Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 11th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

Clause 1

Offence of unauthorised entry to designated football matches

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Christopher Chope]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Christopher Chope]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

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

[Sir Christopher Chope]

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

[Sir Edward Leigh]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

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

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

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

[Sir Christopher Chope]

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

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Linsey Farnsworth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We arrived Wembley around an hour before kick off…it was obvious that things were not as they should be…I felt very uneasy about the atmosphere…We went to the turnstiles, which were still very busy and there were people there without a ticket who had managed to get through the first ticket check and were asking people to let them push through with them…I’ve been to many events at Wembley that are sold out and have never seen it in such a mess. We went straight to our seats which we were able to reclaim from the people occupying them at the time and the rows were overfilled and the stairways were full of people…The place was clearly filled way past capacity…Overall I found it to be unpleasant and a potentially dangerous environment…It has put me off…attending England games and I haven’t been to one since.”

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

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

The report finds:

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

Baroness Casey also writes:

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

She concluded:

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Also in Committee, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) asked about the change to the wording of proposed new section 1A(3) of the 1991 Act in the version of the Bill promoted by Lord Brennan of Canton, which fell at the general election. The provision outlines proposed possible defences. Proposed new section 1A(3)(b) in my version of the Bill has been edited so that it covers cases in which a person “reasonably believed” that they had a ticket for the match but in fact did not. That is to ensure that a person who innocently buys a counterfeit ticket is not criminalised under this offence, which is specifically about fan safety and preventing overcrowding. As before, the defence also applies in relation to a person using a genuine ticket that they are not eligible to use—for example, an adult using a child’s ticket. Again, because there would already be a reserved seat in the stadium, safety would not be an issue with respect to overcrowding. The Bill, it should be clear, is about safety and the safeguarding of football fans, not villainising genuine supporters.

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

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

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

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I will make some progress, thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Christopher Chope]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

[Sir Christopher Chope]

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

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

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

I have reservations about how this Bill will work in practice, and I am concerned about unintended consequences for the police. If there is an incident similar to the one that took place at Wembley, how will we be able to arrest all those people? Every time somebody is arrested by the police, a policeman has to take that person away and put them in a black Maria or whatever, which means that they are no longer able to police the ground. I fear that what will happen is that an individual will be picked on every now and again, but when there is a problem of mass trespass, we will not be able to do anything about it because nobody will be able to police it. We will get a situation similar to the one in supermarkets, with blatant shoplifting and a failure of the police or security people to take any action because they choose not to do so.

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

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

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

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

[Sir Christopher Chope]

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

[Carolyn Harris]

indicated dissent.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

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

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

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

We will soon find out.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Of course I will give way.

[Luke Taylor]

I have no interest in intervening.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Pardon?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

[Sir Christopher Chope]

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

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

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

None of the changes that I have talked about in the new clauses will impinge at all on the criteria currently used to determine whether somebody has a need for protection under the refugee convention. Clearly, in certain circumstances that includes the reality of religious persecution in the homeland. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Government new clause 8 redefines how the UK interprets the phrase “a particularly serious crime” for the purpose of excluding refugees from the protection against refoulement. Under existing arrangements, anyone convicted of any offence that attracts a custodial sentence of 12 months or more will have committed a particularly serious crime for these purposes. Those arrangements remain unchanged, but new clause 8 goes further and will mean that a particularly serious crime will now include individuals who have received a conviction for a sexual offence listed in schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Importantly for these cases, the fact that a particularly serious crime has been committed will be a presumption that can, obviously, be rebutted by the individual in question so that they get a fair hearing.

Schedule 3 to the 2003 Act lists the offences that automatically make an offender subject to notification requirements, meaning that they have to notify the police of personal details annually, or whenever their details change. Failure to do so is a criminal offence and the system is sometimes known as the sex offenders register. The Government recognise the devastating impact of sexual violence on victims in our communities and are fully committed to tackling sexual offences and halving violence against women and girls in a decade. To achieve that, a broad set of the right powers must be available for authorities to tackle sexual crimes, bring perpetrators to justice and manage sex offenders.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I accept the wisdom behind this new clause, but will the Minister go further and comment on new clause 39, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? That new clause is designed to put an end to another mischief affecting the non-refoulement rules; it would ensure that primacy was given to the torture convention and the refugee convention, and that it was not possible for the European Court of Human Rights to interpret the European convention on human rights in such a way as to exclude those provisions.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his creativity in asking that question when I am talking about this particular Government new clause. I think we had a debate in Committee on the amendment in the name of the Father of the House, and I certainly intend to come on to it later in our proceedings—hopefully, when he is here.

As part of our efforts to halve violence against women and girls, it is important that the small number of asylum seekers and refugees who have been convicted of particularly serious crimes do not benefit from protection status. Not only have they failed to respect the laws of the UK by committing sexual crimes, but they have undermined public confidence in the system. New clause 8 changes the law to deny refugee status to those convicted of the abhorrent crimes listed in schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, treating them with the seriousness they deserve and supporting our wider mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.

--- Later in debate ---

No longer must people seeking asylum fall through the cracks of a system that does not provide them with the care and safety that they deserve. Let us ensure that every person who loses their life is counted, remembered and mourned and that we do everything in our power to prevent anyone else from dying because of this inhumane system.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

May I speak briefly to new clause 39, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? He is unfortunately not able to present this argument himself, because he is attending a meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and he asked if I would speak briefly in support of his new clause. I hope that I can encourage the Minister to expand a bit on whether the Government think that this is rather a good way of ensuring that the worst abuses in the courts system are avoided.

Essentially, my right hon. Friend’s new clause would give precedence to the non-refoulement arrangements in the refugee convention and in the UN convention against torture, but it would not allow the European convention on human rights and the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights to extend beyond those provisions. That is very important, because fundamental to English law is the principle of equity. If people come here with clean hands and seek justice and our support, we should be keen to encourage that, but if people come here and abuse our hospitality or have already committed offences, we should get rid of them quickly. That is not very easy at the moment, because of how the courts interpret the European convention on human rights.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) referred to new clause 14. The problem I have with it is that it does not go far enough. It talks about getting rid of or disapplying the Human Rights Act, but of only disapplying the interim arrangements of the European Court of Human Rights. We need to go much further than that, and I am slightly reluctant to be enthusiastic about the new clause.

One provision that I am very enthusiastic about, and which I am disappointed that the official Opposition will not call a Division on, is new clause 15. The shadow Home Secretary’s explanatory statement says:

“This new clause would prevent a foreign national who is convicted of any offence from remaining in the UK, as well as anyone who has been charged with”—

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is an issue of democracy here? Successive Governments and Ministers have said that they want to toughen up the regime, but that is undermined by activist judges. That is a further reason to support the new clauses that he mentions.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. If one wants a current example, there was a headline in The Daily Telegraph on 1 May that read, “Migrant spared prison after punching female officer”. [Interruption.] This was a fact—it was a court case in Poole in Dorset, not far from my constituency. A small-boat migrant who repeatedly punched two female police officers was spared jail. That is completely laughable, and on that I have the support of David Sidwick, Dorset’s excellent police and crime commissioner, who is trying to take this issue further. When people who have come here seeking our help and assistance abuse the system, and we indulge their presence, that brings the whole system into disrepute. I hope that the Minister will get much tougher on this issue, but sadly, the Bill seems to weaken the offence regime under immigration law, rather than strengthening it, as we should.

[Phil Brickell]

I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill, because for far too long, criminal smuggling gangs have operated with virtual impunity, ruthlessly exploiting men, women and children and putting their lives at risk for profit. That is why I am encouraged to see a Government being honest with me and my constituents. No more gimmicks. No more wasting £700 million on unworkable and fantastical Rwanda schemes. They are just giving our law enforcement bodies the tools and resourcing that they need to intervene earlier and act faster.

The Bill contains new offences targeting those who supply or handle boat parts used in crossings, with up to 14 years behind bars for those found guilty. It allows for the seizing of electronic devices, such as phones and laptops, to help gather evidence and disrupt operations, and creates a new interim serious crime prevention order, which allows immediate restrictions on travel, communications and finances, so that we can stop criminals in their tracks before they escalate their activity. I am particularly pleased about the £150 million going into the new Border Security Command, and further National Crime Agency officers working across Europe—including, importantly, through Europol. It is not rocket science, but the National Crime Agency has said that these measures will give it what it needs to disrupt smuggling networks and dismantle their business model.

Just as importantly, the Bill will put a stop to the Conservative party’s attempts to make us turn our back on the world. The fantastic trade deals that we concluded just last week with India and the US are vital recognition that putting Britain back on the global stage and tackling the gangs that are smuggling people into our country can go hand in hand. Crime does not respect borders, so it is quite right that we are prioritising strong international partners. I particularly welcome the new joint action plan with Germany and, through the Calais Group and the G7, the alignment of efforts across Europe to shut down smuggling groups, seize key equipment and bring gang leaders to justice.

New clauses 6 and 7 set reasonable timelines for first-tier tribunal appeal determinations. Those are important clarifications, given the damage done to trust in our immigration system by interminable proceedings and delays. Those new clauses will cut the asylum backlog and drastically save money for taxpayers. New clause 8 will, I hope, improve our approach to persons convicted of serious sexual offences, which my constituents have grave concerns about. It is right that foreign nationals who commit sex offences should not be able to claim refugee status in the UK.

The UK is a welcoming and open nation, and we need a sensible, fair and caring immigration system to support our key industries. I am pleased that the Government are making moves towards that, and I will be pleased to support the Bill tonight.

Knife Crime: Children and Young People

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I agree, and I will mention later the interventions to try to get people in a more collegiate and embracing atmosphere. Role models are a valid issue. Sadly, my speech is already long, but I would have loved to cover that in more detail, because it is a huge part of the reason why young men are drawn into this type of violent world.

Scoreboard videos are inextricably linked to drill music, which is a genre but also the medium by which various groups-cum-gangs are able to taunt their “opps”—the catalyst for multiple stabbings, often fatal. The line between gang and group is blurred to the point of irrelevance. Meanwhile, the media either does not know or does not care. Inner-city black youths are, consciously or unconsciously, expendable and interchangeable, overrepresented in statistics as both victim and perpetrator. The soft bigotry of low expectations makes black culture ripe for exploitation as a cheap way to appear edgy, irrespective of the upstream impact. Large media corporations, even the BBC, play their part in the creation of this milieu, leaning into it and giving it validation. The cynical valorisation of the most detrimental aspects of urban black culture and the celebration of criminality via musicians is one of the most toxic overarching influences in pushing this issue into the mainstream.

Irving Adjei, aka Headie One, went to prison three times as a teenager, including for dealing crack cocaine and heroin. In June 2019, Adjei was arrested for possession of a knife following a stop and search. While on bail, Adjei completed his UK tour, released his album, which reached No. 5 in the UK charts, appeared on Stormzy’s album “Heavy Is the Head”, played Glastonbury and was featured on BBC Radio 1. He was used in an advertising campaign for JD Sports alongside heavyweight champion Anthony Joshua, and fronted an advertising campaign for Adidas that December. That is the same Adidas that ran its “No More Red” knife crime awareness campaign alongside Arsenal FC just a couple of miles down the road shortly after that, but it is also happy to run an advertising campaign with a rapper on bail for possession of a knife. The hypocrisy of brands such as Adidas is off the scale.

Less than a month after launching the Adidas promo, Adjei was sentenced to six months for possession of that knife and went to prison for a fourth time. He was released that April. Six months later, his single was No. 2 in the charts, he had praise lavished upon him by The Times, and he has never looked back. How does that convince anyone that there is any penalty whatsoever for carrying a knife? If anything, it has been an asset for someone like him because of the edginess that I referred to.

In September 2019, The Guardian published a piece about UK drill rappers OFB, who hail from the same Broadwater Farm estate in Tottenham as Irving Adjei. It stated that the drill group OFB is

“trying to move the genre beyond the violence for which it has been demonised”.

The interview was with two of the three in the group: Bandokay aka Kemani Duggan—the son of Mark Duggan —and Double Lz. It casually mentions that the third, 17-year-old SJ, is “not around today”. Several months later it transpired that SJ, aka Jayden O’Neill-Crichlow, was “not around today” because he was on remand for his part in the murder of Kamali Gabbidon-Lynck seven months previously.

O’Neill-Crichlow was one of five young men, four of whom were teenagers, who received lengthy sentences of 20 years-plus after they arrived on Wood Green High Street on a Friday night armed with machetes, a handgun and a shotgun. They shot at Gabbidon-Lynck, missed and hit a packed Nando’s restaurant, and chased him down the street, eventually cornering him in a hair salon where he was shot and brutally hacked to death. For his part in the murder, O’Neill-Crichlow was sentenced to 21 years. I remember this because it happened 300 metres from my home.

I challenged the author of the piece about why it was appropriate to write a puff piece about a group who had one member on remand for murder. He cited that it was an editorial decision by The Guardian. Last year, Kemani Duggan was sentenced to five years in prison for possession of a Tokarev pistol and .22 calibre ammunition, with intent to cause fear of violence—the violence for which drill music has been “demonised”. That is precisely the type of irresponsible media valorisation that illustrates my point.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing to the House this horrific catalogue of embarrassing incidents—embarrassing to Members of this House and previous Administrations, because we have been asleep on the job. The legal authorities were able to stamp down on last summer’s riots in Southport so effectively by taking tough measures; does he agree that that is called for now? Talk about reducing the incidence of knife crime by half over 10 years is totally inadequate. Immediate action is needed to make an example of this type of crime and deter others from participating.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I agree. The law simply does not act as a deterrent to many of these people. They are far more scared of their immediate surroundings and the danger posed to them in everyday life than they are of being arrested by a police officer, knowing full well that they are unlikely to go to prison unless they have done something as heinous as some of the acts that I have described.

Ciaran Thapar, the author of the piece that I just described, appeared before the Youth Select Committee last December in his new role as director of public affairs and communications at the Youth Endowment Fund. There, he explained how drill was an outlet for those involved to express the trauma that they have experienced in their lives. Adverse childhood experiences are a key part of fuelling the likelihood of vulnerable individuals becoming involved in knife crime. There is a broader question here about immigration, particularly from countries where experiences of trauma, brutality and war are contributing factors in youth behaviours within multicultural inner-city communities. The Youth Endowment Fund does important work on knife crime, and its toolkit is often cited as a key resource in providing the tools required to reach children.

Last week I spoke to Sharon Ward, the serious violence duty co-ordinator in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, covering my constituency of Huntingdon. The serious violence duty was introduced by the previous Government in January 2023, and requires local agencies to share data and information to help identify the root causes of serious violence occurring locally. When I spoke to Sharon about this in depth, she explained that they use a multi-agency public health approach, addressing the underlying risk factors that increase the likelihood that an individual will become a victim or perpetrator of violence in the first place.

The most vulnerable time for children and young people is from 3 pm to 6 pm, as well as later in the evening from 10 pm until 2 am. Diversionary activity is key to reducing those vulnerabilities. Sharon outlined how the path to becoming involved in violence is a slippery slope, where participation in antisocial behaviour is linked progression to more violent crime. I am sure that the subject of funding for youth services and cuts under the previous Government will be raised. I have focused on less discussed aspects of this wider issue in my speech; however, the part played by youth workers in reaching children and young people who are vulnerable and at risk of embarking on the wrong path is well-documented.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough currently have 41 interventions funded by the serious violence duty. They range from sport-based interventions to mentoring and relationship building, but all are designed to help those assessed as vulnerable. We must also be mindful that it is not simply about children from certain backgrounds—children from all backgrounds are vulnerable to exploitation by gangs. Those children do not realise that they are being exploited because of the way that they are being groomed—they are given new trainers, a PlayStation game or a bike by an older person they look up to or are fearful of, seemingly with no strings attached. Then they are on the hook and owe them at best a favour, or at worst a debt.

Licensing Hours Extension Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an important point about ensuring that those who work in hospitality are well protected and that getting them home is an important part of employers’ duty to keep their workforce safe. In the past, licensing hours have been relaxed for high-profile royal events, such as His Majesty the King’s coronation, Her Late Majesty the Queen’s 90th birthday and her platinum jubilee, as well as the royal weddings in 2018 and 2011. Licensing hours have also been extended for sporting events, including the FIFA world cup 2014, the Euro 2020 final and the Euro 2024 semi-final and final. When the Government have proposed extensions to licensing hours, they have received cross-party support in both Houses and have been passed unopposed.

As we have heard, the Licensing Act specifies that any order is subject to the affirmative procedure and needs to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it comes into force. The Bill proposes to amend the Licensing Act so that these orders are subject to the negative resolution procedure, rather than the affirmative procedure. That will enable extensions to be implemented at short notice if necessary, including when Parliament is in recess. The current arrangements means that fast-paced extensions are simply not always possible. That is problematic in the context of sporting events, as the participation of national teams in the later stages of competitions is uncertain until the last moment.

I will provide an example to illustrate that. In 2021, the England men’s team made it through to the final of the delayed Euro 2020 tournament. With the help of the usual channels, the previous Government managed to push an order through Parliament in the three days between the semi-final and the final. To emphasise my earlier point, I note there was complete agreement across the House for the measure. In the summer of 2023, the England women’s team equally commendably reached the final of the world cup. However, that tournament took place in the summer when Parliament was in recess, so it was sadly not possible to extend licensing hours for the match. The Bill will rectify this issue and ensure that licensing hours can be extended at short notice when necessary, including when Parliament is in recess.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does the Minister not share my concern that this is a Bill of very limited ambition? Considering what she has said, surely there is a strong case for deregulating this whole area and for getting Parliament and the Government out of hospitality businesses’ hair.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The measures before us are simple and straightforward, and the debate shows there is widespread agreement in the House about them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, in this case, not cause any problems to the Bill going forward.

The Bill will rectify the issues we have been discussing and streamline the parliamentary process, but it does not seek to alter the fundamental content of the Licensing Act 2003. However, the Government fully intend to plan ahead, so that wherever possible licensing hour extension orders in England and Wales can be brought in with time for full public consultation. The power in section 172 of the Licensing Act has, rightly, been used sparingly, and there is no intention to change the frequency with which the relevant powers are invoked.

As the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention, it is important that I make clear that the police have generally been supportive of extensions for royal events, and that there have been no major increases in crime and disorder attributable to temporary extended drinking hours. However, the police have previously expressed some concerns about licensing extensions relating to sporting events, namely football. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the police have the opportunity to put forward their views, and we will always give due weight to any concerns raised before pressing ahead with an extension of licensing hours.

The Government recognise the importance of providing the police with ample time to put in place additional policing measures that may be necessary to minimise any potential increase in crime and disorder as a result of any temporary licensing hours extension. To that end, the Government remain firmly committed to continuing to plan in advance, wherever possible.

In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham for bringing forward the legislation and those who have spoken in support of it. It is a simple measure that will free up parliamentary time, help the Government to continue to support businesses and local authorities, and allow for celebrations of important events in the life of the nation. The Government fully support the Bill, and it is very important to get it passed before last orders.

Police Reform

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Yes, I can. I pay tribute to Cleveland police, which has made great progress in recent times.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will the Minister include references to fraud in her White Paper? Action Fraud, which would be more accurately described as “Inaction Fraud,” is presiding over a complete failure to do anything, particularly about fraud against online retailers. Can we ensure that action is taken to help victims of fraud?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend Lord Hanson, the Lords Minister, is looking at this. I gently point out that, in relation to fraud, we are having to deal with our inheritance from the previous Administration. We will now look at some of the problems with Action Fraud that they did not deal with.

Immigration and Home Affairs

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Let us be clear: immigration is important to our country and has been through the generations, with people coming to this country to start some of our biggest businesses or to work in a public services, but it also needs to be properly controlled and managed, so that the system is fair and so that rules are properly respected and enforced. The issue of illegal migration trebling over the last five years has, I think, reflected some fundamental failures around skills and fundamental failures around the way the economy works. It is important that those are addressed, and that we do not just shrug our shoulders and turn our backs. We believe in having a properly controlled and managed system, and that is the right way to deal with this.

Similarly, turning to asylum, it has always been the case that this country has done its bit to help those fleeing persecution and conflict, and we must continue to do so, but we must also have a properly managed and controlled system. We raised yesterday the shocking scale of the £700 million spent sending four volunteers—just four volunteers—to Rwanda. The decisions on the asylum hotel amnesty that the Conservatives have in effect been operating are actually even worse and have cost even more money. I know that the shadow Home Secretary has said that he does not recognise those figures, but I wonder if he actually ever asked for them. I would say to him that it was one of the first things I asked for, because I am sick and tired of seeing Governments just waste money with careless policies when they have never actually worked out how much they are going to cost.

The Conservatives’ policy under the Illegal Migration Act 2023—with the combination of sections 9 and 30 —was to have everybody enter the asylum hotel system or the asylum accommodation system, and never to take any decisions on those cases. There is a shocking cost to the taxpayer of up to £30 billion over the next few years on asylum accommodation and support. It also means that the rules just are not being respected and enforced. It is deeply damaging and undermines the credibility of the asylum system, but it also leaves the taxpayer paying the price.

Yes, the King’s Speech does bring forward new legislation on borders, asylum and immigration. That will include bringing forward new counter-terror powers, including enhanced search powers and aggressive financial orders for organised immigration crime, and we are recruiting new cross-border police officers, investigators and prosecutors, as well as a new border commander. This is part of a major upgrade in law enforcement, working with cross-border police stationed across Europe to be able to tackle, disrupt and dismantle the actions of criminal gangs before they reach the French coast.

Finally, let me turn to national security, because when it comes to defending our nation against extremists and terrorists, against state challenges and hostile threats, or against those who try to undermine our democracy and values, I hope this House will always be ready to come together. I pay tribute to the police and the intelligence and security services, which work unseen to keep us safe. In that spirit, I hope the whole House will be ready to support Martyn’s law, drawn up by the tireless Figen Murray in memory of her son Martyn Hett, so that we learn the lessons from the terrible Manchester attack, when children and their parents who went out for a special night never came home and lives could have been saved. That, I hope, is the moment to end on, because we will debate, argue and have differences of view, but in this House, at the very heart of our democracy, we can also come together to keep communities safe.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

Order. Unfortunately, there will have to be an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, although those making a maiden speech are exempt from that. I call Debbie Abrahams.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am absolutely convinced that under a Labour Government we will see these changes.

I think it is important that we put on the record where we are at the moment. We need to ensure that the right to adequate social protection and social security is in place, and we know that is not the case at the moment. We must do better not just in changing the culture of the Department for Work and Pensions, but in recognising the extra costs, the fear and the poverty disabled people face and feel, because otherwise I fear that we will be seeing more deaths of disabled claimants.

Similarly, while I support the measures in the King’s Speech to improve our lives, that cannot happen soon enough for the nearly one in two children living in poverty across Oldham. Children living in poverty now will be affected by the experience for the rest of their lives. There is evidence that living in poverty changes the wiring of their brains. Many will not reach their first birthday. Shamefully, we have the worst infant mortality rate in northern Europe. There is no law of nature that decrees that children from poor families have to die at more than twice the rate of children in rich families. I welcome that the Secretaries of State for Education and for Work and Pensions have established the child poverty taskforce to deliver the cross-Government child poverty strategy, and I look forward to it reporting in the early autumn. We cannot forget the 1.6 million children across the UK with special educational needs. SEND education is in crisis and that cannot continue.

This Labour Government are a Government for everyone, and the King’s Speech is a starting point on that. I look forward to working with the Government to deliver the change that all our country needs.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Andrew Snowden to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Dr Beccy Cooper to make her maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call Mark Ferguson to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

I congratulate most warmly the hon. Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson). That was a tour de force around his constituency and I am absolutely certain that he will be a passionate advocate on behalf of his constituents. The only thing we missed was the opportunity for him to sing, but when we get the all-party music group together, we will give him that opportunity and the House will be able to revel in his talents on that front.

I am delighted that the Speaker, in his infinite wisdom, has decided to select our amendment on the two-child benefit cap for a vote this evening. It is absolutely right that this House should make a decision on this pressing issue. This is the early test for Labour Members. It is an early test for their commitment to take on the scourge of child poverty across the United Kingdom. We have just had new figures from the House of Commons Library, and they are absolutely shocking. I am not going to pick on the new Labour Members because they are all new and they are all finding their feet, but what this does to our nation is utterly appalling. We know that 87,100 children in Scotland are impacted by this cap.

I do not know if any of the Labour Members in the Chamber represent Glasgow constituencies, but let’s just have a look at Glasgow, where 4,500 households are being impacted by this two-child benefit cap. This is the first big test for Labour Members. We know that Scottish Labour opposes this cap. We have heard its leader talk passionately about making sure it is done away with. Labour Members have got to vote tonight to show that. This is an early challenge for the hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies who now represent Scottish constituencies.

This is a very much changed House, and I congratulate the Labour Government on their quite stunning victory. I also want to congratulate my new Labour colleagues on their victories across Scotland. I really hope they enjoy being an MP and the experience that this offers in this House, representing our wonderful nation on these green Benches, but they will know from the bitter experience of 2015 that tides come in and tides go out. The only thing that seems to be constant in Scottish politics is that there will always be a Member of Parliament from the Scottish National party representing Perthshire in Scotland, and I want to thank the people of Perth and Kinross-shire for returning me for a record seventh time in 23 years. I promise that I will serve them as I have served all my constituents in the past 23 years on these Benches.

Immigration is the subject of the day, and this is important. This is big stuff. It is really important that the Government get this right, but I am not encouraged by what I have heard so far. I am not really sure and certain that Labour really knows what it wants to do when it comes to immigration. I have heard lots of tough talk, with strong language on deportations, enforcement and getting people out of this country. What I want to hear about is the experience of these people who come to our country in appalling destitution and poverty, who have lived through some of the most unimaginable experiences, who are real living beings and who do not want the scapegoating language that has been deployed in the past. Think about them! Explain to us the safe and legal routes by which people can get to this country. Open up a way for citizenship to be acquired. Let’s be creative, for goodness’ sake. Let’s have some of these asylum seekers working. Why is it right that they have been left unattended for so long?

Surely a new Labour Government could start to get into that sort of territory, but I am not encouraged by what I have heard thus far from the Labour party. We do not want a Tory hostile environment to be replaced by a Labour hostile environment. We need to see a better understanding and empathy about the plight of people who are leaving war zones devastated and traumatised by what has happened to them. What we want to hear is a proper, thought-out, pragmatic approach to immigration that finally acknowledges the value of immigration and that has humanity and common decency at its core. That is not too much to ask from a Labour Government.

This is a priority for us in Scotland. We are the only part of the United Kingdom whose population is predicted to fall—by 2033 our population will be starting to decline. We will have a smaller base of working people who are expected to support a non-active, ageing population, which raises a whole series of issues and difficulties for us, particularly economic issues, and this has to be addressed.

We also have to make sure that our public services are staffed. Such is their current situation and condition that, if every school leaver in Scotland went into social care next year, there still would not be enough people to fill the places required. We need to hear a solution, and we are starting to get there. During the general election campaign, I was encouraged that the parties were actually talking about a Scottish visa, which is the Rolls-Royce gold standard we require. It happens in nations across the world without issue and without difficulty, so it could happen here. The nations of the United Kingdom have their own political jurisdictions, and they even have their own tax codes to ensure that it can happen.

We have done it before. I was a Member of this House when the previous Labour Government delivered the Fresh Talent initiative, and it worked. I cheered them on when it was delivered, and it is something this Government could do. If Scottish Labour Members want to go to the Home Office to demand a solution to our very real difficulties and problems, we will hold their jackets and cheer them on, but they must do something, because this is a pressing issue for the Scottish economy.

I gently say to Conservative Members that over the last couple of years we have heard such a degree of rubbish from them. They tried to tell us that people would not come to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom, because apparently they are put off by our lower council tax, our lower house prices, our free tuition and our free prescription charges. Most of all, they said that people would not come to Scotland because we had asked them to pay just a few more pounds of income tax. Well, that fox is well and truly shot, as National Records of Scotland has shown that there is net migration into Scotland, so let us not hear any more about that rubbish.

I end with a plea to our Scottish colleagues. We want to work with them to ensure that we get Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. It is now up to them. They have the power and the responsibility. They can make these changes to sort out our immigration and, for goodness’ sake, they should back us in the Lobby tonight so that we can do something about child poverty in Scotland.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Andy MacNae to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I tabled an amendment to the Humble Address that read:

“At end add ‘and submits that the Government should immediately recognise the state of Palestine.’”

The wording was confirmed by me to the Table Office at 4.40 pm yesterday. It was co-signed by the hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr Hussain), for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

Order. Is it the hon. Gentleman’s intention to challenge the ruling of Mr Speaker when he selected the amendments to be voted on tonight? What is his point of order?

[Ayoub Khan]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is the fact that the amendment was not tabled despite being submitted to the Table Office on time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not think that would have made any difference to Mr Speaker’s decision about which amendments the House will be voting on later. However, his point is noted.

I call Nigel Farage to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Lola McEvoy to make her maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

Before calling the next speaker, I have to announce that we will have to reduce the time limit for speeches by all those other than maiden speakers to five minutes.

Arrests and Prison Capacity

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The right hon. Lady is right to say that arrests of offenders of the kinds she describes are extremely important, and at no point would I ever expect, even in the contingency outlined—in fact, it never came to pass, as I have set out—that offenders of the kinds she references would not continue to be arrested. That is critically important. The ECSL 70 measure—end of custody supervised licence for up to 70 days—which comes into effect tomorrow, is designed to ensure that such scenarios never come about, because as Policing Minister I want to make sure that we never see the situation she describes.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the action by the leader of the National Police Chiefs’ Council is against the separation of powers principles? We make the law in this House, and we expect it to be implemented and administered without fear or favour. What seems to be happening is that unelected chiefs, such as the NPCC leader, are interfering with the administration of justice. Does my right hon. Friend agree that things would be a lot better if the Criminal Justice Board had not failed to meet for two years, which is apparently what has happened? Will he accept that we need to start putting things right? The Times today describes it as a failure of administration.

[Chris Philp]

I am happy to confirm that the Criminal Justice Board, chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, meets very frequently. Indeed, I attended its most recent meeting just three or four weeks ago—with the Lord Chancellor, other Ministers, police leads, senior members of the judiciary and the Crown Prosecution Service, and many others—so I can categorically confirm that it does exist and it meets regularly.

On my hon. Friend’s question about the police, the police are rightly operationally independent. It is not for Ministers to direct how they discharge their duties; they discharge their duties appropriately with their professional standards and professional judgment, and we support them in doing so. Operational independence for the police is important, as I am sure everyone on both sides of the House respects.

Political Violence and Disruption: Walney Report

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments; she makes some very good points. Yesterday I was talking to Festus Akinbusoye about the racism he faced as police and crime commissioner. Whether people are in a public-facing role in our emergency services—our ambulance, police or fire crews, for example—or they hold an elected position, from Prime Minister to parish councillor, the idea that they should face any hostility at all is unacceptable, but the idea that they should be targeted because of their sex, race, gender or religion is even more unacceptable.

This country is extraordinary for many reasons. One thing that I love about it is the fact that many people from many different backgrounds have found their home here and have found their voice here and made it strongly. The transformation that has made to our country for the good is remarkable. I am hugely proud of that. To see that voice silenced by people, as the hon. Lady says, because they happen to be a female fire officer, is simply unacceptable, and I will certainly talk to the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire to see what more we can do.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that at the next election it would be wrong for parliamentary candidates to be intimidated into not disclosing their home addresses on their nomination papers? If we change the conventions on that, we will be giving in to these threats. Does he also accept that if a person hires a public hall for a protest meeting, they are liable for public liability insurance? Might it not be better to say that if someone is organising a large public event in a public open space, they should also be liable for public insurance? Would that not be a better way of doing things, rather than expecting fees to be paid to the police?

[Tom Tugendhat]

As usual, I will listen very carefully to my hon. Friend’s suggestions. As for addresses, I do not think the election system will change between now and the second half of the year, as we have now learned. I look forward to standing in that election, whenever it comes, and for my address to be recorded as an address in the Tunbridge constituency.

British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 26th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I would just like to put on the record my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and his hon. Friends on their persistence. Moving Third Reading with the support of the Government and the Opposition is a testament to what can happen in this place if people persist. I remember chairing a Westminster Hall debate in which the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends were putting pressure on the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). Basically, my right hon. Friend was unable to respond coherently to the pertinent points that were being made. No doubt that is one of the reasons why the right hon. Gentleman’s Bill has now gained success. He has successfully cross-examined Ministers into the ground and they have been unable to respond coherently, so many congratulations to him.

UK-Rwanda Partnership

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

The Government have committed to releasing the figures on an annual basis—[Interruption.] The point I would make to the House on dealing with migration, securing our borders and tackling international criminal gangs is that none of these things are for free. We do these things because it is the right thing to do. The money that this country spent on the West Africa Squadron of the Royal Navy to break the international slave trade was not a small amount of money, but it was the right thing to do. It broke an evil trade and we are committed to breaking this evil trade.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the Immigration Minister, who has apparently just resigned, and thank him for all the hard work he has put into trying to resolve these issues over several years, including working on this Bill? Does my right hon. Friend feel that the Government will be inhibited in their implementing of the Bill by the absence of the Immigration Minister? Will he also answer the concern that been raised on several occasions during this exchange—namely, that the Bill might be fine for dealing with the issue of Rwanda as a safe country in general but that it does not deal with the issue of individuals who might want to make claims based on their own individual circumstances on why they should not go to Rwanda?

[James Cleverly]

I have said from this Dispatch Box and in a number of other locations how much I value the work of the Immigration Minister. He has done a huge amount of work on this and in a number of other areas, and the work he has done to drive down small boat arrivals by a third has been absolutely instrumental. I have no doubt that the whole Government will work to ensure that this legislation achieves what I think we should all want to achieve, which is to break the business model of the people smugglers and to prevent people from being abused by them in an attempt to come and live in the UK.