New clause 14 - Recovery of the cost of policing
Police Reform Bill [Lords]
4:30 pm

Ms Bridget Prentice (Lewisham East, Labour)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I cannot believe that it is six weeks since we tabled the new clause. This is the first time that I have moved an amendment from the Government Back Benches, so it is particularly exciting. It will be even more exciting if the Minister agrees to accept it. [Interruption.] Well, he may do so for old times' sake.

First, I am a football fan. I have a share in a season ticket to Glasgow Celtic. This is not an anti-football amendment. It is not just about football, but about a number of commercial activities that cost the police resources. The issue was raised with the Home Affairs Committee by the Met, although it also gave examples of other police forces having similar problems. The Met recovers about £300 for policing what it calls a low-level Chelsea game—I make no comment about the standard of games at Stamford bridge—but the cost of such a game can be up to £28,000. Clearly, the difference is paid for by the community at large. At present, police forces can only recover costs for policing within the grounds. In fairness to the premier league and others, the fact that they have increased the standard of stewardship within the grounds means that there is less policing within the grounds. In fact, some grounds can be police free or have a low level of policing. However, a great deal of policing still happens outside football grounds, in nightclubs and at other big venues where many people gather.

Premier clubs that are opposed to the principle of the new clause would argue that they already pay their precept. That precept covers everyday policing. I have consulted the Metropolitan police on the matter. If there were no football ground in a particular part of a borough or a town, there would be no need for extra policing on a Saturday. In London, about 500 police officers are deployed to cover football grounds on a Saturday afternoon and those police officers could be in the local high street or elsewhere dealing with criminal activities.

I know that the Minister is beginning to deal with the problem, but I hope that the new clause is—in the words of the hon. Member for Lewes—another wake-up call and that the police can have back some of the costs that they are having to take on board when dealing with such events. The Home Affairs Committee asked for the circular 34/2000 to be reviewed. It was put to me by officers from the premier league that the National Audit Commission looked at the matter 10 years ago and that some of the issues that it raised then need to be reviewed, too.

Football clubs would argue that they already invest more than £1 billion in making their grounds safer.

Much as we welcome that, it should not be set against the cost of policing. Football clubs should be increasing safety at their grounds; they should be improving them. In the past, I have visited grounds that have horrible facilities. I give them credit for improving the grounds, but let us not say that that is where they should stop. Football clubs would also say that they put a great deal of money into local communities to help social inclusion projects.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

Would the new clause cover the cost of policing trains in which fans travel to and from football matches? I have often travelled on the west coast main line in trains that are full of Manchester United supporters. It is not a great experience.

Ms Bridget Prentice (Lewisham East, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman made a good point. Deciding where policing begins and where it ends is complicated. We would not want to put all the costs on Old Trafford of sending Manchester United fans to Manchester although I can see that there would be some benefit in doing that—[Laughter.]—given the few Manchester United fans who live in Manchester.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

What about Celtic fans living in Lewisham?

Ms Bridget Prentice (Lewisham East, Labour)

Actually, there are quite a few. There are probably more Celtic fans living in Lewisham than Manchester United fans living in Manchester.

The clubs would say that they contribute to the local community through the after-school clubs, football schemes and so on. That is excellent. They have put some £50 million a year into such schemes. However, that is £2.5 million for each of the 20 premier league clubs, which is not enough to buy a half-decent fullback. Although we are grateful for the fact that they are being more community-responsible, that, in itself, is not enough.

Finally, I should like to make two points. First, what I have said should apply to not just football, but to other major commercial events. There is an inconsistency in charging, and that could be rectified if the Home Secretary ordered a report. Secondly, I agree with what the premier league says; the measures must be fair, proportional and accountable. Matters have not changed since the Taylor report on Hillsborough, and it is time that we changed them.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I am always interested to hear contributions from Labour Members, both in Committee and elsewhere, particularly when they are unauthorised, as this one may well have been. We will find out. If the Minister, who has found reasons to reject every new clause and amendment tabled by Opposition Members in the debate, accepts the only Labour new clause, he will not be a popular man—[Interruption.] He will at least be a partisan man, so he might be popular in some quarters.

With all due respect to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), I do not think that the measures will work. It is dangerous to go down the road of saying that someone who undertakes an illegal activity should be charged for it. That is what the new clause says. It is like Yarl's Wood in reverse; although I am keen not to have the police authority landed with

the bill, I am equally keen that we should not land external people with bills. What about the cost of policing for those who legitimately hold a demonstration? Are they to be charged for that? If a demonstration is controversial and more police are required, will the price go up?

What about those who export animals through ports? I am totally against live exports, but I respect the right of people to carry on their activities legitimately. The cost of policing those activities is enormous. Should those who legitimately export animals be charged? What about those who legitimately wanted to hold miners strikes? Should they have been charged for the police that were necessary? I do not think so. It is dangerous to say that people should be charged.

On proposed new subsection (1)(b), if those who run public houses and nightclubs do so responsibly, as I am sure most do, they cannot be held responsible for what happens when people leave their premises and go out on a public highway. The provision would be very unfair on nightclubs and public houses. I am sorry to put a dampener on the hon. Lady's proposals. It would have been nice to agree with her, especially as there are only 10 minutes to go before we pack up. Also, if my pensions proposal was a bureaucratic nightmare, to use the Minister's phrase, the provision is even more so.

Mr Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore, Labour)

I am happy to support the new clause. I have only a couple of minutes, so I shall be brief.

I have a story about a policeman in Gilfach Goch, which is in one of my valleys. It is a remote community that has suffered over the years from the withdrawal of a visible police presence. We were pleased to see the return of a community bobby there. He was welcome in the community, but two days out of five he would disappear, as if abducted from the streets. When I met him, I said how well he had been received in the community, and asked him the reasons for his disappearance. He gave one simple reason. He was being diverted from his normal duties to the policing of major events in the Millennium stadium in Cardiff and elsewhere. Such events include not only premier football matches, but pop concerts, the rugby world cup and so on.

I pay tribute to the Millennium stadium and other stadiums; they are a fantastic growth area in the tourism and events industry. However, there is the question of how much we should disaggregate their costs. Should there be normal policing costs, or should the South Wales police be expected to subsidise such events? I pay tribute to the Home Office, which has stepped in this year and recognised the problem in our valley communities by giving additional funds, although that is a one off as far as I know. Day by day and week by week, we are losing community bobby visibility throughout south Wales because of these events.

I am not a great football supporter, but I am a big fan of rock music. I support the Manic Street Preachers, the Super Furry Animals and other excellent bands that have come out of the valleys of

Wales. However, to what extent should we lose police presence at the top end of the valleys for the benefit of people who travel to an event and have a very enjoyable time?

Mention has been made of red herrings such as the miners strike. I understand the point that the hon. Member for Lewes was making. However, the issue of whether a union can be charged for policing was dealt with in the middle of the 19th century after the Taff Vale incident. We are trying to go beyond the precept and identify when events make a profit. Let us again consider the Millennium stadium. The stadium does not make profit at the moment. It hosts fantastic events and does wonders in boosting Wales' image. However, events that visit the stadium and make a profit should be able to contribute toward additional policing costs.

Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

Would the hon. Gentleman care to extend his comments to political party conferences? I understand that whatever party is in government makes a profit on its conference. The cost of policing is enormous. Although my local authority is welcoming to all parties that visit, we really suffer as a result. The answer is to have central funding to support democracy at party conferences—

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

Order. The hon. Lady is making a long intervention. I do not think that party conferences are covered by the new clause.

Mr Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore, Labour)

I suspect that that was another red herring.

The Minister will be able to respond and tell me whether the six-week wait that I have enjoyed in Committee has been worth it. The new clause is tiny. It would seem like nothing in the Bill, but its impact on the streets of our communities would be massive.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The hon. Members for Lewisham, East and for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) might have waited six weeks to move their new clause, but I have certainly been waiting six weeks to comment on it. I shall not have much time because it is important to hear the Minister's response.

I received a detailed briefing from my friends at the FA premier league, but I also have a constituency interest. We are talking about charging for the cost of policing outside events. Outside events have affected my constituency. I know that you, Mr. Stevenson, will rule me out of order if I mention this in more than one sentence, but Surrey police suffered hugely from the additional cost imposed on them by the previous Home Secretary's decision to keep Senator Pinochet under house arrest. We did not receive money back for that.

I return to the new clause. I shall not have chance to read all the sensible points that my friends at the FA premier league sent to me. They are my friends because I have worked very closely with Philip French in my capacity as a deputy chairman of the all-party sport and leisure group. In the past, I have been involved with the Minister in various sporting matters in the House.

I think that the hon. Lady and hon. Gentleman were unwise to include the words

''including Premier League football games''

in the new clause. I know that the point was raised in the Select Committee, and I read the exchanges between the hon. Lady and other hon. Members with the senior leadership of the Met. The hon. Lady provoked the FA premier league into feeling singled out. We recognise that much of the crowd trouble that has been experienced over recent seasons has not been at premier league games, although I know that the new clause refers to other sporting events.

Let us consider the costs of policing. During the Wigan against Queens Park Rangers match on 26 February, the cost of the police within only the ground amounted to more than half the revenue raised through gate receipts. The hon. Lady did not mention something that the Select Committee concluded after the issue was raised. It said:

''We are conscious that the ability of clubs to pay for additional policing costs may well be unrelated to the differing demands their matches put on policing in the vicinity. Such recovery of costs might bankrupt smaller clubs.''

That is an important reason why, in the interests of sport, I hope that the Government will not accept this new clause.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

I regret to inform my hon. Friends that we will not accept the new clause—although we acknowledge the importance of the issue—primarily because, in principle, a matter such as this, which involves discussion with many different organisations, should not be curtailed by a particular timetable.

We are concerned about the costs incurred in policing entertainment venues that are open late at night, for example, or major sporting and outdoor entertainment events. In response to the comments of the hon. Member for Lewes, I say that where someone is conducting a business activity that is creating additional policing costs, in principle, it is reasonable to seek some contribution towards them. The key question is how should that be done?

As I acknowledged to the Home Affairs Committee, concerns have been raised that the police service is unable to recover a fair proportion of the costs that arise from football matches. There are occasions when it is clear to any sensible person that incidents that take place outside football grounds are an integral part of the fact that a football match is being played. That is a significant issue. I do not agree with those who say that the matches and such incidents are not connected.

In our discussions with the football authorities we also acknowledge wider issues. The first of them, which has been referred to, is that the highest costs are not always associated with the clubs that are most able to pay them, which raises the question of how to address that. Secondly, football clubs are not merely businesses; they also play a role in the community—and that might be especially the case with regard to less successful clubs. Measures that would put them out of business would probably not serve anybody's interests. Thirdly, the football authorities claim that it is not always easy to relate the bill that they receive

with the level of policing that has been provided. Therefore, there are a series of issues that we must work through.

We must also work through issues with the entertainment industry. Once again, we have good models of voluntary schemes in several city centres, including Manchester and Sheffield, where late-night venues contribute to the cost of having additional police officers on the street. We would like there to be an extension of such schemes, and more formal arrangements might be explored.

My hon. Friends have raised issues that are important and complex. The Government will not ignore them. We wish to discuss them with the football authorities. I have been working closely on them with the Minister responsible for sport, and the interests of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have been acknowledged. I hope that we can find a satisfactory way forward, which enables us not only to deal with the police and cost issues, but to find ways of working with the football authorities so that those clubs that attract a violent following are encouraged to deal with that more effectively. That would reduce costs in the first place, which would be valuable. Football clubs support community cohesion and youth sporting events. If we can continue to support them in their contributions to their communities, that would also be valuable.

However, I must resist the new clause, because it does not offer the right way forward.

Ms Bridget Prentice (Lewisham East, Labour)

We understand the difference between the premier league and the smaller clubs, which is why the smaller clubs were left out. I accept what the Minister has said. I know that ACPO, the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the FA premier league are involved in discussions. I hope that we will get something that is consistent out of that, because this is a complex area. We do not want clubs to suffer any more than we want local communities to suffer. We hope that we will have a fair and accountable system at the end of the day. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 269, in title, line 5, after 'orders;', insert 'to amend the law relating to sex offender orders;'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

I thank you, Mr. Stevenson, for the way that you have conducted the Committee's proceedings, and Committee members for their contributions. I believe in parliamentary scrutiny, and this Bill is better now than it was when it was first laid before Parliament. The contributions of hon. Members of all parties, both here and in another place, have helped to achieve that.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I wish to associate myself with the Minister's remarks—which surprised me, as he made them, although they should not have done. I thank you, Mr. Stevenson, and Miss Widdecombe, Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Griffiths, for chairing our sittings, and I thank Committee members. I especially thank

both the Ministers for the way that they have responded to our concerns. We have had differences, and we will continue to do so. We believe that the Bill is better than the original version that was presented to the other place, although, as it emerges from the Committee, there are aspects of it that have been re-inserted that we wish were not in it. That is an issue for another day and another place.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Stevenson, and to the Minister for the way in which he has handled the Committee's proceedings.

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

It is now 5 o'clock. Before I formally bring the proceedings to a close, I thank my co-Chairs, the Clerk, Hansard and all the staff of the House of Commons who have been so diligent in supporting and helping us in our work. Most of all I thank Committee members for their patience and forbearance.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at Five o'clock.