| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Gill: I shall quote from the treaty which was signed between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation in November 1992. It was a treaty of peace and friendship. Article 1 reads:
"There shall be peace and friendship between the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
The second sentence of article 3, which comprises seven lines, states that the parties
Column 369
"affirm that relations between them will be governed in particular by their commitments under the documents of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, including the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris for a new Europe and the Helsinki Document of 1992."If we take all these proposals in isolation, they appear to be innocent. But they cannot be taken in isolation. We must have regard to what else has been signed and the cross-referencing that ensues, which means that our freedom to manoeuvre as a country is severely circumscribed. That is part of the grand design of the Russian strategists.
I think that the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) will agree that, when we are examining treaties, it is important to read their texts. It is necessary to read and understand the precise language that is used. That point will not be wasted on right hon. and hon. Members who are only now awakening to the significance and consequences of the Maastricht treaty, which sadly not all of us have read--I except myself.
I have read the documents that are before us and I question why we need a collective political dialogue between the European Union and Russia, especially in the light of the Russian strategy to establish hegemony over the Union. Britain's interests would be better served, in my opinion, by independent, bilateral, arm's length dialogue, and nothing more.
I note the use of the adjective "regular" in the draft agreements. When the EU uses "regular", it signifies an intention to institutionalise dialogue. In other words, the EU will become engaged in continuing negotiations with Russia. That is precisely what the Russian strategists intend.
I do not agree that we should allow the EU to have continuing dialogue and negotiations with the Russians, in whom it is unwise to place so much trust. The House should not facilitate a further erosion of our sovereignty, freedom of action and independence. The political independence of the so-called successor states in Russia is strictly provisional. That has been made clear, inter alia, by Mr. Primakov, the head of the Russian foreign intelligence service. On 13 December 1994, The Independent reminded its readers that three months earlier Mr. Primakov had said in Moscow that, apart from the three Baltic republics, the other 12 former republics which belonged to the Soviet Union would largely reunite. In other words, the picture that we see now is not the one that may be established in the fulness of time.
By entering into agreements with the successor states, the EU will find that when the Soviet Union re-establishes itself, which I suggest it might well do, the agreements will continue after the model of the United Nations membership of Ukraine and Belorussia when the Soviet Union existed overtly.
The draft agreements suggest that the economic co-operation dimension is open ended. I do not agree that it is wise to allow the EU carte blanche to negotiate open-ended economic co-operation arrangements on our behalf. Does such negotiation mean--this is a serious and important question--that Russian experts, including security agents, will be allowed free rein within our military and industrial complex, in our industries and
Column 370
utilities, for example? Of course it does. The House should stop to think what such collective agreements would entail.In "The Perestroika Deception", Anatoly Golitsyn shows that the west has fallen for an elaborate strategic deception and is being manipulated by a group of Leninist strategists. The object of Russian strategy is the destruction of the nation states and their replacement by collective blocs and networks, with the ultimate Leninist goal of world government. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is interested in what I am saying. I think that he is nodding in agreement. Every time that the House--
Mr. Tony Banks: Why are all the statues of Lenin being pulled down if there is a Leninist strategy?
Mr. Gill: The hon. Gentleman is gullible to think that the past is indeed the past. The absurdity of that approach never ceases to amaze me. What would the hon. Gentleman say if I crossed the Floor and declared that I was a socialist? Would he believe me? He would be wrong to believe me, because I am a capitalist, not a socialist. It stretches credulity to its absolute bounds to think that suddenly, overnight, all those who were Communists will suddenly adopt a new philosophy and belief, with the result that everything will be different. I use this opportunity to warn the House and the country that that is not the truth.
Every time the House approves one of these collective agreements, not least treaties agreed by the collective of the European Union, it contributes to the furtherance of the Russian strategy. It is high time that Parliament woke up to what is going on and ended the automatic acceptance of a politically correct view of the world. As a start, the House could do much worse than to make it clear to the Foreign Office that it disapproves of its tactics, of its collectivist approach to Britain's interests and of its evident practice of placing the interests of Moscow before those of this country and this country's people.
6.40 pm
Mr. Harold Elletson (Blackpool, North): I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I had not intended to speak; I intended merely to intervene, but my hon. Friend the Minister did not give way, so I am afraid that I shall have to detain you and him with a few remarks.
The agreement is very important because it promotes trade and opens markets, but it also extends democracy and human rights. The provisions of the treaties in that regard are extremely important. Perhaps even more important at this time, however, is the signal that it sends to the Russian Government, to Boris Yeltsin and to those who surround him and control and manipulate the levers of power in the Kremlin.
The Chechen war, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) mentioned, has shaken the Russian political system in a way that has not been fully recognised in this country. It was a shock to those who support the democratic and reform movement in Russia. I believe that they have not had the support from this country and from the west that they deserve.
What concerns me about going ahead with the partnership agreement is precisely the signal that it sends, because, contrary to what my hon. Friend said, Chechnya
Column 371
has been largely ignored by the west. The conflict has involved the loss of 30,000 lives so far--most of them Chechen civilians, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) said, Russian civilians too. It has involved the loss of 16,000 young Russian conscript soldiers and the destruction of a massive amount of property throughout the Chechen Republic.We should not have ignored the conflict--we ignore what it says about the nature of Boris Yeltsin's Government and the stability of the Russian regime at our peril. If we do not take proper account of the situation, address it now and learn the lessons that we should learn from it, it will come back to haunt us again and again in many years to come. In that respect, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow was absolutely right.
My hon. Friend the Minister says that we are not sweeping the Chechen experience under the carpet. I believe that that is precisely what we are doing. We are not taking account, for example, of the cost of the Chechen war, which one Russian economist, Ilarionov, has estimated to be $5 billion so far. We, the International Monetary Fund and the European Union are providing the financial means for the Russian Government to continue that war. That is unacceptable. When we proceed with these agreements, we are supporting and rendering assistance to those within the Russian Government who believe that they can get away with it, that they can dupe the west, that somehow the whole situation will be ignored over time and that we can return to the status quo ante. That is extremely dangerous. I believe that the attitude adopted by the European Parliament--of refusing to ratify this agreement--was absolutely right.
We must also take account of other issues that show the true nature of the Russian Government at the moment. The House has expressed its concern-- Germany in particular has shown its extreme concern--about the decision of the Russian Government to export plutonium-producing nuclear reactors to Iran. That clearly shows what a dangerous and unstable threat Russia poses in that region. We must bear in mind the comments and the attitude of the Russian Government towards the conventional forces in Europe treaty. Having signed up to it, they have chosen to ignore its provisions so that they can deploy thousands of extra infantry and tanks on their southern flank. That shows their attitude towards international treaties.
We should be absolutely resolute in our condemnation of the Russian Government's methods and practices over that, because if we believe that we can trust them when they sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, given what they have done with a similar defence treaty, we are absolutely mistaken. If we go ahead with the agreement, we must make it quite clear that we condemn absolutely the methods that they have used in Chechnya; that we condemn the fact that they have ignored the conventional forces in Europe treaty; that we condemn the fact that they are trying to sell nuclear reactors to Iran; and that we shall continue to resist them and continue to support those who truly champion democracy in Russia.
My hon. Friend the Minister should take very seriously Conservative Members' concerns about what is happening in Russia and about further extending our co-operation with the Russian Government. We should make it quite clear tonight, to anybody from Moscow who is listening and who is watching our deliberations, that we go ahead with the agreement with a very heavy heart and that we
Column 372
certainly do not intend that it should show any approval for the dangerous, destructive and destabilising policies that the Russian Government have adopted.6.46 pm
Mr. David Davis: With the leave of the House--
Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister is a Marxist-Leninist stooge.
Mr. Davis: I have listened with interest to the views expressed by hon. Members, occasionally with amazement, particularly to the admission of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that we are all capitalists now.
One of the most important challenges facing the west today is to build a long-standing, lasting, substantial relationship with the countries of the former Soviet Union, not for its own sake but our own interest. We in the west need to use all the means at our disposal to nurture what embryonic reform already exists, to act as a catalyst for further reform and to give the Russians and Ukrainians rewards and encouragement for continuing along the difficult road on which they have embarked.
The partnership and co-operation agreements make significant contributions towards building such a relationship, but I note the concerns that have been expressed about the merits of introducing the agreement with Russia at this stage, and take the points that have been made. The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin), who speaks for the Opposition, made some good points on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) gave a balanced view of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson)--he may be surprised to hear me say--made some very useful comments, too. His points about the weaponry of the former Soviet Union states, particularly Russia, are important, but we are conscious of them and took them into account in the treaties that we have with them--the CFE and the strategic arms reduction talks. We are not naive about them. I shall return to that in a moment.
I was rather amazed to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) refer to me as a collectivist. That is perhaps the obverse side of the comments made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. My hon. Friend asked specifically about the agreements and referred to them as treaties: they are not strictly treaties. We are required to ratify them because they are mixed agreements--some provisions fall within the competence of member states, and others within Community competence. All member states must ratify the agreements before they can enter into force. By ratifying the agreements, we provide the basis under UK law by which we can implement the provisions of the agreements.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East was right when she intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow and said that the agreements can be suspended if we do not believe that the conditions that apply under them are being met, including human rights and other conditions. We are not, in that sense, becoming trapped in long-term agreements. The agreements are valid for 10 years. They can, of course, be renewed, but they can also be suspended throughout their duration. That is the important
Column 373
component of the operation of the agreements --and, as the hon. Member for Gateshead, East pointed out, the co-operation councils will monitor their implementation.In describing me as a collectivist, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow missed the point, that bilateral dialogue with Russia and Ukraine will continue. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to Mr. Kozyrev, and raised a number of the points that have been raised today about human rights and similar matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow also said that we were caught in a web of treaties and agreements with Russia, such as the Helsinki Final Act and the Paris charter; but it is through such agreements that Russia has committed itself to respecting human rights, democratic norms and so forth. That means that, unlike the former Soviet Union, Russia cannot say that we are interfering in its internal affairs when we continue to challenge and criticise it over Chechnya. That--as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North will recall--was the classic refrain in the days of the Soviet Union. It is true to say--my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow picked up this point, in terms of its obverse effect--that, under the conventional forces in Europe treaty and other agreements on the control of nuclear weapons, we are committed to allowing intrusive Russian inspections of our military establishments to check our compliance with weapons destruction provisions. But we have exactly the same rights in Russia: the commitments are reciprocal. I assure my hon. Friend that we send inspectors who are sufficiently expert to ensure that the Russians are complying with their obligations. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West is present, let me deal briefly with one of his points. We in the House have an objective: to ensure that our western institutions are used to engage Russia so that it acts according to internationally accepted norms of behaviour. That includes human rights, an issue that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has raised a number of times. May I ask the hon. Member for Newham, North-West to write to me about the specific issue of prisoners? I cannot give him an instant response.
Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the Minister for his response; I would expect no less from him. I have one of the darts to which I referred: it provides a graphic illustration of what I was saying. I shall bring it to the Minister, and I should be very grateful if he took the matter up.
Mr. Davis: I am only glad that the hon. Gentleman is not going to fire his dart across the Chamber. As he knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) deals with our relations with Russia, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to his attention.
Events in Chechnya show us all that Russia has a long time to go before meeting the standards that we expect, but my hon. Friends are wrong if they think that we do not take the position seriously. What we are debating, in fact, is not that, but the method whereby we can ensure that the Russian Government's behaviour improves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East raised the question of Chechnya and the OSCE. The OSCE brokered talks in Gorazde on 25 May between
Column 374
Russian representatives and those of Dudayev --led, I believe, by Dudayev's Justice Minister. Further rounds are planned, but for the moment the two sides remain far apart.My hon. Friend also raised the question of the Council of Europe. I agree with him that Russia must go a good deal further to satisfy the Council that it is ready for membership. I understand that the human rights sub- committee is preparing to visit Moscow and Chechnya; I have no doubt that it will wish to discuss events in Chechnya, and the visits will also provide the sub-committee with an opportunity to raise other issues--such as prison conditions, which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West mentioned. We regularly discuss human rights matters with the Russians, and will continue to do so.
Both the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow raised the issue of the European Parliament. The text of the partnership and co-operation agreements has just been passed to the European Parliament; in formal terms, it has not even begun the process of assent, but we understand that the position has been clarified.
The hon. Lady asked me about ratification by Denmark. The timing of ratification is a matter for individual member states. Denmark has decided not to begin the process until the situation in Chechnya has improved, but- -as I explained in my opening statement--by approving the orders we are not giving up the opportunity to maintain pressure on the Russians to find a peaceful solution to the situation in Chechnya. Once the process of ratification is complete, we will look closely at progress before making the concluding decision that will allow the agreement to enter into force. We are not giving up any levers by proceeding with the ratification process today--and, as the hon. Lady herself pointed out, we always have the lever of suspension, even after final ratification.
The hon. Lady said that she did not think that the United Kingdom was doing very well in regard to trade with Russia. It is not surprising that Germany has capitalised on its traditional influence. It buys gas from Russia-- something that we are not in a position to do. Moreover, UK exports to the former Soviet Union have doubled since 1991. Russia is now the United Kingdom's 32nd highest export area. Two dedicated export promoters from the Department of Trade and Industry are working in Russia, and another will go in the autumn. I think that the Government are doing a good deal in that regard. In 1994, exports to Russia amounted to £700 million--up 22 per cent. on 1993. Exports to Ukraine amounted to £86 million--up 18 per cent. Given the difficulties faced by some of the economies involved, that strikes me as a remarkable performance. UK investment in Russia can be measured by the fact that 250 UK companies have offices in Moscow, and the figure is increasing at a rate of 10 a month. I do not think that the hon. Lady gave sufficient credit to our performance; we have much to be proud of.
The hon. Lady asked which issues were the hardest to resolve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow doubtless understands--given his views--when we deal with the Russians a hard bargain must always be driven; tough negotiations are involved. Banking, trade and nuclear materials are important examples of that. The Ukraine agreement was much more straightforward--largely because the negotiations on the Russian agreement preceded it. A liberal outcome resulted.
Column 375
The hon. Lady mentioned aid related to the Chernobyl disaster. The G7 Naples summit last July agreed an action plan to help Ukraine to reform its energy sector, including the closure of Chernobyl. The G7 countries pledged $200 million in grant to support the plan and the European Union offered 100 mecu in technical assistance--in grant, that is--and 400 mecu in loans. The plan is now being discussed with the Ukrainians. As for the balance-of-payments aid related to that, European Union Finance Ministers have set certain conditions for the release of such assistance, including a requirement for progress on nuclear safety. We believe that those conditions have been met. Further delay in giving support for necessary economic reform would delay rather than advance the day when Chernobyl is closed. The hon. Lady asked about agriculture. The agreements aim to help agrarian reform and the agro- industrial sector to develop domestic and foreign markets for agricultural produce. They also aim to achieve the gradual approximation of Russian and Ukrainian standards to Community technical regulations on industrial and agricultural food products. Beyond that, Ukraine did not ask for agricultural concessions. The agreement provides for co-operation between the European Union and the Ukraine to help the Ukrainian agricultural sector. That was as much as was asked for and given.The hon. Lady asked about internal political aspects in the Ukraine. I am pleased to report that today President Kuchma and the Speaker of Parliament, Mr. Moroz, signed a constitutional agreement, approved by Parliament yesterday, bringing into effect the law on power, which was previously disputed between the President and Parliament. That agreement means that the President has been able to appoint a new Prime Minister. A new Government will be formed shortly.
I am confident that continued reform in Russia and the Ukraine is in all our interests and that we in the west must do what we can to encourage and to promote that, not blindly, and not by turning a blind eye to those matters that are most difficult and that need to be dealt with, but we must encourage it nevertheless. The partnership and co-operation agreements will provide an important political signal of the European Union's full support for the process of reform--that is the important point--and that in itself is valuable. More substantially, however, they will also provide practical and technical assistance in a range of sectors to help that process along. On that basis, I commend the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Russian Federation) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 20th March, be approved. Resolved,
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and Ukraine) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.-- [Mr. Wood.]
Column 376
English Football Supporters
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Wood.]
7.1 pm
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): In this Adjournment debate, I wish to raise the subject of the treatment of English football supporters abroad. It is best to declare my interests at the outset. I am a member of the board of Chelsea Pitch Owners, which earns me no remuneration, expenses or, I might say, even thanks. Secondly, I am a Chelsea season-ticket holder, which costs me £500 a year. In view of the comments made by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) in the previous debate, I should declare also that the Chelsea goalkeeper is a Russian. His name is Dimitri Kharin. As far as I am aware, he is not part of the Marxist-Leninist plot of which we have been hearing. If he is, I await next season with great interest. I have been an avid Chelsea supporter for more than 40 years. During that long period, we have not been spoilt with success. If one adds to that my membership of the Labour party, I suppose that one can see that life appears to have dealt me something of a bum hand, but, in politics as in football, it is best to travel optimistically.
I last secured an Adjournment debate on the subject of football and the behaviour of football supporters abroad and at home on 19 April 1985. It might sound somewhat immodest but my speech on that occasion is worth a revisit. Among my recommendations to Neil Macfarlane, then Minister with responsibility for sport, were the following. I said that grounds
"should be all seating, covered and divided into small secure sections with closed circuit television."--[ Official Report , 19 April 1985; Vol. 77, c. 596.]
I said that the courts should impose more custodial sentences on convicted hooligans and community work orders on match days for offenders, that clubs should provide many more voluntary stewards for self-policing of their crowds, that clubs should operate membership schemes, without which admission to grounds would be denied, that the police should set up specialised teams of officers to provide intelligence on known troublemakers, and that the police should travel with supporters to away matches and brief other local police forces.
I specifically urged that on the Minister in column 601. He said that he would draw the Home Secretary's attention to my suggestion, but it took until March 1990--some five years later--for the national football intelligence unit to be set up. It took until 1989, under the terms of Football Spectators Act 1989, for exclusion orders to be implemented for convicted hooligans. Regrettably and tragically, it took the Hillsborough disaster on 15 April 1989 to produce the Taylor report and the requirement for all-seater stadiums.
I mention those items of 10 years ago not to state my claim for being particularly original in my thinking but simply to illustrate that, if only Ministers had listened more carefully to those many football supporters who know something about the game as a spectator sport, so much trouble could have been avoided in recent years and possibly many lives could have been saved.
Politicians who know little or nothing about football but who do not hesitate to rush into television studios or into print in reaction to a particular event are a wretched
Column 377
nuisance. Similarly, legislation that follows in the same knee-jerk fashion is often far more trouble than help. I yield to no one in the House or even outside in my condemnation of those brain-dead louts, fascists and drunken troublemakers who have done so much damage to our national game. That is what my 1985 debate was all about, warning Ministers about events that were then taking place--to which no great political attention was being paid--and the likely consequences of a lack of action.There are times when it does not give one any satisfaction to say, "I told you so," even in politics, but the trouble is that the activities of that small and unrepresentative minority have led to the reputation of English football supporters as the scum of the footballing world. I stress "English" football supporters, because the Scottish, Welsh and Irish supporters enjoy a favourable reputation in football.
The image of the English supporter as a thug has now tragically taken a firm hold in public perception, but the image is simply not the reality in respect of the great majority of football supporters. Most supporters are normal decent people who love their club and the game. They are young, old, black, white, male, female, professional workers, skilled workers, unskilled workers, employed and unemployed. Football is a great leveller and people are accepted when they are a club supporter without reservation or qualification.
People do not ask supporters who they are and what they do. They just accept them as football supporters and one of the family. It breaks down class barriers and, for most, engenders a great feeling of camaraderie and togetherness. Those are the realities of football supporting for the great majority, but, regrettably and tragically, it is not true of all supporters. It is that wretched but significant minority that obsesses politicians, the media and the police. The purpose of the debate is to draw attention to a specific and growing problem, which originates through and in the activities of that minority. In recent months, I have accumulated a disturbing amount of evidence that shows that the image of the English football supporter as a thug is leading to police forces in Europe believing that all travelling supporters are a menace to public safety and that the police can thus deal with them accordingly. Such police forces adopt the attitude that the travelling English supporter left his or her civil and human rights behind on this side of the channel, and that, when they set foot on the continent, the police can declare open season on them.
In the course of my inquiries, I have collected a wide range of personal evidence from individuals and groups, many of whom I know personally, of the most appalling treatment that has been dished out to them by police forces on the continent. My evidence tonight comes essentially from Chelsea and Arsenal supporters following their respective clubs in the European cup winners cup last season. I am fortunate because I have a lot of time at my disposal, but I do not intend unnecessarily to detain the Minister or the House. I do not apologise for giving the following evidence in some detail because we need it on the record. We need Ministers to listen and to take these matters seriously. Genuine football supporters are deeply angry and hurt that no one seems to want to listen to their
Column 378
problems or deal with their complaints. They feel that they are perhaps being treated on this side of the channel almost as they are being treated on the other side. The media are very interested when there is violence, but are not interested when it is perpetrated against English citizens abroad.First, I shall give some details and make some broad general comments that were common to most of the letters that my office has received or that were forwarded to me by supporters and from Arsenal and Chelsea clubs. The first comments relate to the match on 28 February between Club Bruges and Chelsea in Bruges--I was at that match.
Up to 500 Chelsea supporters were herded into a warehouse outside the city in a Belgian police operation before the match. Fans were handcuffed and forced into riot vehicles, with the majority of them seemingly committing the crime of speaking with an English accent. In this giant warehouse, the fans were pushed into huge, purpose-built pens, handcuffed, sprayed with water cannons and offered no food or drink for the next nine hours. At 5 am the following morning, the inmates were deported in handcuffs.
Imagine the rightful outrage there would have been in this country, if the British police had handled visiting foreign supporters in such a way. We would have been right to criticise, but, as the police have told me in discussions, they would not have dreamt of behaving in such a fashion.
One of the letters relating to the warehouse incident comes from Mr. Wheeler of Earslfield, London SW18, who organised a trip to Bruges for 28 business executives. Nine members of the party--none was wearing Chelsea paraphernalia--were arrested outside the stadium about half an hour before kick-off when asked if they were English. They were thrown into a police van, and one was attacked with a baton. All the fans were told that they had been arrested because their tickets were forgeries, but all the tickets had been bought from an official source. The man who bought them is a travel agent and he knew that they were genuine, but the Belgian police were saying, "That's a forgery," and tearing them up in the supporters' faces. What could they do? The evidence had gone; there was nothing they could do. Those business men were among the 500 Chelsea supporters taken to the warehouse on the outskirts of Bruges and held for nine hours-- obviously, they all missed the match. They were not given any food or water, there were no seats, and they were forced to urinate on the spot when nature called because no facilities were provided. Miss McDonnell of Palmers Green, London N13, witnessed camera crews following the Belgian riot police and waiting in anticipation for something to happen. She said:
"I watched from a bar window as Belgian police hit out at people for merely walking along the street. These scenes were later shown on News at Ten and Sky News."
I was at that match and television companies that were not the slightest bit interested in football or the game went there looking for trouble. They wanted to broadcast scenes of English fans rioting on breakfast television the following morning. If one waits and provokes long enough, one will get precisely what one wants. Surely that
Column 379
is not a responsible attitude for the media to take, and I am not prone to criticising the media either in the House or outside. I heard from Mr. Hugo from London N5, whose son went to Bruges with two friends on a four-day break that coincided with the match. Two days before the match, they were in a bar when Belgian police entered, apparently shouting, "All English outside." His son and the two friends were arrested and detained without food or drink for 18 hours. They were"paraded in front of what seemed to be a stage-managed party of press and TV crews."
They were then deported in handcuffs.
I have also received letters about the Real Zaragoza v. Chelsea match on 6 April. Again, I will go over the common reported occurrences in all the letters from Chelsea supporters. The police emptied the contents of fans' bags on to the floor during the search, taking batteries from cameras and discarding them in a heap on the floor--apparently, a move to stop fans using the batteries as missiles. Fans with tickets for the upper tier of the official supporters section were forced to sit in the lower tier--the section of the stadium where the trouble erupted, as I shall explain. There were seemingly motiveless attacks by Spanish police on Chelsea supporters up to three hours prior to the match.
I have heard from a number of people who were giving independent evidence, which I could cross-relate. Young fans--one was a nine-year-old--who travelled to the game with their parents, were manhandled by the Spanish police officers. One youngster had his bag, which he had just bought, ripped open and another was struck with a police baton. Subsequently, his father was beaten up by police officers as a result of his understandable reaction to the attack on his young son. I have evidence from other people who witnessed the scene and who did not know the man or his son. They wrote to me independently and I was able to compare three or four letters, all of which said precisely the same thing. There could not have been any collusion between all those people.
The organisation of seat allocation by ticket number was non-existent, with no apparent control over the situation. Fans were forced to sit in areas far away from their allocated seats, with many becoming separated. I experienced that in Bruges. I was told, "Just get over there." There was no question of the fans being segregated, or of there being any coherent plan to get them to their allocated seats. It was a disgraceful situation and it got even worse when the Chelsea supporters went to Real Zaragoza.
The general feeling among fans sitting in the lower tier, where so much trouble was shown on television, was that the police charged at them for no reason after Zaragoza scored its third goal. A minority of fans in that section then threw chairs as a response to the police charge. Afterwards, I saw independent footage of the scene and that is exactly what happened. The fans were attacked and, having retreated, in the end threw seats at the police, which gave them the reason to attack yet again. Those fans who sat still and tried to ignore and distance themselves from what was going on-- Home Office evidence says that that is exactly what they should do--were then attacked by the police officers as they ran through to get at those throwing the seats, who were provoked into taking that rather irresponsible attitude. Of
Column 380
course, it is easy to say now that one should never be provoked, but unfortunately at the time it was advice that was not easily followed.The police were undoubtedly attacking innocent fans, who were simply trying to ignore or get away from the situation. The Spanish police prevented official Chelsea stewards from entering the lower tier to calm the situation. After the match, two fans were brutally attacked by the police when querying where their coaches were situated.
Those general comments were in a range of letters. On the specific points, Mr. Germaine from Harold Hill in Romford travelled with his wife and three children on official supporters club tickets on the "Green flight". He had tickets to the top tier in the Chelsea section with the official party, but was forced by the police into the lower tier that I just described. He was hit with police batons nine times, while he sat with his family in the stand, trying to ignore what was going on. He decided to leave the stadium to protect the safety of his family, but was again attacked when leaving by the Spanish police. The incident has brought great distress to his wife and his young children.
Mr. Williams from Lancing in West Sussex--a company director who travelled with the official club trip--was attacked by Spanish police as he went into a refreshment bar at the back of the lower tier just after half time. He was hit with batons and suffered severe bruising to his legs. He said:
"I was a lone figure posing no threat to anyone."
W. E. Fowler from Stanwell in Middlesex, a Chelsea football club steward on the trip, claims that the Chelsea stewards in the upper tier were prevented by the police from going into the lower tier to calm the violence.
Mr. Ragot of Westbere road NW2, said that, on returning to his seat in the lower tier of the Chelsea section after visiting the lavatory, he was attacked by police with batons and ejected. While pleading with police outside the stadium that his jacket and passport were still on his seat, he was hit on the back of the head by a policeman on horseback and knocked unconscious. He had to go to Zaragoza hospital to receive treatment for his injury.
Mr. Bargery of Slough in Berkshire witnessed a missile thrown from the Spanish section of the crowd on to the lower tier of Chelsea supporters. As they complained, the police became angry and started "clubbing any and everyone they felt fit to."
Mr. Hedley from Cambridge street, Pimlico and his two friends received a severe beating from Spanish police outside the stadium before the game. Consequently, they missed most of the first half of the match. Mr. Hedley needed medical treatment for his injuries and his two friends were very badly bruised around their backs and legs. A friend travelling with Mr. Dibble from Worcester Park saw a young boy hit with a baton outside the stadium before kick-off. The young boy's father obviously became upset with the policeman and he was beaten up by a group of Spanish police officers as a consequence of his reaction. As I have already mentioned, that case has been cross-referenced.
Mr. O'Rourke from Wembley in Middlesex had a ticket for the upper tier with the official party but was forced by the police to sit in the lower tier. Many people tried to sit in their allocated seats but were forced into the lower tier, where the trouble occurred. As the trouble erupted, Mr.
Column 381
O'Rourke was attacked by two police officers while sitting in his seat. He lost his glasses and suffered bruising to his shoulders and legs.Mr. Harrison from Lower Bourne, Farnham, paid more than £300 for himself and a friend to watch the match. He said that they witnessed good- humoured Chelsea fans attacked by police outside a bar three hours prior to the game. Mr. Harrison also had a ticket for the upper tier. He was told by the Spanish authorities that he could sit anywhere that he liked and he decided to sit in the less-crowded lower tier. That was a mistake on his part. As the trouble erupted, he stayed in his seat, only to be attacked by two policemen. He suffered bruising to his kidneys and back. He and his friend decided to leave the match early for their own safety. These people paid good money to go to that match. They wanted to see football, they wanted to enjoy Zaragoza and have good time. They did not and they came home very bitter indeed.
Mr. Goodwin of Walton-on-the-Hill, Tadworth--not a place one associates with hooligans--had a ticket for the upper tier but was told by Spanish police that it was impossible for him to sit there. The entire contents of his bag were emptied on to the floor during a police search procedure. He said:
"For the first time in my life I was frightened for my own safety and attempted to leave the lower tier through the sole available exit. Upon doing so I was confronted by more Spanish police who, rather than assist in pacifying a situation, seemed intent on inflaming it by further liberally indiscriminate use of their batons.
They refused to let anybody leave, and anyone who did manage to evade them and reach the concourse ran the risk of further beatings. I feel sure that it was solely due to my knowledge of the Spanish language that I was struck only twice before finding comparative safety in a toilet cubicle. I feel fortunate, unlike two other innocents who I saw left lying in pools of blood in the concourse. I and these others were not mindless right wing thugs, merely Chelsea supporters fleeing for our own safety."
Mr. Kyte, a senior manager for London Transport, and his brother paid £235 for the trip and travelled with the official club party. They saw only 25 minutes of the game because of a police attack on them while they sat in the lower tier of the Chelsea section. His brother had to go to hospital in England suffering from severe concussion after having bad head pains and sickness on the return journey.
Mr. Robinson, a solicitor and secretary of the Diadora football league, said that many of the fans in the lower tier where the trouble erupted were sitting in their seats holding their hands up in an obvious sign of peaceful intention. Many of those fans, however, were still struck by passing police officers. He also commented that alcohol was freely on sale inside the stadium during the match, which is in direct contravention of FIFA regulations, about which I shall say more shortly.
Mr. Steve Frankham, a Conservative voter, is a personal friend of mine. I do not normally confess to having Conservative voters as personal friends. He is a quantity surveyor and a very successful business man. He witnessed two young Chelsea fans being brutally attacked by Spanish police and saw blows inflicted to their faces, legs and backs. He said that the fans were knocked to the ground by the sheer force of the blows. The two were merely asking the police for directions to their coach.
Miss McDonnell of Palmers Green has not missed a home or away game for 17 years. Well done, Miss McDonnell! She witnessed a fan knocked unconscious by
| Next Section
| Home Page |