| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Jones, L.
Jones of Whitchurch, B.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Layard, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Levy, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Meacher, B.
Mitchell, L.
Morgan, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morgan of Huyton, B.
Morris of Handsworth, L.
O'Neill of Bengarve, B.
O'Neill of Clackmannan, L.
Parekh, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Prosser, B.
Quin, B.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Richard, L.
Rooker, L.
Rosser, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Simon, V.
Smith of Finsbury, L.
Soley, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Thornton, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Triesman, L.
Truscott, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Wall of New Barnet, B.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Young of Norwood Green, L.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.23 pm
Clause 63 [Removal of sports grounds etc. from private security industry regulation]:
Lord Pendry moved Amendment No. 4:
“(6A) An employee for a visiting team who engages in licensable conduct shall not be guilty of an offence under section 3 in respect of that conduct if-
( ) In subsection (6A) a reference to a person being an employee for a visiting team is a reference to his being a relevant employee in relation to the visitors' ground, or in relation to a certified sports stand contained in the visitors' premises.”
The noble Lord said: My Lords, AmendmentNo. 4 and consequential Amendments Nos. 5 to 9 are designed to slightly change Clause 63, which was
25 Oct 2006 : Column 1272
I have been informed that the wording of the clause limits it to affect only those staff who work at their home sports grounds. It would not cover those sports security staff who sometimes accompany their club or team to work in other sports grounds. This minor amendment aims to meet the intended position of the original amendment. It will also remove from the remit of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 those in-house staff whose home ground is covered by the safety at sports grounds legislation and who accompany their team to play at another venue which is also covered by the safety at sports grounds legislation.
This will apply regardless of whether they are playing a single other team or participating in a group event, such as an athletics meeting where several other clubs are involved. It will also apply regardless of whether the sports ground they play at is the home ground of the club or team they are competing against. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Pendry for tabling this slight change to Clause 63, which he introduced so eloquently on Report. I am more than content that these amendments cover, and remove from the scope of the licensing requirements, those in-house sport security staff who from time to time accompany their clubs to other sports grounds, where both their home ground and the sports ground being visited are covered by sports safety legislation. This is a simple, practical addition to what is an important change to the legislation. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for agreeing to move these amendments, which we on the government Benches naturally accept.
Lord Pendry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very positive reply.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pendry moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 9:
“‘visiting team', in relation to a certified sports ground (‘the home ground') or a certified sports stand contained in any premises (‘the home premises') means a team which uses as its base, or as one of its bases, any premises which are either- (a) a certified sports ground which is not the home ground (‘the visitors' ground'); or25 Oct 2006 : Column 1273
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 66 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Earl of Shrewsbury moved AmendmentNo. 10:
“( ) No order may be made bringing into force sections 31 and 32 until the Secretary of State has presented to both Houses of Parliament the results of research demonstrating that air weapons used in the commission of offences are disproportionately those sold by way of trade or business by persons who are or may become registered firearms dealers, as distinct from sales between private persons; and that air weapons used in the commission of offences are disproportionately those sold by mail order or other remote transactions, as distinct from those sold by way of private sales (whether face-to-face or not).”
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I apologise for coming into the Chamber late. In moving this amendment I declare an interest as President of the Gun Trade Association and Chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council.
This amendment is the same as one I tabled at Report last week but did not move as I had been in touch with the Minister and had received a letter from him dated 11 October explaining the Government’s position. I find the contents of that letter satisfactory. Yet, having since taken advice on the matter and bearing in mind the severe restriction to trade which the gun trade will suffer as a direct consequence of the Government’s actions, I have tabled my amendment again in order to extract—I hope—the same response from the Minister, this time with the benefit of having it on the parliamentary record. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I briefly rise to support my noble friend’s amendment, to which I have added my name. I certainly understand and sympathise with the consternation of the reputable dealers in airguns across the country, both registered and unregistered, who find themselves faced with this restraint upon their trade after a consultation that took place some time ago, yet where we have still not seen the publications and analysis of the responses to that consultation.
My noble friend says that he simply seeks, onthe record, a statement of assurances that the Government have already been able to give in writing. My noble friend is right to do so because these are important matters. I am certainly pleased that they will be thereby resolved.
Can the Minister also respond to the point I put in Committee, which has so far gone unanswered? I asked whether the Government have taken into account the fact that not all air weapons have a specific number, so that it is more difficult to carry out any registration. I am aware that it could be advantageous for the trade were the Government to adopt a pragmatic approach of allowing registration by batches of sale. The Minister said that he would give “further thought” to that matter. What is the result of that further reflection?
25 Oct 2006 : Column 1274
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for joining us in your Lordships’ House today and for moving his amendment. It enables me to place on record my thanks to him not only for the diligent and courteous way in which he has conducted himself during the debates and in raising these questions and issues, but also for seeking clarification on behalf of the Gun Trade Association and lobby.
The amendment challenges the Government to justify the inclusion of Clauses 31 and 32 and to show that they will be effective in tackling air weapon misuse. I know that the Gun Trade Association unreservedly condemns the misuse of air weapons—as we all do—and has done much in the past to promulgate safe and responsible handling. However, although there has been some recent improvement in the situation, the level of misuse remains a matter of real concern. In 2004-05, there were 11,825 crimes in which air weapons were used, resulting in 1,502 cases of injury, including—sadly—143 serious injuries. Occasionally the use of air weapons results in fatal injury, as occurred in Glasgow last year when two year-old Andrew Morton was killed.
All of this adds up to what we all agree is an unacceptable situation. We pledged in our party’s last manifesto that we would tighten the law on airguns. Clearly one way of doing this would be to make all air weapons subject to certification but we recognise that this would impose a considerable administrative burden on all concerned. We concluded that restricting the points of sale to responsible registered dealers would help tackle the problem at source and, in any event, be more proportionate in its effect on legitimate users.
The amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, seeks to establish whether the misuse of air weapons stems from those bought from retailers and by mail order or from weapons acquired through private sales. It also requires the Home Secretary to present research findings on this point to both Houses before the relevant clauses are brought into force. There are currently no comprehensive statistics, research or other studies on where offenders obtained their air weapons. Although it is very likely that some will have been obtained through private sales, I am equally sure that some will have come direct from retailers. I do not think this is generally disputed. Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence and the Government do not propose to delay bringing into force these important measures while research is carried out. The results would, in any event, be largely academic as we want to tackle all air weapon misuse irrespective of where the gun was purchased.
Having said that, I understand the concerns about the impact of the clauses. As I made clear in Committee, we will work closely with the gun trade to ensure that the guidance on security and the requirements on keeping a register are kept proportionate. It will be open to existing sellers to apply to be registered and the fee of £150 works out at less than £1 a week, covering as it does a three-year
25 Oct 2006 : Column 1275
As well as bearing down on the present indiscriminate and anonymous sale of air weapons to unsuitable or under-age people in the way proposed, it will also be important to continue to tackle misuse through education and safety awareness and through the rigorous enforcement of existing offences. We believe that these measures, taken together, can only be good for the long-term future of the legitimate airgun industry if they succeed in tackling the present unacceptable levels of misuse.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for raising the question of the “batches” approach. I accept that not all air weapons have numbers and we have agreed with the gun trade that batch numbers will be sufficient in the absence of serial numbers. I hope that that assurance clears up that final point.
Again I am grateful to the noble Earl and I pay tribute to him for his diligence in this issue. No doubt if there are any loose ends that he wishes to see tidied up I am sure that we will be able to deal with that in the usual way through correspondence and so on. I shall be happy to speak to the noble Earl outside the Chamber if there are any other matters that are still unresolved. Having heard what I have said, I hope the noble Earl will now withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his comments; they have satisfied entirely my questions on this matter. I should like to put on record to the Minister and his department my thanks and the thanks of the Gun Trade Association and the British Shooting Sports Council and to express our appreciation of the assistance we gave been given, the dialogue that has gone on and the courteous manner in which the Minister has dealt with all the details and matters that I have raised during the course of the Bill. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I rise to put on record that while the Bill has improved slightly as it has gone through the House it still retains some of the worst aspects of bureaucracy and may not deliver quite the benefits that the Government hope.
The Bill has been marked throughout its passage by the willingness of the Minister and all members of
25 Oct 2006 : Column 1276
There is one small pebble in it that will return to us by way of exchange between the Houses in a week or two but, given the work that has been done behind the scenes, I do not anticipate at this stage any difficulty with that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I associate myself with the expressions delivered by the noble Baroness in relation to the Bill team and to the Minister’s handling of the Bill. It has been a pleasure to be a part of the debate. I have made all my criticisms of the Bill and its mechanisms—I shall no doubt come back to them at a later time—but it would be churlish of me to repeat them now.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that just leaves me to say thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for their courtesies and their conduct during the passage of the Bill. On behalf of the Bill team, I thank them for the co-operative spirit in which we have endeavoured to carry out the proceedings. With the exception of the one minor matter, on which I think we can reach a reasonable compromise as a result of exchanges between the two Houses, the Bill will have had a happy passage rather than a happy slapping.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]
The Bill was returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.
Police and Justice Bill
The Bill was returned from the Commons with certain Lords amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement; with a Lords amendment disagreed to but with amendments to the words so restored to the Bill; with certain other Lords amendments agreed to with amendments; and with the remaining Lords amendments agreed to; the Commons amendments and reasons were ordered to be printed.
- House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before eight o’clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |