Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Acton Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

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

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

The noble Lord made the point a moment ago that a trader without a licence could be banned. Under this Bill, even if you have a licence, you are still subject to a fine of up to £50,000. Having a licence is of no consequence in this Bill. You can follow all the rules and be licensed by the local council, but it counts for nothing. It is another infringement on trade.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. He makes the point that I was trying to make even more forcefully. Even those with licences, nevertheless being unauthorised to sell merchandise, food or drink outside a stadium, could find themselves being given football banning orders if they are convicted of one of these new criminal offences. Even if there is nothing in the Bill as drafted before our House today that says these offences could be added to Schedule 1, what guarantee do we have that they will not be added in Committee, which has happened as I have followed the passage of various Bills through this House numerous times before? Bills change a good deal, and I would not be at all surprised if those offences were added to Schedule 1, and anyone convicted of them could be subject to a football banning order.

Perhaps more importantly, there is nothing in law to prevent football banning orders being imposed on fans visiting from overseas. The purpose of this Bill, we have been told, is in part to prepare the country for the 2028 UEFA men’s football championship, which, as we have heard, will take place in England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland. An amendment limiting the circumstances in which banning orders can be imposed on fans, including those visiting from the continent, will make Great Britain a more attractive destination in 2028 for lovers of the beautiful game. For those reasons, I hope to table an amendment in Committee reversing the expansion of the authoritarian banning order regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am tempted to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, was saying, but not quite in the way he suggested; I am tempted to follow up what he said about referees, particularly in the Scottish context, not least because my Scottish team of Motherwell bore the brunt of some of the difficult decisions that were made. He also mentioned the difficulty that footballers seem to have in coming out as gay. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Young, that one of the reasons why we need banning orders is that there has been so much homophobia, as well as many other problems, in football in recent years.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

Without wanting in any way to defend the remark that our member made, it was made in the heat of the moment and in the context of an exchange of insults with a rival group of fans. None of those other fans complained or said or showed in any way that they were upset or offended. There is also absolutely no evidence that they were gay—they were just Chelsea fans. Does the noble Baroness nevertheless think that, if he is convicted, a five-year banning order involving draconian restrictions on his liberty is an appropriate and proportionate punishment?

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I know nothing of the detail of what was said, the circumstances or whatever, but, as someone who has attended football matches in many stadia over many years, I know that some very unpleasant things happen and we need the ability to have football banning orders where appropriate.

Virtually all noble Lords have welcomed the Bill, as I do. It is necessary that we have as much power as we can to make sure that events such as Euro 2028 go well. Many people have spoken about the importance of different sports and sport generally to the economy, society and the whole psyche of the country. When I think about sporting events, because of my particular interests I think about football. Noble Lords opposite are smiling, because they have heard me talk about this on many occasions. It is important to my family. During the football season, each of us looks at the football results and knows which of our colleagues will be smiling on Monday morning. It is a very good test. I am still smiling, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for mentioning this, but 10 days ago I was at Wembley with my family when Bolton Wanderers won promotion to the Championship. My noble friend Lady Morris and I were comparing notes on this just a little while ago.

Football is important. The preparations being made for Euro 2028 are important, but there are issues that colleagues have raised on the Bill that are worth emphasising. Although we all more or less support the Bill, it has aspects that could be tightened up or go a little further. Ticket touting has been mentioned by many others. I think there is an impression that it is a series of one-off events; in fact, it is a pretty big industry. My noble friend Lord Mann called it “organised crime”. It is right to take action, but is the Minister sure that the penalties are severe enough, given the nature of the people we are talking about? Like many others, I would like to see this apply to domestic competitions and non-sporting events as well. This Bill, as has been mentioned, applies just to international events, which means we cannot talk to or amend it in ways that we might want to so that it covers domestic situations. However, we can learn from some of the problems we have in domestic sporting events to try to make sure we get some of these things right.

Advertising has been mentioned. It is not a straightforward issue, nor one that is completely in the Government’s control, because there are international contracts. FIFA, UEFA and any other governing body will do its own deals on sponsorship and advertising, and then of course companies will spend a great deal of money and effort circumventing those restrictions. I acknowledge that it is a complex problem, but the Government are thinking along the right lines here. Over recent years, we have had lots of changes and dire warnings about what would happen if we banned certain types of sponsorship. I remember the discussions about football and tobacco, and the threats we were told existed when Formula 1 was forced to give up tobacco advertising. It was supposed to be the end of Formula 1—it was not. However, it is a really difficult issue because this is a changing picture and a very different, challenging situation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned that, next season in the Premier League, betting companies will not be allowed on the front of shirts. It is a welcome, small measure. It is probably because clubs feared something more draconian but, at the same time, some clubs now say that they will have betting companies on the front of their training shirts, which are also very visible and seen by many, and indeed replicas are bought.

I mention this not because it is covered by the Bill but because it illustrates the changing nature of the challenge we are facing. It is a moving target, and it is the same with gambling. We are soon to see prediction markets being regarded as products and the Gambling Commission in the UK has regarded prediction markets as a “betting intermediary”, so they would be covered. However, they are not classified as such in other countries, so, again, there is always going to be a problem with implementation, and a real challenge for the Government and those who monitor sporting events.

The other issue that I want to raise is transport. The Bill enables the Secretary of State to direct someone to prepare a transport plan in connection with a sporting event. This is very sensible and I welcome it, and I wish we had such plans for more sporting events, especially domestically. However, the Bill seems to concentrate on roads. We need plans for roads, but I am old enough to remember when there were “Cup Final Specials”: trains which went from the towns that were playing in the cup final. Now, almost every big event at Wembley is marked by train travel problems. Indeed, at the match that I was at 10 days ago, fans from Bolton had to be advised to make alternative arrangements because of the difficulty of getting to Wembley for 1 pm on that Sunday. The day before, when the Championship play-off was being held, there were no trains whatever from Middlesbrough to London. Again, there was no co-ordination, which made it difficult.