Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Young of Acton and Lord Bassam of Brighton

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I too am a supporter of Queens Park Rangers, although perhaps a slightly more steadfast one than the previous speaker.

I want to raise an issue that at first blush does not appear to be within scope of this Bill but, for reasons I will set out, I believe is: namely, the overuse of football banning orders. Football banning orders were originally introduced by the Football Spectators Act 1989 for the purposes of preventing violence and disorder at football matches. This was a targeted measure intended to be used sparingly, since it imposes such wide-ranging restrictions on a person’s liberty, preventing them, as it does, attending football matches and using public transport on match days, drinking at pubs near football stadiums and even, in certain circumstances, travelling abroad. Breaches of these orders, which can be imposed for as long as 10 years, carry serious consequences, up to and including being sent to prison.

Predictably, subsequent Acts of Parliament have hugely extended the football banning order regime. The Football (Offences) Act 1991, the football spectators Act in 2000 and the Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Act 2026 have all added numerous offences to Schedule 1 to the 1989 Act, which sets out the criminal offences that can result in banning orders, with each edition lowering the threshold.

Recent statistics lay bare the direction of travel. As of 1 June 2025, there were 2,439 football banning orders in force in England and Wales—an increase of 12% on the previous 12 months. Those figures are taken from a recent article in the Law Society Gazette, which raised the alarm about the overuse of these orders:

“Behaviour that is fleeting, non-violent and often part of the charged, emotional atmosphere of live sport—momentary lapses of judgement, reactive shouting or ill-considered gestures—is being treated with a level of seriousness that risks losing all sense of proportion: individuals of good character with no previous convictions suddenly face a criminal record and permanent implications for employment, immigration status, travel and reputation. This trend uncomfortably blurs the line between maintaining public safety and over-policing the ordinary realities of live sport”.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I was the Minister who took the 2000 legislation through your Lordships’ House. That legislation was widely praised at the time as a way of tackling the outrageous behaviour of England fans travelling across Europe during the Euro 2000 competition. It changed for ever the attitude of football fans in this country and it helped to reverse the tide of racism that had been partly engendered by that. The noble Lord should think long and hard before he starts to seek to “liberalise”, as he might put it, that piece of legislation.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I would not dispute that there were serious problems that football banning orders were originally designed to address. My point is that they are now being used far more extensively than intended in the legislation that the noble Lord took through this House, for much more trivial misdemeanours —nothing like travelling abroad in order to cause violence and disorder at games overseas.

I declare an interest. The Free Speech Union, the organisation I run, is currently defending a young football fan who is being prosecuted for calling some Chelsea fans “rent boys” at a match earlier this season. This was in the context of an exchange of insults between rival fans, and none of the Chelsea fans complained. It is unlikely, to put it mildly, that any of them were caused harassment, alarm or distress, which is what he has been charged with.

Nevertheless, the prosecutor has informed the court that, if our member is convicted, she will be seeking a banning order. His hearing is not due to take place until September 2027 and, in the meantime, he has been banned from his team’s stadium for the duration of the 2026-27 season and told that, if he wants to keep his season ticket, he has to continue to pay for it, at over £1,000 a year, and cannot resell his seat or pass it on to a friend or family member. The club, meanwhile, which is a Premier League club, is allowed to resell his seat—and, to judge from the fact that it was occupied for the remainder of the last season, is already doing so.

This is a disproportionate punishment for behaviour which, to quote from the Law Gazette, was

“fleeting, non-violent …part of the charged, emotional atmosphere of live sport”,

and a “momentary lapse of judgement”. He has never been in trouble with the police before. Yet, in addition to not being able to watch his beloved team for the whole of next season, he faces the prospect of a five-year banning order if he is convicted. Even the noble Lord would not, I am sure, regard that as a proportionate penalty for a momentary lapse of judgment.

Why do I think that an amendment raising the banning order threshold is within scope of this Bill? For one, it is perfectly possible that the new criminal offences created by the Bill will be added to Schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1989. Could a street trader selling unauthorised merchandise outside a Wembley match, or a food vendor without a clean-zone licence, end up being banned from attending football matches?