Page:Hillsborough Taylor Interim Report Cm765.pdf/53

 '''CHAPTER 15 THE PERIMETER GATES WERE TOO SMALL'''

The perimeter gates in the pens were not designed as exits. They were intended to afford access by the police to cope with any local disorder or with an emergency. The kind of emergency contemplated was not massive crushing but, for example, the collapse or illness of an individual. Emergency evacuation of the pens had been considered by the Officer Working Party. Although fire risk was minimal since the terraces, west stand and tunnel were of concrete construction, the fire brigade were the principal arbiters of evacuation procedure. They aimed to be able to empty the pens in six minutes. The plan was to evacuate spectators via the tunnel. If for any reason that option became impracticable, eg due to a bomb threat, then the alternative route would be along the back of the terraces, through the gates in the radial fences and round the sides of the west stand. The fire brigade were satisfied that each of these routes would enable the pens to be evacuated in less than six minutes, without relying on the gates to the pitch. Those gates would also be available, but their use was excluded from the calculation of evacuation time.

The need to provide for speedy and large scale evacuation from the front of the pens to the pitch was not anticipated. The Green Guide (1986) provides as follows: ""209. Access to the pitch must be made as difficult as possible in normal circumstances while at the same time ensuring that the police have effective access to the terraces for the purpose of crowd control and enabling the pitch to be used (where appropriate) in the event of serious emergency &hellip;

214. &hellip; at some major soccer stadia, where restriction on crowd movement forms a necessary part of the safety measures, it may be necessary to have a fence which prevents access to the pitch in normal circumstances &hellip; but allows for access in emergency.

215. For most major stadia, whether used for association football or other sports, the pitch perimeter fence will be required either to prevent access to the pitch as mentioned above, or at least to discourage attempts by spectators to enter the playing area. Gates or other access points (minimum width 1.1 metres) should nonetheless be provided for use in an emergency &hellip; Provision of such gates or access points is particularly important to allow full access to the playing area (or track) where it is likely to be used as a place of safety in an emergency. Such gates or access points should be properly stewarded and clearly marked so that immediate access to the playing area or perimeter track can be ensured"."

Gate 3 was .82 metres in width; gate 4 was .79 metres in width. There were therefore clear departures from the Green Guide standard.

The Safety Certificate provided (by Schedule 2 Paragraph 24) as follows:

"The (club) shall arrange for the Stadium to be inspected by a suitably qualified Chartered Engineer &hellip; at least once each period of 12 months &hellip; and &hellip; shall as soon as possible after each inspection supply to the &hellip; Council a Certificate by the said Chartered Engineer as to the current compliance or non-compliance with &hellip; the appropriate provisions and recommendations of the (Green) Guide of all structural parts of the Stadium &hellip;"

It was argued that there was no breach of the Safety Certificate since the Green Guide specifically provides for flexibility. However, in my view the Safety Certificate cannot and certainly should not be interpreted so liberally as in effect to leave such basic requirements as the size of exit gates to the total discretion of the club and its advisers. One of the matters for consideration at stage two of this inquiry will be whether, and in what respects, the Green Guide needs to be clarified and toughened.

Dr Eastwood explained the small width of the gates by reference to the dilemma facing the police. They wanted a gate sufficient for its intended purpose ie police access and small scale emergencies. On the other hand, they did not want a flood gate of such size as to endanger the prime principle of preventing pitch invasions. In the light of Hillsborough, this is perhaps the most poignant example of the difficulty of achieving a balance between stopping hooliganism and ensuring crowd safety.

Even if the width of gates 3 and 4 had complied with the present Green Guide standard, they would have been wholly inadequate to relieve pressure and release spectators swiftly on 15 April. Moreover, the Green Guide says nothing about the number of gates required for a pen of given size. Whilst the Club, 45