportionate effect on the ability of our pistol shooters to compete in international events in the proper way and to fulfil their potential. It is to their credit that they have achieved as much as they have against a background of tremendously difficult circumstances. We thought it was right to consider this matter in the context of the United Kingdom hosting the 2012 Olympics. Perhaps I may respond to the questions very properly put by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. I confess immediately that at the initial stage I was responsible for trying to formulate an appropriate amendment. I say ““appropriate”” because this is a probing amendment and it is not one that we shall put to the test this evening. My noble friend asked about negotiations and consultation with Scottish Ministers. We sought advice from the Public Bill Office on the proper method of drafting this part of the amendment. It is our understanding that if the Government were prepared to take forward any measure, they would have to have discussions with Scottish Ministers. Whether it were an amendment to the Bill in this format or any other way in which they could bring forward a proper proposal to allow effective practice in this country, they would have to consult Scottish Ministers because, as my noble friend says, this is not a devolved matter. This was put in as a drafting matter and as signatories to the amendment we have not as yet carried out consultation with Scottish Ministers. However, I have had conversations with sports bodies that represent the interests of those from Scotland who compete and they support the amendment. My noble friend also quite properly raised the issue of why 2010 is the starting point. That date was put forward as a starting point for negotiations to try to give our competitors an opportunity to take part in the lead up to the Olympics in London. As there is no sunset clause, my noble friend is absolutely right to ask what will happen after the London Olympics. Our argument is that, by 2010, we will need to have in place a system that is robust enough so that it can persist after that, ensuring that our competitors can continue to compete effectively at the highest level. She is right to spot that there is no sunset clause, but we need to consider what system should be put in place. That brings me back to other points that have been made. I welcome the discussions that I understand have taken place between the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I do not underestimate the difficulty that there always is in trying to achieve cross-departmental agreement. Both departments may want to ensure that our competitors take part effectively in pistol shooting competitions, but they may approach that from different positions. We are trying to provide the soothing oil to the rather dry and gristy mill of government and we are trying to achieve a result that pleases everyone. As we are being so compliant today, one should not underestimate our determination to assist the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in coming to the right decision. I also welcome the words of the Minister, Mr Caborn. His responses in another place appeared to hold out the hope that there could be an agreement with the Home Office on a sensible way forward. This amendment kicks off that debate within the context of the Bill, giving an immediacy to finding a solution. Through this amendment, we hope that, before the Bill leaves this House, we can ensure that proposals are in place to enable our competitors to have an opportunity to achieve all that they deserve within that international competition.