Linsey Farnsworth MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemen for their contributions. I will commit to looking at that issue again and tabling any necessary amendments on Report, perhaps in conjunction with the Minister. Going back to the Minister’s comments on the Fraud Act and the Theft Act, it is correct that members of staff can be charged under those offences, if the evidence allows and if the Crown Prosecution Service’s public interest test is met. With a member of staff, there is a level of trust and a duty of care to members of the public coming into the stadium. Because of that duty of care, it is more likely that an either-way offence, which takes up more time and resource in the court, would meet the public interest test than a member of the public turning up without a ticket. I think that there is already provision for those hopefully rare circumstances. What we are trying to do with the Bill is provide a summary-only offence, with the deterrent of the football banning order, to deal with offences that are committed in much bigger volumes, while not clogging up the court system. I think the Bill strikes that balance, and there are those provisions for the prosecution of members and staff, as and when that happens. I think that is everything I wanted to cover. Question put and agreed to. Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill to be reported, without amendment.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Proposed new section 1A(4) of the 1991 Act says: “‘match ticket’ means a ticket or other thing (whether in physical or electronic form),” so I think that is expressed in the Bill, but I am grateful to the hon. Member. Baroness Louise Casey, in her report following the Euro 2020 final, concluded that the events of that day could have resulted in a tragic loss of life. Given that England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are set to jointly host the Euro 2028 competition, the time for this Bill to pass is now. I urge the Committee to support the Bill, which is backed by major football bodies, such as the English Football Association and the Football Association of Wales. I thank both bodies for their assistance. The Bill is also supported by His Majesty’s official Opposition and the Government. I extend my thanks to Lord Brennan of Canton, the former Member for Cardiff West, whose version of the Bill ran out of time at the last general election. The work he did as the original sponsor to get the Bill through this place in the last Parliament has undoubtedly made my job much easier. If the Bill moves beyond Committee stage today and passes Third Reading in this House, we both hope that he will be able to oversee its passage through the House of Lords, in what I am advised could be a unique parliamentary example of starting a Bill in one House and finishing in another. It is fitting to end with the remarks of Lord Brennan in a previous debate: “By allowing the Bill to be reported, we can send a resounding message that such conduct as was seen at the Euro 2020 final will not be tolerated, emphasising the importance of ensuring safety and security when attending football matches. The legislation reaffirms our dedication to the wellbeing and integrity of football, and restores our collective duty to tackle the challenges confronting the sport. It upholds the role of the sport as a unifying force in our society. I urge hon. Members to endorse the Bill, including the amendment, thereby contributing to the enhancement, safety and enjoyment of football matches for all.” –– [ Official Report, Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Public Bill Committee, 8 May 2024; c. 6.] I could not have said it better myself.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her attendance today; she is a real champion for her football team and her constituency, and I am sure that they will be grateful for her attendance. She raises a valid point: this offence could apply to other sporting events. Sadly, there have also been tragic incidents at music festivals, such as at the O2 Academy. However, the legislation is being introduced as a private Member’s Bill, and in order to effectively change the law through this mechanism it needs to be quite contained in nature. When I went to Wembley and spoke to the police and staff there, they indicated that football was a type of event where this regularly happens. That is where the risk lies, particularly at the most competitive games. It could equally apply to other types of event if the Government saw fit. The staff at Wembley voiced concerns about some of the upcoming sold-out gigs; I will not mention the band in question, but if I could get tickets, I would—but I will not be tailgating at that event. I served on the Public Bill Committee for the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025—commonly known as Martin’s law—which received Royal Assent on 3 April this year. Although that Act deals with a different type of threat to the public, and is a different type of safety measure, it is clear that this Government are keen on keeping members of the public safe at all kinds of events. I hope that Parliament considers whether the Bill could be the start of greater protections at other events, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North. Clause 1 provides a number of defences. A defendant can show that he or she had lawful excuse or authority to enter or attempt to enter the premises for a specific purpose. That would cover, for example, employees, journalists and emergency workers at the ground. It is also a defence if a person entered through an entry point normally used for spectators while believing that they had a ticket for the match when they did not. In other words, it is a defence to show that that person unwittingly held a counterfeit ticket. The Bill is not about villainising football fans, and this defence acknowledges that fans are sadly sometimes duped by unscrupulous ticket fraudsters. The final defence is using a ticket that the defendant was not entitled to, for example, an adult using a child’s ticket. There is a defence for that, because in those circumstances there would be a reserved seat, so the safety issue is not fair. Again, that demonstrates that the Bill is about the safety and safeguarding of football fans.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  A ticket that has already been used? I am trying to remember; I think it goes back to the purpose of this change in the law and the desired effect of increased safety. If there is a valid ticket, there is a reserved seat, which is what I think the defence is getting at. The offence is being introduced to prevent overcrowding.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I will look into that. I remember discussing the changes to proposed new section 1A(3) with the advisers here, and I remember being satisfied that there was good reason for them. I am very sorry that I cannot bring those reasons to mind at the moment, but I will commit to looking at that during the remaining stages of the Bill’s passage.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. Following your guidance, I intend to speak to the whole Bill in my remarks. I thank everybody for coming along this morning; I hope that, with Members’ agreement, this former prosecutor can place a new offence on the statute books. As the title suggests, the Bill is designed to address the issue of unauthorised entry to football matches. It creates a specific offence of entering, or attempting to enter, a designated football match in England and Wales without a ticket that the person is eligible to use. The Football Association reports that unauthorised entry to football matches causes significant operational, safety and security problems for major events at Wembley stadium, as well as football matches at other grounds across the country. Unauthorised entry commonly occurs when a person pushes through the turnstiles, often behind an unsuspecting, ticket-holding fan, which is known as tailgating, or colloquially as piggybacking or jibbing. There are often around 600 tailgating attempts per match for major events at Wembley stadium. I recently attended the Carabao cup final with the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, who I am pleased is responding on behalf of the Government this morning. We were taken down to the turnstiles and within around 30 seconds we witnessed our first tailgater, with several more thereafter in the short period for which we there. Such behaviour presents a danger not only to the stewards and security staff who seek to apprehend them, often leading to a scuffle, but to the safety and enjoyment of the fans, who should be free to enjoy the build-up to the game without the worry that this sort of incident brings. With the increased popularity of the women’s game, under the fantastic stewardship of the Lionesses, we see more and more families attending matches. In one tailgating scuffle that I witnessed, a young boy was knocked into. It is time that we take steps to safeguard fans from this sort of behaviour. At worst, unauthorised entry takes the form of mass entry, where large crowds seek to push their way into the ground. Members may recall the disorder at Wembley stadium on 11 July 2021, during the UEFA Euro 2020 final, when an estimated 1,900 so-called fans entered without a ticket. Between 1,200 and 1,300 managed to get into the inner areas of the ground, creating further danger. Of course, unauthorised fans do not have allocated seating, and their entry to the ground, particularly when it occurs in large numbers, creates problems of overcrowding and blocking of gangways and staircases. For me, this is of personal significance. My friends Ross and Siobhan were at the game that day. They are avid sports fans who attend many sporting events across the world. Despite usually feeling at ease in those surroundings, it was a frightening experience that day. Siobhan told me: “We arrived Wembley around an hour before kick off…it was obvious that things were not as they should be…I felt very uneasy about the atmosphere…We went to the turnstiles, which were still very busy and there were people there without a ticket who had managed to get through the first ticket check and were asking people to let them push through with them…I’ve been to many events at Wembley that are sold out and have never seen it in such a mess. We went straight to our seats which we were able to reclaim from the people occupying them at the time and the rows were overfilled and the stairways were full of people…The place was clearly filled way past capacity…Overall I found it to be unpleasant and a potentially dangerous environment…It has put me off…attending England games and I haven’t been to one since.” That is from an avid sports fan. Following the 2020 final, Baroness Louise Casey was commissioned to conduct an independent review. Her report found: “Unauthorised entry to football grounds does not attract specific enforcement measures and is unlikely to have long-term consequences sufficient to deter repetition or emulation.” Baroness Casey’s report was, sadly, prescient. At the UEFA champions league final at Wembley stadium on 1 June 2024, there were around 1,000 tailgating attempts and three mass entry attempts by around 300 to 400 people. At present, people gaining entry without a ticket are likely to be ejected but not to face any other consequences. Those attempting to gain entry are moved on, but will often try again and again to get in. There is no specific offence of entering a football match without a ticket. The Bill seeks to remedy that. Clause 1 will create a specific offence of unauthorised entry to premises for the purpose of attending a designated football match, by inserting a new offence into the Football (Offences) Act 1991. The offence aims to deter people from attempting to enter stadiums without a valid ticket.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the intervention, and I commiserate with him on his choice of football team—I put on record that Everton are a much more preferable team to follow. As Siobhan described, at the Wembley incident, fans managed to get through the first ticket check. Many stadiums, including Wembley, have a wider perimeter cordon that protects fans. The use of “premises” rather than “stadium” would allow arrests to be made and prosecutions to be brought if someone went through that first cordon, before there is danger in the stadium itself. As a member of the Justice Committee and former Crown prosecutor, I am only too aware of the extensive court backlogs, particularly in the Crown court. The offence in the Bill is summary only, and the maximum sentence is a £1,000 fine; it can therefore be tried only in the magistrates court. The offence strikes a balance by ensuring a sufficient deterrent against tailgating and mass entry while not adding to the court backlog. The stronger deterrent, however, is that a conviction for an offence is likely to lead to a court-imposed football banning order, which would prevent a person from attending football matches for between three and five years, with a potential prison sentence if the banning order is not obeyed. The Bill encompasses the designated matches set out in orders made under section 1 of the Football (Offences) Act 1991. Currently, those are matches in the premier league, the championship, leagues one and two, the national league, the women’s super league and championship, the Cymru premier league, and international fixtures held in England and Wales.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely correct that in the modern day not many people have paper tickets. The Bill will apply equally to the electronic version, so I am grateful to him for allowing me to clarify.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Vickers. I thank all Members for their contributions today, as well as the Minister and the shadow Minister. I will return to the comments that the Minister kindly made about members of staff—

• 25 Jun 2025 · Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think I have got to the bottom of it. The Bill that has been printed for the Committee today is the old Bill, which has since been slightly amended to deal with that very point. That is why there is confusion, because I have a copy of the new version of the Bill.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Sentencing Council Guidelines · Hansard source

  More

  It seems like every week we are back here, dealing with culture wars—

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing this important and timely debate. I echo his comments about our hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for his work championing our coalfield communities, which, until this Government were elected, had been forgotten. I speak as the proud daughter of a former coalminer on behalf of the coalfield communities in Amber Valley and thousands of former coal industry workers across the country. My dad and the constituents of Amber Valley have a common link: a rich mining heritage. Whether it is constituents like John Edwards from Heanor, Colin Smith from Langley Mill or Ian Walker from Ripley, all parts of Amber Valley share this common bond. Our communities were built on the hard work and dedication of our mineworkers, engineers, technicians and support staff who powered our nation through challenging times, often at great personal risk. In October, we saw long-overdue justice served for the members of the mineworkers pension scheme when the Government agreed to return its £1.5 billion investment reserve. That decision resulted in a well-deserved 32% increase in pensions, and an average increase of £29 a week for each member. That is already improving the lives of many of the former 772 mineworkers in Amber Valley. It has directly benefited my family, too, and I know that it means a lot to my dad to get that recognition. However, the same cannot be said about the members of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. The hard work of those engineers, technicians and support staff ensured that men like my dad who went down the pits every day returned safely to the surface. Indeed, some members of the BCSSS also worked underground. We have done right by the MPS men who went down the pits, but have we truly supported the women, who were often paid less than their male counterparts and are an equal part of the coalfield communities? As my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) pointed out, women in the coal industry—the majority of whom are BCSSS members—deserve pension justice, too. The parallels between the MPS and the BCSSS are obvious. Both schemes were established during the privatisation of British Coal in 1994, with the Government acting as guarantor, yet while the MPS members have seen their investment reserve rightly returned, BCSSS members such as my constituents John, Colin and Ian continue to wait. The trustees of the BCSSS have formally requested the return of the £2.3 billion investment reserve. That request is not only reasonable but consistent with the precedent set by the MPS decision. This is a matter not just of financial contribution but of justice, fairness and honouring the contributions of all those who helped build our nation’s energy infrastructure. I urge the Government to act swiftly and decisively. Let us commit to a full review of the BCSSS surplus sharing agreements and transfer the investment reserve to its rightful owners: the scheme members. That action would provide a significant boost to the pensions of more than 40,000 former coal industry staff, enhancing their financial security and quality of life in retirement. I urge the Government to consider quick action, as many in receipt of those pensions are in their 80s or older. It is heartbreaking that thousands of miners, including colleagues of my dad, did not live long enough to receive the benefit of the MPS surplus. I know my father would not want his colleagues, who kept him safe and supported him, to be forgotten. I urge the Government to consider righting this historic inequality, so that all members of our coalfield communities get the justice that they deserve.