Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill Report: Amendment 1
0Ayes
47Noes
Defeated · majority 47 · Government won599 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 0 · No 47 · DNV 599 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 11 July 2025, the House of Commons voted on Amendment 1 to the Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill at Report Stage. The amendment was defeated with no MPs voting in favour and 47 voting against, in Division 267. The bill itself concerns unauthorised entry to football matches, but the specific content of Amendment 1 is not available in the debate record provided. The vote preserves the bill as drafted, rejecting whatever change Amendment 1 proposed. The Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill deals with football crowd safety and access offences, areas that sit at the intersection of sport regulation and public order law. Without the Hansard debate extracts, the practical consequences of rejecting this specific amendment cannot be stated with precision. The party breakdown is notable. Two Conservative MPs were the only members to vote in favour, though the amendment still received zero total Aye votes recorded in the tally, suggesting a data anomaly or that those votes were not counted in the official result. The 47 votes against came from Labour, Labour and Co-operative, Liberal Democrat, and Green Party MPs. The result therefore reflects a cross-party rejection of the amendment, with the government opposing it. The vast majority of MPs across all parties had no vote recorded in this division.
Voting Aye meant
Support Amendment 1 to the Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill (content unknown without debate record)
Voting No meant
Oppose Amendment 1 to the Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill, preserving the bill as drafted
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
0
37
324
Conservative and Unionist Party
—
2
0
114
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
3
68
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
8
34
Independent
—
0
0
13
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
—
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
0
5
Green Party of England and Wales
—
0
1
3
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
0
1
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Amendments 1-5 should remove 'attempted entry' from the offence as attempts are less serious than actual unauthorised entry and are covered by existing inchoate offence law; Amendment 6 should set a fixed 2-month commencement date rather than leaving it to ministerial discretion.Conservative · Voted teller_aye · Read full speech (2,960 words) →
Attempted entry must be included because tailgating and attempts create significant safety risks, require police intervention, and affect stadium security; commencement by regulation aligned with the football calendar allows proper preparation and training.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (4,120 words) →
While supporting the Bill's core purpose, attempted entry is vague and difficult to enforce; it risks over-criminalisation of minor infractions and creates ambiguity in interpretation by stewards and police, especially for small clubs with limited resources.Conservative · Voted teller_aye · Read full speech (2,030 words) →
Including attempted entry is essential because it enables law enforcement to act before breaches occur, supports preventive football banning orders, and addresses widespread tailgating at major matches; regulation-based commencement ensures co-ordination with the football calendar.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,203 words) →
Opposition supports the Bill as a proportionate measure to protect law-abiding fans and ensure fairness, though emphasises that existing powers must be properly enforced and that defences against innocent mistakes should be clearly applied.Conservative (Shadow Minister) · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,002 words) →
The Bill is vital for fan safety, drawing on painful lessons from historic stadium disasters like the 1971 Ibrox tragedy where 66 people died; overcrowding begins as bottlenecks and poor entry control, making this legislation necessary.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (555 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0