Chris Seeks Amendment To Clause 1 of Football Matches Bill

Many people watching and observing proceedings in Parliament will wonder whether we have our priorities right. The Bill is about unauthorised entry to football matches in particular circumstances, but I think most people are much more concerned about the proliferation of unauthorised entry into our very country, and the failure of the Home Office and its officials to do anything effective about it. In my submission, the Bill is a trivialisation of legislation by Home Office officials who should be doing other things—but I will not dwell on that now, Mr Speaker.

The long title of the Bill states that its purpose is to

“Create an offence of unauthorised entry at football matches for which a football banning order can be imposed following conviction.”

However, it is about not just unauthorised entry but any attempt at unauthorised entry. My amendments are designed to exclude from the Bill provisions relating to attempts to enter. Such attempts are less important than actual unlawful entry, and to include them in the same category is disproportionate and unreasonable. When we come on to debate other parts of the Bill on Third Reading, points can be made about the Bill more generally, but it seems to me that someone attempting to enter a football match without authorisation should not be subject to the same penalties, as set out in the Bill, as people who actually succeed in getting into a football match.

Actually, 11 July is quite an interesting date. On this very day four years ago the 2020 Euros final at Wembley stadium resulted in the unauthorised entry of thousands of fans, which caused a lot of disorder. Baroness Casey, who is an expert on producing reports, was commissioned by the Football Association to look into that issue and come forward with recommendations. In her report, which spanned more than 100 pages, she emphasised the fact that much of the disorder was nothing to do with people coming in without tickets and tailgating; in fact, a lot of it was attributed to other failures to enforce the law, in particular the taking of drugs and alcohol on public transport in London, which is verboten, and the taking of drugs in the vicinity of a football match, which should also be forbidden but was allowed to proceed with impunity. She also made the point that unlike at many football matches, what happened at Wembley was largely exacerbated by the inadequacy of the stewarding arrangements.

As a result of Baroness Casey’s report, the Home Office decided to bring forward this Bill. However, nowhere could I find in the report any reference to the fact that Baroness Casey wanted to treat attempts to enter in exactly the same way as entering, which is why I have put forward these amendments. There is no need to expand on that except to say that it is in common law. Normally, an attempt to commit a criminal offence is an inchoate action, which can itself be the subject of criminal proceedings; in those circumstances, there would be no need to have this provision written into the Bill.

It seems to me that the provisions would create a penalty that is quite severe; it could affect people’s ability to go and watch football matches for many years into the future. The presumption under the Bill—as you will know, Mr Speaker—is that if someone is guilty of an offence, they will be unable to go to football matches again as a spectator. My assessment is that that is disproportionate and unnecessary. For those reasons, I strongly oppose this aspect of the Bill, and seek through these amendments to remove references to “attempts”.

Amendment 6 is another example of where we need to try to tighten up private Members’ Bills when they are brought before this House, so that the Government do not have everything their own way. Members will know that there are four other Bills to be debated on Report this morning. All those other Bills have a commencement date, but clause 2(2) of this Bill says:

“This Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.”

The question I ask is: why? Why is that necessary? Why can we not in this very simple Bill say that these provisions will come into effect either on the day of Royal Assent or within two months of that date? That would be the norm.

What sometimes happens, of course, is that the Government give themselves powers and do all the talk about supporting Bills such as this, and then never bring forward the regulations. The consequence of not having a specific timetable is that the ball is very much—to use that expression—in the Government’s court, because they can decide whether they will implement the provisions of this Bill, which has been put forward by the Home Office. I hope that when the Minister responds to this debate, he will explain why the Bill has to be introduced by regulations on a date yet to be specified. Of course, the making of regulations is in itself a further unnecessary administrative burden. I would be interested to hear from the Minister as to why the Bill is being treated differently from the other Bills the Government are hoping will get through today.

Linsey Farnsworth Labour, Amber Valley

I rise to thank Sir Christopher Chope for his careful consideration of my Bill, although I am somewhat saddened by his suggestion that this is a trivial matter. As he himself went on to say, we saw scenes at the Carabao cup final that were very troubling and warranted a full report from Baroness Casey. She made an excellent report, with some very good observations and recommendations. Indeed, she said that there should be a deterrent effect to any recommendations that are brought in. I submit that the Bill provides just that.

I also rise to oppose amendments 1 to 6. On amendments 1 to 5 and the issue of attempted entry, attempted entry places a particular pressure on stadium security and often requires police involvement. It is often extremely crowded outside stadiums, with scuffles, struggles and chases through the crowd when people try to enter without a ticket. Including attempted entry allows law enforcement to act before the breach of a stadium occurs and that provides an additional level of security.

I was at the Carabao cup final this year. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention and I were taken down to the turnstiles with the police. We witnessed tailgating almost immediately. We also saw an attempted tailgating incident, which involved a man in his 70s or early 80s standing at the turnstiles shouting to the stewards for help and assistance because somebody behind him was trying to push their way into the ground. It was frightening for him. He stood his ground—I pay tribute to him for doing so—but it could have been dangerous. Indeed, it was dangerous with the amount of people who were around.

I submit that it flies in the face of common sense to release people who have a clear intention to get into a stadium. The police told me that those sorts of attempts are made repeatedly, time and time again. At the moment, the police do not have the power to arrest them. They detain them, but then have to release them. People just go back and try to get in again. It is a constant cat and mouse, as it were, and throughout that period people are put in danger from that action. To omit the offence of attempting entry would take us no further from the current position that the police find themselves in. Including attempt in the Bill gives the best chance of equipping the police to deal with this issue and keep everybody as safe as they possibly can.

On amendment 6, regarding a timescale, my understanding is that the Bill is designed to come into force via regulations so that that can be aligned with the start of the football calendar. That will ensure that all relevant organisations have time to prepare, co-ordinate and train accordingly. As a Crown prosecutor for 21 years before I came to this place, I understand at first hand the importance of allowing sufficient time for changes in legislation to be implemented, for staff to be trained and for proper resources to be put in place by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and, most importantly, by the stadiums themselves.

Christopher Chope Conservative, Christchurch

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and for the diligence with which she has approached this subject, including having discussed it on several occasions with me. She says that instead of a date being specified in the Bill, regulations will be passed to bring in the provisions at the beginning of the football season. When is that? Is there a particular date?

Linsey Farnsworth Labour, Amber Valley 10:00, 11 July 2025

I perhaps misspoke; my understanding is that it is to align with the football calendar rather than the start of the season. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that in due course. We are now on a countdown to the start of the football season. My husband, being a season ticket holder for Coventry City FC, is very disappointed that we will be on holiday at the start of the football season in August. Obviously it is unlikely that we will get the provisions in place by then, but the important thing is to get the legislation in place in time for when we co-host the next European finals, which is in 2028. I think we should be in good time for that. A fixed date of two months after Royal Assent would be sufficient time to get everything in place.

As I mentioned earlier, the Bill has a deterrent element to it. Baroness Casey’s recommendation was to make sure that it is a proper deterrent. We need to be ready, and we need to make sure that as soon as the legislation kicks off, we send a clear message that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated any longer and people will not be able to get away with it. I hope I have provided a thorough and detailed response that satisfies the hon. Member for Christchurch, and I respectfully urge him to withdraw his amendment.

Edward Leigh Father of the House of Commons

I rise to support my hon. Friend Sir Christopher Chope. It seems to me that the way that he introduced his very modest amendment to remove the word “attempts” was entirely proper. I support the Bill, but I think it is quite dangerous to introduce an offence into criminal law of just attempting to enter a football ground, because it is quite difficult to gather evidence of or police that.

I assure Linsey Farnsworth that I do not want to delay matters much. I will keep my remarks short, because I support the general principle of the Bill. I support making it a criminal offence to actually enter a designated football match; that is in the Bill’s long title and is something we can all agree on. Widening the scope of the Bill to include attempts to enter a ground is quite dangerous.

I assume that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will be rejected, but I wonder whether it would unduly weaken the Bill if they were passed. After all, the Bill is about having a legal deterrent to crowds of people seeking to force their way into a football ground, but there may be many other ways in which people attempt to get into a football ground that are not riotous disorder and may be quite honest in intention.

When creating criminal law, it is dangerous to get into aspects of intention—mens rea, as lawyers call it—rather than, in this case, the actual legal fact of entering a football ground. If the law were not changed, someone engaging in this bad behaviour could be punished only by ejection from the stadium, but there are criminal laws of trespass and many other ways in which this very bad behaviour can be identified. When Baroness Casey identified in her review the absence of specific offences as a weakness in stadium enforcement, I am not sure whether she was referring to such minor infringements as attempting to enter a football ground. I will say more about that in a moment.

I know that the key motivation for the Bill was the Euro 2020 final and the chaos at Wembley when hundreds of ticketless individuals stormed the venue, overwhelmed stewards and endangered legitimate fans. That mass unauthorised entry posed real risks, but that was really a riot. That is quite a different situation from somebody on their own, or perhaps a father with his children, attempting to get into a football ground when they may not have a ticket. They may have been mis-sold a ticket—they may believe that they have a genuine ticket. They may have been sold, at vast cost, a ticket by a ticket tout, but apparently now they will face the full force of the criminal law.

Under the Bill, police and courts will be able to ban repeat offenders, as it makes offenders eligible for football banning orders. Those are quite serious consequences for people who may not be rioters at all; they may just be genuine football fans. We are talking about a fine of up to £1,000 and a trial in a magistrates court. I know that such cases will not go to a Crown court, but that is still a very serious matter for somebody who might just be attempting to enter a place.

We will be told by the Bill’s supporters that its enforcement is practical. I understand how entry into a football ground could be enforced, but I am unsure about enforcing an attempt to get into a football ground. Surely police and stewards need clarity. There is no point in us introducing more and more laws when we have a whole slate of traditional laws against riotous behaviour. Laws that may be difficult to enforce just bring the whole system into disrepute.

I know that football clubs, police forces and fans’ organisations largely support the Bill, but I am not sure whether they are aware just how widely it is framed. I am sure that if they could talk these matters through with my hon. Friend, they would think his amendment was a wise and moderate compromise, because people already assume that it is an offence to enter a football ground without a ticket; I agree that the Bill removes the gap between assumption and reality.

The other thing that slightly worries me is that while I can quite understand how such attempts could be dealt with by a premier league club, which has stewards and the whole panoply of a large football club, we should consider small clubs such as Gainsborough Trinity FC in my constituency. These small clubs have faced huge challenges, and we are just introducing more burdens on them. During covid, Gainsborough suspended season tickets and capped attendance at just 300.

Small clubs already have to deal with many regulations and with public health. Their finances are very marginal, and covid worsened already fragile financial situations. I hope that when we consider these undoubtedly worthy Bills—as we look at the Euros, Wembley and all the rest of it—that impose more obligations on football clubs, we remember smaller clubs.

The Football Association is not always as helpful as it can be with small clubs. Big clubs get attention and support, so it may well be possible for them to police attempts to enter, but it may be more difficult for a tiny club—a very worthy, important and wonderful club such as Gainsborough Trinity FC—to deal with the intricacies of the law and understand it.

We are talking about enforcement and police resources, and therefore the measures in the Bill should be very moderate. There would be £1,000 fines or long banning orders. Are we going to drag people before the courts? I have already talked about the father attempting an entry. Could children or young people who sneak in without harmful intent face having a criminal record? Are we really going to do that? Is that the sort of country we want to create?

We do not have a lot of data on how many attempts there are or how much unauthorised entry there is. We should acknowledge that the Euro 2020 final was exceptional. It is unclear whether making this kind of permanent legislative change, and rejecting the amendments, will solve the problem.

Linsey Farnsworth Labour, Amber Valley

On the data, the FA reports that approximately 600 people regularly attempt to tailgate at matches at Wembley and other competitive games at grounds across the country. It is not the odd person every now and again; people are regularly trying, over and over again, to get into football grounds. That is why it is important that “attempt” is included. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that?

Edward Leigh Father of the House of Commons

The hon. Lady makes a fair point, but I am making a point about smaller clubs. We are here because of a political reaction to the embarrassment created by one major failure, but we cannot base good law on one major failure that was on all our television screens. We have to look at all clubs and consider all the difficulties that they would have in implementing this change.

Christopher Chope Conservative, Christchurch

There is a big issue with attempted tailgating to avoid paying fares on the London underground. What does my right hon. Friend think about the Bill, in comparison with what is happening on the underground?

Edward Leigh Father of the House of Commons

We know that there is an epidemic of lawlessness on the underground and elsewhere. No doubt somebody will try to bring in a Bill on that as well—and good luck to them—but we are talking about a very narrow amendment and a narrowly focused Bill.

I am worried about enforcement, which may vary between clubs or regions. Fans may lose trust if they see the law being applied unevenly, and I do not know how clubs will police these attempts. It is unclear whether banning orders will lead to frequent appeals. People would be tried just for an attempt. I know that that would only be in the magistrates court, but if they faced long banning orders, could there be appeals? We have to apply the law fairly and reasonably; otherwise, it risks being a blunt instrument. Surely we should try to make this sort of Bill tightly focused.

The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch are sensible. They would better tool the legislation towards its rightful end. First, they focus on the actual harm. By removing attempted entry from the offence, the amendments would criminalise only completed unauthorised entries—clear facts that can be understood and proven. We should target behaviour that truly compromises safety and public order.

Secondly, the amendments would ensure that the Bill avoids over-criminalisation. Criminalising failed or minor attempts could lead to disproportionate outcomes, especially for young people or first-time offenders. My hon. Friend’s amendments promote a more measured legal response.

Thirdly, the amendments would reduce ambiguity, and the great danger in law is ambiguity. “Attempted entry” is a vague standard and may vary in interpretation by stewards and police. If hon. Members try to imagine the policing of a crowded football match with people pouring in, I wonder whether they would start to agree that “attempted entry” is a vague standard and may vary in interpretation. We are talking about the criminal law. We are talking not just about somebody being ticked off or told they cannot enter the stadium but possibly ending up in court. The amendments would give a clear legal threshold for enforcement and prosecution, on the basis of which somebody can be tried and sentenced in the courts.

Fourthly, my hon. Friend’s amendments would protect civil liberties. I have spent many long years and Fridays in this place defending civil liberties. I do not believe in over-regulation and ever more laws restricting civil liberties. The amendments would guard against penalising individuals where intent or context is unclear. We are criminalising only intent; we are not criminalising an actual fact, and that is a dangerous legal proposition. If we start doing it now on this Bill, where will it stop? Will we criminalise an attempt to enter a cinema or theatre?

Lindsay Hoyle Speaker of the House of Commons, Chair, Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, Chair, Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, Chair, House of Commons Commission, Chair, Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, Chair, Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, Chair, Members Estimate Committee, Chair, Members Estimate Committee, Chair, Restoration and Renewal Client Board Committee, Chair, Restoration and Renewal Client Board Committee, Chair, Speaker's Conference (2024) Committee, Chair, Speaker's Conference (2024) Committee 10:15, 11 July 2025

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is straying a little wide into different areas. As he rightly said, the Bill is quite narrow. I am sure that he will want to get back on track. This is about football, not cinemas.

Edward Leigh Father of the House of Commons

I am so grateful to you, Mr Speaker; you will be grateful to hear that having made those remarks, I am drawing to a conclusion.

We have a duty to ensure that punishment is based on actual misconduct in entering a football ground, not suspicion or misjudged behaviour. Fifthly, my hon. Friend’s amendments would allow for practical enforcement. Focusing on completed unauthorised entry would help police and clubs concentrate their resources on the most serious breaches, rather than chasing marginal cases. The amendments would provide necessary implementation time. The two-month delay before commencement gives football clubs, police and stewards time to prepare for the new legal framework, reducing confusion and aiding smooth enforcement.

Finally, the amendments would encourage propor-tionality. They keep the law from becoming an unnecessarily blunt instrument and instead preserve a proportionate, targeted response to genuine requests.

Lindsay Hoyle Speaker of the House of Commons, Chair, Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, Chair, Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, Chair, House of Commons Commission, Chair, Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, Chair, Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, Chair, Members Estimate Committee, Chair, Members Estimate Committee, Chair, Restoration and Renewal Client Board Committee, Chair, Restoration and Renewal Client Board Committee, Chair, Speaker's Conference (2024) Committee, Chair, Speaker's Conference (2024) Committee

I call the shadow Minister.

Katie Lam Opposition Assistant Whip (Commons)

I thank Linsey Farnsworth for bringing the Bill forward and my hon. Friend Sir Christopher Chope for his amendments. At this stage, is it correct that you wish us to speak only to the amendment, Mr Speaker? [Interruption.] Yes. We the Opposition have nothing further to add to the debate that we have had this morning.

Lindsay Hoyle Speaker of the House of Commons, Chair, Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, Chair, Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, Chair, House of Commons Commission, Chair, Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, Chair, Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, Chair, Members Estimate Committee, Chair, Members Estimate Committee, Chair, Restoration and Renewal Client Board Committee, Chair, Restoration and Renewal Client Board Committee, Chair, Speaker's Conference (2024) Committee, Chair, Speaker's Conference (2024) Committee

I call the Minister.

Dan Jarvis The Minister of State, Home Department

I thank Sir Christopher Chope for tabling these amendments, which propose two changes. First, amendments 1 to 5 would remove attempted unauthorised entry from the scope of the offence. Secondly, amendment 6 would bring the Act into force two months after it receives Royal Assent, rather than by commencement regulations made by statutory instrument.

It is absolutely essential that the Bill explicitly covers both attempted and successful unauthorised entry. We have seen widespread issues involving ticketless fans at football matches attempting to force entry and tailgate at high-profile matches, including the 2024 champions league final, premier league fixtures and at the Euro 2020 tournament. These forms of attempted entry place significant demands on stadium safety and security personnel and, at times, require police intervention. Maintaining provisions for attempted unauthorised entry ensures that law enforcement can act before a breach occurs and thus maintain safety and security at football matches across the country. It also enables the imposition of preventive football banning orders against persons involved in attempted entry. Banning orders are an effective deterrent against those who may seek to compromise public safety.

I turn to amendment 6. The Bill is designed to allow the measures to come into force by regulation on a date shortly before the start of the domestic football season. This approach will ensure that all organisations involved in safety and security operations are prepared to implement the new offence. A fixed date two months after Royal Assent may not coincide with the football calendar or allow sufficient time for training, communication and co-ordination. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Member for Christchurch to withdraw his amendments.

Christopher Chope Conservative, Christchurch

The Minister says that the Bill will come into force before the start of the football season. We heard from Linsey Farnsworth that the season will start pretty soon, within four or five weeks. I assume that means the Bill will not be implemented until summer 2026—that is the clear implication of what the Minister said. If I am wrong in that interpretation, I hope he will intervene, because it is important to get it on the record that the Bill will not be in force until a year’s time.

On the issue of attempts, listening to my right hon. Friend Sir Edward Leigh, I thought that I had under-egged the pudding a bit, because he adduced a whole lot of extra arguments that reinforce the case for removing attempts from the Bill. Apart from anything else, I fear that if we allow attempts to remain in the Bill, the people who are still outside the stadium and never got in will be the easy pickings—they will be the ones who get arrested and penalised, while the mass of offenders who got in without authority will get away with it—because in order for any of this to work, there has to be an arrest and a subsequent prosecution. I wish to test the will of the House in relation to amendment 1.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

ENDS

Active in Parliament (National Campaign)

Since he was first elected as the MP for Christchurch, Chris has won a reputation for speaking out fearlessly on behalf of constituents, putting their interests ahead of Party loyalty. Chris wants to ensure that changes to our laws are properly scrutinised before being enacted. Chris has spo

Chris Seeks Amendment To Clause 1 of Football Matches Bill