Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 11th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to our proceedings, I remind Members of the difference between Report and Third Reading. The scope of debate on Report is the amendments I have selected. The scope of the Third Reading debate to follow will be the whole Bill as it stands after Report. Members may wish to consider those points before deciding at which stage, or stages, they want to try to catch my eye.

Clause 1

Offence of unauthorised entry to designated football matches

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “or attempts to enter”.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, page 1, line 8, leave out “or attempted entry”.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 11, leave out “or attempting to enter”.Amendment 4, page 1, line 13, leave out “or attempted to enter”.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 15, leave out “or attempted entry”.

Amendment 6, clause 2, page 2, line 3, leave out from “force” to end of line 4 and insert

“at the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which it is passed.”.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Christopher Chope]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

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

[Sir Christopher Chope]

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

[Sir Edward Leigh]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

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

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

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

[Sir Christopher Chope]

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

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It is an honour to stand in the Chamber today and present this Bill for its Third Reading, particularly as a lifelong football fan. I put on record that I am a proud Everton supporter—my staff have all too gleefully reminded me that this may be the nearest thing to football-related success that I experience for a long time. Our men’s team last won a major trophy in 1995, and the women’s in 2010, so I am sure Members can imagine my delight when I saw the Amber Valley Codnor Sapphires girls under-10s team win the plate in a tournament in Heanor last Sunday. I am told that two other teams from my constituency, Sleetmoor under-13s ladies and Heanor Junior Hawks, also won trophies that day. I live in hope that Everton can follow suit and get their hands on some silverware at our new ground next season.

Football has a rich and impressive history. It bridges communities and brings people together, cutting across generational, gender-based, geographical, cultural and class divides. It is a sport of opportunity and hope that sees girls and boys who began by playing on the streets of their home towns becoming superstars and role models with platforms from which they can enact real change, as we saw during covid with Marcus Rashford’s free school meals campaign. The rules of modern football are thought to have been drawn up in 1863, not far from this place at the Freemasons’ Tavern in London. There, among other things, the somewhat important rule that carrying the ball with hands is not allowed was agreed on. Sadly, the referee seemed to forget that in the infamous 1986 world cup quarter-final between Argentina and England, in which Maradona produced his “hand of God” moment. The introduction of the video assistant referee means that today, such a goal would rightly be ruled out—not that us England fans are bitter.

As these examples show, football is in a constant state of change and evolution. It is not only right that as the sport evolves and progresses, the regulations around it adapt to reflect and facilitate those changes—it is paramount. That brings me to my Bill, which considers the issue of unauthorised entry to football matches from a fan safety perspective. It aims to ensure that proper legislation is in place to protect fans and prevent overcrowding in stadiums. As we have heard, unauthorised entry often takes the form of tailgating, also called jibbing. That is where a ticketless person pushes through the turnstiles behind an unsuspecting ticket-holding fan. Currently, if caught, tailgaters will likely be ejected without facing any other consequences; therefore, ticketless individuals can and do repeatedly attempt to gain entry to a match until they give up or are successful.

This is not a trivial matter—it has significant consequences for the fans in the stadium, and for the stewards and security staff working there. According to the Football Association, unauthorised entry to football matches results in operational, safety and security problems at major events. There are regularly 600 tailgating attempts at major games at Wembley and at grounds across the country. Occasionally, there are also instances of mass entry, where large crowds of people try to push their way into the stadium. The potential consequences of this kind of mass entry are both dangerous and tragic.

In July 2021, during the Euros final, around 1,900 ticketless individuals entered Wembley stadium. It is estimated that around 1,200 to 1,300 of those individuals got into the inner areas of the ground. Two of my friends, Ross and Siobhan, were at the match that day. They are both extremely experienced supporters of many sports, and travel to attend games at many grounds around the world. They were excited that day to watch the game, to experience at first hand the charged atmosphere of such a significant match, and to get behind their team. Unfortunately, they did not have the usual experience that they rightly hoped for. 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.”

My friends were not alone in feeling like that. Baroness Louise Casey was commissioned to conduct an independent review into the events of the Euros final, which she described as turning

“ a day of national pride into a day of shame”.

The report finds:

“The drunkenness, drug taking, irresponsibility, criminality, and abuse of innocent people—including staff, families, and disabled ticket holders—was shocking and intolerable.”

Baroness Casey also writes:

“There were a series of crowd ‘near misses’ which could have led to significant injuries or even death”.

She concluded:

“The existing enforcement mechanisms available to the police and other enforcement officers do not offer enough deterrent against those determined to use the cover of football matches to commit criminal offences. Tailgating, for example, should become a criminal offence. Sanctions for those breaking into football stadiums and/or recklessly endangering lives is weak.”

My Bill aims to rectify that by inserting a new specific offence into the Football (Offences) Act 1991, namely entering or attempting to enter a designated football match in England and Wales without a ticket that the person is eligible to use. The offence, as we have heard, is summary only and carries a maximum sentence of a £1,000 fine. It can be tried only in a magistrates court, which will help with the big core backlog in the Crown courts. A conviction is likely to lead to a court-imposed football banning order, preventing the person in question attending matches for between three and five years. There is a potential prison sentence if the banning order is breached.

The offence, and the banning order in particular, is intended to act as the long-term deterrent that Baroness Casey identified a need for in her report. If passed, the Bill would apply to matches set out in orders made under section 1 of the 1991 Act. As it stands, those are matches in the premier league, championship, leagues one and two, national league, women’s super league, women’s super league 2—previously called the championship—and Cymru premier league, and international fixtures held in England and Wales.

After I did an interview with Radio Derby about the Bill, I was touched to hear from my friend, and Amber Valley borough council’s longest-serving councillor, John McCabe. Incidentally, he was also probably one of the longest-suffering Nottingham Forest football club fans. He has sadly passed away since he left me a voicemail message that morning, which I still have. He opened with his characteristic greeting, “’Ey up, Linsey,” before talking about unauthorised entry in his youth. He said,

“Well done…It’s been happening for years—it used to happen when I were about eleven—they used to say ‘lift him over, he’ll be alright,’ but it’s been happening for years that Linsey.”

That “Well done” sticks with me, and his words and reflections on witnessing unauthorised entry aged 11 further demonstrate the long-standing need for the kind of reform that the Bill proposes.



I will now turn to some queries that were put to me during the Bill’s various stages. First, the Bill uses the word “premises” instead of “stadium”, to allow for arrests to be made and prosecutions to be brought against people going through the first cordon where a ticket would need to be displayed, preventing danger to the stadium itself. In Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) raised a concern regarding the challenges of electronic ticketing and ticket duplication as a means to illegally provide entry to matches. I thank him for his concern and assure him that that would be captured by section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994—a provision that covers the unauthorised resale of match tickets, commonly referred to as ticket touting.

Also in Committee, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) asked about the change to the wording of proposed new section 1A(3) of the 1991 Act in the version of the Bill promoted by Lord Brennan of Canton, which fell at the general election. The provision outlines proposed possible defences. Proposed new section 1A(3)(b) in my version of the Bill has been edited 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. Again, because there would already be a reserved seat in the stadium, safety would not be an issue with respect to overcrowding. The Bill, it should be clear, is about safety and the safeguarding of football fans, not villainising genuine supporters.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon wondered whether that alteration might have the unintended consequence of allowing a defence if a person used a ticket that had already been used, regardless of whether they had done so deliberately. I promised that I would raise that with the Home Office legal advisers and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, which I did. They confirmed that a person attempting to reuse a ticket could not be said to reasonably believe that they possessed valid authorisation to enter, meaning that the statutory defence under proposed new section 1A(3)(b) would not apply. Furthermore, in practical terms, the court is likely to interpret the provision as meaning that a person is not eligible to reuse a previously used ticket, consistent with the intent to prevent unauthorised access to football stadiums. I thank the Home Office legal advisers and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for their help in clarifying that matter.

Finally, let me address why the Bill deals with football matches specifically. Of course, the danger posed by overcrowding is not limited to football and is prevalent in other highly attended sporting and entertainment events; however, this is a private Member’s Bill, and as we have heard, in many instances it is best to limit them in nature if one is to successfully change the law within the prescribed timeframe.

I visited Wembley to watch the Carabao cup final with the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention. We witnessed tailgating taking place and when I spoke to staff in the police, they suggested that football specifically was an event at which unauthorised entry regularly happens and that it poses a serious risk at the most competitive games. In the light of the upcoming Euro 2028, which I am glad to say is being jointly hosted by the UK and Ireland, it is necessary that legislation to protect fans is passed as soon as possible, so that it can come into effect and be a proper deterrent beforehand. If passed, my Bill guarantees that that would happen.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I will make some progress, thank you.

Staff at Wembley also had concerns about upcoming sold-out music events. It is clear that unauthorised entry and overcrowding could pose security and safety risks beyond football, and I hope that Parliament will consider legislation that expands the logic of the Bill to address those other areas, including other big music and sport events, on another occasion.

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

I am pleased to support this Bill. A lot of the things I wanted to say have been highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). It is clear that the numbers are stark, and there is an issue. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) asked why this legislation is important, and I will say why and why it is personal for me.

On 2 January 1971, eight teenage boys from the village where I grew up, Markinch in Fife, travelled to Glasgow to watch an Old Firm game at Ibrox. They walked together to Glenrothes to get on their respective supporter buses. Five of them went on the Rangers bus, and three of them went on the Celtic bus. Only three of them came home. Sixty-six people lost their lives that day in a tragic crush. Just like Hillsborough years later, the trauma of that event still reverberates. The grief never truly lifts for the families, for the communities or for those who were there. The names of Ronald Paton, Bryan Todd and Mason Philip, who were all aged 14, Douglas Morrison, who was 15, and Peter Easton, who was only 13, were ones I grew up with. Their lives and loss are remembered by the friends who came home that day, Shane Fenton and Peter Lee, who have dedicated their lives to this cause and to remembering them.

Those tragedies teach us a painful lesson. Stadium crushes do not start as disasters; they begin as overcrowding, as bottlenecks and as poor control at points of entry and exit. The Bill will not change the past, but it can prevent future risks. We can make football what we all want it to be: fun—about whether your team does well or badly, something to talk about with pals. It is a part of life, but we need to make sure that we keep it safe. This is about fairness. Most fans do exactly the right thing. They queue, they pay, they are searched, and they have their teeny tiny bag that means they are not taking things in. They deserve a system that does not reward those who flout the rules. Stewards—often low paid, often young—deserve to do their job without being overwhelmed or put at risk by hundreds of people surging in unlawfully.

This Bill is not heavy-handed. It is proportionate and focused. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for bringing it forward and allowing me to represent and to record in this Chamber the names of those who my community have lost. I hope that no other community has to go through that again.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. If Members hope to contribute, they need to bob throughout. I cannot read their minds, if they only bob towards the end.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. This Bill is an improvement on its predecessor, and I give credit to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for that, because it allows the defence to which she referred in her earlier remarks, and that is better. I regret that she would not accept the amendments that would have removed the attempt issues, but I must say I was alarmed when she said that she hoped the provisions in this Bill would be replicated more widely in other Bills. Would that be in relation to Wimbledon or Twickenham? It seems to me that the mischief being addressed in this Bill is peculiar to soccer supporters. I am not sure about the suggestion that we need to go more widely to deal with this type of hooligan behaviour. I declare an interest as a debenture holder at Twickenham, and I have never experienced the sort of problems to which she was referring.

When I was at university, I can remember the first football match I ever went to, which was at Dundee United. I stood on the terraces, and I did not feel any danger inside the ground. The danger in Dundee was outside the ground after the event. Then, when I had the privilege of representing Southampton Itchen, I was a frequent visitor to the Dell. Again, I did not see any problems there. There were problems associated with the need to ensure crowd control, and the football club paid dearly for the costs of policing to enable that to happen. That seemed to me a sensible arrangement, because the burden of policing soccer matches was not borne only by the local constabulary and its taxpayers, but also by the club itself. As Baroness Casey’s report makes clear, the Wembley incident that prompted the Bill was essentially a one-off incident caused by a set of different circumstances, including that we were still during the period of covid, which meant a severe restriction on the number of people who could attend such matches. Other problems were created due to the absence of experienced stewards and so on.

I remember asking the hon. Member for Amber Valley why provisions in this Bill would not be included in the Football Governance Bill, which was discussed earlier in the week. She said that although these provisions could have been included in that Bill, because of her legal experience she particularly wanted to have a Bill in her name on the statue book. I hope that in the end those dreams will be fulfilled, as that is an important matter for her.

I have reservations about how this Bill will work in practice, and I am concerned about unintended consequences for the police. If there is an incident similar to the one that took place at Wembley, how will we be able to arrest all those people? Every time somebody is arrested by the police, a policeman has to take that person away and put them in a black Maria or whatever, which means that they are no longer able to police the ground. 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. We will get a situation similar to the one in supermarkets, with blatant shoplifting and a failure of the police or security people to take any action because they choose not to do so.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said on Report, 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. As I said earlier, the Home Office has responsibility for all this, but every day we find that it is unable to fulfil its existing responsibilities, let alone new ones that will be placed on it as a result of this Bill. Most recently, the Home Office revealed that it is unable even to record the number of people who have entered this country and then left. Obviously, the way to find out whether people who come in on visas are complying with those visas is to check the visa records when people leave. The Home Office cannot even deal with that. We are talking about extending its role in the belief that some magic new Bill will control unauthorised entry to football stadiums, when the Home Office cannot even control our country’s borders.

I am extremely sceptical about this piece of legislation. It is a pity, in a sense, that the private Member’s Bill process is giving rise to this sort of legislation, which is—I return to the word I used earlier—relatively trivial compared with all the other problems with which this country is faced and with which this legislature should be dealing.

[Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but is he saying that the safety of those attending football matches and the likelihood of them being hurt and, in some cases, killed is a trivial matter?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

There are already laws against killing people at football matches. There are already laws against criminal damage. There are already laws against violent behaviour. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has looked at Baroness Casey’s report on the incident at Wembley in 2021, but it says that the issue of tailgating highlighted by the hon. Member for Amber Valley was not the only problem. There was also lots of drunken behaviour—

[Carolyn Harris]

indicated dissent.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The hon. Lady is shaking her head, but that is in Baroness Casey’s report—she finds that there was a lot of drunken behaviour and evidence of drug taking. Those are criminal offences. The expression on the hon. Lady’s face makes it seem as though either she believes that Baroness Casey’s findings were incorrect or she has some other reason for disagreeing with that.

I think that bringing the criminal law into this narrow and specific field when there are already a host of other criminal offences covering these issues is the wrong way forward, but I am obviously in the minority on that.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

We will soon find out.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Of course I will give way.

[Luke Taylor]

I have no interest in intervening.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Pardon?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. A discussion should not be taking place while colleagues are seated.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

If the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) says he has no interest in this Bill, then he does not have to attend. I thought he was seeking to intervene, but he was not; he was wanting to make some sedentary remark.

I have put on the record my opposition to and scepticism about the contents of this Bill, and I will leave it at that.