Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brennan of Canton
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, I confess to your Lordships that I have blatantly plagiarised this speech, if copying oneself can be categorised as plagiarism. I kicked off this Bill in the House of Commons in 2024, albeit with one slight tweak from its current incarnation. It is not unique for someone to introduce a Bill in the House of Commons and get it through Second Reading. Another Member is doing a similar thing right now. In the House of Commons I got it through Second Reading and Committee, only for it to fall as a result of a walk in the rain taken by Rishi Sunak and the subsequent snap general election. It is nice to be able to reintroduce it here in the House of Lords. I hope that with your Lordships’ support, this time we can get it to the final whistle.
On Sunday 11 July 2021, the final of the men’s Euros football tournament at Wembley Stadium could have resulted not just in the sad loss for the England football team on that occasion but in a tragic loss of life. That was the finding of the independent review conducted by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, into the events of that day. It suggested that we narrowly escaped a disaster that could have resulted in fatalities or irreversible injuries.
For everyone here, I am sure that the mere thought that such a catastrophe is still possible in this country at a football match in the 21st century, after the tragedies of the latter part of the last century, is profoundly unsettling. Those present at the Euro 2020 final, which took place in 2021 because of Covid, witnessed at first hand the reckless behaviour of some people seeking to enter the stadium without a ticket. When the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, of which I was a member at the time, undertook an inquiry following the Euros, I admit that I was genuinely shocked—I think that I was not the only one—to discover that entering, or attempting to enter, a football match without a ticket is not a specific criminal offence.
That is why the committee acknowledged the need for the Bill, which I introduced, in a recommendation in its Safety at major sporting events report, published in December 2023. It demonstrated the broad cross-party recognition of this problem and the consensus on the need for legislative action to put it right. All the members of the Select Committee at that time who held seats within its territorial scope—England and Wales—were named as co-sponsors when I introduced the Bill in the other place. After the 2024 general election, the Bill was picked up by Linsey Farnsworth MP, who has done a sterling job in steering it skilfully through all its Commons stages and improving, with a slight tweak, on my original.
The Bill would bring into law recommendations that came out of the Select Committee’s findings and the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, by amending the Football (Offences) Act 1991 to introduce a new offence of unauthorised or attempted unauthorised entry to football matches. It is estimated that, at the Euro 2020 final, somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 ticketless individuals were able to gain entry. Many people will have seen the disorder, overcrowding and safety hazards that resulted from those events. Those actions not only compromised the safety and security of stewards, police officers, spectators, players and officials, but greatly tarnished the reputation of the sport and of this country. On the security of stewards at the ground, I had a brief conversation before today’s session with the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, who I see is still in his place having spoken on the previous Bill. He confirmed to me that in a past life he was a security guard at Wembley Stadium and frequently witnessed this kind of behaviour and dangerous activity going on. I thank him for his support of my Bill.
The current legal framework does not address the problem. Those caught entering a stadium without authorisation face no legal repercussions. Those attempting to enter are simply moved on and often try to gain entry multiple times. There are no consequences for their selfish actions, which risk jeopardising matches and could recklessly endanger the safety and lives of others. The Bill is intended to respond directly to those challenges by making unauthorised entry into football matches a specific offence. The aim is to deter people from attempting to enter stadiums without a valid ticket.
Back in 2024, I did an interview with, among others, Martin Keown, the former Arsenal footballer, on talkSPORT radio, and there was clear agreement in our discussion and some of the phone-ins that the deterrent effect is a significant part of this measure. A fine of up to £1,000 might be a deterrent but, under the Bill a conviction for this offence could lead to a court-imposed football banning order under the Football Spectators Act 1989 and Football (Offences) Act 1991, which would prevent a person attending football matches for a specific period of between three and 10 years. That would be an even greater deterrent. The Bill seeks to address all forms of unauthorised entry, recognising the broad spectrum of tactics that can be employed to gain illicit access to stadiums.
The scope of the Bill, as I said earlier, extends across England and Wales and across the top tiers of domestic football. We are not talking about park matches in your local area here. The Bill includes the Premier League, the Championship, League One, League Two, the National League, the Women’s Super League, the Women’s Super Leage 2 and Cymru Premier, as well as international matches in England and Wales.
My local team Cardiff City’s stadium hosts the games not just of Cardiff City Football Club but the Welsh national teams. It would be remiss of me not to mention the usually impeccable behaviour of Welsh football fans attending matches there and the crackling atmosphere they create with their passionate renditions of songs such as “Hen Wlad fy Nhadau” and “Yma o Hyd”.
The Bill is slightly from the one that I introduced previously. There is a small change in the wording of proposed new Section 1A(3) of the 1991 Act in this version of the Bill. The provision outlines proposed possible defences and proposed new Section 1A(3)(b) has been clarified so that it covers cases in which a person “reasonably believed” that they had a ticket for the match but in fact did not. That is to ensure that a person who innocently buys a counterfeit ticket is not criminalised under this offence, which is specifically about fan safety and preventing overcrowding. As before, the defence also applies in relation to a person using a genuine ticket that they are not eligible to use—for example, an adult using a child’s ticket. That is because there would already be a reserved seat in the stadium and safety would not be an issue with respect to overcrowding.
The vast majority of football fans across the country, supporting clubs such as my team, Cardiff City, or any others, do so in the right spirit. It is important that they feel safe and secure when supporting their football teams. I make it clear that the intention of the Bill is to support real football fans and to keep them safe and secure while they are enjoying the spectacle of supporting their team. Football is a big part of our culture. In recent years, football has grown ever more important in the national culture of Wales, and it has always been of huge importance across the rest of the UK, bringing together individuals from all walks of life in shared support of their teams. The actions of a few should not be allowed to compromise the safety and security of the majority.
I have been mindful with the Bill of the balance between enhancing security and maintaining the open and inclusive nature of football matches. The intention is not to criminalise fans or create barriers to genuine supporters enjoying the game. Instead, the focus is on preventing those who would seek to cause disorder and harm entering stadiums, thus ensuring a safer environment for all. By strengthening the legal framework, we can deter unauthorised entry, reduce the risk of disorder and violence, and ensure that football continues to be a source of joy and community for everyone. I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I support the Bill. I congratulate Linsey Farnsworth in another place on the initiative she has taken and, particularly, the work that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, has done on the Bill, both in another place and indeed here today. I wish him well—all my comments will be in that context, because I think there may be some areas where we can seek to strengthen the Bill and consider some of its implications.
I too will share with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, a bit of past experience on this. The Football Spectators Act 1989 was a Bill that I piloted through the Commons as Minister for Sport. The subsequent Act that he referred to, the Football (Offences) Act 1991, addresses broader forms of football-related disorder, allowing for the banning orders, which do not make, as has rightly been pointed out, unauthorised entry itself a prosecutable offence. It is important and may be helpful, especially when we get to Committee, to reflect on the conversations that took place at the time of the original Bill, during the Thatcher and the Major Governments. Thirty-five years on, some of those same arguments were raised by Katie Lam in another place and echoed during the Bill’s proceedings.
No law can be effective unless you have the resources to bring the perpetrators to justice, and the cost of policing will be substantial. As Katie Lam clearly stated:
“It is … right that we give police and organisers the tools that they need, not just to remove people in the moment, but to prevent repeat offences through banning orders”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/25; col. 1253.]
When the original legislation was first considered, this proposal came up, and concern was expressed by the police, some of the clubs and politicians about how well the offences could be policed and how much additional policing costs and stewarding would follow.
Christopher Chope MP, who is notable for his interventions on Private Members’ Bills who and was also around at the time, back in the early 1990s, stated in Committee on this Bill in another place:
“I fear that what will happen is that an individual will be picked on every now and again, but when there is a problem of mass trespass, we will not be able to do anything about it because nobody will be able to police it ... there is a danger that bringing the criminal law into these areas will result in disappointment and, as a result, bring the law into disrepute; we put all these laws on the statute book, but we cannot actually do anything about them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/25; col. 1251.]
This was a real concern when we first addressed the possibility of the proposal in the Bill and it remains a concern now, but one I think we should address in Committee. Today, however, the Government have the opportunity to say that they will ensure that the full costs associated with enforcement will be made available. Sadly, recent precedent in a related area will not be in their favour.
It is interesting that, in introducing the Bill, the noble Lord referred to the importance of adjusting it to make sure that somebody who went in with a counterfeit ticket or the wrong ticket would effectively be exempt because this is a very narrow Bill. I hope that that would be included. I promise I am not going to push this to votes in Committee, but I think it is something that we need to look at very closely. It is a classic example of where the CMA has been given powers and those powers have not been used effectively; the resources have not been there to make sure that this problem of modern-day ticket-touting has been addressed.
There are literally thousands of people who go to football matches illegally—I will come to the laws that cover that—with tickets that have been acquired through bots or the secondary market. Many are rejected on entry. That unauthorised entry in itself often causes a fracas or problems because the individuals concerned feel that they have been unfairly treated.
So if we are going to achieve the praiseworthy goals set out in this Bill, and if this Bill is going to be worth more than the paper it is written on, which I believe it will be, the Government have to commit to ensure that the funding is in place for all the relevant authorities—in particular, for the police to be available on day one, while football clubs will need to invest in training, stewarding ticket systems and support staff. We knew this when considering this offence and drafting the Football (Offences) Bill back in 1991.
We should also be concerned about instances where fans are unfairly penalised due to miscommunication or misunderstanding about entry rights leading to unwarranted legal consequences. Above all, the political climate at the time when we bought the first two Bills, now Acts, did not warrant going further than we had with onerous but ultimately successful legislation to tackle football-related disorder.
In looking at the Casey review in detail, we must also address the central criticism she made about the loss of experienced stewards, leaving, “Wembley’s stewarding operation vulnerable” and her recommendations for stricter enforcement within the stadium, which can be read across into clubs as a whole. I think this was a clarion call to recognise that there are people who are willing to risk unauthorised entry to football matches—who the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, called the “mindless thugs” at Wembley that day—and a wake-up call for football clubs and venues, such as Wembley, that host national and international matches, to install and modernise their entry systems and ensure that their stewards are well trained and capable of strict enforcement of club, FIFA, UEFA and FA rules at matches.
It is important to recognise that a central and growing issue is the existence of some stadium, event and club employees who are, regrettably, bad apples willing to break the rules of the club and assist or facilitate entry with an invalid matchday ticket, which adds to the problem that the Bill seeks to address. There is nothing in the proposed legislation that deals with assisting or facilitating entry with an invalid matchday ticket, yet this is a significant problem that has been on the rise at some leading professional football clubs in recent years through a minority, but a very relevant minority, of corrupt staff associated with turnstile entry.
Last season alone, four stewards at one club facilitated entry for people with facsimile tickets, and they benefited financially. That small but relevant number of corrupt stewards, usually working with a tout outside the ground or on social media, provide a facsimile of a digital ticket to a purchaser for payment. On matchday, the purchaser is made aware of which turnstile to go to with the facsimile and which member of staff to speak to. The purchaser feigns a problem with the ticket; the corrupt steward then uses either a master access card or an override button on the turnstile to allow the purchaser entry into the stadium and takes his payoff. In one recent case, a highly respected investigator with extensive knowledge of this growing fraudulent activity saw 30 persons admitted to a stadium in this manner by one steward at one match.
This practice is, regrettably, becoming more prevalent. A simple clause making it an offence to facilitate or assist a person to enter a ground with an invalid matchday ticket or a matchday ticket that they were not eligible to use would plug this loophole that can cause problems at turnstiles and entry points to a match, which this Bill seeks to address.
I intend to put down an amendment to new Clause 1A(1)(b) which I hope will address this and allow us to debate in Committee an important change meaning that persons could attempt entry with copies of genuine tickets, and if they did there would be no offence committed. Under this legislation, bad actors, particularly under new Clause 1A(3), will simply tell customers that, if they have any problem with a ticket, they should simply say that they purchased it in good faith. Altercations where this is not accepted are rare, but cause many of the problems that the proposers of the Bill are seeking to avoid. A clause such that the person should be able to produce a valid receipt for the purchase of the invalid ticket could be inserted into the defence section as part of the criteria, and discussions could take place with clubs, regulators and, indeed, fans to make sure that this is practical and enforceable. Simply requiring anyone to believe that they had purchased something generally wrecks the good intentions of the proposed legislation.
In Committee, I will turn to the expensive and massive problem, which many noble Lords have heard me speak about over the past 10 years, of ticketing fraud perpetrated by corrupt players in the extensive secondary ticket market in the UK. One secondary market tout is known to have more than 1,000 memberships at a Premier League club. It is estimated that that business alone—the unauthorised and illegal use of the secondary market—costs between £100 million and £200 million of illicit business per annum, which is nearly £1 billion during this Parliament. It just shows how important it is to make sure that a genuine football fan can gain access to a football match with a valid ticket and that we tackle that problem.
This may not be the right Bill to do that, but it is certainly the right Bill to talk about it, in Committee, particularly since in football, as opposed to other sports, it is already illegal to sell tickets on the secondary market in the UK unless you are authorised by the event, organiser or club. That is what Section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was for—it made it a criminal offence for any unauthorised person to sell tickets for designated football matches—but it is not policed and the law is flouted. Again, it comes back to the resource of making sure that a well-intentioned law is properly policed and implemented.
These are just some of the issues that I hope we will be able to look at in detail. The Bill is exceptionally well-intentioned and has been worked through very hard. In Committee and subsequent stages, I believe we could look at making it even more effective and more valuable so that we protect the interests of true football fans, which is what all this is about, keep thugs out of the game in which they have no place and make sure that true football fans enjoy it, while also addressing the growing and extensive criminal behaviour in the much-abused secondary ticket market, which is one of the principal causes of unauthorised entry to football matches.
I wish the noble Lord every success with the passage of the Bill. I congratulate him on a lifetime commitment to sport and on making sure that issues such as this—minor in some ways, not huge legislation, but important to the future of football—find their way on to the statute book and win widespread support among the fans, the clubs and the wider community who want to see a truly legally binding and effective framework for football in this country.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I endorse the Bill and the principle of the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I will repeat nothing of his points but merely make observations to add to them.
I think Members of the House would be shocked at the prices for the average secondary market ticket for the Premier League today. The amount of cash and profit that can be dispensed to others in precisely the way the noble Lord articulated is greatly underestimated, as are estimates of the number of tickets in the Premier League going through the secondary market. This is very big business.
One point that the noble Lord did not make but that needs adding is that the majority of these tickets are being bought online electronically from abroad. Dublin is a huge centre for that but there are many more outside this country. That is the business model. The term used to me by the people with the most expertise in this field is organised crime, and that is what this is. It is not the old school of freelancers or interesting characters with a flat cap running a cash-in-hand business outside a stadium, who are still recognisable on occasion at sporting events. They are only a tiny bit of the problem. This is organised crime, big money, and that needs serious consideration. Another minor issue that needs serious consideration in Committee is whether FA Cup fixtures should be included, because then you have the potential of a range of other grounds that will suddenly have a huge fixture, and the problems associated with it, away from the norm.
There are many ingenious ways in which football fans will attempt to see fixtures. At Oxford United last March, I witnessed—although the police intervened after 10 minutes—the most ingenious of attempts. A van was parked in a public car park adjoining the smallest stand. A ladder, which was more like a window-cleaning device, was raised and, in great comfort, two fans started to observe the fixture from on high. Such was the angle of the ladder that they may well have technically been inside the stadium. I use that as an illustration of the many ways in which the true fan—but one without a ticket—may attempt to see a fixture.
I put this question for consideration to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan: the old Scratching Shed at Leeds United could be climbed from the outside. Whenever a fixture was full and the gates were locked, fans of all ages would climb on to its roof. The stands at the same stadium these days would not facilitate that, but there are clubs promoted to the National League where a similar concept would apply. The question, “What is illegal entry?”, needs a bit of consideration, because fans are ingenious and there are many ways in which things can be done that may not totally fit with health and safety regulations.
When I first went to football, I was getting in for free, not by going through the turnstile but by being lifted over it. That is my point regarding FA Cup fixtures because turnstiles come in many different shapes and forms. Until school dinners became particularly good, with treble massive servings, I was capable of being easily lifted—at a quite mature age really—over said turnstile, and at the time that guaranteed free entry. So that is an interesting question.
I appreciate that Scotland is not included in this, but on my last visit to Stenhousemuir Football Club, for a fixture of great interest, it was unclear when kick-off time was. I arrived early, when the turnstiles and ticket office were closed, walked into the stadium through the gate and sat down to wait. The match had almost begun by the time I remembered, my memory having been jogged by a steward, that I might not have a ticket. I had to leave the stadium, buy a ticket from a ticket office and then enter via the turnstile to get legal access. The point about the definition regarding ingenious fans—or, in that case, fans who did not have a clue what time kick-off was—is an interesting one, particularly in the National League.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I cannot leave that anecdote without recalling a story that I hope I am allowed to share, in the spirit of this debate. I had to introduce the football Bill back in the days when the House was completely packed. On the day when I was winding up, the House was totally full because the Bill was a major issue at the time. There was that moment before the Minister winds up when the House goes silent, and Dennis Skinner looked at me and said, “It’s all right for him. He can get in under the turnstile”.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, that shows the ingenuity that doubtless may have been attempted. I am considering when that could be used, before the Bill becomes law, to assist the noble Lord in accessing a certain match that he is keen to watch.
There are other points that need considering by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and the Committee. First, facial recognition is coming in. Serie A already has facial recognition; it is not in widespread use, but the technology is required in Italy. There are certainly two Premier League clubs that are bringing in facial recognition for part of their stadium at the moment. I do not say that the interesting question of facial recognition “coincides”, but it sits alongside this.
Secondly, there is the issue of political agitators, whose aim is to get on the pitch—they have attempted to do so—and the question of players’ safety in relation to that is a factor. I think the last recorded case was an environmental protester of some kind getting on a pitch, but that is a serious issue in relation to player safety, which has rightly been taken as more important in recent times. That would actually back up the crusade of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, to have this legislation come into place.
Thirdly, on policing issues, the last time this was a major problem in English football was not the Euro final. It was on 30 November 2023 at Villa Park, the home of Aston Villa. In a UEFA fixture, a club called Legia Warsaw from Poland were playing. The police and the safety advisory group of Birmingham City Council had not banned Legia Warsaw fans; in fact, 1,002 tickets had been sold to them, and they came to the fixture. Their numbers had been restricted, but another 1,000 came and attempted to force entry into the stadium, causing huge safety issues and immediate action by the matchday commander from the police and Aston Villa Football Club, who then closed the turnstiles and created other disorder outside as fans, both with and without tickets, could not get entry. That issue was identifiable; Legia Warsaw has had 35 fines from UEFA for fan behaviour.
For anyone who wants to know about hooliganism in football, hooligans put their stuff online. There are now websites and social media that are openly available for everyone to see. If anyone wants to know who causes the most problems, who are the worst, the nature of those problems and when they are most likely to occur, there is publicly available information. Legia Warsaw is known for being in the highest category of ultra-fans, given the problems they cause. They are a significant group of hooligans, as that term is used. This Bill will complement that. There was no collusion with staff there. It was an attempt at a forced break-in at a stadium.
I note that there is inaccurate discussion in the media at the moment of that incident and about policing. I have a report in front of me, an official police report, which I would like to quote from a little, because it is about another set of football supporters who are characterised in it as fanatical. The report says:
“This is expressed, among other things, in the lighting of flares”,
but,
“according to UEFA … and our police, there is no animosity between”
them and the supporters of the team they were playing, and this was not a high-risk match. This was Maccabi Tel Aviv playing Ajax in Amsterdam in November last year.
The report goes on to say that there was
“a special context, because of the war in the Middle East”.
The fixture also coincided with the national Kristallnacht commemoration in Amsterdam. There was “a daily pro-Palestine demonstration” at the railway station. This is from the official report, and there were supporters from a third club present in the city at the time: Fenerbahçe supporters, from Alkmaar in the Netherlands.
I want to quote regarding a couple of incidents, because this has been put in the media wrongly, not factually. This is the official statement of facts—the feitenrelaas—from the Dutch chief crown prosecutor, or whatever the equivalent title is, and the chief of police for Amsterdam. It is something that could be considered in this Bill. Should there be a statement of facts every time there is an incident? It is a requirement in the Netherlands to have a statement of facts. The night before the fixture, on a street called the Rokin, the report says that
“Around midnight … 50 Maccabi supporters pull on a Palestine flag hanging on a facade”.
That flag was removed and the video footage of it is on hooligan websites. It was put on by a Maccabi ultra-fan, one of those 50. A taxi was attacked at the same time on the same street, and other taxis were damaged. The hooliganism then was an issue and a problem.
The following day, the football match took place. During the day—the match was on an evening—there was one arrest by the police for a disturbance of the public order. There were no clashes between the fans or with local people. The football match took place, though there had been a problem because pro-Palestine demonstrators had attempted to go to a square in Amsterdam called Anton de Komplein. The report says:
“Upon arrival, this group splits up into small groups in search of the confrontation at the Arena”.
That is the Amsterdam arena: the football stadium of Ajax. Those are the specifics and the police deployment was there.
Additionally, it says in the next paragraph that there were
“social media messages confirming that there are groups … looking for a confrontation with Maccabi supporters”.
The police handled that throughout the day without such confrontations. However, the report goes on:
“After midnight, the problems arise due to small groups of rioters spread through the city centre and adjacent neighbourhoods. These groups commit violent hit and run actions, targeting Israeli supporters and people going out. These incidents take place in various places in the city centre”,
and it lists the 14 streets where that happened. It says:
“The police follow up on all reports”,
and the police patrol intervenes,
“where threats are visible and manage to keep rioters at a distance from Israelis. The police can prevent many incidents in this way. Nevertheless, rioters manage to commit serious assaults, resulting in injuries among Maccabi supporters. It appears to be particularly difficult for the police to take action against such flashpoints. Rioters move in small groups, on foot, by scooter or car, briefly attack Maccabi supporters and then disappear again … Loose groups of Maccabi supporters are gathered”,
and the police basically say that this quickly dissipates over time as the number of rioters disappears.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
May I remind the noble Lord of the advisory speaking time in this debate, please?
Lord Mann (Lab)
I shall be brief, because this is the last point I want to make from the report. It says:
“Several people were injured, five of whom were treated in hospital”.
Those five, I can confirm, were Israelis. It continues:
“Twenty to thirty Israeli supporters with minor injuries were taken in by the Jewish community”.
Now that is from the report of the chief of police. It goes on to detail the people who were arrested and where they were from. There were 49 Dutch arrested and 10 Israelis during that period. There were more Dutch arrested in the consequential days. That is a statement of fact from René de Beukelaer, the chief prosecutor, and the police chief, Peter Holla.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I remind the noble Lord that he is now well over his time. Can he please bring his remarks to a close?
Lord Mann (Lab)
The relevance of this is that the purpose of the Bill is to ensure safety at football matches. The interaction between the Bill and the need for guidance and guidelines, including for the police, on how it would be best used is fundamental to its success. Otherwise, what happens is that people will put things on social media suggesting that they are the facts of what happened, but those facts are fundamentally inaccurate. Having the Dutch system of a statement of facts as a potential amendment to this Bill would make a big difference.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, thank you very much for allowing me to speak in the gap. I fully support this Bill and congratulate my noble friend Lord Brennan on it. The comments from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and my noble friend Lord Mann have been fascinating. I have a slight interest to declare, having consulted the clerk, as I am the patron and former chairman of Manchester United Supporters’ Trust. That club’s ground is certainly one that you would not be able to use a ladder to look into.
I am particularly concerned about the mechanics of enforcement. If you have 3,500 people breaking into a ground, how on earth do you even begin to do this? I implore that when this Bill goes into Committee, how to deal with that is considered. Tailgating, which is where you follow in behind somebody, whether you do it above or below—I would probably be below, like the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—is really quite important, but tailgating is something we see all the time on the Tube. I have seen it at Old Trafford: usually, the person doing it is 10 times my size, so I let him get on with it, but the reality is that it could be caught by CCTV.
What I am concerned about is how we deal with enforcement and who is ultimately going to pay. The Bill focuses on the football clubs themselves; I suspect that while they will not want to, they may find themselves having to bear the burden of this. I look forward to hearing what happens about enforcement. I wish the Bill well and I congratulate my noble friend again.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is a Bill where there is no real argument against what it is doing. The fact you are attempting to get into a ground should be an offence; I believe that was raised in another place. Do we want it? Yes, because the attempt is where the disorder occurs. It is where other offences start and are liable to happen. So, yes, it should be there, and a banning order is probably an appropriate response along with a fine.
However, even those with greater expertise than me in this field have said that it is all about the enforcement. It may not be that this Bill is designed to cover that; it is understandable that it is not. To get it on the statute book is probably the first step. As has been mentioned, if you get your intelligence wrong or do not have the will to back it up, no piece of legislation means anything; there are lots of pieces of defunct legislation hanging around. You must follow it up. Indeed, the genesis of the disorder at the 2021 European finals was—I raised this in the House—a breakdown of intelligence and people not putting sufficient resources in to deal with the problem. Social media was mentioned; it became known that we were still spacing and there must be extra capacity in the stadium, so people went. We have to look at this in the round and make sure we back it up.
I do not think this Bill is somewhere we can correct everything. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, we can start to discuss details. Hopefully, the Minister, when we come to the details, will give us a better idea of the Government’s understanding and what we are going to do to go forward. That would be an appropriate use of Committee on this Bill. I am not sure whether amending it would help or hinder. I suspect that there is only so much time, even in a Session which seems to be as elastic as this one, to get something through. I would look forward to at least discussing that.
Once again, what this Bill says is good. The enforcement capacity—the gathering of intelligence and the will to act—is the elephant in the room. It is the elephant which has now been discussed, talked about and put a howdah on in this debate. We have to make sure we do that. We have to use everything that goes with it because, if you do not do that, it will become meaningless. There are also issues of facial recognition and subsequently identifying people who have broken the law. All of this stuff is probably there, but I do not know if it comes into the Bill or could be in it.
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, when he replies, can let us know what the timeframe is, as indeed can the Minister. We will see what we can do then. I think this is good, but it is certainly not the whole story. There are certainly things the Government can do to make sure that this is more effective and that the policing of football is done more effectively. I wish this measure well.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for giving the House the opportunity to debate this Bill. I regret that we did not manage to pass these measures before, due to the general election last year, but I am glad we are picking up where we left off and following the advice of the 2021 report from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to legislate on tailgating and other forms of unauthorised entry at the earliest opportunity.
Tailgating and ticket fraud present both a financial blow and a great unfairness to clubs and fans alike. The great success of football lies in its accessibility for players and fans of all ages and abilities. Clubs become the bedrock of communities because they give people a shared purpose and responsibility in the upkeep of their team. This is undermined by those who breach entry. These clubs lose out on revenue, and genuine fans pay the price by being undercut. It is a wholly unjust practice.
There is also the danger that comes with the practice of unauthorised entry. Even lower and non-league clubs impose a maximum capacity for safety reasons, but the risk is exponentially heightened as the size of the stadium increases. At big events, where capacity is reached, there is simply no room for extra supporters in the stadium. When the capacity is breached, serious dangers arise,
As the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, referred to, the report on the Euros final by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, outlined risks of crowd collapses, door wedging, trampling and barrier collapses. These were very real possibilities that were narrowly avoided, but they were made possibilities only because of those entering the stadium unauthorised. Those events and the more recent 2024 Champions League final demonstrate why legislation to deter tailgating and other types of unauthorised entry, such as ticket fraud, are so important.
Those who are caught committing this infringement, as it stands, are likely to be thrown out of the stadium without further repercussions. Those who are caught before they have entered are simply turned away to attempt re-entry at another turnstile. Considering the very real risks posed by this practice, notwithstanding the thorough unfairness that it represents, these measures have not proved sufficient.
The Conservatives agree with the attempt to deal with this in a proportionate way. As the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said, introducing a summary offence, with a maximum fine of £1,000 and the likelihood that a conviction will lead to a court-imposed football banning order, seems to provide the proportionate deterrent. I hope that it will indeed, in practice, put an end to this conduct, once it is seen that attempting unlawfully to enter a stadium will bar those attempting it from far more than a single match in the future.
My two concerns lie with the drafting and implementation of this Bill. On drafting, proposed new Section 1A(3) appears quite broadly drafted and may inadvertently allow those who have committed this offence knowingly to be successful in mounting a defence in the courts. Could the Minister reassure me on this issue? On implementation, police numbers are down this year and forces are already stretched. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, we must ensure that we have the numbers needed to police this crime. If we manage to charge an unauthorised entry only every now and again, it will not have the intended impact and we here will have been paying lip service to this issue and no more. As the noble Lord, Lord Shamash, said, I hope the Government have a clear plan on implementation. Can the Minister provide us with some detail on this when he replies to the debate?
Similarly, a deterrent is successful if it is seen to work immediately. This means demonstrating, after this Bill has passed, that its powers will be used swiftly and effectively. I hope that the Government understand the importance of appearance and have planned how they might immediately demonstrate the law’s effectiveness.
I wholeheartedly support this Bill and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, on bringing it before the House.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who have spoken today in what has been a very important and interesting debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Brennan of Canton for his work in sponsoring the Bill not just in your Lordships’ House but, as he noted, in the other place. I admire his determination and resolution to get the job done.
The Bill, as all noble Lords have noted, addresses a clear and pressing issue: the growing problem of unauthorised access to football matches, particularly at high-profile fixtures. It proposes a new football specific offence of unauthorised entry to designate matches to address this, capturing a broad range of behaviours from tailgating and forced entry to the use of forged documents and impersonation of matchday staff. I want to emphasise how important, as other noble Lords have acknowledged, this new offence of unauthorised entry is.
My noble friend Lord Mann and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, have referred to ingenious measures used in the past for entering football grounds. My noble friend Lord Mann said that, once he had his school dinners, he could not he could not be lifted over the turnstiles anymore. We have breakfast clubs now, so it will be even more difficult.
Crucially, this measure enables courts to impose football banning orders on convictions for the offences, which is very important. These are civil orders that provide a strong deterrent and are a vital tool to prevent repeat offending and protect public safety. A number of noble Lords asked what grounds we have for believing that these measures will be effective. I reassure your Lordships’ House that the evidence shows that football banning orders of the sort we are discussing are highly effective in transforming behaviour. The large majority of individuals whose orders have expired are assessed by police as no longer posing any significant threat of football-related violence or disorder. We know these orders are effective in deterring banned fans from attempting to enter stadiums, have strong rehabilitative impact and are regarded as a serious consequence by those considering unlawful behaviour. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Shamash, stressed the importance of enforcement, and of course I agree. But they will know that enforcement is a matter for local police forces on these matters.
On the question of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about resources being available, the Home Office remains committed to exploring ways to support policing in recovering a greater share of special police services costs. This is an important issue and requires careful consideration. To better understand the options and potential impact of any changes, we are conducting further engagement and analysis over the coming months and are grateful for policing’s continued engagement on this. So this matter is under very active consideration.
The Bill responds directly, as noble Lords have noted, to the recommendations of the independent review of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, into the serious disorder at the Euro 2020 final. I am sure that noble Lords recall those events vividly and therefore understand the importance of these measures. Thousands of ticketless individuals gained access to Wembley Stadium, many through mass forced entry or tailgating, and this problem is reoccurring. We saw further evidence of this at the 2024 UEFA Champions League final, again at Wembley, where groups of ticketless fans made repeated attempts to breach security. Similar behaviour is also seen at Premier League matches, particularly where away allocations are limited. This is a wider pattern, not a one-off event, and therefore we must address it. Such behaviour is not only selfish and dishonest but dangerous. It places enormous strain on stadium security, creates serious risks to public safety and undermines the experience of law-abiding fans, and it can be very expensive for clubs. This measure will help with that too.
The Government are clear that this cannot be allowed to continue, which is why we are actively supporting this Bill. Forced entry, tailgating and so-called jibbing are not victimless acts. Those involved are often aggressive, violent or threatening, and their actions can lead to overcrowding, blocked emergency exits and frightening conditions for innocent fans. In some cases, individuals have even attempted to bribe stewards or turnstile operators to gain access. This will also be captured by the new offence. The offence will additionally apply to those who knowingly attempt to use a ticket, whether physical or digital, that has already been used. This is not about criminalising honest mistakes or punishing fans who have been misled. The Bill includes important safeguards to ensure that individuals with lawful authority, such as emergency workers or stadium staff, are not caught by the offence when going about their business. It will also not apply to those who unwittingly purchase counterfeit tickets in good faith or breach the terms and conditions of a legitimate ticket.
I will clarify a couple of other matters that noble Lords raised. Although this Bill does not directly cover those who facilitate unauthorised entry, this conduct would be covered under the Fraud Act 2006 or the Theft Act 1968, depending on the facts of the case. I note, for my noble friend Lord Mann, that political agitators or anyone else entering the pitch without authorisation is committing an offence under Section 4 of the Football (Offences) Act 1991.
This is a proportionate, targeted and necessary measure. It reflects the unique public order challenges associated with football, which are not seen to the same extent in other sports or events. It is also consistent with the broader framework of the Football (Offences) Act.
As this was raised by noble friend Lord Mann, I reaffirm comments made in the other place about the Maccabi Tel Aviv game. As I think everyone knows from statements made in the other place, the Government fought hard to ensure that tickets would be made available for this game. However, Maccabi Tel Aviv ultimately took the difficult decision to reject the allocation, stating that it could not guarantee the safety of its supporters for the entire journey to the UK. Following the decision by Birmingham City Council last week, the Government worked closely with West Midlands Police and Birmingham City Council to support them to consider all the options available and to tell us what resources would be needed to manage the risks. The Culture Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Community Secretary were all involved in these extensive discussions and, although the ultimate decision regarding the admittance of away fans is for the local authority to make, we were clear that resources should not be the determining factor in deciding whether to admit Maccabi Tel Aviv fans. We are disappointed that the allocation will not be taken up.
This Bill enjoyed cross-party support throughout its passage through the other place, and rightly so. It has been welcomed by both the Football Association and the police as a timely and effective response to a growing problem. This is a fan-friendly measure that protects the vast majority of decent supporters from the actions of a disruptive minority. It will help to ensure that football remains a safe and welcoming environment for all and such an important part of our national life. Therefore, I reiterate the Government’s support for this measure and thank my noble friend for this important debate, which I am sure will be continued as the Bill makes progress.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging Second Reading debate. It has perhaps strayed a little into extra time, but I think VAR would determine that no one was offside in any of their remarks.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
I apologise.
I thank everyone who contributed to the debate, which was really good and absolutely in the true spirit of scrutinising legislation, which is obviously the raison d’être of this House. I will thank everyone who spoke individually. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, brought his vast experience to the debate, which was extremely welcome. His analysis of some of the things we might want to explore further in Committee, on Report and so on was extremely useful in considering the best way forward with the Bill. As he acknowledged, some of the issues may be beyond the scope of what we can achieve in a limited Private Member’s Bill within the time available.
Lots of the things the noble Lord brought up were very worthy of debate. He and others brought up resources, which are always an issue in any law and order measure. He and others also brought up what happens in situations of mass trespass. I will briefly make two points in response. First, the purpose of this Bill is principally to deter. If it is effective, that deterrence should be of great assistance with the issue of resources. Secondly, as others noted and hinted at, a situation of mass trespass is ultimately very difficult for the police and the authorities to deal with. But that is not the end of it: as this Bill introduces the potential football banning orders, further mass trespass in future might be helpfully dealt with by the fact that many of those individuals will be under football banning orders if they previously participated in such a mass trespass.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of forged tickets, which again is a wider issue beyond this Bill— I think he acknowledged that—and the trend of losing experienced stewards. There are lots of measures that could be taken in relation to that, not just in the public policy sphere but in sporting clubs and institutions themselves. As I mentioned, one experienced steward was lost when he became a Member of the House of Lords as the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington. Perhaps that sort of experience might be useful to our deliberations in future.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, also contributed to the debate. I will not go beyond the remarks made by my noble friend the Minister in relation to the Maccabi Tel Aviv match issue, but he made some points about the practicalities involved in the Bill. His description of how people gained entry to Oxford United rather reminded me of the descriptions that have been given of how thieves recently gained entry to the Louvre museum in Paris. If the Louvre museum cannot keep out people using a van and a cherry-picker, I am not sure that Oxford United will be able to.
On the broader point, the Bill speaks of premises, which goes beyond the simple environs of the stadium itself. It can be defined, as it is at Wembley Stadium, for example, as quite a wide-ranging area outside the actual turnstiles. That can be the designated point at which tickets can be checked and where unauthorised entry might be triggered. I understand his concerns about the scratching shed, but it is possible to extend that—and it does not sound to me from his description that the situation at Stenhousemuir is likely to result in overcrowding at any time in the near future. I remind him—although he did acknowledge it—that the scope of the Bill is England and Wales and does not extend as far north as Stenhousemuir.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, has a huge expertise in sport. I thank him for his contribution to the debate and the fact that he rightly raised the same issues about enforcement, and I make the same points about deterrence as I did earlier in relation to that. I also thank my noble friend Lord Shamash, who also mentioned enforcement, which I think is something we can discuss further—but many of those issues are beyond the scope of this quite limited Private Member’s Bill. I thank my noble friend Lord Courtown, if he does not mind me calling him that, for his contribution and his wholehearted support for the Bill. I am glad that His Majesty’s Official Opposition are still in support of this Bill, as they were when they were in government prior to the general election. It is nice that there is still some consistency in politics these days, at least when it comes to this Bill. I also thank my noble friend Lord Lemos for outlining the Government’s support for the Bill and clarifying that the Fraud Act would come into play in relation to some of the concerns spoken about by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.