Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
Wednesday 25th June 2025
(2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesUnauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill 2024-26 View all Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for members of the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk. My selection and grouping for today’s sitting is available online and in the room; there will be a single debate on clauses 1 and 2.
Clause 1
Offence of unauthorised entry to designated football matches
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. Following your guidance, I intend to speak to the whole Bill in my remarks. I thank everybody for coming along this morning; I hope that, with Members’ agreement, this former prosecutor can place a new offence on the statute books.
As the title suggests, the Bill is designed to address the issue of unauthorised entry to football matches. It creates a specific offence of entering, or attempting to enter, a designated football match in England and Wales without a ticket that the person is eligible to use. The Football Association reports that unauthorised entry to football matches causes significant operational, safety and security problems for major events at Wembley stadium, as well as football matches at other grounds across the country. Unauthorised entry commonly occurs when a person pushes through the turnstiles, often behind an unsuspecting, ticket-holding fan, which is known as tailgating, or colloquially as piggybacking or jibbing. There are often around 600 tailgating attempts per match for major events at Wembley stadium.
I recently attended the Carabao cup final with the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, who I am pleased is responding on behalf of the Government this morning. We were taken down to the turnstiles and within around 30 seconds we witnessed our first tailgater, with several more thereafter in the short period for which we there.
Such behaviour presents a danger not only to the stewards and security staff who seek to apprehend them, often leading to a scuffle, but to the safety and enjoyment of the fans, who should be free to enjoy the build-up to the game without the worry that this sort of incident brings. With the increased popularity of the women’s game, under the fantastic stewardship of the Lionesses, we see more and more families attending matches. In one tailgating scuffle that I witnessed, a young boy was knocked into. It is time that we take steps to safeguard fans from this sort of behaviour.
At worst, unauthorised entry takes the form of mass entry, where large crowds seek to push their way into the ground. Members may recall the disorder at Wembley stadium on 11 July 2021, during the UEFA Euro 2020 final, when an estimated 1,900 so-called fans entered without a ticket. Between 1,200 and 1,300 managed to get into the inner areas of the ground, creating further danger. Of course, unauthorised fans do not have allocated seating, and their entry to the ground, particularly when it occurs in large numbers, creates problems of overcrowding and blocking of gangways and staircases.
For me, this is of personal significance. My friends Ross and Siobhan were at the game that day. They are avid sports fans who attend many sporting events across the world. Despite usually feeling at ease in those surroundings, it was a frightening experience that day. Siobhan told me:
“We arrived Wembley around an hour before kick off…it was obvious that things were not as they should be…I felt very uneasy about the atmosphere…We went to the turnstiles, which were still very busy and there were people there without a ticket who had managed to get through the first ticket check and were asking people to let them push through with them…I’ve been to many events at Wembley that are sold out and have never seen it in such a mess. We went straight to our seats which we were able to reclaim from the people occupying them at the time and the rows were overfilled and the stairways were full of people…The place was clearly filled way past capacity…Overall I found it to be unpleasant and a potentially dangerous environment…It has put me off…attending England games and I haven’t been to one since.”
That is from an avid sports fan.
Following the 2020 final, Baroness Louise Casey was commissioned to conduct an independent review. Her report found:
“Unauthorised entry to football grounds does not attract specific enforcement measures and is unlikely to have long-term consequences sufficient to deter repetition or emulation.”
Baroness Casey’s report was, sadly, prescient. At the UEFA champions league final at Wembley stadium on 1 June 2024, there were around 1,000 tailgating attempts and three mass entry attempts by around 300 to 400 people.
At present, people gaining entry without a ticket are likely to be ejected but not to face any other consequences. Those attempting to gain entry are moved on, but will often try again and again to get in. There is no specific offence of entering a football match without a ticket. The Bill seeks to remedy that.
Clause 1 will create a specific offence of unauthorised entry to premises for the purpose of attending a designated football match, by inserting a new offence into the Football (Offences) Act 1991. The offence aims to deter people from attempting to enter stadiums without a valid ticket.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill; it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for football supporters and a proud Aston Villa season ticket holder. Can my hon. Friend explain why the Bill uses the word “premises” rather than “stadium”?
Linsey Farnsworth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the intervention, and I commiserate with him on his choice of football team—I put on record that Everton are a much more preferable team to follow. As Siobhan described, at the Wembley incident, fans managed to get through the first ticket check. Many stadiums, including Wembley, have a wider perimeter cordon that protects fans. The use of “premises” rather than “stadium” would allow arrests to be made and prosecutions to be brought if someone went through that first cordon, before there is danger in the stadium itself.
As a member of the Justice Committee and former Crown prosecutor, I am only too aware of the extensive court backlogs, particularly in the Crown court. The offence in the Bill is summary only, and the maximum sentence is a £1,000 fine; it can therefore be tried only in the magistrates court. The offence strikes a balance by ensuring a sufficient deterrent against tailgating and mass entry while not adding to the court backlog. The stronger deterrent, however, is that a conviction for an offence is likely to lead to a court-imposed football banning order, which would prevent a person from attending football matches for between three and five years, with a potential prison sentence if the banning order is not obeyed.
The Bill encompasses the designated matches set out in orders made under section 1 of the Football (Offences) Act 1991. Currently, those are matches in the premier league, the championship, leagues one and two, the national league, the women’s super league and championship, the Cymru premier league, and international fixtures held in England and Wales.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I declare my interests as a season ticket holder at Portsmouth football club and as an elected member of the board of Pompey Supporters’ Trust. I thank my hon. Friend for introducing the Bill. I understand the need for it, but members of the public buy tickets not only for football matches but for other large events, such as other sporting or music events. Why is she seeking to change the rules only for football?
Linsey Farnsworth
I thank my hon. Friend for her attendance today; she is a real champion for her football team and her constituency, and I am sure that they will be grateful for her attendance. She raises a valid point: this offence could apply to other sporting events. Sadly, there have also been tragic incidents at music festivals, such as at the O2 Academy. However, the legislation is being introduced as a private Member’s Bill, and in order to effectively change the law through this mechanism it needs to be quite contained in nature. When I went to Wembley and spoke to the police and staff there, they indicated that football was a type of event where this regularly happens. That is where the risk lies, particularly at the most competitive games. It could equally apply to other types of event if the Government saw fit. The staff at Wembley voiced concerns about some of the upcoming sold-out gigs; I will not mention the band in question, but if I could get tickets, I would—but I will not be tailgating at that event.
I served on the Public Bill Committee for the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025—commonly known as Martin’s law—which received Royal Assent on 3 April this year. Although that Act deals with a different type of threat to the public, and is a different type of safety measure, it is clear that this Government are keen on keeping members of the public safe at all kinds of events. I hope that Parliament considers whether the Bill could be the start of greater protections at other events, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North.
Clause 1 provides a number of defences. A defendant can show that he or she had lawful excuse or authority to enter or attempt to enter the premises for a specific purpose. That would cover, for example, employees, journalists and emergency workers at the ground. It is also a defence if a person entered through an entry point normally used for spectators while believing that they had a ticket for the match when they did not. In other words, it is a defence to show that that person unwittingly held a counterfeit ticket. The Bill is not about villainising football fans, and this defence acknowledges that fans are sadly sometimes duped by unscrupulous ticket fraudsters.
The final defence is using a ticket that the defendant was not entitled to, for example, an adult using a child’s ticket. There is a defence for that, because in those circumstances there would be a reserved seat, so the safety issue is not fair. Again, that demonstrates that the Bill is about the safety and safeguarding of football fans.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I declare my interest as a season ticket holder at Tottenham Hotspur, both home and away—I suffer, yes. The hon. Lady is rightly referring to match tickets. The vast majority of premier league clubs have now moved to digital tickets, so that individuals have to produce a smartphone of some form. Those digital tickets can also be transferred to other people. Will the hon. Lady make it clear that the Bill applies to digital tickets as well as physical, printed tickets?
Linsey Farnsworth
The hon. Member is absolutely correct that in the modern day not many people have paper tickets. The Bill will apply equally to the electronic version, so I am grateful to him for allowing me to clarify.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I have read paragraph 19 of the explanatory notes, but given the physicality of the description in the Bill, what is the legal justification for saying that it also covers electronic tickets? We can assume that it does, but I can see a defence barrister making a lot of the physicality in the description in proposed new section 1A(4) of the 1991 Act. There must be some legal reason why we can say absolutely that that description includes electronic tickets.
Linsey Farnsworth
Proposed new section 1A(4) of the 1991 Act says:
“‘match ticket’ means a ticket or other thing (whether in physical or electronic form),”
so I think that is expressed in the Bill, but I am grateful to the hon. Member.
Baroness Louise Casey, in her report following the Euro 2020 final, concluded that the events of that day could have resulted in a tragic loss of life. Given that England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are set to jointly host the Euro 2028 competition, the time for this Bill to pass is now. I urge the Committee to support the Bill, which is backed by major football bodies, such as the English Football Association and the Football Association of Wales. I thank both bodies for their assistance. The Bill is also supported by His Majesty’s official Opposition and the Government.
I extend my thanks to Lord Brennan of Canton, the former Member for Cardiff West, whose version of the Bill ran out of time at the last general election. The work he did as the original sponsor to get the Bill through this place in the last Parliament has undoubtedly made my job much easier. If the Bill moves beyond Committee stage today and passes Third Reading in this House, we both hope that he will be able to oversee its passage through the House of Lords, in what I am advised could be a unique parliamentary example of starting a Bill in one House and finishing in another.
It is fitting to end with the remarks of Lord Brennan in a previous debate:
“By allowing the Bill to be reported, we can send a resounding message that such conduct as was seen at the Euro 2020 final will not be tolerated, emphasising the importance of ensuring safety and security when attending football matches. The legislation reaffirms our dedication to the wellbeing and integrity of football, and restores our collective duty to tackle the challenges confronting the sport. It upholds the role of the sport as a unifying force in our society. I urge hon. Members to endorse the Bill, including the amendment, thereby contributing to the enhancement, safety and enjoyment of football matches for all.”––[Official Report, Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Public Bill Committee, 8 May 2024; c. 6.]
I could not have said it better myself.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers—it feels a bit like a reunion of the Backbench Business Committee. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for bringing the Bill back to the House. As has been mentioned, the issue was raised in the previous Parliament, and I am hopeful that we can continue to have cross-party agreement on it.
I declare an interest, as a supporter not of a premier league team or even a championship team, but of a non-league football team, my beloved Harlow Town, both at home and away. Not all football clubs are full of cash to make multimillion-pound signings, and people jumping barriers can have a huge impact on a club’s finances—notice that I use the word “people”, and not “fans”.
Although support for the Bill ultimately comes down to a question of safety, as my hon. Friend has correctly outlined, I want to talk briefly about the issue of fairness. There should absolutely be consequences for those who try to enter a football ground without a valid ticket. Many people in Harlow and beyond pay good money for football tickets. They work hard all week and going to watch a football game is something that they, like me, enjoy. They should be able to do so in a fair way, and it is not fair that others do so without paying for a ticket.
Even non-league football clubs impose a maximum capacity, and they do so for safety reasons. It is important that clubs know how many people are at a game and can stop people entering, particularly those who have previously displayed poor or unacceptable behaviour.
I will keep my remarks short, but once again I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for bringing the Bill forward. I hope it will give confidence—to those who give up their time, voluntarily in non-league cases, to man the turnstiles and do all the other things at football grounds that bring the community together—that people will not be able to get away with tailgating, and that only those with a correct ticket will be able to enter the ground.
Linsey Farnsworth
I think I have got to the bottom of it. The Bill that has been printed for the Committee today is the old Bill, which has since been slightly amended to deal with that very point. That is why there is confusion, because I have a copy of the new version of the Bill.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley on bringing forward this Bill, and on speaking so eloquently. This is not just about people being able to enjoy football matches, but also about safety and preventing serious injury and—God forbid—in the worst cases, death. I would like to declare that I am a very tortured Manchester United fan—I see some heads shaking in disapproval—but I do enjoy my football. The Bill speaks to me. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to Baron Brennan of Canton, who introduced this Bill, albeit in a slightly different form, in the previous Parliament. The previous Government supported the Bill, and it is a pleasure to be here today to add the support of His Majesty’s official Opposition.
In 2021, like everyone around the country, I was on the edge of my seat as our heroic national men’s team came so close to bringing it home. Sadly, it was not to be, as we lost to Italy on penalties in the final. Everyone here will be familiar with the scenes at the game where fans tried to force their way into Wembley stadium. Gates were stormed, fans gained entry by tailgating through turnstiles or forcing emergency exits, and there were shocking reports of some stewards being attacked or bribed. The then Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee was right to label that day as a day of “national shame”.
The safety of spectators at sporting events is of the highest importance and the last Government took decisive action to help protect spectators. I hope that one day I will be able to take my children to a winning Manchester United football match—I hear the joy from the Committee as I said that—but perhaps also one day I can let them head to games on their own.
Bob Blackman
I will not dwell on the final at Bilbao, where we finally won a trophy after 17 years. My hon. Friend quite rightly refers to the events at Wembley in 2021. I live in Wembley and I was leader of the council when we got Wembley rebuilt. Not only was that particular day fraught with attempted break-ins to the game, but a huge numbers of fans congregated who did not have tickets. One of the issues that we have must look at is how fans can be dispersed before they get anywhere near a ground, rather than actually charging into it, and I hope the Minister will respond on that point.
Saqib Bhatti
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; he clearly has great experience of Wembley. That is a very fair challenge for the Minister. No parent, family member or friend should ever be worried about the prospect of their loved one getting hurt watching the beautiful game. That is why, in 2022, the previous Government amended and strengthened the football banning order regime. As a result, the Crown Prosecution Service can now ask courts for tougher penalties for online abuse involving race, sexuality or religion. Previously, FBOs could only be issued for in-person offences.
Furthermore, in November 2022, the previous Government added the possession or supply of class A drugs at football matches to the FBO regime. Following the addition, there was an increased willingness among the police to make arrests at football matches for class A drug offences. FBOs are not just about preventing troublemakers from attending matches at home and abroad involving a team from or representing England or Wales. They demonstrate that the UK has taken action to ensure that individuals involved in football-related violence and disorder can be stopped and prevented from attending football matches.
The previous Government also supported the Football Association’s commissioning of the Casey review, which highlighted the failures that took place at Wembley and recommended strengthening penalties for football-related disorder, including tailgating. I would like to pay my own tribute to Baroness Casey for her independent review of the appalling disorder that occurred during the Euro 2020 final. However, it is also important to highlight that tailgating is not the only problematic behaviour. Various other routes are used to attempt entry into football matches, such as scaling walls, climbing through windows, forcing exits and using fraudulent tickets. The fact that the Bill is drafted in a way that captures all those who are attempting to evade security measures is welcome.
I hope that the Minister agrees with me that football should be welcoming to all, and spectators at games should be safe. Those who bring disorder or evade security should not be present, and I welcome the fact that the Bill seeks to ensure that these people are prohibited from attending live matches. Everyone should be able to enjoy the beautiful game. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Amber Valley has brought forward the Bill, which I entirely welcome.
The Chair
Just before I call the Minister, I want to let Members know that the correct version of the Bill is available online, if anybody wants to double-check it.
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Vickers, on this lovely June day. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for bringing forward this Bill. I was also interested to note the involvement of Lord Brennan; in the previous Parliament, he nearly got such a Bill on to the statue book, and I hope he will play a part in the other place, if the Bill concludes its passage through the Commons today.
I am very grateful to the other Members who have participated in this discussion, many of whom declared their allegiance to various football clubs, some more dubious than others. Clearly, a wide range of clubs is represented and supported here today, and Members are very clear that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. There has been a high degree of consensus, and I am very pleased to say, right at the outset, that the Government support the Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley has set out, the Bill would create a new offence of unauthorised entry or attempted unauthorised entry to elite football matches that are covered by existing football-specific public order legislation in England and Wales. I want to reflect on the fact that we are very lucky to be in the capable hands of a former Crown prosecutor in navigating this new offence through Parliament.
I also heard questions from Members about whether the Bill should have a wider application, and I will of course reflect on the comments that have been made. On the issue of the dispersal of large crowds gathering outside football matches, that is obviously an operational matter for the place and I have seen at first hand the planning that goes into dealing with those kinds of issues, but I will certainly raise the concerns of the hon. Member for Harrow East with the police when I next speak to them, particularly the Metropolitan Police.
Amanda Martin
The hon. Member for Harrow East made a really good point; there have been some developments on that issue through things such as fan zones. Fans can buy a ticket for such a zone, which is an area outside the stadium, and that allows for dispersal. It also allows fans to watch the game, particularly if they are going to Wembley. Portsmouth went a number of times and could not have all the ticket allocation, so fans could instead buy a ticket for a fan zone outside. The hon. Member is right that it is down to both club logistics and the police, but there are really good ways of letting people who do not have a ticket come and watch the game, such as in an area slightly outside the stadium.
Dame Diana Johnson
There is obviously a great deal of knowledge on this Committee about how these things operate. As someone who is not necessarily a huge football fan, I am certainly learning a lot today about some of the measures that are being put in place to help fans enjoy the event in a safe way.
Bob Blackman
I thank the Minister for that reply to my point. The Bill quite rightly seeks to penalise those who try to gain admission to football grounds without tickets. However, it is silent on anyone who facilitates that entry, such as an individual who works for a club or stadium, or who is somehow in charge of a gate. I do not think it is reasonable for a private Member’s Bill to look at that issue, but could the Minister consider what else the Government need to do to ensure that those people are also penalised?
The Chair
Order. Just before the Minister comes back in, I want to advise Members that the new, amended copy of the Bill is now available, if anybody wants to have a closer look.
Dame Diana Johnson
Before I deal with that point, I have some information that might help the Committee. The police have dispersal powers under section 34 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which can be used as appropriate. That is the operational side that I was referring to. The Bill, when enacted, would stop ticketless fans from testing the stadium security, and the police have powers and public order offences that can be used if there are threatening and abusive words or disorderly behaviour. In other words, there are powers already available to the police to deal with the dispersal of fans if there is a large group. The hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned those who may be employed by the stadium who facilitate and allow such behaviour. I will reflect on that important point. There are probably offences being committed there, which I may return to in a moment.
The Chair
Before I call the hon. Member for Amber Valley to wind up, as the new copies of the Bill are now available, if any Member has an objection to proceeding to the vote, I can suspend the sitting so that they may study it.
Mr Kohler
In the original drafting of proposed new section 1A(3), it was not a defence to knowingly use a ticket that had already been used. However, under the new wording of subsection (3), it is a defence if someone uses a ticket that has already been used, even if they know about it. Is that deliberate or a flaw in the drafting?
Linsey Farnsworth
A ticket that has already been used? I am trying to remember; I think it goes back to the purpose of this change in the law and the desired effect of increased safety. If there is a valid ticket, there is a reserved seat, which is what I think the defence is getting at. The offence is being introduced to prevent overcrowding.
Mr Kohler
If someone is using a ticket that has already been used, it is an overcrowding issue, so is there a flaw in that change? The previous drafting made sense: if two people had a photocopy of the same ticket, and knowingly attempted to enter using that same ticket, that was not a defence under the original drafting, unless they reasonably believed that the ticket had not already been used. That has been removed in the final version, and I wonder whether that is a mistake in the drafting—I cannot see the logic of that.
The Chair
I think I will call Linsey Farnsworth to wind up, and perhaps she could clarify the situation before we move to the vote.
Linsey Farnsworth
Thank you, Mr Vickers. I thank all Members for their contributions today, as well as the Minister and the shadow Minister. I will return to the comments that the Minister kindly made about members of staff—
Saqib Bhatti
I just want to say that, if there is anything that the hon. Lady wishes to correct, that can always be done on Report.
Linsey Farnsworth
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I will look into that. I remember discussing the changes to proposed new section 1A(3) with the advisers here, and I remember being satisfied that there was good reason for them. I am very sorry that I cannot bring those reasons to mind at the moment, but I will commit to looking at that during the remaining stages of the Bill’s passage.
Bob Blackman
One of the challenges with electronic tickets is that people can print them out multiple times. When fans approach the ground, those tickets are barcoded and will be scanned, and multiple copies can be scanned to allow entry, which would mean that someone could potentially enter illegally. On Report, the hon. Lady may wish to look at a way of ensuring that making duplicates would also become an offence.
Linsey Farnsworth
I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemen for their contributions. I will commit to looking at that issue again and tabling any necessary amendments on Report, perhaps in conjunction with the Minister.
Going back to the Minister’s comments on the Fraud Act and the Theft Act, it is correct that members of staff can be charged under those offences, if the evidence allows and if the Crown Prosecution Service’s public interest test is met. With a member of staff, there is a level of trust and a duty of care to members of the public coming into the stadium. Because of that duty of care, it is more likely that an either-way offence, which takes up more time and resource in the court, would meet the public interest test than a member of the public turning up without a ticket. I think that there is already provision for those hopefully rare circumstances.
What we are trying to do with the Bill is provide a summary-only offence, with the deterrent of the football banning order, to deal with offences that are committed in much bigger volumes, while not clogging up the court system. I think the Bill strikes that balance, and there are those provisions for the prosecution of members and staff, as and when that happens. I think that is everything I wanted to cover.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Controlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill
Wednesday 25th June 2025
(2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesControlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill 2024-26 View all Controlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings of the Committee except the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. My selection and grouping for today’s sitting are available online and in the room. There will be a single debate on both clauses. I remind colleagues that the scope of the Bill is quite narrow, and I expect their remarks to be confined to it.
Clause 1
Amendment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.
Many hon. Members will be aware of the blight of drugs on our streets. The recent and ongoing emergence of novel synthetic opioids, particularly fentanyls and nitazenes, poses a particular risk to public safety and public health, not least because of their very high potency. It is those drugs that the Bill seeks to address, because with the rapid development of synthetic drugs, it is vital that new controls can come into force at the earliest opportunity to enable the police and other authorities to act in the interests of public safety.
The Bill seeks to amend the delegated power to specify controlled drugs under section 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, so that the form of statutory instrument is regulations made by the Secretary of State rather than an Order in Council. The statutory instrument remains subject to the draft affirmative procedure and the statutory preconditions of acting after consultation with or on the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
For Members who are not aware, the UK-wide Misuse of Drugs Act is the principal legislation to control substances that are dangerous or otherwise harmful. These substances become controlled drugs by being listed and classified as class A, B or C under schedule 2 to the Act, according to their relative harmfulness, or by being specified in a temporary drug class as a drug subject to a temporary control order.
The Act imposes the criminal penalties that many of us will be aware of in relation to offences such as unlawful possession, supply, offer to supply, production, and importation and exportation of those controlled drugs. Currently, any amendment to schedule 2 to control, remove from control or amend the control of drugs is made by Order in Council—in other words, by the King in Council. Orders can also be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council.
For newbies like me who are not aware of what that means, let me explain. If we are looking to add a new substance to the list, we first have to go through the draft affirmative procedure with debates and approval by both Houses of Parliament. A statutory instrument then has to be made at the Privy Council and will come into force on a specified date, which is generally 28 days later. Given that the Privy Council generally meets only once each month, and not at all during recess, this means that it will be an additional four to six weeks following the debates in Parliament for a substance to be controlled under the law. In the interim, that means the police have limited powers to tackle those substances and are not able to throw the full force of the law at individuals supplying or possessing those substances, which, as we know, are very dangerous to public safety.
The Bill is very short. Clause 1 seeks to amend the 1971 Act by removing the requirement for an Order in Council so that any amendment to the list of controlled drugs under schedule 2 would require only debates in both Houses under the draft affirmative procedure. Importantly, the clause continues to state that the Secretary of State can act only following consultation with or on the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. In terms of its impact and effect, the Bill is limited to that area.
Clause 2 is even shorter, providing that the Bill extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which is very standard.
The Committee will be pleased to hear that we are not expecting the debate to be too long, and I recommend that all members of the Committee vote in favour of the Bill.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I support the Bill in the context of my liberalism. For years, the Liberal Democrats have campaigned for better access to medicinal cannabis for those who rely on it to manage their symptoms. The current system is too restrictive and necessitates a more compassionate, patient-centred approach to ensure that nobody is left to suffer unnecessarily. The Government should investigate the merits of permitting general practice to prescribe cannabis-based products.
That said, this retired military police officer does not find his liberal values to be at odds with the Bill. In fact, the Bill increases protections for citizens from dangerous substances and simplifies and shortens the control systems set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I welcome this Bill, which, in the wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, sheds light on a system that is not working well and proposes an appropriate fix. As a pharmacist, I am well aware of the problems we have with controlled drugs, and novel and designer drugs that are produced at speed pose a risk to patients. I believe this Bill will do exactly what it says on the tin and help us to control a growing problem. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us here today.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
After a year of being a Member of Parliament, it is wonderful that not a week passes without my discovering a new arcane practice that seems designed to stand in the way of doing things well and at speed. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucester for taking the opportunity to get rid of at least one regulatory burden so that we can speed up the process of keeping people safe.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am broadly in favour of the Bill, but I have a few questions that I hope the Minister can answer.
The Home Affairs Committee report of 2023 made a number of recommendations, including the rescheduling of psilocybin and other similar substances under the MDA 1971. I hope the Minister can confirm that, if it is passed, the Bill could be used to speed up the ability to move some controlled substances down the scheduling list and others up the scheduling list. Can she also confirm that passing this legislation will not further intensify the failed war on drugs model, as we hopefully seek to move towards an evidence-based harm reduction drug policy in this country?
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester on his success in taking the Bill to this stage and on his eloquent speech today. I am pleased to confirm that the Bill has the Government’s support.
I am grateful for the comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset made an important contribution informed by his professional background in pharmacy. He knows the importance of the Bill and how it will deliver on speeding up the process for dealing with illicit drugs.
The hon. Member for West Dorset said that he has been a Member for just one year, and that he is finding new arcane practices all the time. Having spent 20 years in this place, I feel his pain. He will find many arcane practices during his parliamentary career. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North has been a doughty campaigner on the issue of drugs for some time. I hope I will be able to respond in detail to the particular issues she raised.
I know the Bill appears technical, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, its impact could be great in controlling new dangerous substances in the UK. As we all know, drugs can have a devastating impact on the lives of families and communities. In the UK, we must continue to ensure that we invest in preventing drug misuse, helping people through treatment and recovery, and protecting the public from these harmful substances through legislation. We must continue to be alert to the potential for dangerous substances, especially synthetic drugs, and it is critical that we have the appropriate tools to make any necessary legislative change at the earliest opportunity. The Bill will enable the Government to make timely changes to respond to emerging drug threats.
There were 3,618 deaths related to drug misuse registered in England and Wales in 2023. That is the highest number since records began, in 1993, and 16% higher than in 2022. Furthermore, in 2023, nearly half of all drug-related poisonings involved opiates, and potent synthetic variants of these are emerging at a concerning rate. When the Bill was introduced, at least 284 deaths had been linked to nitazenes, a potent type of synthetic opioid, across the UK. Sadly, that number now stands at over 450.
We are working very quickly to face the ongoing threat of synthetic opioids in the UK. Last year, 20 substances were controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 15 of which were synthetic opioids, with 14 being nitazenes. This year, we went a step further by introducing a generic definition of nitazenes in the 1971 Act, meaning that new variants of these substances that meet the definition are automatically controlled. While it is right that these changes receive an appropriate degree of scrutiny, the rate at which new variants of substances such as nitazenes are emerging demonstrates that pace is of the essence. Until such changes come into force, our law enforcement agencies do not have the ability to pursue the toughest penalties for criminals who are knowingly supplying these dangerous substances to vulnerable users, many of whom do not know what they are taking.
The Bill seeks to amend the delegated power contained in section 2 of the 1971 Act so that the form of amending statutory instruments will be regulations made by the Secretary of State, rather than an Order in Council. This will ultimately support our aim to ensure that substances are more rapidly made subject to controls under the 1971 Act.
Charlotte Nichols
On a point of clarification, as part of this process will there be reviews of the evidence for keeping drugs within those schedules? We know, for example, that cocaine is class A, and cocaine deaths increased by 30% last year. We all want to reduce drug harms, so at what rate will this be reviewed if the Bill is passed?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend will know that we keep drug policy under review. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs offers advice to the Government. That process is ongoing, but the Bill is specific and technical in its purpose.
As it stands, the process for controlling, removing or amending the control of drugs needs to go through the draft affirmative procedure. Following debates in both Houses of Parliament, the statutory instrument is then made by the King at a Privy Council meeting and comes into force on a specified date, generally 28 days later. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, the Privy Council meets only once a month, which can delay the statutory instrument coming into force by an extra four to six weeks. As a result, any new substance listed in the statutory instrument will not be subject to the provisions of the 1971 Act until the Privy Council meets and the order can be made.
In the interim, if the substances are captured by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, there will be no possession offence other than in a custodial setting or with intent to supply. It is also possible that, under the 2016 Act, there will be lower penalties for the supply, import or export of that substance.
On that basis, the Government support the Bill and wish it a smooth passage.
Alex McIntyre
I thank every hon. Member who contributed to this debate. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Government for supporting the Bill. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North, who is a fierce campaigner in this area, for discussing mental health, drugs and related policy areas.
The hon. Member for West Dorset is entirely correct in saying that this place has far too many arcane rules and procedures. If we remove them one at a time, we may be here for a long while, but we should do so none the less.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset brings a wealth of expertise as a pharmacist, and I am grateful for his support for the Bill. I am sure the Minister will have heard what the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, who is my constituency neighbour, said about medicinal cannabis, and I am sure that he and his party will continue to campaign on the issue.
In these 15 minutes or so, the Committee has had a good opportunity to debate this short and technical, but none the less important, Bill. It is important to my constituents that we tackle the war on drugs and protect vulnerable people while ensuring that criminals are behind bars.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
Alex McIntyre
I think this is where I am meant to stand up and thank the Clerks, the Committee members, the Doorkeepers and Hansard—I know it has been a long and arduous process to get to this point. I look forward to the Bill’s further progress. I also thank you, Dr Murrison.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.