8 Dec 2010 : Column 95WH
Football Grounds (Regulation)
11 am
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): It is a real pleasure to have this debate
under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. When I submitted my request for this short
Westminster Hall debate, the title had the words "Keep Scunthorpe Standing"
in it. The Table Office informed me, in its own inimitable way, that that
was sloganeering and would need to be improved. Hence the title that we have
today. Nevertheless, it is on Scunthorpe United that I wish to focus my
attention. I should certainly declare my interest as a season ticket holder
at Glanford Park, albeit in the seated Grove Wharf stand.
Before I go further, let me take the opportunity to praise all associated
with Scunthorpe United. It is a small club that, despite a recent run of
results that we would rather forget, is punching above its weight. It has,
in Steve Wharton, a chairman who, like his father before him, has run the
club sensibly and in a businesslike manner that some might say could be a
model for other clubs up and down the land.
Scunthorpe United is not a club that changes its manager every five minutes.
Instead, it grows managers out of its coaching personnel. It has been well
served by Brian Laws and Nigel Adkins, and it is now being well served by
Ian Baraclough. They have built good teams out of scarce resources, and the
players are to be applauded for their achievements in recent years. Having
said that, the "team" of a football club includes all the other staff who
work day-in, day-out, to make all the backroom activities happen, and those
other staff at Scunthorpe United are also brilliant.
Scunthorpe United is a club rooted in its community that does excellent work
in education through its "Study United" programme, and it takes on
apprentices each year as part of an ongoing commitment to sports
development. It also has loyal and dedicated fans, such as David Beverley
and his colleagues, who have been working with the Football Supporters
Federation on the "Keep Scunthorpe Standing" campaign.
Currently, the rules state that once a club has been in the championship for
three years, its stadium must become an all-seater stadium. Everyone fully
understands the awfulness of the Hillsborough stadium disaster of 15 April
1989, and the recommendations for all-seater stadiums were a key component
of Lord Justice Taylor's excellent report into the disaster. There have been
many significant strides forward in ground safety since that time.
Thankfully the world-in terms of stadium safety-is a different place today.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) made an excellent speech yesterday
introducing his ten-minute rule Bill, in which he very ably set out all
these issues. As he explained, it is perfectly possible for the United
Kingdom to have safe standing in the same way that the Bundesliga does.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con): I am very grateful to the hon.
Gentleman for bringing this issue to the House. AFC Bournemouth is doing
very well in the first division at the moment, and this issue concerns AFC
Bournemouth, too. There is a change in technology, which I hope the hon.
Gentleman will recognise, that makes things very different from how
8 Dec 2010 : Column 96WH
they were at the time of the terrible events at Hillsborough, to which he
referred. I hope that that change in technology is something that we might
be able to embrace, and I hope that we will say, "Can we actually introduce
this now?"
Nic Dakin: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I compliment AFC
Bournemouth on the good season that it is having. He is right to draw
attention to changes in technology and stadium management, and more modern
methods of properly policing football grounds and ensuring fans' safety.
Those are the issues that we need to look at. The rules on all-seater
stadiums need to be revisited for modern times. There should be no
compromise on safety, but there should be common sense. If Scunthorpe's
standing capacity has been safe for all these years and appropriate safety
management is in place, there is no strong argument for replacing it with
seating.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although
it is very important to have safety, it is surely not impossible to marry
safety with the finance available? Finance has to be a key factor for any
football club and any football ground at the present time.
Nic Dakin: I absolutely agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman is
making. Safety is crucial and should never be compromised, but there also
needs to be a sensible way forward. In these difficult financial times, that
is very important. The Glanford Park terracing has stood for more than 20
years. It is under threat solely because the football team has been
successful. It is my contention, and that of the Football Supporters
Federation, that Scunthorpe United and its supporters should not be
penalised and lose the safe standing option because of the club's success.
If the current rules are adhered to, a very small club will have to spend
significant amounts of money during these difficult financial times to
convert the safe standing area into seating. That would mean that the club
would have the invidious choice of paying even more for a larger seating
area, to maintain the maximum ground capacity of around 9,000, or reducing
the ground capacity significantly.
Seating the Doncaster road end would reduce Glanford Park's capacity by
about 1,000. That would mean fewer tickets would be available for big games,
such as the recent Carling cup game against Manchester United or the
forthcoming FA cup visit of Everton. In turn, that would mean more
disappointed fans and less revenue for the club. There is a danger that such
a move would harm the club because it would be forced to divert its limited
financial resources and energy into redeveloping the stand; that money would
be better spent on improving the team or enhancing the experience of
supporters.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on
securing this debate and, as he is obviously aware, Glanford Park is in my
constituency and I am delighted to work closely with him on this issue.
However, is there not an even more important issue here? We talk about
localism a lot; this issue is about what the fans want, and what the fans of
Scunthorpe
8 Dec 2010 : Column 97WH
United are saying very clearly is, "Let us make our decision about what we
want, and let us keep our terraces."
Nic Dakin: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right in many respects. It is
important to listen to what local people and local fans are saying. However,
we would not and should not compromise safety. Nevertheless, it comes back
to looking at this issue in the modern circumstances of today and
recognising that Scunthorpe United's stadium is a 9,000-capacity ground,
with average crowds of 5,000. I will just make a little more progress now
before taking any other interventions.
The Football League, in its letter to the Minister for Sport and the
Olympics of 22 October, stated quite clearly:
"Football League clubs, particularly in Leagues One and Two, are evidence
that standing at football is safe when managed correctly."
That is a very helpful statement.
Mr Ellwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being generous in taking
interventions. It is important that safety is stressed. Cost is also
critical. AFC Bournemouth is in dire straits, as are many other football
clubs. The solution of allowing standing by using new technology would help.
However, the point that I wanted to underline-I want to ask the hon.
Gentleman if he agrees with this-is about the atmosphere that would be
created by having standing capacity. Every time that a goal is scored or
play builds up towards a goal, everybody ends up standing up anyway. There
is a sense of atmosphere in standing areas that will encourage more people
to come through the gates, which will help the gate receipts and the running
of the club, from a cost perspective.
Nic Dakin: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the atmosphere in
grounds, which is an important part of the football experience. Scunthorpe
United is a well-run football club, which stays very carefully within its
means. The club moved to the purpose-built Glanford Park in 1988, where the
affectionately named "Donny road end" has always been a safe standing area.
That small club, with a ground capacity of just over 9,000 and average gates
of around 5,000, is being caught up in safety rules designed in another age
for much larger grounds. If the club remains in the championship for another
year, the safe standing capacity will have to be removed and replaced with
seating. That will cost money at a time when resources are scarce; it will
reduce the ground capacity, and it will take away choice and enjoyment, as
the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) has pointed out, from
those fans who prefer to stand. Moreover, once the ground has become
all-seater, it will not be able to revert back to having a standing area,
even if the club spends the rest of its life in the lower divisions.
Cardiff City was allowed to retain standing for six years in the
championship league. Why should Scunthorpe United, the smallest ground in
the league, not be given a similar dispensation? There are much larger
grounds in the lower leagues, such as the Carlisle United grounds, that are
not affected by the rules. Will the Minister examine the experience of safe
standing in other parts
8 Dec 2010 : Column 98WH
of the world, including Germany, and review the current requirements for
all-seater stadiums in the premiership and championship leagues?
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on
securing this important debate; it is only right and proper that the issue
should be debated fully. Will he explain or tease out the assurances
regarding ground safety that he outlined that will ensure that we never
return to the circumstances that resulted in the Hillsborough disaster of
1989?
Nic Dakin: My hon. Friend asks an important question. Lord Taylor's report
was thorough and found many causes for the problems that occurred. Standing
was not one of them, but none the less, all-seater stadiums were seen as an
important part of the solution. We must consider the experience around the
world, particularly in Germany, whose strong record of safe standing
demonstrates that it can be done. I agree with my hon. Friend that there
should be no compromise on future safety in the interests of standing; we
should ensure that any standing is safe standing. However, I draw attention
to the fact that Scunthorpe United's ground has always had standing and has
always been safe.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con): The hon. Gentleman has secured an
excellent debate. I echo his comments about Scunthorpe club being a role
model. On the point just raised, I have every sympathy with what he is
saying, but I am extremely nervous. Since Lord Justice Taylor's report,
safety in grounds has been improved and transformed. The prospect of a
change makes me nervous.
Nic Dakin: As I have said all along, safety should never be compromised, but
we need only look across to the Bundesliga to see an example of how one of
the best leagues in the world manages safe standing alongside seating, using
modern technologies. I agree with hon. Members' comments. I welcome the
point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve
Rotheram) that this is the right debate to have, but in no way should we
prejudice safety in this debate. That would be wrong.
My second question to the Minister is this. Will he review the requirements
that apply to small grounds such as Glanford Park, and allow the Football
League to use its discretion, where local circumstances and common sense
allow, to provide dispensation for small clubs such as Scunthorpe United to
retain some safe standing capacity? Scunthorpe has had safe standing for its
whole history, during which three England captains have played for the north
Lincolnshire side: Kevin Keegan, Ray Clemence and, of course, Ian Botham. I
thank everybody who has attended and contributed to this debate. Up the
Iron!
11.13 am
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson): I congratulate the
hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing this debate and on how he
has conducted it. I pay tribute to him for his work on a number of football
issues since his arrival in the House, and I join him in paying tribute to
his club, which has done exceptionally well. It is a proper community club
in every way, and he is absolutely right to pay tribute to the current
chairman and his predecessor for their
8 Dec 2010 : Column 99WH
running of it. It is an example of the sort of football club that we all
want to encourage, and I wish Scunthorpe the best of luck for the remainder
of the season.
Having said that, I remind the hon. Gentleman, as well the hon. Member for
Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), that the Minister's powers in this area are
limited. I can ask the Football League to re-examine the issue, but I could
not sign an order forcing it to, even if the hon. Gentleman convinced me to
do so today. The issue concerns not only many of his constituents but
supporters up and down the country. As he correctly stated, the current
rules go back to the Taylor report, published in the aftermath of the
unnecessary loss of life at Hillsborough. He is absolutely right that that
tragedy is the backdrop to this debate, and as he will know, many in his
party as well as mine feel strongly about the issue. The Minister for Sport
who preceded the hon. Member for Bradford South was among those who felt
strongly that there should be no return to safe standing.
Having considered the basics of the case, I think that it is now generally
accepted that most football grounds, for a vast number of reasons, are safer
and more comfortable than they were 15 or 20 years ago, although I
understand why many supporters miss the tradition, the feel and the
atmosphere that some grounds had before. I checked the injury statistics for
the past few seasons collected by the Football Licensing Authority. They
suggest that spectators are less likely to be injured at all-seater grounds
than at those that retain standing accommodation. I am aware that those
statistics rely on self-reporting, which is always a dangerous statistical
basis, and therefore might not provide a wholly reliable indicator of the
relative injury rates, but I think that it is generally accepted across
football that standing still presents a greater risk of injury, although the
extent of that risk is open to debate.
Seating also offers higher standards of comfort, as is probably
self-evident, and provides spectators with their own defensible spaces,
which can only contribute to encouraging families and increasing the
diversity of those attending football matches in recent years. I am sure
that we all support that. I know that no one is suggesting that we should
return to the arrangements in place 15 or 20 years ago, but I am not
convinced at this stage that a compelling case has been made to change the
policy on standing areas.
Mr Ellwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the tone in which he is
responding to this debate and for acknowledging that the power does not lie
with him, but I hope that he will also acknowledge that there were other
factors leading to the 1989 Hillsborough disaster. Yes, seating was one, but
there were also crowd control issues, and there were no spill-over areas.
The many changes that have been implemented and are now displayed every
Saturday or Tuesday night mean that standing or seated, we can avoid what
happened on that day. I hope that new technology might allow clubs not in
the premier or championship leagues to consider piloting that idea in
certain parts of the stands.
Hugh Robertson: I do not believe that the presence of all-standing areas was
the contributory factor at Hillsborough; that is self-evidently ridiculous.
A basket
8 Dec 2010 : Column 100WH
of factors contributed to that disaster, including crowd control, as my hon.
Friend says. He is also right that technology has moved on considerably
during that period. That said, there are also new elements of technology
that rely on fans being seated-the police, for example, say that crowd
control via CCTV is much easier if fans are seated than if they are
standing-so the argument cuts both ways.
As the hon. Member for Scunthorpe knows, our coalition partners previously
agreed a conference motion asking for the provision of some safe standing
areas to be considered. I remember that the hon. Member for Bradford South
and I kicked about the issue, if that is not an unfortunate pun, a year or
so ago when we were on opposite sides of the House. At the urging of the
hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster), I have reconsidered the issue, as I
promised in opposition we would. I have written to all the football
authorities, and we are in the process of collating their responses.
I say gently to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe that he was right to quote
the letter from the Football League. As he correctly said, they replied:
"Football League clubs, particularly Leagues One and Two, are evidence that
standing at football is safe when managed correctly."
But the next sentence reads:
"However, we cannot support a retrograde step that would lead to clubs
seeking to replace seating with terracing. The Football League strongly
supports existing legislation."
There is a balance to be struck. We are in the process of collating football
authorities' responses. I am keeping an open mind, but to be honest, there
is no groundswell of opinion from the football authorities in favour of a
change. I think that they are just as scarred by the Hillsborough experience
as many of us who are or have been in government. That is a powerful
backdrop and should always be so. There is considerable nervousness about
moving, giving that backdrop.
Steve Rotheram: I think that the Minister would agree that this country has
had an exemplary record since the Hillsborough tragedy, but that is not
necessarily the case for the rest of the footballing world. Because of
all-standing stadiums, there are tragedies all too regularly in which people
are crushed to death, and it is obvious that that fear is the backdrop
against which my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe has put forward his
proposals.
Hugh Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and, once
again, for the excellent debate on football that he secured in this Chamber
a few months ago. He has put his finger exactly on the issue. The matter is
characterised less by people being at either one end of the argument or the
other, and more by a balance of risk somewhere in the middle.
I absolutely accept the arguments that the hon. Member for Scunthorpe has
put forward, and many people feel that the risk could be safely managed in
such a way that retains the traditional feel of football clubs. On the other
hand, a considerable body of opinion on the other side of the line would
argue that there are a number of reasons why that should not happen. On the
balance of opinion, therefore, and given the backdrop of Hillsborough, we
must do nothing that could in any way lead to such a tragedy. That, in a
nutshell, is the argument about balance that I am trying to sum up.
8 Dec 2010 : Column 101WH
We have looked at the experience of other countries and will continue to do
so. I am aware of the arrangements in Germany, funnily enough, because I
attended football matched there when I was serving in the forces in the
early 1990s. I am also aware that things have moved on considerably in the
18 or 19 years since then. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe might be
interested to know that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee is planning
to look at the matter in the new year as part of its wide-ranging inquiry on
football governance and intends to visit Germany to look at the experience
there, so the matter remains current and is being examined.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's football club, to which I once again pay
tribute for its achievements, the difficulty is that it has had three years
to comply with the requirement. I understand why it does not welcome any
sort of financial outlay in the current economic situation, particularly to
make a correction that it does not feel is necessary on grounds of safety.
However, since Hillsborough there has been a set of basic criteria governing
the regulation of football. That has been lifted only once, for Cardiff
City, because of a particular set of circumstances.
I can promise the hon. Gentleman today that we will most certainly keep the
experience in other countries in the forefront of our minds. It is not a
matter that we will review once and then drop. The fact that the hon. Member
for Bradford South and I discussed that at considerable length when he was
in government and I was in opposition should give the hon. Member for
Scunthorpe confidence that it is something that the Government keep
permanently under review. There are also pressure groups that ensure that we
keep it permanently under review, and we will continue to do so. I will wait
until I have received all the responses and then have some proper police
advice, so for the moment I am keeping an open mind.
However, it would be dishonest not to tell the hon. Gentleman today that in
my view the judgment will very much relate to the balance of opinion, and
there is not a groundswell of opinion, from either the football authorities
or the police, that would support a change in the legislation. For the
moment, I simply congratulate him on securing the debate and for the way in
which he has raised the matter. I appreciate the sensible and constructive
way in which he has brought the problem forward. Most importantly, I wish
his club good luck; it is a fantastic example of what we are looking for in
community football. We will keep the issue under review, but I am afraid
that I do not think that there is a compelling case at the moment for
altering the rules, set against the backdrop of the Hillsborough disaster 20
years ago.
11.24 am
Sitting suspended.
_______________________________________________
Leedslist mailing list
Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist
To unsubscribe, email [email protected]
MARCHING ON TOGETHER
