Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Linsey Farnsworth Excerpts

Friday 11th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[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?

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I perhaps misspoke; my understanding is that it is to align with the football calendar rather than the start of the season. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that in due course. We are now on a countdown to the start of the football season. My husband, being a season ticket holder for Coventry City FC, is very disappointed that we will be on holiday at the start of the football season in August. Obviously it is unlikely that we will get the provisions in place by then, but the important thing is to get the legislation in place in time for when we co-host the next European finals, which is in 2028. I think we should be in good time for that. A fixed date of two months after Royal Assent would be sufficient time to get everything in place.

As I mentioned earlier, the Bill has a deterrent element to it. Baroness Casey’s recommendation was to make sure that it is a proper deterrent. We need to be ready, and we need to make sure that as soon as the legislation kicks off, we send a clear message that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated any longer and people will not be able to get away with it. I hope I have provided a thorough and detailed response that satisfies the hon. Member for Christchurch, and I respectfully urge him to withdraw his amendment.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). It seems to me that the way that he introduced his very modest amendment to remove the word “attempts” was entirely proper. I support the Bill, but I think it is quite dangerous to introduce an offence into criminal law of just attempting to enter a football ground, because it is quite difficult to gather evidence of or police that.

I assure the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) that I do not want to delay matters much. I will keep my remarks short, because I support the general principle of the Bill. I support making it a criminal offence to actually enter a designated football match; that is in the Bill’s long title and is something we can all agree on. Widening the scope of the Bill to include attempts to enter a ground is quite dangerous.

I assume that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will be rejected, but I wonder whether it would unduly weaken the Bill if they were passed. After all, the Bill is about having a legal deterrent to crowds of people seeking to force their way into a football ground, but there may be many other ways in which people attempt to get into a football ground that are not riotous disorder and may be quite honest in intention.

When creating criminal law, it is dangerous to get into aspects of intention—mens rea, as lawyers call it—rather than, in this case, the actual legal fact of entering a football ground. If the law were not changed, someone engaging in this bad behaviour could be punished only by ejection from the stadium, but there are criminal laws of trespass and many other ways in which this very bad behaviour can be identified. When Baroness Casey identified in her review the absence of specific offences as a weakness in stadium enforcement, I am not sure whether she was referring to such minor infringements as attempting to enter a football ground. I will say more about that in a moment.

I know that the key motivation for the Bill was the Euro 2020 final and the chaos at Wembley when hundreds of ticketless individuals stormed the venue, overwhelmed stewards and endangered legitimate fans. That mass unauthorised entry posed real risks, but that was really a riot. That is quite a different situation from somebody on their own, or perhaps a father with his children, attempting to get into a football ground when they may not have a ticket. They may have been mis-sold a ticket—they may believe that they have a genuine ticket. They may have been sold, at vast cost, a ticket by a ticket tout, but apparently now they will face the full force of the criminal law.

Under the Bill, police and courts will be able to ban repeat offenders, as it makes offenders eligible for football banning orders. Those are quite serious consequences for people who may not be rioters at all; they may just be genuine football fans. We are talking about a fine of up to £1,000 and a trial in a magistrates court. I know that such cases will not go to a Crown court, but that is still a very serious matter for somebody who might just be attempting to enter a place.

We will be told by the Bill’s supporters that its enforcement is practical. I understand how entry into a football ground could be enforced, but I am unsure about enforcing an attempt to get into a football ground. Surely police and stewards need clarity. There is no point in us introducing more and more laws when we have a whole slate of traditional laws against riotous behaviour. Laws that may be difficult to enforce just bring the whole system into disrepute.

I know that football clubs, police forces and fans’ organisations largely support the Bill, but I am not sure whether they are aware just how widely it is framed. I am sure that if they could talk these matters through with my hon. Friend, they would think his amendment was a wise and moderate compromise, because people already assume that it is an offence to enter a football ground without a ticket; I agree that the Bill removes the gap between assumption and reality.

The other thing that slightly worries me is that while I can quite understand how such attempts could be dealt with by a premier league club, which has stewards and the whole panoply of a large football club, we should consider small clubs such as Gainsborough Trinity FC in my constituency. These small clubs have faced huge challenges, and we are just introducing more burdens on them. During covid, Gainsborough suspended season tickets and capped attendance at just 300.

Small clubs already have to deal with many regulations and with public health. Their finances are very marginal, and covid worsened already fragile financial situations. I hope that when we consider these undoubtedly worthy Bills—as we look at the Euros, Wembley and all the rest of it—that impose more obligations on football clubs, we remember smaller clubs.

The Football Association is not always as helpful as it can be with small clubs. Big clubs get attention and support, so it may well be possible for them to police attempts to enter, but it may be more difficult for a tiny club—a very worthy, important and wonderful club such as Gainsborough Trinity FC—to deal with the intricacies of the law and understand it.

We are talking about enforcement and police resources, and therefore the measures in the Bill should be very moderate. There would be £1,000 fines or long banning orders. Are we going to drag people before the courts? I have already talked about the father attempting an entry. Could children or young people who sneak in without harmful intent face having a criminal record? Are we really going to do that? Is that the sort of country we want to create?

We do not have a lot of data on how many attempts there are or how much unauthorised entry there is. We should acknowledge that the Euro 2020 final was exceptional. It is unclear whether making this kind of permanent legislative change, and rejecting the amendments, will solve the problem.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

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

[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.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Linsey Farnsworth]

With the leave of the House, I associate myself with the tribute to the Ibrox victims given so movingly by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray).

There are many people I would like to thank for helping to get the Bill to this stage, but first I will speak about footballer, vice-captain and much-loved daughter and sister Maddy Cusack, who lived in my constituency in Horsley and passed away tragically in September 2023. I dedicate this Bill to her, with the knowledge that she would approve of its contents, given her love for the game and for the safety of the fans who came to watch her light up the pitch week in, week out. The Maddy Cusack Foundation has been set up in her honour, with the aim of continuing her legacy. The foundation has done wonderful work, providing opportunities and inspiring young girls and women in football, including sponsoring local teams to ensure that the next generation of footballers is equipped to face the world in the fierce, determined and spirited manner that Maddy faced it. I encourage Members, in their own time, to look into the wonderful work that the foundation is doing.

I thank the Football Association and the Football Association of Wales, which have both supported this Bill; the Clerks and civil servants who helped to draft it and offered support throughout the process; the Members who took it through Committee; and my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) and for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), who co-sponsored the Bill. I thank Baroness Casey for her report and the important work she has done around fan safety, and I thank my staff, who provide continued guidance and support. I must also extend my thanks to Lord Brennan, whose work as the original promoter of the Bill has been invaluable.

Football is a game of two halves. At the risk of creating an overstretched analogy, I believe it is fitting that the second half of this Bill and its journey should be played out under Lord Brennan’s capable guidance and captaincy in the other place, should it pass today. If the Bill passes, I will happily pass the armband to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Linsey Farnsworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 2 stand part.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. Following your guidance, I intend to speak to the whole Bill in my remarks. I thank everybody for coming along this morning; I hope that, with Members’ agreement, this former prosecutor can place a new offence on the statute books.

As the title suggests, the Bill is designed to address the issue of unauthorised entry to football matches. It creates a specific offence of entering, or attempting to enter, a designated football match in England and Wales without a ticket that the person is eligible to use. The Football Association reports that unauthorised entry to football matches causes significant operational, safety and security problems for major events at Wembley stadium, as well as football matches at other grounds across the country. Unauthorised entry commonly occurs when a person pushes through the turnstiles, often behind an unsuspecting, ticket-holding fan, which is known as tailgating, or colloquially as piggybacking or jibbing. There are often around 600 tailgating attempts per match for major events at Wembley stadium.

I recently attended the Carabao cup final with the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, who I am pleased is responding on behalf of the Government this morning. We were taken down to the turnstiles and within around 30 seconds we witnessed our first tailgater, with several more thereafter in the short period for which we there.

Such behaviour presents a danger not only to the stewards and security staff who seek to apprehend them, often leading to a scuffle, but to the safety and enjoyment of the fans, who should be free to enjoy the build-up to the game without the worry that this sort of incident brings. With the increased popularity of the women’s game, under the fantastic stewardship of the Lionesses, we see more and more families attending matches. In one tailgating scuffle that I witnessed, a young boy was knocked into. It is time that we take steps to safeguard fans from this sort of behaviour.

At worst, unauthorised entry takes the form of mass entry, where large crowds seek to push their way into the ground. Members may recall the disorder at Wembley stadium on 11 July 2021, during the UEFA Euro 2020 final, when an estimated 1,900 so-called fans entered without a ticket. Between 1,200 and 1,300 managed to get into the inner areas of the ground, creating further danger. Of course, unauthorised fans do not have allocated seating, and their entry to the ground, particularly when it occurs in large numbers, creates problems of overcrowding and blocking of gangways and staircases.

For me, this is of personal significance. My friends Ross and Siobhan were at the game that day. They are avid sports fans who attend many sporting events across the world. Despite usually feeling at ease in those surroundings, it was a frightening experience that day. Siobhan told me:

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

That is from an avid sports fan.

Following the 2020 final, Baroness Louise Casey was commissioned to conduct an independent review. Her report found:

“Unauthorised entry to football grounds does not attract specific enforcement measures and is unlikely to have long-term consequences sufficient to deter repetition or emulation.”

Baroness Casey’s report was, sadly, prescient. At the UEFA champions league final at Wembley stadium on 1 June 2024, there were around 1,000 tailgating attempts and three mass entry attempts by around 300 to 400 people.

At present, people gaining entry without a ticket are likely to be ejected but not to face any other consequences. Those attempting to gain entry are moved on, but will often try again and again to get in. There is no specific offence of entering a football match without a ticket. The Bill seeks to remedy that.

Clause 1 will create a specific offence of unauthorised entry to premises for the purpose of attending a designated football match, by inserting a new offence into the Football (Offences) Act 1991. The offence aims to deter people from attempting to enter stadiums without a valid ticket.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill; it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for football supporters and a proud Aston Villa season ticket holder. Can my hon. Friend explain why the Bill uses the word “premises” rather than “stadium”?

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the intervention, and I commiserate with him on his choice of football team—I put on record that Everton are a much more preferable team to follow. As Siobhan described, at the Wembley incident, fans managed to get through the first ticket check. Many stadiums, including Wembley, have a wider perimeter cordon that protects fans. The use of “premises” rather than “stadium” would allow arrests to be made and prosecutions to be brought if someone went through that first cordon, before there is danger in the stadium itself.

As a member of the Justice Committee and former Crown prosecutor, I am only too aware of the extensive court backlogs, particularly in the Crown court. The offence in the Bill is summary only, and the maximum sentence is a £1,000 fine; it can therefore be tried only in the magistrates court. The offence strikes a balance by ensuring a sufficient deterrent against tailgating and mass entry while not adding to the court backlog. The stronger deterrent, however, is that a conviction for an offence is likely to lead to a court-imposed football banning order, which would prevent a person from attending football matches for between three and five years, with a potential prison sentence if the banning order is not obeyed.

The Bill encompasses the designated matches set out in orders made under section 1 of the Football (Offences) Act 1991. Currently, those are matches in the premier league, the championship, leagues one and two, the national league, the women’s super league and championship, the Cymru premier league, and international fixtures held in England and Wales.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I declare my interests as a season ticket holder at Portsmouth football club and as an elected member of the board of Pompey Supporters’ Trust. I thank my hon. Friend for introducing the Bill. I understand the need for it, but members of the public buy tickets not only for football matches but for other large events, such as other sporting or music events. Why is she seeking to change the rules only for football?

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I thank my hon. Friend for her attendance today; she is a real champion for her football team and her constituency, and I am sure that they will be grateful for her attendance. She raises a valid point: this offence could apply to other sporting events. Sadly, there have also been tragic incidents at music festivals, such as at the O2 Academy. However, the legislation is being introduced as a private Member’s Bill, and in order to effectively change the law through this mechanism it needs to be quite contained in nature. When I went to Wembley and spoke to the police and staff there, they indicated that football was a type of event where this regularly happens. That is where the risk lies, particularly at the most competitive games. It could equally apply to other types of event if the Government saw fit. The staff at Wembley voiced concerns about some of the upcoming sold-out gigs; I will not mention the band in question, but if I could get tickets, I would—but I will not be tailgating at that event.

I served on the Public Bill Committee for the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025—commonly known as Martin’s law—which received Royal Assent on 3 April this year. Although that Act deals with a different type of threat to the public, and is a different type of safety measure, it is clear that this Government are keen on keeping members of the public safe at all kinds of events. I hope that Parliament considers whether the Bill could be the start of greater protections at other events, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North.

Clause 1 provides a number of defences. A defendant can show that he or she had lawful excuse or authority to enter or attempt to enter the premises for a specific purpose. That would cover, for example, employees, journalists and emergency workers at the ground. It is also a defence if a person entered through an entry point normally used for spectators while believing that they had a ticket for the match when they did not. In other words, it is a defence to show that that person unwittingly held a counterfeit ticket. The Bill is not about villainising football fans, and this defence acknowledges that fans are sadly sometimes duped by unscrupulous ticket fraudsters.

The final defence is using a ticket that the defendant was not entitled to, for example, an adult using a child’s ticket. There is a defence for that, because in those circumstances there would be a reserved seat, so the safety issue is not fair. Again, that demonstrates that the Bill is about the safety and safeguarding of football fans.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I declare my interest as a season ticket holder at Tottenham Hotspur, both home and away—I suffer, yes. The hon. Lady is rightly referring to match tickets. The vast majority of premier league clubs have now moved to digital tickets, so that individuals have to produce a smartphone of some form. Those digital tickets can also be transferred to other people. Will the hon. Lady make it clear that the Bill applies to digital tickets as well as physical, printed tickets?

[Linsey Farnsworth]

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

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I have read paragraph 19 of the explanatory notes, but given the physicality of the description in the Bill, what is the legal justification for saying that it also covers electronic tickets? We can assume that it does, but I can see a defence barrister making a lot of the physicality in the description in proposed new section 1A(4) of the 1991 Act. There must be some legal reason why we can say absolutely that that description includes electronic tickets.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

Proposed new section 1A(4) of the 1991 Act says:

“‘match ticket’ means a ticket or other thing (whether in physical or electronic form),”

so I think that is expressed in the Bill, but I am grateful to the hon. Member.

Baroness Louise Casey, in her report following the Euro 2020 final, concluded that the events of that day could have resulted in a tragic loss of life. Given that England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are set to jointly host the Euro 2028 competition, the time for this Bill to pass is now. I urge the Committee to support the Bill, which is backed by major football bodies, such as the English Football Association and the Football Association of Wales. I thank both bodies for their assistance. The Bill is also supported by His Majesty’s official Opposition and the Government.

I extend my thanks to Lord Brennan of Canton, the former Member for Cardiff West, whose version of the Bill ran out of time at the last general election. The work he did as the original sponsor to get the Bill through this place in the last Parliament has undoubtedly made my job much easier. If the Bill moves beyond Committee stage today and passes Third Reading in this House, we both hope that he will be able to oversee its passage through the House of Lords, in what I am advised could be a unique parliamentary example of starting a Bill in one House and finishing in another.

It is fitting to end with the remarks of Lord Brennan in a previous debate:

“By allowing the Bill to be reported, we can send a resounding message that such conduct as was seen at the Euro 2020 final will not be tolerated, emphasising the importance of ensuring safety and security when attending football matches. The legislation reaffirms our dedication to the wellbeing and integrity of football, and restores our collective duty to tackle the challenges confronting the sport. It upholds the role of the sport as a unifying force in our society. I urge hon. Members to endorse the Bill, including the amendment, thereby contributing to the enhancement, safety and enjoyment of football matches for all.”––[Official Report, Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Public Bill Committee, 8 May 2024; c. 6.]

I could not have said it better myself.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers—it feels a bit like a reunion of the Backbench Business Committee. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for bringing the Bill back to the House. As has been mentioned, the issue was raised in the previous Parliament, and I am hopeful that we can continue to have cross-party agreement on it.

I declare an interest, as a supporter not of a premier league team or even a championship team, but of a non-league football team, my beloved Harlow Town, both at home and away. Not all football clubs are full of cash to make multimillion-pound signings, and people jumping barriers can have a huge impact on a club’s finances—notice that I use the word “people”, and not “fans”.

Although support for the Bill ultimately comes down to a question of safety, as my hon. Friend has correctly outlined, I want to talk briefly about the issue of fairness. There should absolutely be consequences for those who try to enter a football ground without a valid ticket. Many people in Harlow and beyond pay good money for football tickets. They work hard all week and going to watch a football game is something that they, like me, enjoy. They should be able to do so in a fair way, and it is not fair that others do so without paying for a ticket.

Even non-league football clubs impose a maximum capacity, and they do so for safety reasons. It is important that clubs know how many people are at a game and can stop people entering, particularly those who have previously displayed poor or unacceptable behaviour.

I will keep my remarks short, but once again I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for bringing the Bill forward. I hope it will give confidence—to those who give up their time, voluntarily in non-league cases, to man the turnstiles and do all the other things at football grounds that bring the community together—that people will not be able to get away with tailgating, and that only those with a correct ticket will be able to enter the ground.

[Mr Kohler]

I raise the point, quietly, that the definition in the Bill does not include electronic tickets.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

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

[The Chair]

We thank you for that explanation. Clearly, the Clerks will look into that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Linsey Farnsworth, can you respond?

[Linsey Farnsworth]

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

[Mr Kohler]

If someone is using a ticket that has already been used, it is an overcrowding issue, so is there a flaw in that change? The previous drafting made sense: if two people had a photocopy of the same ticket, and knowingly attempted to enter using that same ticket, that was not a defence under the original drafting, unless they reasonably believed that the ticket had not already been used. That has been removed in the final version, and I wonder whether that is a mistake in the drafting—I cannot see the logic of that.

[The Chair]

I think I will call Linsey Farnsworth to wind up, and perhaps she could clarify the situation before we move to the vote.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

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

[Saqib Bhatti]

I just want to say that, if there is anything that the hon. Lady wishes to correct, that can always be done on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Linsey Farnsworth]

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

[Bob Blackman]

One of the challenges with electronic tickets is that people can print them out multiple times. When fans approach the ground, those tickets are barcoded and will be scanned, and multiple copies can be scanned to allow entry, which would mean that someone could potentially enter illegally. On Report, the hon. Lady may wish to look at a way of ensuring that making duplicates would also become an offence.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemen for their contributions. I will commit to looking at that issue again and tabling any necessary amendments on Report, perhaps in conjunction with the Minister.

Going back to the Minister’s comments on the Fraud Act and the Theft Act, it is correct that members of staff can be charged under those offences, if the evidence allows and if the Crown Prosecution Service’s public interest test is met. With a member of staff, there is a level of trust and a duty of care to members of the public coming into the stadium. Because of that duty of care, it is more likely that an either-way offence, which takes up more time and resource in the court, would meet the public interest test than a member of the public turning up without a ticket. I think that there is already provision for those hopefully rare circumstances.

What we are trying to do with the Bill is provide a summary-only offence, with the deterrent of the football banning order, to deal with offences that are committed in much bigger volumes, while not clogging up the court system. I think the Bill strikes that balance, and there are those provisions for the prosecution of members and staff, as and when that happens. I think that is everything I wanted to cover.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Linsey Farnsworth Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

The 317 pages of the Bill make satisfying reading for this former Crown prosecutor—satisfying because I know it is packed full of measures that will make the streets safer for my constituents. Amber Valley is a brilliant place to live, but sadly it is not without incidents of antisocial behaviour. That is an important issue to my constituents, which is why I will focus what little time I have this evening on part 1 of the Bill.

I have heard the concerns of residents in our towns and villages about cars and off-road bikes being driven in an antisocial manner. I have listened to the frustrations of police officers, who explain to me how they are hamstrung, unable to do anything but issue warnings. The Labour-controlled borough council has made good use of the public spaces protection orders available to it, including by issuing fines for car cruising across Amber Valley and dispersing troublemakers in Heanor marketplace. The Bill will mean that troublemakers can be dispersed for longer and that the police will finally have the power to immediately seize and crush their cars and bikes, giving residents confidence that the police will, at long last, have the tools they need to crack down on such antisocial behaviour.

Antisocial behaviour comes in many forms and is often a legacy of Tory austerity. Youth provision has been drastically cut back by Conservative-controlled Derbyshire county council. Youth services are a crucial pillar in Amber Valley, linking young people with the wider community and the neighbourhood police, as I saw recently at the Railway Carriage in Ironville. This environment helps to steer young people away from choosing crime. This Labour Government understand that we need to give our young people chances, which is why, alongside the Bill, we are working at pace towards our opportunity mission, providing more apprenticeships and skilled jobs for our young people.

We know that antisocial behaviour is often committed by a small number of repeat offenders, young and older alike. The Bill will make it possible for individuals who persistently commit antisocial behaviour to be made subject to a respect order without waiting for them to be convicted of a criminal offence, thus speeding up the response, not least because it will avoid the huge backlogs in the Crown courts that we inherited from the Tories.

We must not forget that people who repeatedly act in an antisocial manner often have underlying issues or trauma driving their behaviour. Whether with alcohol awareness classes for those who persistently drink and are aggressive in our parks, or drug treatment orders for those who steal to fund their habit, these tough new orders will tackle the root causes of such behaviour. The 13,000 additional police officers and respect orders are central to our safer streets mission, but the orders will work only if the resources are available to support offenders to deal with their issues and change their behaviour, and I urge the Government to ensure that such provision is in place.

Antisocial behaviour is often described as low-level crime, but it does not feel low level to the people who have to endure it. The people of Amber Valley can be confident that this Government have acted on their concerns and that the antisocial behaviour will be stopped. I wholeheartedly support the Bill.

Antisocial Behaviour and Illegal Bikes

Linsey Farnsworth Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

I have three great towns in my constituency—Heanor, Ripley and Alfreton—but sadly, Amber Valley is not immune to issues with off-road bikes. My hon. Friend talks about intelligence leading to solving crimes. Does she agree that community policing and the increased numbers of officers that the Government will provide will be central to intelligence gathering and working with our community to tackle this sort of antisocial behaviour?

[Antonia Bance]

My hon. Friend is completely right. It is neighbourhood policing that will make the difference, and I am so pleased that we are bringing it back.

Most of the bikes in my area are stolen and are often used for other crimes, such as robbery and drug dealing. But this sort of targeted action works, and police reports of nuisance bikes in Friar Park, our biggest hotspot, have halved this year compared with last year. They are still not gone completely, and there is more work to do, but I want to say thank you to the police officers and the Sandwell council teams who got on this issue and kept on it. There is still more to do to spread this approach across my constituency to all the estates blighted by illegal bikes and ASB—from Tipton Green, Princes End, Great Bridge, Ocker Hill, Hateley Heath and Tantany, to Stone Cross and Coseley, too.

We have to make sure that the police have the powers, money and kit to stop these bikes once and for all. Over the years, they have been hamstrung by huge cuts to policing from the Conservatives, meaning that we lagged far behind similar-sized forces. When Labour was elected last summer, there were fewer officers in the west midlands than in 2010—800 fewer officers and 400 fewer police community support officers. That is why I am so pleased that, after 14 years of the Tories, who wrote off these crimes as low-level and left our communities alone to deal with the consequences, things are changing under Labour. Having a neighbourhood police team who know the places, faces and times to expect trouble makes all the difference.

Licensing Hours Extension Bill

Linsey Farnsworth Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

We heard that licensing hours could not be extended for the Lionesses game because Parliament was not sitting. Does my hon. Friend agree that the changes in the Bill will give us the flexibility to ensure that, on such occasions, fans will be able watch games while supporting our pubs? We also have an opportunity today to progress legislation on the safety of fans in another way; my Bill is no. 15 on the list, and it would legislate to prevent—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Point beautifully made.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Linsey Farnsworth Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Murray]

I welcome the fact that the discussion in the House today shows real cross-party support for the aims, principles and objectives of the Bill, and that the amendments focus only on nuances and more technical aspects. That shows that we are all united in trying to achieve this goal and in preventing tragedies such as that which happened in Manchester from happening again.

In trying to understand those nuances and where the more technical sides should be drawn, it is useful to reflect on the legislation’s key dimensions and advantages. First, obviously, it makes terrorist attacks less likely. The terrorist threat is substantial and we know that it is changing. It has gone from large-scale infrastructure and iconic sites to much more workaday, normal locations.

The most recent terrorist attack that we tragically saw in this country was an attack on a children’s dance class. It is clear that the terror threat is evolving and we must evolve with it, which is why the Bill is important, but it is also important because it minimises the death and destruction that result from a terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks may still happen despite our best efforts, and it is important for us to plan for that eventuality and make the right decisions in order to be ready when they do happen.

The former President Obama’s Under-Secretary of State for Homeland Security, the Harvard professor Juliette Kayyem, has talked of the “boom” of a terror moment or crisis, and divides planning into “pre-boom” and “post-boom”. Pre-boom is what must be done to prevent an event from taking place, but it is equally important to plan for the post-boom moment. We must ensure that even those running small venues have done some thinking in advance of an attack. What are the escape routes? Who needs to have the keys? What happens if they send people in this direction rather than that direction?

The Bill incorporates a distinction between enhanced and non-enhanced tiers, and that too is important. In my constituency we put on some of the biggest and best events in the world. I am utterly confident that those in the football and rugby stadiums and theatres who are in charge of security planning do all this thinking anyway, but there are many smaller venues where it has not occurred to people that that is necessarily their role, but which are now in the line of fire. It is important for people to recognise that responsibility, because the public have a right to expect it. The Bill codifies what should be happening anyway. We must bear that in mind as we decide where to set the thresholds, who falls in or outside scope, and what level of burden we expect organisations and venues to face.

In Committee, it was reassuring to hear several of my concerns being allayed. One of them has already been discussed, namely the impact on business and the potential for a burden. There is no denying that something of a burden will be placed on some organisations where no one has done any thinking or preparation for a potential terrorist or other attack, but the Bill contains very proportionate elements that do not impose much of an extra burden. Its requirements are intuitive, they are not onerous, they are straightforward and they are commonsensical. As I said in an intervention earlier, they are essentially prompts for organisations to do the kind of thinking that we would hope they were doing already to avoid an attack. That not only avoids attacks, but mitigates their impact.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the proportionality of the Bill, which we discussed in Committee. The word “burden” has been used a great deal this afternoon. In his evidence to the Committee, Andy Burnham said:

“I just think that we cannot talk ourselves into a sort of thing where it is all too big a burden. I can tell you from experience: a terrorist attack is a massive burden on a city and what it does challenges everybody at every level—and that is ongoing. Like Figen said, Manchester will never be the same again after what happened. It has changed us but it has strengthened us and made us more united, and as I say, I do not want any other city to go through that.”––[Official Report, Terrorism (Protection of Premises Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2024; c. 16, Q11.]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a proportionate Bill, and that the burden of a terrorist attack far outweighs any burden caused by its provisions?

[Chris Murray]

Absolutely. There is a small element of burden in the Bill, but it is light-touch and proportionate, and the alternative scenario is significantly more burdensome. In my own city of Edinburgh, the impact of a terrorist attack and of people not feeling secure in the aftermath could be destructive not just to the lives affected by the attack, but to the whole economy on which our city is based, which is event-focused. It is right for us to draw that distinction, and to seek to get the balance exactly right.

Migration and Border Security

Linsey Farnsworth Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

What we have found in our discussions with both the Iraqi Government and the Kurdistan regional authority is that they want to tackle organised immigration crime in their country. They are concerned about not just people trafficking and people smuggling, but drug trafficking, to which the same gangs are sometimes linked, and money laundering. We found a strong willingness to work with us; the most important thing will be to get the co-ordination, co-operation, information sharing, standards and intelligence in place. That will be the start. This is the beginning of a partnership, and the funding that we have set out will be for the first step in that partnership, to get better biometrics, better training capabilities and better border security in place. We see it as an important partnership that needs to grow.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

As an international liaison prosecutor, my job was to facilitate international co-operation, working with the NCA and overseas authorities. Does the Home Secretary agree that that is the key to smashing the criminal people smuggling gangs, not gimmicks such as the Rwanda scheme?

[Yvette Cooper]

I completely agree. Spending £700 million just to send back four volunteers was the most astonishing, shocking waste of money. My hon. Friend is right. The criminal gangs operate across borders, but law enforcement across borders is far too weak. It has been far too much a case of each country looking inwards rather than getting co-operation in place, so the gangs are able to run rings around law enforcement in far too many places across the world. We have to strengthen the co-operation across borders in order to tackle the gangs.

Respect Orders and Antisocial Behaviour

Linsey Farnsworth Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I will add my hon. Friend’s constituency to the list. Our purpose in piloting respect orders is to see what works and what the effect is, but we are confident that the ability to arrest someone who breaches an order will speed things up. We hear the complaint that when people are subject to antisocial behaviour orders, there has to be a long process of going to court and proving the breach. This is about arresting and dealing with the person who breaches an order quickly.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s announcement, not just as a former Crown prosecutor but because the towns in my constituency are sadly not immune from antisocial behaviour. We often see a small group of people repeatedly committing this offence in our towns. Does the Minister agree that respect orders will be a useful intervention tool for dealing with repeat offenders, and for tackling the root causes of their behaviour?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I welcome my hon. Friend to these exchanges. Her experience as a former Crown prosecutor is valuable and useful. She is right: it is usually a small group of people who engage in antisocial behaviour. We will deal with prolific offenders not just by using respect orders but by giving them something positive that they need, such as drug or alcohol addiction treatment or anger management courses, to try to solve the underlying problems.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Linsey Farnsworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 31st October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

I intend to speak only briefly on the clause. I welcome the data protection assurances given by the Minister. This is an important clause because it allows the SIA to receive and share information by way of disclosures to facilitate the exercising of its functions. This morning the Minister spoke about our security agencies having thwarted 43 late-stage plots. Integral to that would have been the sharing of intelligence. Sadly, that is not always the case, as we saw in Manchester—terror plots do happen.

Time and time again in inquiries following tragic events, whether that is large-scale disasters or children being harmed in the family home, we hear people confirming that things could have been so different if only agencies had shared information and disclosures had been made. Clause 28, as amended, will allow important preventive work to be undertaken and information to be shared. It will only serve to strengthen the SIA’s ability to ensure our safety.

[Dan Jarvis]

I very much thank my hon. Friend for her helpful contribution. I trust that hon. Members agree that these measures should stand part of the Bill.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Means of giving notices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (First sitting)

Linsey Farnsworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Tim Roca]

Q How have businesses reacted as Manchester has led the way on Martyn’s law? How onerous have they found it? What is the practical experience?

Andy Burnham: That is a fair question. Of course, we have had those conversations. I have been at events—with Figen, actually—with our night-time economy adviser, Sacha Lord, where we have said, “Look, we think we should do this.” Then there have been conversations like, “Well, it’s difficult. The hospitality sector has had challenging times,” but as we have talked it through I think people have come round to the idea that security and safety is one thing that no venue should compromise on, because in some ways that is the first thing to get right. If you get that right, you will get lots of other things right. It is about raising the standard of what the industry does.

There is evidence that the Manchester visitor economy —I know Manchester is not far from your constituency and you probably know it well—has improved over the years and in many ways mirrors the offer that people can find in London, but we have a night-time economy adviser because we want to keep raising the bar. We are not complacent at all. There just has not been an outcry or backlash. People have worked with it. This attack happened in our city: we lost 22 people—young people, mainly, but people of other ages as well—on that night. It is incumbent on us to challenge ourselves about what we do as a city to respond to that, and to recognise that life is changing and the outlying towns and villages of Greater Manchester could see an incident of that kind.

There is a broader point here: speaking as police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester, I do not believe yet that the country has all of its procedures in place to face what we are experiencing. I say that with reference to fire and rescue services. Currently, it is still not clear what the role of fire and rescue services is in relation to what is called a marauding terrorist attack. How can that be the case? That clearly needs to be addressed. We have done local things, but this legislation should be only the start, in my view, of really ensuring that there are arrangements in place that provide clarity to blue-light services and venues, as well as others, on the basics of responding to an incident. I think there is still work in progress on that point.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

Q It is clear that the approach in Manchester has been very collaborative with businesses, local authorities and the community. Do you have any thoughts on the guidance that could be given to local authorities about this Bill going forward?

Andy Burnham: That is a really important question. The guidance that I want to see would advise them to have a night-time economy strategy. That is really important for a whole host of reasons, and it is not just about the most serious attacks. We see concerns about spiking or the unacceptable treatment of women and girls, and there is a whole range of issues that need to be addressed. If we want to have the levels of safety that we all want to see in our country, there has to a more serious look taken at some of what happens within the night-time economy. For me, that would include ending out-of-area taxi working, for instance. We have a situation in our city region right now where, if you go into the city centre of Manchester pretty much any night of the week, but certainly on a Friday or Saturday, you will see hundreds and hundreds of taxis with a Wolverhampton plate.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

indicated assent.

Andy Burnham: You are nodding, which suggests that other places see that. It cannot be in the interest of public safety to have taxis licensed 100 miles away. I would say to local authorities that we need to start calling for change on public safety on nights out. That would include arrangements at the local authority level to ensure that taxi drivers are adequately licensed, and that the relevant criminal record checks are done at a local level and not undercut by something happening a few hundred miles away. I think that is an issue for Parliament. The time has come to end out-of-area work and require that the local authorities where people are doing their job are the ones that license those vehicles. I would like to see wider guidance given to local authorities and legislative change to support them in taking steps to protect the public when they are on nights out, both in implementing this legislation and in improving the safety of what goes on in and around venues on nights out.