Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Kevin Brennan

2nd reading
Friday 23rd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We were all shocked that those events were able to take place at a relatively new flagship national stadium, so we must think about how stadiums are designed. Wembley has a particular feature—the long Wembley way, which goes back to when the stadium was originally opened in 1923. Traditionally, lots of fans approach in that direction in very large numbers.

One thing that my Bill does that might address my right hon. Friend’s concerns is to make it possible for the offence to be enforced not just at the turnstile but around the premises on private land, so an outer security cordon can enforce the offence that the Bill creates. That should help in a place like Wembley. As he says, it was shocking to see the number of people who were able to get past the stewards and rush entry into the ground.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I support the hon. Gentleman’s Bill and think he is right to introduce it, so I say this in the spirit of scrutinising legislation: he is using what happened at the Euros as a justifiable reason for his Bill—I go along with that—but by increasing its scope to include areas that the explanatory note seems to suggest include bars and car parks, it seems that he is making someone trying to blag their way into a car park the same offence as trying to tailgate their way into the semi-final of the Euros. Does he really think that those two things should be treated in the same way?

[Kevin Brennan]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He is always assiduous in his scrutiny of legislation, and rightly so.

In isolation, it will not be an offence to try to get into a car park, but the Bill reflects the reality of the areas around football grounds. Cardiff City stadium, which is located in my constituency, was built a few years ago to replace the old Ninian Park stadium across the road. Like a lot of newer stadiums, it is in a slightly more out-of-town location, surrounded by car parks that specifically serve those attending matches.

In some instances, to enforce the intention of this new offence, it might be necessary to set up an outer cordon immediately outside the premises of the stadium itself, which is the purpose of the provision. There may be other hospitality settings close to the stadium but outside the turnstiles. In that instance, if another security cordon needed to be set up, my Bill could be enforced to prevent people who came along not with a ticket and with the intention of attending the match but simply to try to jib their way into the ground from doing so. Such actions compromise the safety of individuals and potentially tarnish the country’s reputation. The Euros are returning in 2028, and we cannot afford a replay of those events.

The current legal framework does not address the problem. Those caught entering a stadium without authorisation face no legal repercussions. Those attempting to enter are simply moved on, and often try to gain entry multiple times. There are no consequences for their selfish actions, which risk jeopardising matches and could recklessly endanger the safety and lives of others.

The Bill is intended to respond directly to those challenges by making unauthorised entry into football matches a specific offence. The aim is to deter people from attempting to enter stadiums without a valid ticket. Before the debate, I did an interview with, among others, Martin Keown—the former Arsenal footballer—on talkSPORT. There was a feeling in our discussion that the deterrent effect is a significant part of this measure. A fine of up to £1,000 might be a deterrent but, under the Bill, a conviction for this offence could lead to a court-imposed football banning order, under the Football Spectators Act 1989 and the Football (Offences) Act 1991, which would prevent a person from attending football matches for a specified period of between three and 10 years. That would be an even greater deterrent. This Bill seeks to address all forms of unauthorised entry, recognising the broad spectrum of tactics employed to gain illicit access to stadiums.

[Philip Davies]

That raises the question of why the Bill is designed only to apply to football. The same thing could apply to a Rugby world cup final at Twickenham, the Olympics—we might have them again in the future—or any other big sporting event. Is this problem unique to football? Is there any reason why the Bill should not apply to any major sporting event that might have the same problem?

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I have spoken to the Football Supporters Association about this Bill, and it is concerned about any legislation that singles out football in this way. The reality is that the current legislative framework includes a significant suite of legislation that applies particularly to football, born of the events of the latter part of the last century. We have moved on hugely, and I think we all thought that we had moved on permanently, from the sorts of scenes that were witnessed at the Euros final.

Because there have been problems at other types of event in recent years, I accept that there is a case for taking a wider look at the issue of gaining illicit entry to venues, whether for a music concert, a festival or another type of sporting event. The Government—and His Majesty’s Opposition, if they are to become the next Government shortly—should look further into the best way to achieve that outcome.

In the relatively narrow confines of my private Member’s Bill, when there is the opportunity to amend legislation already on the statute book and when significant football events are imminent, I think it is justified to bring forward a measure that applies specifically to football, but the hon. Gentleman’s broader point is absolutely valid.

The scope of the Bill extends across the top tiers of domestic football. We are not talking about the local park match. The Bill includes the premier league, the championship, leagues one and two, the national league, the women’s super league and championship, and the Cymru premier competition, as well as international matches in England and Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). I am delighted that he managed to get “common sense” in before the end of his speech, because my wife would not have forgiven me if I had not mentioned common sense in my speech, and he gave me a perfect opportunity to do so, for which I thank him.

I rise to support the hon. Gentleman’s Bill, which is important and worthwhile, and to wish it safe passage through both Houses of Parliament. However, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I take my role on Fridays very seriously. The danger with private Members’ Bills is that they start with a worthy sentiment but end up going through both Houses with very little scrutiny because everybody agrees with that sentiment, so we end up with bad legislation and unintended consequences. I raised a couple of points with the hon. Gentleman earlier, and I want to test them and maybe another point or two a bit further. It will be interesting to get the Minister’s view when he responds, and the hon. Gentleman’s view when he winds up the debate, on whether or not—it may well be that the answer is “not”—any amendments may be considered in Committee or on Report to improve the Bill or take out something that was not intended. I do not intend to speak for long, which will be a huge relief to everybody, particularly on a Friday. I make my remarks genuinely and in the spirit of trying to be constructive and raise potential issues. It is important that they are considered, even if they are then dismissed.

The hon. Gentleman set out in his opening remarks why the Bill is important. It is about what happened at the Euros final, where it is estimated that 3,000 to 5,000 people without tickets gained entry. They did not just try to gain entry; they actually did it through mass forced entry at turnstiles. I do not think that they necessarily gained entry by tailgating; it was through the deliberate ploy of forcing their way into the stadium.

Of course, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the problems that such behaviour causes. It is unfair, because people might end up sitting in seats that others have legitimately paid for, and ticket holders cannot get to their seats. That is bad enough, but there is also a massive issue with safety and security. Tragically, we have seen in the past what can happen at football stadiums when things are not as they should be. On that basis, he is absolutely right to introduce the Bill, and I would not want to gainsay any of what he said.

Although I accept that my concerns are minor, they are genuine. I would not want to see rules that are designed to tackle very bad behaviour being applied excessively to people who I do not think the Bill is necessarily aimed at. I talked about people blagging their way into a car park, and I am slightly concerned about the way the Bill is written. I do not know what you think, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have always considered the hon. Gentleman to be a bit of a cheeky chappie. He looks like the type of person who, before his political career—not today, as he is a serious politician—may well have tried to blag his way in somewhere. He just has that look about him.

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman is a very astute individual. I first attended Twickenham in 1978, when I was very young indeed, to go and watch Gareth Edwards win his 50th cap for the Welsh rugby team. I and three of my friends got into the ground by virtue of a £5 note, for which we were given £2 change, even though we did not have tickets. I was very young, but I should confess that, as he has raised it.

[Philip Davies]

I am sure we are all very grateful for that intervention. It is amazing what you find out on a Friday, isn’t it, Mr Deputy Speaker? It is like a confessional. Perhaps other Members will want me to give way so that they can declare their interest as well. We have probably accidentally found out why the Bill applies only to football and not to any other sport.

My point is that there is a world of difference between a group of people who have a deliberate strategy of engaging in public disorder to force their way into an event through sheer weight of numbers, causing all sorts of potentially serious repercussions, and people who are desperate to get into an event who do not have tickets and who cheekily try to blag their way in through one means or another. I think most people would accept that there is a world of difference between the two. What I would not want to see is the full weight of the law clamp down on the second group in the same way as it would on the first. My slight fear is that that that could happen, given the way the Bill is written.

A young person who tries to cheekily blag their way into an event could find themselves facing the same repercussions as others. I do not think that anybody would want that to happen. I am not sure whether there is a legal way to differentiate between those two things—it may well be that we say it is for a court to make that adjudication—but I would not want somebody who tried to cheekily blag their way into an event to find themselves treated as severely as a criminal making a forced entry with public disorder designs. It would be nice if we could at least think about how we could do that.

The explanatory notes make clear that the penalty is a fine “not exceeding” £1,000. We could argue, with justification, that the fine should be varied according to the situation, so that a minor offence would be reflected in the fine. However, the explanatory notes go on to state:

“A court must”—

not may, but must—

“also issue a football banning order following conviction for the offence”.

They go on to state:

“unless it considers that there are particular circumstances that would make it unjust”.

I accept that, but in effect they are saying that ordinarily, whatever the scale of the offence, that is what the court should do. It does not even say that it should do that, but that it must do so.

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that that is the way the legislation currently operates, but there is discretion available to the court not to issue a banning order in exactly the sorts of circumstances he describes, where somebody is not intent on causing serious disorder but what might be referred to colloquially as a cheeky bit of attempted jibbing. I would envisage that in those circumstances someone might at first get turned away, but that if they were persistent they could be subject to the offence in the Bill.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful for that clarification, which was genuinely useful.

The other point I want to spend very few minutes on, which I raised in my intervention on the hon. Gentleman, is about other events. If such unauthorised entry is an issue, it should not apply just to football matches. I would be very interested to hear what the Minister and the shadow Minister have to say about that. This country is renowned for hosting world-leading sports events across the piece: the rugby world cup, the rugby league world cup, the Olympics, athletics and so on. Most of those events have tickets that are very much sought after and oversubscribed—we are a sport-loving nation. The Bill has been brought forward largely as a result, as the hon. Gentleman said, of what happened at the Euros—the UEFA European Football Championship. Often in this place, we pass legislation as a result of something happening. Something goes wrong and we think, “Something must be done,” so we pass legislation reactively to deal with an issue that has already happened. To the best of my knowledge, what the Bill addresses has not happened—it may well have happened, but I am not aware of it; other people with more expertise will know—at the rugby world cup final or the rugby league world cup final, so nobody has brought forward any legislation on that.

It might seem unusual—I am unusual, before you get in there first, Mr Deputy Speaker—but rather than just always passing legislation reactively, perhaps we might sometimes have a crack at passing legislation proactively, and try to anticipate things that might happen and nip them in the bud beforehand. The hon. Gentleman has brought forward the basis of a Bill which we could use to do something a bit more proactive. Is there any reason why the provisions in the Bill could not apply to a range of other major events, in particular major sporting events, so that we do not have to wait for such things to happen before we do something about it? We could actually get in there first and try to stop them from happening in the first place, or at least make sure we have appropriate penalties.

The hon. Gentleman is renowned for his huge support for the music industry, and I commend him for everything he does for that industry. He is one of its greatest champions in the House. I am not an expert in the way that he is; I may be enthusiastic, but I do not possess the same expertise. However, as a layman, I should have thought that this would be more of an issue at music events than at sporting events. I could be completely wrong about that, but I suspect I am right. I will certainly bow to the hon. Gentleman’s greater expertise if I am wrong. There may well be existing legislation to deal with these matters at music events. I admit my ignorance in that regard, but it seems to me that legislation of this kind must be just as important for big music events such as concerts—which, by the way, are often held in stadiums and other locations that are also used for sporting events, such as Wembley—so why are we restricting ourselves to football? I genuinely do not understand why this is seen as just a football issue, although I suspect that it is because of the reaction to what happened at the Euros. Surely we in this place must be able to use our wit to say, “It has been a problem in this location”, while also anticipating that it could well be a problem at similar events, whether sporting or musical.

May I just ask the hon. Gentleman and the Minister, who I know will continue to take a great interest in all these issues anyway, and also the shadow Minister, to give this some thought? If we are so adamant that the Bill is necessary in this regard—and I think it is; as I have said, I support it, with a couple of reservations—I urge all those with far more influence than me to think about whether we could introduce similar legislation, if necessary, to cover other big sporting events and perhaps music events as well.

National Living Wage

Debate between Philip Davies and Kevin Brennan

Monday 18th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan), who has been more than a super-sub for my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) today. We all wish my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden a speedy recovery. My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North gave the House some good examples of people who could lose out despite the fact that the so-called national living wage was intended to increase pay for those on low incomes. We have heard a lot of very good contributions.

We heard a contribution from the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who appears to have read, in his book on microeconomics, of the impact of increasing wages, but not to have got on to the volume on the impact of labour as a derived demand and the impact of higher wages on aggregate demand in the economy. As we discovered when we introduced the national minimum wage, increasing pay for the less well-off can result in a more prosperous economy because of their higher propensity to consume.

[Philip Davies]

I just want to know on what basis the hon. Gentleman feels more qualified than the Office for Budget Responsibility, which made it very clear that 4 million hours and 60,000 jobs would be lost.

[Kevin Brennan]

I will come to my concerns about the way in which this policy is being introduced in due course. There is plenty of evidence from the introduction of the national minimum wage that if it is done correctly, increasing pay for the lowest paid workers can result in an increase in aggregate demand, and in greater productivity and prosperity for the economy.

We have heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), and for Burnley (Julie Cooper). We have also heard from the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), whose reference to Adele and the importance of paying younger people sounded convincing to someone like me.

We also heard from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), who talked about his experience as a council leader. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), and from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), made a pertinent point about seafarers. It is important to remember that seafarers are exempt from this legislation, and we need to bring in new protections for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) told us about her partner spending a lot of time at B&Q. If her household is anything like mine, that is no doubt a result of his being told that he has to go to B&Q and do certain DIY jobs. This happened to me so much in years gone by that we used to call it “Be in the Queue” because I was down there so much. We also heard from the Scottish National party Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford).

Today’s debate has been rather peculiar. On this side of the House, there has been general support for the idea of the so-called national living wage that the Chancellor announced in his Budget, but there has also been criticism of its implementation and its potential to make some people worse off. That is the purpose of today’s debate. However, the only contribution from a Back-Bench Conservative Member seemed to be against the Government’s policy altogether, so it has been a peculiar debate in that respect.

As has been highlighted, the national minimum wage was introduced by the Labour Government in 1998. It was opposed tooth and nail by the Conservatives, but the Minister for Skills has previously and rather generously acknowledged that they were wrong to do so, just as they were wrong to oppose other progressive achievements of Labour Governments, such as the NHS. He has acknowledged that fact on the record in my presence in this House, and I am grateful for his generosity in doing so.

I referred to the “so-called national living wage” because, as has been pointed out many times today, it really is not a new concept. It is a symptom of the Chancellor’s inability to do anything that might be worth while without trying to extract the maximum political advantage from it. This was highlighted when the former Work and Pensions Secretary resigned, saying that the Chancellor was always seeking to do something that was

“distinctly political rather than in the national economic interest”.

The Chancellor could have said, “I want to increase the national minimum wage for the over-25s”, which is in effect what this policy does. Instead, he chose to pinch the name “living wage” from those who have worked on devising and calculating it, who have brought together the evidence based on need to formulate the concept of a living wage, and who have campaigned for it right across the country with great success. He nicked that name for his policy, which, it has been pointed out, will not introduce a true living wage based on the concept of the evidence of need as developed by the Living Wage Foundation.

Similarly, the Chancellor could have done the thorough preparation that a policy such as this requires. He could have put the policy through a proper stress test, as was done by Ian McCartney and others when the national minimum wage was first introduced. However, that would have spoilt his piece of political theatre in the Budget, and the Great Osborno would not have been able to pull a rabbit out of his hat to the delight of all his misdirected audience on the Conservative Benches. The problem of some workers potentially being worse off could have been avoided if we had a Chancellor who was more interested in the substance of making policy work than in the smoke and mirrors of political presentation.

It is illegal for employers to pay less than the national minimum wage, yet figures provided by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills show that the numbers of employers being fined for doing so have actually increased in recent years. We would like to know what measures will be put in place to ensure that we do not have a repeat of this deliberate lawbreaking and undermining when the so-called national living wage is more established. Will these companies be named and shamed? Will there be financial penalties?