Linsey Farnsworth MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. As my hon. Friend will have seen—she sits alongside me on the Justice Committee—there is clear evidence to back that up. Secondly, starting the process of rehabilitation through positive requirements earlier will reduce reoffending rates on release, thereby cutting crime and consequently easing pressure on prison capacity in the longer term. To develop my first point, inquiries by the Justice Select Committee have found worryingly high rates of drug and alcohol abuse, self-harm, and violence against inmates and staff. Evidence submitted by Collective Voice shows that prisoners are more likely to develop substance misuse issues while in custody if they lack meaningful activity. The Prisoners’ Education Trust has described how participating in education has rehabilitative benefits, helping people in prison to occupy their time positively and learn new skills. His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons found that the prisons best able to tackle substance abuse combined clear boundaries, high expectations and, importantly, meaningful incentives. Prisons such as HMP Oakwood and HMP Rye Hill, which offer rich, purposeful activity, see significantly lower rates of drug use and better behaviour. By incentivising engagement in well-resourced, purposeful activity, new clause 36 would reduce the likelihood of prisoners turning to substances or violence. In turn, fewer prisoners would incur additional days on their sentence, which would ease overcrowding and the strain on prison staff.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My new clause 36 seeks to implement a key recommendation of David Gauke’s independent sentencing review, on which the measures in this Bill are based. The new clause proposes that release at one third of a sentence should be conditional on positive actions and purposeful activity, such as attending education classes, engaging in voluntary work and participating in drug rehabilitation. My amendment seeks to address the prison capacity crisis by embedding an emphasis on rehabilitation into the earned progression model from its very first stage. Incentivising purposeful activity will do two things. First, it will actively reward better behaviour within prison, leading to fewer instances of additional adjudication days being added.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Holidays During School Term Time · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening this important debate. The strength of feeling behind this petition is clear, with over 1,000 signatures in my constituency alone. It was raised by my constituent, Natalie Elliott, a formidable campaigner and a vital supporter to families facing fines, often in stressful and traumatic circumstances. The petition proposes that families should be permitted to take their children out of school for up to 10 days without facing fines. While I will not pre-empt the Minister’s response, recent indications suggest that the Government are unlikely to support this proposal, given their stance that absence is one of the biggest barriers to success. However, despite differing views on the status quo, it is clear to me that both the petitioner and the Government share a common purpose: the wellbeing of our children. I am a firm believer that a good education is one of the most powerful tools for social mobility. Coming from a working-class background, access to quality state education gave me opportunities that ultimately led me to serve in this House. However, under the current system, families face significant challenges. The national framework for penalty notices is applied inconsistently across England. Research by Confused.com found that Essex issued over 35,000 fines between 2022 and 2024, while Cornwall issued just 535. Even within local authority areas, there is a postcode lottery. Educators have told me that pressure to improve attendance can lead to overly rigid policies. Some schools mandate only four sick days per year, refuse to authorise any Friday absences and demand medical evidence for minor illnesses. That not only contradicts statutory guidance but adds pressure to an already overstretched NHS. There is sometimes a lack of empathy for family circumstances. My constituent Chris faced court action because the local authority could not find a special school place for his child. Thankfully, the judge agreed that fining a parent because the local authority was not meeting their child’s needs was inappropriate, and promptly kicked the case out. I have also heard of fines issued during bereavement. There is no appeals process—just pay the fine or risk criminal conviction. Will the Minister consider an appeals mechanism? SEND families are particularly affected, and the system in Derbyshire is under immense strain. Children with autism or ADHD often cannot cope with busy holiday periods, yet their families are fined for going away when it is quieter. Those children have a right to family life and legal protections, but too often they are overlooked. If this Government are serious about reducing absenteeism, I urge them to include school attendance in the upcoming SEND White Paper. I acknowledge the Government’s efforts to ease the cost of family life, from expanding free school meals and nursery care, to breakfast clubs and cheaper uniforms. Those are important steps. But when families with the means to send their children to private schools are exempt from penalties, and those who can afford peak-season travel face no deterrent, yet others must choose between incurring a fine or forgoing a family holiday altogether, we are not dealing with a minor inconvenience but confronting a structural inequality. The injustice does not stop at the school gates. Holiday companies continue to exploit demand through dynamic pricing, pushing costs beyond reach for ordinary families. What action will the Government take to tackle this profiteering and ensure that family holidays are not a luxury for the few, but within the reach of all?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Holidays During School Term Time · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, is the Minister also concerned about local authorities such as Derbyshire county council, whose leader is parroting the sentiments of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) about “overdiagnosis” of SEND? All the families in my constituency that face SEND issues are at their wits’ end trying to get the support that they need, against the backdrop of a council that, on the face of it, does not believe in their plight.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a powerful case that I wholeheartedly support. She is outlining not only the real problems that gambling addiction causes but the trauma that often leads to it, which shows how important rehabilitation is. We have heard much from Opposition Members today about how everybody should be punished and how this Bill is a soft option. Does my hon. Friend agree that requiring people to drill down into the causes of their offending is far from an easy option? It is a very difficult thing to ask people to do, and it is essential that we give them the support they need to look at their life and turn it around.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Higher-level Learning Target · Hansard source

  More

  18. What steps her Department is taking to ensure that it meets its target of two thirds of young people participating in higher-level learning.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Higher-level Learning Target · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency of Amber Valley the David Nieper academy teaches employability skills in conjunction with local industry, and it has had zero NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—at age 18 for the past two academic years. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating its students and its staff, and will she commit to visiting, to see how by bringing the workplace into the classroom it celebrates both the academic and the vocational?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Work for Serving Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  As part of the Justice Committee’s inquiry on rehabilitation and resettlement, we received evidence showing that ROTL use has declined, particularly since covid; it has not really recovered from that. It is great to hear the good work the Minister is outlining on this, but I urge him to continue to push for greater use of ROTL, because it could be a key aspect of rehabilitation of offenders going forward.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Work for Serving Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I agree entirely with what she says about the importance of meaningful work or purposeful activity in prisons. On that basis, does she share my concern that the court backlog means that there are thousands of prisoners on remand who are not required to do purposeful activity and are often sentenced to a walk-out, essentially—going back into our communities without having had the opportunity of working in prison to help with their rehabilitation?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Criminal Courts: Independent Review · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Intervention to fix the Crown court backlog is needed now. Without radical reform, things will only get worse; but in my submission this situation presents an opportunity to present the positive case for modernising our system. The changing nature of crime is recognised by all agencies in the criminal justice system. This is an opportunity to change the criminal justice system so that it is fit for the modern day. The system has been modernised many times over many years. That is why we have the Crown court system in operation and no longer the courts of assize or quarter sessions, which made way in 1972. Later, we got rid of old-style committals for trial, so that witnesses did not have to give evidence twice. Those are the sorts of modernisation efforts that can improve the criminal justice system for the modern world. At this time, we have a key opportunity to both deal with this crisis and modernise the system. I am conscious of time, so I will make a few brief observations from Sir Brian Leveson’s very thorough report. First, I ask the Minister to be cautious about what sorts of cases can be expanded into the domain of out-of-court resolutions and, in particular, the deferred prosecution scheme. It would not, for example, be suitable for domestic abuse cases, particularly as there is no requirement for the defendant to have an admission of guilt. We have to think about faith in the criminal justice system and the manipulative nature of domestic abusers, who often promise time and again to change before going back to their old ways. Furthermore, the use of bad character evidence often underpins a prosecution for domestic violence, and we would need to consider how a deferred prosecution might impact that. We have heard about the removal of the right to elect for offences with a maximum sentence of two years. It would be imperative that the magistrates retained their power of committal for sentencing if they felt, having heard all of the evidence, that a sentence in excess of 12 months would be required. The reclassification of offences is less attractive and more troublesome, because dropping some offences to summary-only would mean a maximum sentence of 12 months. The Sentencing Council is careful to ensure public and statutory consultations, so that the wider public and criminal justice professionals are consulted when it looks at sentencing guidelines, but this would effectively reduce maximum sentences for a number of offences. Careful consideration must be given to that. Again, it would not be suitable for domestic violence or abuse cases to fall within that reclassification. Breaching a non-molestation order, which is one of the offences listed as potentially forming part of the reclassification, has a maximum sentence of five years. We would be reducing that down to 12 months, which would lead to a lot of concern from practitioners. I will leave it there, but there is a lot more to be said and I look forward to future debates.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that requiring an offender to look at the root causes of their offending is far from the easy option? Facing up to those life difficulties is very hard, but it is a really effective way of stopping the cycle of offending.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As a former Crown prosecutor of 21 years, like my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), I have seen close up the impact of our broken criminal justice system on victims, on communities and on our country as a whole. Because of that, I can say, hand on heart, that I am proud to be stood here today in support of this Bill and the transformative reforms it proposes—changes that will target reoffending and address the root causes of crime in a meaningful, lasting way. I will use my time to talk specifically about probation resourcing. Before I get into the specifics, I ask Members to cast their minds back to just over a year ago. The Secretary of State has already set some of this out, but, having heard from Opposition Members, I think it is worth reiterating what last year looked like and remembering the crises we inherited from the previous Government: prisons nearing maximum capacity, the Probation Service understaffed and stretched to the brink of collapse, and a court backlog of more than 73,000 cases. And to what effect? Justice delayed is justice denied. We had a revolving door of offenders going through an underfunded, under-resourced system that was nearing the point of being unable to effectively deter, punish or rehabilitate criminals. Difficult decisions were taken to manage those issues, regain control of our prisons and ensure that the most dangerous offenders were kept off our streets. I am pleased that the Government acted quickly and decisively, but we must never find ourselves in that position again. That is why it is time to look forward and to consider how we can create a system that breaks down the cycles of reoffending, enables victims to secure swift, fair justice, and always has space to lock away society’s most violent and perverted offenders. Those are precisely the provisions that the Bill will drive through, with measures such as the move away from short custodial sentences, which are shown to be ineffective in deterring and rehabilitating offenders, and towards a system that puts those aims at its heart. Current evidence shows that nearly 60% of people sentenced to 12 months or less in prison reoffend within a year of release—a clear sign of a system not working as it should. It is not cheap, either: it is estimated to cost the taxpayer £47,000 per year per prisoner. Those shocking statistics only confirm what I witnessed year in, year out when I worked for the Crown Prosecution Service, where I repeatedly saw the same people coming through the system, often committing the very same offences. I am old enough, Madam Deputy Speaker, that throughout my years working for the CPS, I was saddened to see those regulars later joined by their children, with entire generations of families caught up in gruelling cycles of reoffending. The Bill introduces a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences of 12 months or less, subject to certain exceptions, and creates the pathway to improved community sentences with more effective measures.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am saddened to hear that that is his position, but I am afraid it does not change my view of the Bill. Strict and stringent measures will be in place to encourage rehabilitation. Those will be accompanied by a simplified probation requirement, which will empower the Probation Service to determine the terms and volume of rehabilitation activity for each offender on a specific and individual level. Every offence is different, and under this system tailored community orders will reflect the nature of the offence and the offender. That means putting in place measures best suited to punish offenders for their crimes, encourage rehabilitation and deter them from future criminal activity. That is supported by evidence. The rate of reoffending for those on community orders is 36%, and it is 24% for suspended sentence orders with requirements, so this approach works. Let it be clear stated that in this system offenders are far from free to do whatever they like. They will be supervised intensively and placed under a set of strict conditions. That will lead to a shift away from the root causes of crime, such as addiction, and towards gradual reintegration into society. Of course, these reforms must be accompanied by significant investment in our Probation Service, and I am pleased that the Government have already committed to an extra £700 million in funding and recruited 1,000 new probation officers, with 1,300 more to come. However, as I said in previous debates when the sentencing review’s recommendations were first announced, the Government must be prepared to provide further resources to the Probation Service if that becomes necessary. I am honoured to sit on the Justice Committee. Our inquiries have involved speaking to probation officers, and two things have been made clear. First, officers are absolutely committed to rehabilitating offers. Secondly, regardless of their goodwill and no matter how hard they work, probation officers cannot do their jobs effectively without proper resources. It is clear that the Probation Service has been working for many years on extremely limited resources, and we cannot let that continue under the measures in the Bill. As a young prosecutor in the mid-2000s, under the previous Labour Government’s Respect agenda, I worked as part of the community justice initiative in Nottingham. The initiative, which was based on the Red Hook community justice centre in Brooklyn—America’s first multi-jurisdictional community court—adopted a holistic approach to tackle the root causes of a person’s offending, with agents such as housing officers, drug treatment workers and employment advisers under one roof taking part in the sentencing process together. The approach has been shown to significantly reduce the number of people receiving jail sentences while enhancing public confidence in the Government. The award-winning centre is still running today, but sadly the Nottingham community justice court is not. Despite early and promising signs of success, it lacked resources and sustained funding. We must learn from our previous mistakes. Many of the recommendations of the independent sentencing review are carried forward in the Bill. Importantly, the review noted specifically that probation officers “should be provided with the time, resources and autonomy necessary to build meaningful relationships with offenders and discharge this new responsibility to determine the appropriate content of probation requirements.” Justice, the cross-party law reform and human rights charity, has also outlined concerns about shortfalls of probation staff, including a deficit of around 10,000 Probation Service staff in August this year. The charity suggests that despite more Probation Service officers being appointed in the last year, the target staffing level of full-time equivalent probation officers has not yet been met. As I said, I have seen at first hand what happens to great projects and well-evidenced initiatives if they are under-resourced. The Bill’s provisions rightly place increased responsibility on the Probation Service to deliver proper justice and to rehabilitate offenders, but it needs to be supported to do so. Therefore, although I welcome the Bill and the Government’s announcement of increased funding for the Probation Service and the aim to recruit more probation officers, I am compelled to urge the Minister to ensure that adequate resource is in place so that the changes in the Bill will ensure that our criminal justice system can once again keep our country safe, protect victims and reduce crime.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, in Derbyshire, obtaining an EHCP is merely the start of the struggle. It is certainly not the end of the struggle for those families who desperately need the support that their children deserve. Many view the legal right to which the petition relates—the right for SEND children to get assessment and support in education—as an important guarantee in what for far too long has been an unstable, broken and chaotic system characterised by long wait times and prolonged poor communication with little or no meaningful action. Having legal protections in place will absolutely guarantee that my constituents in Amber Valley will continue to be able to fight for the support that they need, even though they are battling against a council whose leadership do not even believe that SEND is an issue that they need to address. On that basis, I ask the Minister to confirm today that, going forward, legal protections will be in place for those families who so desperately need that support.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening this Petitions Committee debate. I want to take this opportunity to address the 208 people in Amber Valley who put their names to the petition, and the more than 100 constituents I am supporting with their fight to get the SEND provision they need. In November last year, Ofsted released a damning report that found that the then Conservative-run Derbyshire county council’s SEND provision had “widespread and…systemic failings” and that it created a postcode lottery. Fast-forward less than a year, and now the Reform-led council has done no better. In one of my first meetings with the new leadership, I asked them whether they agreed with the comments of their party leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), about the overdiagnosis of SEND. They told me that they did not believe that. Imagine my shock when just weeks later, the leader of Derbyshire county council said that he agreed with the hon. Member entirely. Among all this chaos and uncertainty in Derbyshire, it is hardly surprising that over 208 of my constituents and 124,000 people nationwide who have experienced similar struggles have signed this petition. It reflects the anxiety felt up and down the country about what the proposed reforms in the schools White Paper might look like. Although families, teachers, parents, children and educators all know that the SEND system absolutely needs to be reformed and better enforced, they are worried and scared that these changes could let them down yet again. My constituents in Derbyshire have experienced that for many, many years.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Future of Wingfield Manor · Hansard source

  More

  This petition relates to the future of Wingfield Manor, and is presented in conjunction with Derbyshire Historic Buildings Trust. It has been signed by more than 3,000 residents of Derbyshire, and states: The petition of residents of Amber Valley and the wider Derbyshire area, Declares that the future of Wingfield Manor should be conserved and that it should be made accessible to visitors once more; notes that the ruin of Wingfield Manor is a scheduled monument on which the government of 1960 placed a guardianship order, recognising its historical significance; further notes that the Manor, built in the 15th Century, is said to have inspired the architecture of Hampton Court and served as a backdrop to the infamous Babington Plot when its most famous resident, Mary Queen of Scots, was imprisoned; further declares that the Manor has been under the care of English Heritage but it is privately owned and soon to be put up for sale; and further declares that this presents a unique opportunity which is currently on Historic England’s Heritage at Risk Register. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate steps to secure the future of Wingfield Manor and ensure it is, once again, accessible to visitors and available for future generations to enjoy. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003102]

• 11 Jul 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I perhaps misspoke; my understanding is that it is to align with the football calendar rather than the start of the season. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that in due course. We are now on a countdown to the start of the football season. My husband, being a season ticket holder for Coventry City FC, is very disappointed that we will be on holiday at the start of the football season in August. Obviously it is unlikely that we will get the provisions in place by then, but the important thing is to get the legislation in place in time for when we co-host the next European finals, which is in 2028. I think we should be in good time for that. A fixed date of two months after Royal Assent would be sufficient time to get everything in place. As I mentioned earlier, the Bill has a deterrent element to it. Baroness Casey’s recommendation was to make sure that it is a proper deterrent. We need to be ready, and we need to make sure that as soon as the legislation kicks off, we send a clear message that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated any longer and people will not be able to get away with it. I hope I have provided a thorough and detailed response that satisfies the hon. Member for Christchurch, and I respectfully urge him to withdraw his amendment.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 11 Jul 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  With the leave of the House, I associate myself with the tribute to the Ibrox victims given so movingly by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray). There are many people I would like to thank for helping to get the Bill to this stage, but first I will speak about footballer, vice-captain and much-loved daughter and sister Maddy Cusack, who lived in my constituency in Horsley and passed away tragically in September 2023. I dedicate this Bill to her, with the knowledge that she would approve of its contents, given her love for the game and for the safety of the fans who came to watch her light up the pitch week in, week out. The Maddy Cusack Foundation has been set up in her honour, with the aim of continuing her legacy. The foundation has done wonderful work, providing opportunities and inspiring young girls and women in football, including sponsoring local teams to ensure that the next generation of footballers is equipped to face the world in the fierce, determined and spirited manner that Maddy faced it. I encourage Members, in their own time, to look into the wonderful work that the foundation is doing. I thank the Football Association and the Football Association of Wales, which have both supported this Bill; the Clerks and civil servants who helped to draft it and offered support throughout the process; the Members who took it through Committee; and my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) and for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), who co-sponsored the Bill. I thank Baroness Casey for her report and the important work she has done around fan safety, and I thank my staff, who provide continued guidance and support. I must also extend my thanks to Lord Brennan, whose work as the original promoter of the Bill has been invaluable. Football is a game of two halves. At the risk of creating an overstretched analogy, I believe it is fitting that the second half of this Bill and its journey should be played out under Lord Brennan’s capable guidance and captaincy in the other place, should it pass today. If the Bill passes, I will happily pass the armband to him. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.