Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Lord Brennan of Canton Excerpts

Friday 24th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Brennan of Canton]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, I confess to your Lordships that I have blatantly plagiarised this speech, if copying oneself can be categorised as plagiarism. I kicked off this Bill in the House of Commons in 2024, albeit with one slight tweak from its current incarnation. It is not unique for someone to introduce a Bill in the House of Commons and get it through Second Reading. Another Member is doing a similar thing right now. In the House of Commons I got it through Second Reading and Committee, only for it to fall as a result of a walk in the rain taken by Rishi Sunak and the subsequent snap general election. It is nice to be able to reintroduce it here in the House of Lords. I hope that with your Lordships’ support, this time we can get it to the final whistle.

On Sunday 11 July 2021, the final of the men’s Euros football tournament at Wembley Stadium could have resulted not just in the sad loss for the England football team on that occasion but in a tragic loss of life. That was the finding of the independent review conducted by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, into the events of that day. It suggested that we narrowly escaped a disaster that could have resulted in fatalities or irreversible injuries.

For everyone here, I am sure that the mere thought that such a catastrophe is still possible in this country at a football match in the 21st century, after the tragedies of the latter part of the last century, is profoundly unsettling. Those present at the Euro 2020 final, which took place in 2021 because of Covid, witnessed at first hand the reckless behaviour of some people seeking to enter the stadium without a ticket. When the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, of which I was a member at the time, undertook an inquiry following the Euros, I admit that I was genuinely shocked—I think that I was not the only one—to discover that entering, or attempting to enter, a football match without a ticket is not a specific criminal offence.

That is why the committee acknowledged the need for the Bill, which I introduced, in a recommendation in its Safety at major sporting events report, published in December 2023. It demonstrated the broad cross-party recognition of this problem and the consensus on the need for legislative action to put it right. All the members of the Select Committee at that time who held seats within its territorial scope—England and Wales—were named as co-sponsors when I introduced the Bill in the other place. After the 2024 general election, the Bill was picked up by Linsey Farnsworth MP, who has done a sterling job in steering it skilfully through all its Commons stages and improving, with a slight tweak, on my original.

The Bill would bring into law recommendations that came out of the Select Committee’s findings and the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, by amending the Football (Offences) Act 1991 to introduce a new offence of unauthorised or attempted unauthorised entry to football matches. It is estimated that, at the Euro 2020 final, somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 ticketless individuals were able to gain entry. Many people will have seen the disorder, overcrowding and safety hazards that resulted from those events. Those actions not only compromised the safety and security of stewards, police officers, spectators, players and officials, but greatly tarnished the reputation of the sport and of this country. On the security of stewards at the ground, I had a brief conversation before today’s session with the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, who I see is still in his place having spoken on the previous Bill. He confirmed to me that in a past life he was a security guard at Wembley Stadium and frequently witnessed this kind of behaviour and dangerous activity going on. I thank him for his support of my Bill.

The current legal framework does not address the problem. Those caught entering a stadium without authorisation face no legal repercussions. Those attempting to enter are simply moved on and often try to gain entry multiple times. There are no consequences for their selfish actions, which risk jeopardising matches and could recklessly endanger the safety and lives of others. The Bill is intended to respond directly to those challenges by making unauthorised entry into football matches a specific offence. The aim is to deter people from attempting to enter stadiums without a valid ticket.

Back in 2024, I did an interview with, among others, Martin Keown, the former Arsenal footballer, on talkSPORT radio, and there was clear agreement in our discussion and some of the phone-ins that the deterrent effect is a significant part of this measure. A fine of up to £1,000 might be a deterrent but, under the Bill a conviction for this offence could lead to a court-imposed football banning order under the Football Spectators Act 1989 and Football (Offences) Act 1991, which would prevent a person attending football matches for a specific period of between three and 10 years. That would be an even greater deterrent. The Bill seeks to address all forms of unauthorised entry, recognising the broad spectrum of tactics that can be employed to gain illicit access to stadiums.

The scope of the Bill, as I said earlier, extends across England and Wales and across the top tiers of domestic football. We are not talking about park matches in your local area here. The Bill includes the Premier League, the Championship, League One, League Two, the National League, the Women’s Super League, the Women’s Super Leage 2 and Cymru Premier, as well as international matches in England and Wales.

My local team Cardiff City’s stadium hosts the games not just of Cardiff City Football Club but the Welsh national teams. It would be remiss of me not to mention the usually impeccable behaviour of Welsh football fans attending matches there and the crackling atmosphere they create with their passionate renditions of songs such as “Hen Wlad fy Nhadau” and “Yma o Hyd”.

The Bill is slightly from the one that I introduced previously. There is a small change in the wording of proposed new Section 1A(3) of the 1991 Act in this version of the Bill. The provision outlines proposed possible defences and proposed new Section 1A(3)(b) has been clarified so that it covers cases in which a person “reasonably believed” that they had a ticket for the match but in fact did not. That is to ensure that a person who innocently buys a counterfeit ticket is not criminalised under this offence, which is specifically about fan safety and preventing overcrowding. As before, the defence also applies in relation to a person using a genuine ticket that they are not eligible to use—for example, an adult using a child’s ticket. That is because there would already be a reserved seat in the stadium and safety would not be an issue with respect to overcrowding.

The vast majority of football fans across the country, supporting clubs such as my team, Cardiff City, or any others, do so in the right spirit. It is important that they feel safe and secure when supporting their football teams. I make it clear that the intention of the Bill is to support real football fans and to keep them safe and secure while they are enjoying the spectacle of supporting their team. Football is a big part of our culture. In recent years, football has grown ever more important in the national culture of Wales, and it has always been of huge importance across the rest of the UK, bringing together individuals from all walks of life in shared support of their teams. The actions of a few should not be allowed to compromise the safety and security of the majority.

I have been mindful with the Bill of the balance between enhancing security and maintaining the open and inclusive nature of football matches. The intention is not to criminalise fans or create barriers to genuine supporters enjoying the game. Instead, the focus is on preventing those who would seek to cause disorder and harm entering stadiums, thus ensuring a safer environment for all. By strengthening the legal framework, we can deter unauthorised entry, reduce the risk of disorder and violence, and ensure that football continues to be a source of joy and community for everyone. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging Second Reading debate. It has perhaps strayed a little into extra time, but I think VAR would determine that no one was offside in any of their remarks.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

I apologise.

I thank everyone who contributed to the debate, which was really good and absolutely in the true spirit of scrutinising legislation, which is obviously the raison d’être of this House. I will thank everyone who spoke individually. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, brought his vast experience to the debate, which was extremely welcome. His analysis of some of the things we might want to explore further in Committee, on Report and so on was extremely useful in considering the best way forward with the Bill. As he acknowledged, some of the issues may be beyond the scope of what we can achieve in a limited Private Member’s Bill within the time available.

Lots of the things the noble Lord brought up were very worthy of debate. He and others brought up resources, which are always an issue in any law and order measure. He and others also brought up what happens in situations of mass trespass. I will briefly make two points in response. First, the purpose of this Bill is principally to deter. If it is effective, that deterrence should be of great assistance with the issue of resources. Secondly, as others noted and hinted at, a situation of mass trespass is ultimately very difficult for the police and the authorities to deal with. But that is not the end of it: as this Bill introduces the potential football banning orders, further mass trespass in future might be helpfully dealt with by the fact that many of those individuals will be under football banning orders if they previously participated in such a mass trespass.

The noble Lord also raised the issue of forged tickets, which again is a wider issue beyond this Bill— I think he acknowledged that—and the trend of losing experienced stewards. There are lots of measures that could be taken in relation to that, not just in the public policy sphere but in sporting clubs and institutions themselves. As I mentioned, one experienced steward was lost when he became a Member of the House of Lords as the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington. Perhaps that sort of experience might be useful to our deliberations in future.

The noble Lord, Lord Mann, also contributed to the debate. I will not go beyond the remarks made by my noble friend the Minister in relation to the Maccabi Tel Aviv match issue, but he made some points about the practicalities involved in the Bill. His description of how people gained entry to Oxford United rather reminded me of the descriptions that have been given of how thieves recently gained entry to the Louvre museum in Paris. If the Louvre museum cannot keep out people using a van and a cherry-picker, I am not sure that Oxford United will be able to.

On the broader point, the Bill speaks of premises, which goes beyond the simple environs of the stadium itself. It can be defined, as it is at Wembley Stadium, for example, as quite a wide-ranging area outside the actual turnstiles. That can be the designated point at which tickets can be checked and where unauthorised entry might be triggered. I understand his concerns about the scratching shed, but it is possible to extend that—and it does not sound to me from his description that the situation at Stenhousemuir is likely to result in overcrowding at any time in the near future. I remind him—although he did acknowledge it—that the scope of the Bill is England and Wales and does not extend as far north as Stenhousemuir.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, has a huge expertise in sport. I thank him for his contribution to the debate and the fact that he rightly raised the same issues about enforcement, and I make the same points about deterrence as I did earlier in relation to that. I also thank my noble friend Lord Shamash, who also mentioned enforcement, which I think is something we can discuss further—but many of those issues are beyond the scope of this quite limited Private Member’s Bill. I thank my noble friend Lord Courtown, if he does not mind me calling him that, for his contribution and his wholehearted support for the Bill. I am glad that His Majesty’s Official Opposition are still in support of this Bill, as they were when they were in government prior to the general election. It is nice that there is still some consistency in politics these days, at least when it comes to this Bill. I also thank my noble friend Lord Lemos for outlining the Government’s support for the Bill and clarifying that the Fraud Act would come into play in relation to some of the concerns spoken about by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Political Parties and Elections Act 2009

Lord Brennan of Canton Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I share the concern about making sure that our democracy is fit for purpose in the modern world. There is a huge challenge ahead, which is why we will address in the round the whole issue of electoral reform. I will write to the noble Lord on the specific example that he mentioned.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Government’s review of donations include looking at the whole issue of people making donations using cryptocurrency, given the potential for abuse and of hiding the true source of those donations?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend alludes to an important theme in terms of donations. The rules around political donations must be abided by, regardless of the type of donation made, including donations made using cryptocurrency. Those who receive donations must assess the value of the donation when they receive it and, if it is over the reporting threshold, they must report it to the Electoral Commission. Parties and other campaigners must also check that donations come from a permissible source and are prohibited from accepting donations that are not from a permissible or identifiable donor.

Climate Change: Wildfire Strategy and Action Plan

Lord Brennan of Canton Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government understand this issue. Officials have undertaken extensive consultation with stakeholders to consider current challenges and policy options, host workshops on prevention, preparedness, response and recovery, and produce a comprehensive policy scoping report to inform Ministers of the next steps on this important issue. Since the transfer of functions on 1 April, the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Local Growth has been working hard to meet key partners and understand the challenges facing the fire sector, including wildfire. I know he is committed to leading this work and continues to support our fire and rescue services to provide the best possible service to help keep our communities safe.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, could my noble friend take this opportunity to praise the work of our brave fire and rescue service operatives, who have to deal with these sorts of fires on a daily basis? Does this topic not emphasise the fact that, despite the great reduction in domestic fires in recent years, we still need a fully effective, well-staffed and well-trained fire and rescue service to deal with the modern challenges we face?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend. I praise all those brave people for serving our country by dealing with fire and rescue. I will make a particular point about resourcing: overall, fire and rescue authorities will receive around £2.87 billion in 2024-25, and stand-alone fire and rescue authorities will see an increase in core spending power of up to £65.5 million in 2025-26, which includes the national insurance contributions grant. This is an increase of 3.6% in cash terms compared with 2024-25. Decisions on how their resources are best deployed to meet their core functions are a matter for each fire and rescue authority. We will continue to work closely with stakeholders across the sector to ensure that fire and rescue services have the resources they need to protect communities.

Voter ID

Lord Brennan of Canton Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend for the question and encourage all of her constituents, from whatever age group, to go to the polling station. There is a long list of valid forms of photo ID, and we know that 98% of the population hold one of them. I have the list here and it is available on gov.uk. I will not detain the House by reading them all out, but they include: driving licence; passport; blue badge; PASS—national Proof of Age Standards Scheme—card; the Young Scot card; the Post Office card; and of course the free voter authority certificate.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Let us get back to what is really going on here this morning. One week before these important elections, this Minister has turned up in the House of Commons to answer an urgent question to which she does not know the answer and has offered to write to Members of Parliament. That is utterly unacceptable. Will she return to the House later today, having asked Mr Speaker, to make a statement to this House and turn up with the information that she should have had when she got here, so that she can answer the question to which the House wants the answer?

[Rachel Maclean]

I firmly rebut that. I have made multiple comments answering the questions that Members have put to me. I also firmly rebut the accusations from Opposition Members suggesting that something is going on here other than protecting our electoral system in this great democracy, in which we are all proud to serve. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. He is probably the only Member of this House who has real experience of the system working.

[Kevin Brennan]

No, he is not. There are other MPs from Northern Ireland.

[Rachel Maclean]

I stand corrected by the hon. Gentleman who is speaking from a sedentary position. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is the only such Member I can see in front of me, present in the Chamber and participating, bringing his experience of the system in Northern Ireland. He is right that, as I set out earlier, a photographic ID that is a little out of date but in which the likeness can still be established is a relevant form of ID that will be accepted.

Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme

Lord Brennan of Canton Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely. We are of course working with the Scottish Government, and the scheme that will go live this week will allow individuals anywhere in the United Kingdom to offer to act as sponsors. We have explained to the Scottish Government that we just want to crack on.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Britain and Ireland are both surrounded by water, and neither is part of Schengen, yet Ireland has taken three times as many Ukrainian refugees as Britain despite having a population 13 times smaller. Why?

[Michael Gove]

I will never criticise the Irish Government.

Homelessness

Lord Brennan of Canton Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, this is a Government in denial about the root causes of high and rising homelessness, and she puts her finger on a very important root cause. It used to be the case that government in Britain was based on evidence—we had evidence-based policy making—but all the evidence about universal credit is that it leads to higher levels of debt and higher levels of rent arrears, and of course higher levels of rent arrears lead to higher levels of homelessness.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; he is being very generous and making a compelling speech. As he rightly says, this issue was dealt with by the last Labour Government successfully, and the reason for the return of high levels of rough sleeping and homelessness is a return to the ideology that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) favours. Office for National Statistics data show that the average age of the estimated 641 homeless males who died in 2018 was 44. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is 38 years of age. I wonder how we as a country can stomach that sort of statistic.

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. This shames us all—in government, in opposition and across the country. We need a new national mission to tackle homelessness, not just a new determination from Government. It cannot be done without Government. The free market solutions that we have too often seen over the last 10 years have failed—indeed, we have seen failure on every front on homelessness over the last 10 years.

Deaths of Homeless People

Lord Brennan of Canton Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I do believe that there is a moral duty to act, which is why we have taken a number of steps, including the additional funding through the rough-sleeping initiative and the rough-sleeping strategy. Equally, there is the challenge of helping people to take support and provision when it is there. Sadly, in a number of cases where we have seen deaths, support and accommodation has been offered but not taken up, sometimes because of some of the other issues and challenges. The hon. Lady certainly has my commitment to challenge this and take the agenda forward. Today’s figures are unacceptable, and I am determined to act further.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is a boyish 50; according to the latest statistics, the average age of homeless males who died was 44. Will he reflect on the fact that, when he was in his early 40s, this issue had largely been solved and dealt with by Government action during the early 2000s? The current crisis is a product of a combination of complacency and austerity. If he is serious about resolving the situation, it will require more than just words; it will require getting the whole Government working together on the issue as a top priority.

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point: this is not just about my Department, but Departments across Whitehall. A ministerial group involving the key Departments meets and is focused on taking the action needed.

It is shocking that, according to today’s figures, the average age of someone dying on the streets or as a consequence of homelessness is 44—younger than the hon. Gentleman or I am. That is stark: it underlines the chronic health issues that may be involved—drugs, alcohol and other issues, too—and the need for us to act.

Parking (Code of Practice) Bill

Lord Brennan of Canton Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 23rd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

With the greatest respect, perhaps my right hon. Friend’s point is relevant to my other amendments that relate to the time the Act must be passed. I do not see how having to go through a procurement process will interfere with the code of practice, unless the Government propose to delegate the drawing up of that code to some consultant—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend says that the Government might want to do that. They might also feel the need to comply with the European Union procurement directive on this matter, but that is speculation.

My right hon. Friend has been, not obsessed, but very concerned about the abuse of private parking facilities for a long time, and this is a great opportunity to get legislation on the statute book and get something done. However, I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have great trust in the Government, that even if the Minister does not obstruct the Bill and exercises good will, as we have seen with public sector exit payments, there can be a big gap with those good intentions. I think the whole House supported the idea of a £95,000 cap on exit payments, yet two and a half years later there is no sign of that coming into effect, and the latest projection is that it will be sometime next year.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On amendment 7, how will the Secretary of State be judged on the requirement to “use his best endeavour” to carry this out within 12 months?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

That very challenging question is not dissimilar to the questions that I asked the Government and Prime Minister about what enforcement mechanism there will be to ensure that “best endeavours” as referred to in the withdrawal agreement will be implemented. In answer to a parliamentary question from me, the Minister replied on 22 November:

“The reference to best endeavours in Article 184 of the Withdrawal Agreement is a legally binding commitment that requires the United Kingdom and the EU to conduct themselves so that the negotiations on the future relationship are meaningful. It prohibits inflexible or obstructive behaviour and obliges the parties to pay reasonable regard to the interests of the other party.”

So in answer to the hon. Gentleman, that is the precedent that would be established. If he thinks that that is full of clarity, then I am sure he will be eager to support my amendment.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

With the greatest respect, I do not understand why my hon. Friend says that. According to the Government, “best endeavours” is a legal term, so why can we not incorporate it in the Bill in the same way that it has been proposed that it should be incorporated in the EU withdrawal legislation?

[Kevin Brennan]

My point is that in this instance best endeavours would always be in the eye of the beholder. The hon. Gentleman does not explain, in his amendments, how Ministers could be judged on whether they had used their best endeavours and what the consequences of any such judgment would be. Therefore, as an amendment—I know he is very careful about these sorts of things—it does not survive minimal scrutiny.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

In my submission, if an aggrieved member of the public felt that the Government had not been using their best endeavours to bring forward the code of practice and were thereby delaying the implementation of the will of Parliament, it would be open to that person to raise the matter by way of a judicial review, so there would be an enforcement mechanism.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

What my hon. Friend says is interesting if one applies the analogy of best endeavours to what is being discussed in the context of article 184 of the EU withdrawal agreement. In answer to another parliamentary question, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) the Minister with responsibility for exiting the European Union stated:

“the primary remedy would be that the party in default would be obliged to return to the negotiating table and modify its position. In the event that there was further non-compliance, remedies may be imposed under the processes established by the withdrawal agreement.”

It may be that my amendment is just as weak as article 184 of the proposed EU withdrawal agreement seems to be.

[Kevin Brennan]

indicated assent.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I see the hon. Gentleman is expressing his strong agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

Absolutely right. The Court would not thank this House at all for requiring it to make that kind of assessment. One could imagine how the evidence would have to be provided on both sides. The Minister would provide timelines, and then the Court might have to consider what the Opposition had to say. How on earth would the Court be meant to make a judgment?

[Kevin Brennan]

Does the hon. Gentleman suspect, as I do, that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has tabled his amendments to make a point about Brexit, rather than about this Bill? We would therefore forgive him if, at this stage, he chose not to press his amendments, having made that point so well in his contribution today.

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Gentleman recognises that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is a Member of great distinction and resourcefulness. It may just be possible that that is his intention. If it is his intention, he has certainly made the point with his customary eloquence and effectiveness. Yes, I think this would be an excellent moment for him to recognise that the point is made, and he could therefore graciously not press his amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

May I join the long list of Members who have been praising the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) for introducing this Bill? He has had so much praise today that perhaps next Tuesday at the political studies awards, which will be shown on the BBC Parliament channel, he should get an award of his own for introducing this Bill. He will be well supported because I and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will be there with him at the awards, playing in MP4 and launching our new single “Do you see me?” I turn to the Bill. I was delighted to sponsor—[Interruption.] CDs are available at £5 on Revolver Records.

I was pleased to sponsor this Bill with the right hon. Gentleman, the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. Why are we here? If we cannot in this place try to change things for the better for our constituents, there is little purpose in our being here, and this legislation genuinely will improve the quality of people’s lives. If they no longer have the stress and anxiety of receiving one of these fake notices—which is sometimes what they are—through the post, trying to extort money from them for simply going about their daily business, as anybody should be free to do, we will have done a great service to our constituents. If the Bill takes out some of the cowboy operators that every Member in this Chamber knows about through their constituency casework, we will have done a great service to our constituents. If it saves hard-pressed constituents a few quid because they have not been fooled—as is sometimes the case—into paying notices unnecessarily, we will have done them a great service. The right hon. Gentleman in particular and other Members who have contributed deserve credit for that. He does deserve some sort of award for bringing the Bill through. I am sure that will make the right hon. Gentleman extremely popular not only, as he already is, with his own constituents—I can say that as he has a very safe Tory seat—but with motorists and constituents across the country.

I am glad that the Bill was strengthened today through the new clause and the amendments that the right hon. Gentleman introduced, and I am sure that when it travels down the Corridor to the other place their Lordships will want to look at it very closely and perhaps consider strengthening it further in co-operation with the Government. But what is most important is that we get it on to the statute book as quickly as possible because it will make a genuine and positive difference.

In Committee, I mentioned some of the bad practices. I am not going to dilate at length—as Mr Speaker might say—on those issues this afternoon, but some companies, such as New Generation Parking, which I mentioned, do not even respond to correspondence from Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents. In Committee, I expressed the view, which I know the Minister heard, that any code worth its salt would ensure that any company that failed to respond to a letter of concern from a Member of Parliament on behalf of their constituent would be in breach of that code. It should be a basic requirement on any decent company operating any kind of business that it should respond to a reasonable inquiry from a Member of Parliament within a reasonable time.

[Sir Greg Knight]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on that point. If a complaint is made about the receipt of a private parking notice, whether by the driver, the registered keeper or the registered keeper’s MP, it should in my view be responded to within 14 days.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has put that firmly on the record. He also responded positively in Committee when I intervened on him on this matter. I am sure that the Minister has heard what he said, and I hope that those who are preparing the code will also have heard that viewpoint being expressed here.

Perhaps we need to ponder further on the practice that is now developing of parking companies using technology to enforce these parking notices. I am concerned not only that they are using camera technology but that, in more and more cases, anyone who parks on private land—for example, the site of St David’s Hospital in my constituency, where there is no charge but we nevertheless have to register when we park—is required to enter their registration number into a machine in order to be deemed to have parked legally or appropriately there. How is the collection of that data being properly overseen? Who is responsible for ensuring that the personal data that is being collected in the form of our constituents’ registration numbers is being properly and legally processed? Further to that, the companies do not often provide a paper receipt from the machine, and people are expected to provide a mobile telephone number or sometimes an email address in order to get a receipt to prove that they have parked legally. Who is responsible for ensuring that the data being collected in that way is being properly processed?

This issue was brought to me by my constituent, Derek Donovan, who has campaigned heavily on issues relating to parking, and to private parking in particular. He has also pointed out that, even when we are not required to provide a registration number, the parking company can go to the DVLA and ask who the owner of a particular vehicle is. The way in which that information is handed out, and to whom, is not being properly co-ordinated by the DVLA—if indeed it is its responsibility to do that. Only a sample of cases is audited, so we cannot be sure that that data is in all cases being released to responsible people and used responsibly and legally. As a result, Derek Donovan has registered a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office, the outcome of which could prove pertinent to the passage of the Bill in another place if we hear from the ICO before the Bill goes through its other stages there.

I do not want to go on at length, because we want to ensure that the Bill completes its passage before we end our proceedings today. I reiterate my congratulations to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and I wish it well for its further passage at the other end of this building.

Budget Resolutions

Lord Brennan of Canton Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)]

I am delighted to be here to close the Budget debate. We have had a very good debate over the past few days. To be honest, though, I am just extremely grateful to be able to get a seat on the Front Bench, because, let us be honest, that has not been guaranteed over the past week.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am afraid that I only have 10 minutes. The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) did not give way, so I am not going to be able to either.

This is a Budget that will help working families and that will grow our economy, and I am pleased to say that it has been welcomed from all quarters—from the cider drinkers of Somerset, to the whisky drinkers of Scotland and Britain’s motorists, who will see better roads and a continued freeze on fuel duty, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch).

Families have had their taxes cut and their wages hiked, and the FSB says that we are firmly on the side of Britain’s small businesses. The Resolution Foundation has welcomed our changes to universal credit, and even the shadow Chancellor has welcomed our tax cuts, saying that our measure

“will put more money in people’s pockets”

and inject more demand into the economy. It is just a shame that his party does not agree. I can almost hear Momentum sharpening their pitchforks. But I want him to know that all is not lost because, shadow Chancellor, you have friends on this side of the House. You might have to sit on the Home Secretary’s knee, but there is space for you on our Front Bench.

It is not an accident that we have seen an additional £100 billion coming into the public purse in this Budget. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) suggests, this is not a fluke or luck. It is because of the decisions that this Government have taken since 2010: reforming the welfare system, cutting taxes for people, and cutting corporation tax to bring more investment into our economy and get more business start-ups going. What happened on the Opposition Benches? Well, Labour Members opposed all those measures, tooth and nail. They opposed our welfare reforms that got more people into work; they opposed our corporation tax cuts that brought more tax into the public coffers; and they opposed our measures to improve skills and education that have meant that our children are doing better.

Instead of Labour Members realising the error of their ways, they have come up with even more extreme policies. They want to create a socialist superstate controlled by the politicians at the top of the Labour party. Their eye-watering spending pledges would mean £1,000 billion more in tax and borrowing, job-killing tax hikes on hard-working families, and the relentless talking down of everything that is good about our country. If we listened to Labour, there would be fewer jobs, lower wages and less money to spend on public services, so we refuse to listen to this catalogue of envy and despair.

Instead, we have delivered a positive, aspirational Budget, giving people more control over their own money. We have put £630 a year for families into universal credit. We are cutting taxes for those on the basic rate by £130 this year, making people £1,200 better off. And we are raising the higher rate threshold so that people do not start paying higher rate tax until they earn £50,000. This is not about giving tax cuts to millionaires; these are people on medium incomes who were dragged into the top rate of tax under the Labour Government.

At the same time, our strong economy means that we can fund the services on which everyone relies, which is why this Budget has included extra money for defence, schools, the health system and local authorities, and we are going to spend this money in a way that delivers results. The hon. Member for Bootle talked about children’s services. Not only are we giving councils an extra £650 million to pay for adult and children’s social care; we are also rolling out programmes such as “No Wrong Door” in North Yorkshire. That programme has meant fewer children in care, fewer ending up in trouble with the police and fewer ending up in accident and emergency. It is a great example of how, by spending money in the right way, we can cut long-terms costs for the taxpayer and, more importantly, ensure that our children get the best possible start in life.

I also want to applaud the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for what she said in this debate. I applaud her for her bravery in standing up against those gangs targeting young women in her area. I am very happy to discuss in the spending review the issue that she raised.

As well as addressing the immediate issues we face, this Budget backs entrepreneurs to take risks, make investments and grow their operations. We have slashed business rates by a third, which has been welcomed by my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Derek Thomas), for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) and for Solihull (Julian Knight). We have cut corporation tax to the lowest level in the G20. We have increased capital allowances from £200,000 to £1 million. What all that means is that companies want to grow, want to invest in Britain and want to take more people on. It means more jobs for people across this country. It means higher wages. We are now seeing real wages rise for the three quarters of people who are employed in the private sector. It also means that we are able to afford money for our public services. We are launching 10 new development corporations across the country, so we will not just have Canary Wharf—we will have Canary Wharf in the north and all other parts of the country. We are creating a special economic zone in Teesside, with new freedoms to grow.

But this is not just about cold, hard cash; it is about realising people’s aspirations, dreams and hopes for the future. It is about being able to afford a holiday or a car, and it is about more opportunities for young people emerging from our schools and our colleges.

Parking (Code of Practice) Bill (First sitting)

Lord Brennan of Canton Excerpts

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Thursday 19th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Mr Bailey, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to see you in the Chair. I have a soft spot for the part of the country that you represent, not least because it made some of the classiest and most desirable cars ever made. My favourite car of all time is the Jensen Interceptor, which was of course made in West Bromwich, so it is appropriate that you are in the Chair today.

I also thank all Committee members, who are not conscripts forced to be here by the Whips, but are here because they have an interest in the subject we are considering. I am most grateful to them. I also place on the record my gratitude to the hon. Member for Makerfield, who is leading on the Bill for the official Opposition. She has apologised for not being here today due to other commitments, but she has made it clear that she fully supports what I am trying to achieve with the Bill. I am most obliged to her for that.

The heart of the Bill is clause 1. It requires the Government to create a new mandatory code of practice across the private parking sector, which will end the inconsistent and unfair treatment of British motorists by rogue parking operators. It is important that motorists know when they enter a car park that they are entering into a contract that is reasonable, transparent and involves a consistent process. Poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines, aggressive demands for payment and an opaque appeals process have no place in 21st-century Britain. In short, self-regulation has not worked, which is why the Bill is necessary.

It is necessary because of incidents that have happened to motorists like Mr O’Keefe, who was driving on a private industrial estate looking for a particular retail outlet. He could not find where he wanted to go, so he stopped for 15 seconds in a lay-by to check his satellite navigation settings. He was caught by a passing security van equipped with a camera, and a week later he received a ticket for £100 for stopping in breach of a sign situated further back on the road, which he later realised he had passed at 30 mph. The parking company agrees with his version events—it does not dispute the facts—but is still pursuing him, and he continues to receive threatening letters.

Even homeowners have been hit, like the residents of a Salford block of flats who in just one month had more than 200 tickets issued to them for parking in their own car parks. They were given one day’s notice to display their newly issued permits. The firm responsible posted warning letters through residents’ mailboxes just one day before the introduction of the new scheme. However, many residents were away—some at work, some on holiday—and, despite having a right to park there, their cars were ticketed.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is my very good friend, for introducing the Bill and for giving those examples. Often when such problems occur—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has faced similar problems—people write to their Member of Parliament. I wrote to one particular company, New Generation Parking, which never bothered to even reply to me, as a Member of Parliament. That kind of arrogance has to stop. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, as I think he did on Second Reading, that the Minister should make sure that a requirement to respond to Members is in the code of practice?

[Sir Greg Knight]

I would hope that the code of practice would lead to every parking organisation behaving in a business-like and proper manner, and treating motorists fairly. One of the reasons that the Bill does not set out the code of practice is to allow wide consultation and to take into account points such as that just made by the hon. Gentleman, who is my honourable Friend. It is important that we have the widest possible consultation to ensure that the code of practice, when it is crystallised, formulated and produced by the Minister, is as wide and as comprehensive as possible.

If I could mention one other case, a pensioner mis-keyed her number plate into an automated machine when paying for her parking and got one digit wrong. On returning to her car, she discovered that the innocent mistake had resulted in a ticket. On appeal, she was able to point out that it was an honest mistake. She was also able to prove that no other car on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database had the registration number that she had keyed in. The parking company still demanded payment. In my view, the Bill is sorely needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I applaud the fact that the Bill addresses that issue, and indeed I will discuss the issue of solicitors shortly.

There are other areas where the activities of such companies are a huge problem. I have had many complaints from taxi drivers in my constituency, who are regularly harassed and prosecuted when, for example, they are parked in a supermarket car park in one of the out-of-town shopping areas in my constituency, waiting to pick up an elderly constituent with their shopping.

The other area is hospital parking, and I want to single out one company for some pretty shady practices. That is ParkingEye, about which I have received multiple complaints regarding multiple hospitals from people with serious medical conditions, NHS staff and others who have been caught. I have a letter here from a constituent who was a medical student working in the oncology department at University Hospital Llandough in my constituency, who had applied for a permit. There had been some mistake with the email address so, unbeknown to her, she ended up with huge fines from that company and no recourse. My team and I have engaged on behalf of many constituents to try and get their fines overturned, but sometimes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West said, the companies do not even respond. We cannot get through to them. It is not possible to get a straight answer from them. I very much hope that the code of practice will address those issues.

[Kevin Brennan]

On ParkingEye and hospital parking, at St David’s Hospital in my constituency, where parking is free, patients are nevertheless required to fill in the vehicle registration number on a computer screen in reception, and even when assisted by the receptionist they have received parking notices because the system is not working properly. There have been dozens and dozens of cases like that in my constituency casework.

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed. Among others, I have details with me of the case of a constituent who had travelled to St David’s Hospital in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as many of my constituents do, and been caught up in exactly that situation.

I mentioned that I wanted to talk about solicitors’ firms. It is very clear to me that there is collusion between parking companies and solicitors’ firms—so-called roboclaims companies. They are often set up adjacently and involve the same directors and personnel. Incidentally, the same personnel get involved in the so-called appeals bodies. I hope the Minister looks closely at that. What discussions has he had with the Ministry of Justice and the Solicitors Regulation Authority?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

I pay tribute to the car parking practices in Malton that my hon. Friend describes. It is evidence of what my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire said, which is that good, honest and fair car parking is vital for the health and wellbeing of our town centres and high streets. We all want to see it encouraged across our constituencies.

[Kevin Brennan]

I will resist the temptation to advertise the delights of Cardiff, although they are great and many. We are all grateful to the Minister for sending us the draft advisory code of practice summary in advance of the sitting. Paragraph 12(b), which covers complaints handling, states:

“There should be a requirement to issue an acknowledgement or full response to a complaint in a timely manner”.

Does he agree that if a parking company failed to respond to correspondence on such a matter from a Member, and if that wording is included in the final code, it would, in effect, be in breach of the code of practice?

[Rishi Sunak]

I should have mentioned that the code of practice includes the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised both on Second Reading and in Committee. This is just a summary of the code of practice. The details, including timescales and exactly what will be required, will be fleshed out. However, in broad brushes, he is right: the code of practice is there to be adhered to. Parking operators will be audited as to whether they are adhering to it, partly by the trade association that they belong to and partly by an independent scrutiny body that will be funded by the levy. There will be sufficient scrutiny of operators’ behaviour in this regard, and replying to correspondence will be one factor considered when their behaviour is evaluated.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister is being very generous with his time. I have one specific question about paragraph 4 of the draft code of practice summary, which covers clear signage and surface markings. We have talked about clear signage, but surface markings are also important. For example, at the entrance to blocks of flats in Cardiff there is often a barrier. However, around Cardiff City’s football stadium—they are in the premier league this season; many people will be coming to watch—it is not often clear where the public road ends and private land begins. Football fans are often caught out, suddenly finding themselves on private land on the boundary between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West.

[Kevin Brennan]

It is in my constituency.

[Stephen Doughty]

The stadium is in my hon. Friend’s constituency; the road where many people park is not. People often get caught out without realising that they are on private land, because no clear boundary is indicated between the public highway and the private land. Will the Minister look at that issue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Greg Knight]

May I thank you, on behalf of the Committee, for your superb chairing of our proceedings, Mr Bailey? I also thank you for your comments before the Committee started that, if you were not chairing it, you would like to be a Committee member, because you support what we are trying to do. I am most grateful for that. However, I accept that the Chair is totally impartial.

[Kevin Brennan]

I know that my friend, the right hon. Gentleman, would also like to thank the Clerks, the Doorkeepers and everybody else responsible for looking after us during this lengthy proceeding.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.