My Lords, again I thank the Minister and of course I shall support the order. However, she knows that I cannot resist teasing her a little on this matter because it has a chequered history. The Minister has explained clearly that it was not intended that the Private Security Industry Act 2001 should cover Crown employees who hold office, but the legislation has had these unforeseen consequences and has dragged in others within its remit who simply should not be there.
I have to make the comment that this Bill has an unhappy history of unintended consequences and is dropping stitches all over the place. I noticed that when the Government introduced this matter in another place, they explained the background. The Government had first hoped to introduce an affirmative order, but they had run out of time. To try to make sure that they could stitch things together quickly they put through an order by negative resolution to ensure that everyone was covered, but to do the right thing they then decided to carry out the consultation you need for an affirmative order and go for that as well. They sought to cover all the options, and how admirable is that? The consultation required by the affirmative procedure has borne the fruit that we see today. I have to say, as members of the Opposition always do, that it is a good idea to deal with matters by the affirmative procedure, and let us see more of it.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is in his place beside the noble Baroness. I have to say to him that other stitches have been dropped in this piece of legislation. When the Violent Crime Reduction Bill was in Committee in this House recently, it was made clear to the Government that there was another anomaly in the Bill that must be resolved. One of the Government’s own colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, put it clearly: one of the unintended consequences of the Act is that it has inadvertently been applied to stewards at football grounds and sports events. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made it clear that the Government would look favourably at going out to consultation with a view to bringing forward an order to remedy that matter as well, thus stitching up another little hole in this Act.
I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could indicate whether we shall see yet another order in relation to this Act soon—I hope with regard to protecting stewards at football grounds.
Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Amendments to Schedule 2) Order 2006
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 5 July 2006.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Amendments to Schedule 2) Order 2006.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
684 c315 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 23:24:01 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335355
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335355
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335355