Why can't we stand?

STANDING at Premier League football is one of the most controversial issues currently facing football.

This season the authorities have warned Saints fans that the Northam Stand at St Mary's faces closure if supporters continue to persistently stand during home games and there have been several clashes with the police.

The problem has cooled since the Daily Echo entered the debate and won high-profile backing in its campaign for the issue to again be raised in parliament.

In an exclusive interview with Jeremy Wilson, sports minister Richard Caborn explained the issues surrounding reintroducing standing at football and outlined why he still feels there is not enough evidence for a return to safe terracing at football matches.

JW: What is the thinking behind banning standing at football matches in the top two divisions?

RC: At present, clubs in the FA Premier League and Division One of the Football League are required to have all-seater stadia under the licensing system introduced by the Football Spectators Act 1989.

The primary reason for the government's all-seater policy is safety.

The present policy implements the recommendations of the Taylor Report, which followed the tragic events at Hillsborough in 1989.

As is well known, Lord Taylor identified a number of causes of the disaster.

But he regarded his all-seater recommendation as the single most important message of his report.

A number of people have said that we must move on from Hillsborough. I am not convinced of that.

As a local MP, I was at the ground the day after the disaster. I will not agree to any change in our policy if there remains the slightest chance that Hillsborough - or anything like it - could ever happen again.

JW: If it could be proved that systems of standing were safe would the government reconsider its current position?

RC: Yes. But it would have to be proved beyond doubt. There can be no compromise on safety.

I have made it very clear to the supporters' groups that I remain to be convinced that there is a compelling case for a return to standing.

I would require much more evidence. We cannot play fast and loose with safety.

JW: Are you aware of the new and original safe standing system that has recently been developed by the organisation Sporting Solutions in Bristol? If so, would you accept it represents new evidence and therefore justifies a reopening of the debate?

RC: I am not aware of the precise details of this system. This organisation has not submitted any evidence to my Department or the Football Licensing Authority. So it cannot be assessed.

I would be happy to consider any evidence on new standing systems from the supporters' groups or others.

Until then, the all-seater policy will remain in place because all the available evidence shows that it is still necessary.

The FLA's statistical evidence shows that spectators are approximately twice as likely to be injured in standing terraces than in seated areas.

Advances in stadium technology have made no difference to this - the proportions remained consistent throughout the 1990s.

So as far as DCMS is concerned, there is no such thing as "safe standing" at Premier or First Division grounds as we stand.

However it is configured, a standing terrace is still a standing terrace.

JW: Many say the government is running away from having the debate and that a Private Members' Bill was deliberately talked out of Parliament. What would you say to this?

RC: I can understand why people who feel strongly about this would see things that way. But they are misinformed.

There was no attempt to talk Roger Godsiff's Bill out. I was at the House of Commons when the Bill was to be debated last year.

It was on the Order Paper, and I was ready to respond on behalf of the government. The simple reason why the Bill was not heard was time constraint.

This unfortunately happens to a great many Private Members' Bills.

JW: Systems of safe standing work without any problems in Germany. What makes it unsafe in Britain?

RC: Ground design, policing arrangements and supporter culture are all very different in Germany.

We are also not talking about 'safe standing' as such there.

Some of the larger German stadia include areas of convertible seating, introduced mainly because of the demands of Uefa and Fifa.

We have looked at these in great detail. Our review of the all-seater policy in early 2001 included a detailed assessment of the German designs.

My predecessor as Minister for Sport asked the FLA to carry out technical site visits at German grounds. The conclusions were clear.

The FLA's report, submitted on 5 March 2001, concluded that convertible seating could not practically be introduced in the UK for reasons of cost and safety. Chris Smith accordingly announced that the all- seater policy would remain in place, and that remains the position.

The government does not consider that German practice materially affects the arguments for or against the re-introduction of standing as such.

JW: What is the thinking behind having different rules for lower division clubs?

RC: After a further review of Lord Taylor's recommendations in July 1992, the then government announced that clubs in the second and third divisions would be allowed to keep some standing accommodation, providing the terracing was safe and met the requirements of the 'Green Guide' to stadium safety.

This was for two reasons.

Firstly, lower division clubs generally attract much lower attendances, and crowd densities are much lower. Secondly, it would have been unreasonable even then to expect all lower division clubs to convert to all-seater when their crowds are much lower.

Clubs have been struggling to meet their costs for some time, and the situation is now even worse after the ITV Digital collapse.

JW: If it is safe to stand in a large crowd at pop concerts, why is it unsafe at a football match?

RC: This is a completely different issue. Pop concerts present very different safety and public order issues to football.

JW: If the reality of the situation is that fans stand in seated areas (which experts say is dangerous) wouldn't it make more sense to accept this and make dedicated standing areas as safe as possible?

RC: No. The fact that a minority of supporters wish to demonstrate their opposition to sitting, and endanger themselves and others by doing so, is not a reason for changing a very necessary policy.

Persistent standing in seated areas is an issue that the football authorities, the local authorities and the government continue to work on. The FLA has produced an action plan for addressing persistent standing, and I am fully behind that.

The plan sets out a range of possible responses including selective ground closures. Local authorities who have continuing problems with persistent standing can exercise their powers under the Safety at Sports Grounds Act.

This would mean issuing a Prohibition Order to prevent use of those areas of the ground where persistent standing is endangering spectator safety.

The government would rather not go down that route, but we will if this is necessary to ensure public safety.

JW: Do you accept standing at football matches is part of the heritage of the national game?

RC: This may have been the case once. But stadiums are now more family and community friendly.

I think it's a step in the right direction from the 'dark old' days of standing huddled on cold terraces with no roof. Stadiums are moving on with the times.

JW: If fans want to stand at football matches, why should it be an issue for government?

RC: Because the safety of the public dictates that the government must be involved - exactly as it must be in any other comparable area. We must be clear on this.

Experimenting with standing areas when we are not yet sure of the technical evidence could lead to people being killed.

JW: Do you think fans standing was the main cause of the Hillsborough disaster?

RC: There were a number of contributory causes of the disaster. Lord Taylor went into a great deal of detail about failures of policing and stewarding, and the existence of perimeter fencing.

But his primary conclusion was clear, and is well worth bringing to the attention of your readers: "There is no panacea which will achieve total safety and cure all problems of behaviour and crowd control. But I am satisfied that seating does more to achieve those objectives than any other measure."

The fact is that, whatever the other causes of the disaster, it would not have happened if the Leppings Lane end was not a standing terrace.

Whatever slant people want to put on all this, we cannot get away from that.

JW: A recent national survey said 90 per cent of fans thought clubs should have the power to decide whether they built standing areas. Is this an issue you sense football fans feel strongly about?

RC: Of course. Many fans have made their views very clear to my Department over the last two years.

The results of this survey cannot be ignored, but we must remember that it does not tell the whole story.

There is a vocal minority of supporters who see the re-introduction of standing as their main priority. Presenting the views of that minority as a consensus would be very misleading.

I see a lot of football at Sheffield United and elsewhere.

A great many fans are happy with the all- seater policy. Many are also irritated by having to stand up to see the match because those in front of them are on their feet.

These fans are not part of any campaigning minority, and simply want to watch football in comfort and safety. A lot of them also don't take part in surveys designed to advance a particular point of view.

It is part of my job to take account of the interests of all football supporters - not just those who make the most noise.