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 by 47 votes to zero, with not a single MP voting in favour. Only 47 MPs participated in the division at all, with the vast majority of members across all parties absent. The Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill targets the problem of fans gaining access to football grounds without valid tickets or authorisation, a security and crowd-safety concern that has attracted renewed attention in recent years. The defeated amendment sought to modify the government's proposed approach, broadly framed around civil liberties and football fan rights. Its rejection means the bill continues in the form the government and a cross-party majority of those present preferred, without the changes the amendment would have introduced. The vote produced an unusual alignment, with two Conservative MPs casting the only Aye votes while Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Green MPs who participated all voted No. No other party contributed votes on either side, though the sheer scale of absences means this was a lightly attended division. The zero Aye votes from every other party, combined with a total turnout of just 49 MPs out of several hundred, suggests the amendment was not treated as a major political battleground, and the two Conservative Ayes represented an isolated position rather than a coordinated opposition effort.
Voting Aye meant
Support the proposed change to the Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill as set out in Amendment 1
Voting No meant
Oppose Amendment 1, preferring to keep the Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill as it stands
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
69
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
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
Your 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