Football: Safe Standing

Debate between Luke Hall and Mary Glindon

Monday 25th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Luke Hall]

The hon. Gentleman is right to put his constituents’ comments on the record, which are duly noted and replicated by many Yate Town football fans who have spoken to me on this matter.

As we explore the various arguments, we are tasked with comparing a 30-year period of improvements in supporter safety with the relatively early years in the introduction of safe standing and some of the examples already mentioned. The Government are asking for a long period of time to assess the impact of rail seating.

One solution is to devolve responsibility on safe standing to local authorities, who could in turn take advice from the safety advisory groups, which often consist of a local authority, the police, fire and ambulance services, and other relevant groups. We already trust local authorities to listen to SAGs when making recommendations and decisions on rugby matches, horse-racing events and music concerts. It is argued that there is an opportunity for those bodies to take on a new and enhanced role, with the Government allowing the decision for a club to introduce safe standing to be recommended and determined by authorities already in place.

Ashton Gate is the home of Bristol City football club and Bristol Rugby—the matches are held in the same ground. Yet the ground regulations on standing, for each sport, are in stark contrast to each other. Bristol City football club previously applied to the local safety advisory group to consider the possibility of introducing safe standing. Rail seating was considered at the start of the redevelopment of Ashton Gate in the 2013-14 and 2014-15 seasons, when the club was in league one. The possibility of progress on that was part of the reason why Bristol Rugby started to play at Ashton Gate. However, Avon and Somerset police have explained that it never took off following advice from the local safety advisory group. That clearly shows that football clubs already adhere to the advice and guidance of local experts and authorities.

The sort of devolution I am describing would require only for the Secretary of State to direct the Sports Grounds Safety Authority through secondary legislation under section 11 of the Football Spectators Act 1989 to allow safe standing in specified areas of the ground. That would allow clubs to future-proof their grounds in case their league status should change, and would allow for grounds such as Ashton Gate to adapt to their dual purpose. If they moved up or down a division, they could make changes to rail seating and whether seats were locked or not, depending on their status.

With the ability to install such seating, each club could be in a position to comply with the legislation but could also have the opportunity to consult their SAG on whether safe standing in certain areas could be pursued. Introducing safe standing could become an individual case-by-case decision, taking into account the varying opinions at each club, and the differing circumstances. It is argued that local authorities and SAGs are best placed and most suitably equipped to recommend safe standing.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Would the hon. Gentleman say that there is an exception in which it might always be important to install safe standing, because away supporters tend to stand? At Newcastle United the away supporters are right up in the gods, and stand in a dangerous position. Might that be an exception for every ground?

[Luke Hall]

The point that the hon. Lady highlights is right. The important point is that devolving the decision to local authorities, which would take into account the police’s experience of dealing with issues at specific clubs and in specific stands, would provide more flexibility.

The debate centres on enhancing safety and control. It is about the extent to which devolution is required, and to which we trust local authorities to make the decisions in question—while ensuring that supporters get the best possible match day experience. I would welcome clarification from the Minister of the exact evidence that will be required before progress can be made. I would also welcome her thoughts about whether the sport might be best served by devolving the decisions to local authorities, which might be better placed to consider each application to install safe standing on its individual merits. The matter is one of particular sensitivity to people on all sides of the debate, and I hope that the points that are raised during the debate will receive fair and careful consideration and understanding.