Government response
Letter to the Chairman from Rt Hon David Hanson
MP, Minister of State, Home Office, dated 26 October 2009
Thank you for the HAC report on the cost of policing
at football matches published in the summer. The Government welcomes
the committee's report which has provided a useful contribution
to the debate in this important area. I would like to set out
the Government's formal response to your report.
The Home Office is aware of the disputes between
the football club and the police in regards to charges incurred
from policing football matches.
I agree with you in your support for the police to
seek full recovery of costs within the footprint area; however
I do not believe that this area should be extended to outside
the grounds of the football club, thus outside the footprint area.
Your recommendation for collaborative working is
one which I share, and have tried to encourage myself. I agreed
to meet with the Chairman of the football association. ACPO have
advised that they are looking to finalise their guidance soon
and have invited football representatives to discuss this issue,
I understand the offer was declined.
This revised guidance should resolve the issue of
'inconsistency', a historical problem raised repeatedly by the
clubs and mentioned in the debate. It will offer clarification
on the nature of costs that the police will seek to recover. Whilst
the football authorities seem to want a definitive framework on
how much policing a match will cost. This is not possible and
it is our belief that a better system will allow for a degree
of flexibility, to enable clubs to be charged on a case by case
basis, taking into consideration the revenue they generate.
I support your recommendation that it is important
forces consider the increased security and improved measures that
football clubs have implemented. Football clubs have gone a long
way to improve the security at matches through increases in stewards
and CCTV systems. We recognise and applaud this, however, each
match is risk assessed to check if the deployment of officers
are necessary. The police make intelligence-based decisions and
this is not subject to personal interpretation of the chief constable.
I have offered to meet with football representatives
on this issue and this could then encourage discussions on how
the situation can be further resolved and if necessary as you
suggest explore the idea of changing or creating legislation.
Home Affairs Committee Recommendations
It is right that an increase in police costs which
is attributable to the policing of a football match should be
met by the clubs rather than the taxpayer. Clubs should continue
to pay the total cost of policing on their "footprint".
Equally, where it can be shown—using evidence which is available
to the clubs—that the police are also incurring costs because
of "consequential policing", this should also be met
by the club. However, unless it can be proven that clubs should
not have to meet the cost of "consequential" policing"
that is the not a direct responsibility of the clubs result of
their activity. then we cannot support any moves which would force
the clubs to meet this cost as well. Any new arrangements must
allow this distinction to
be made and not merely
be a blanket proposal. (Paragraph 8)
They also mention that where it can be shown using
evidence that the police incur costs as a result of this policing
then this also should be met by the club, unless this cost is
not the clubs direct responsibility, and this can be proven. The
government agree with this statement. We would wish for full recovery
of costs related to policing football matches where possible.
While we are of the opinion that clubs should
pay the full cost of the policing which can be directly attributed
to their match we also urge the police to recognise the amount
of effort the clubs have expended to increase safety at the grounds
and the change in atmosphere at football matches. We doubt the
necessity of deploying up to 150 police officers on top of the
hundreds of stewards at an event which has on average 1.2 arrests.
Unless there is specific intelligence of possible trouble which
can be shared with the clubs, the police should consider reducing
the deployment of officers and they should share intelligence
with the clubs to better identify the policing needs and reduce
them wherever possible. (Paragraph 11)
Again we agree with this, yet state that the police
assess the level of risk associated with a match before calculating
how many officers to deploy. This number is shared with the club
and they can then discuss accordingly. The final decision rests
with the Safety Advisory Group. In the even that there is a disagreement
with regards to numbers it would be their decision as to whether
or not they deem it appropriate for the match to take place.
We are equally concerned that there seems to be
no standardised, approved method to decide upon the policing and
chargeable element of a football match. That the charges levied
on clubs can change seemingly at the whim of an individual and
even what we thought would be standard arrangements such as the
length of time officers spend on duty can differ from club to
club is unacceptable. (Paragraph 15)
We disagree with this statement. Whilst there is
a lack of clarity on the available guidance, the revised edition
of the ACPO guidance does offer a framework and explanation of
how charges are calculated. It is worthwhile to stress that these
charges are discussed prior to the match taking place.
We note the definitive national guidance being
drawn up by ACPO and hope that this brings a degree of uniformity
into the provision of policing and forms the basis for negotiations
between the clubs and the police over the clubs' liability for
payment. That the cost can apparently be decided by one person
without consultation and negotiation with the interested parties
is unacceptable. We recommend that the proposed ACPO Guidelines
be made public and form the basis for negotiation with the clubs
over the chargeable element of police services and allow variables
such as the length of time officers spend on duty to be standardised
across the clubs. We further recommend that the police allow clubs
a much greater say in the provision of policing. This must become
a more collaborative process, involving an independent outside
body if needs be. (Paragraph 16)
This recommendation in essence is true, but it should
be highlighted that ACPO have advised that they held consultation
forums and invited football representatives to attend but to no
avail. I have tried to set up meetings with the chairman of the
football association, but this has been cancelled twice.
The Football Association should take steps to
prevent this from happening. In the context of football the sums
which police forces are being advised to write off may be small,
but to the community at large the damage is much greater and this
harms the relationship between the clubs and the public. (Paragraph
18)
While we do not recommend that the Football Association,
Premier League and Football League amend the "football creditor
rule", as it is right that clubs cannot renege on their debts
to competitors by declaring administration, we would like them
to take steps to prevent police forces being left out of pocket
in the event of a club entering administration. For example, it
may be possible for all clubs entering the Football League to
pay a yearly bond as a condition of entry. This money should be
used to help meet the costs incurred by the police and other non-football
services when a club enters administration. A mismanaged club
should not leave the community as a whole short-changed. (Paragraph
19)
We concur with the view that the police should not
be left out of pocket because a club goes into Administration,
this must be a matter for the football authorities.
At its heart the disparity between what clubs
are legally obliged to pay in policing costs and what the police
estimate these costs to be stems from grey areas in the current
legislation and Home Office guidance. It is not clear to what
extent football clubs and other holders of commercial events are
liable for policing away from their "footprint". This
has led to a disparity between what the police the consider the
full cost of policing the football match to be and what the clubs
feel themselves liable to pay. (Paragraph 20)
We agree with this statement however conclude that
the ACPO guidance should aim to clarify the 'grey areas' mentioned.
The working group would have provided an ideal forum for such
discussions but the lack of collaboration to date has prevented
us from doing this.
Elsewhere in this Report we have suggested practical
arrangements that should be introduced to make the policing of
football matches more equitable in terms of cost both to the clubs
and the public. In particular we have recommended that the clubs
pay the full cost of policing which can be attributed to them
and the police review their arrangements for policing matches
and the process by which these arrangements are decided. We hope
these or similar arrangements will solve the problems of payment
for all "special police services", not just football.
However, it may be that the lack of clarity and consistency in
the system at present prevents a mutually beneficial decision
being found. If this is the case we also recommend that the Home
Office consider providing legal clarification on the extent to
which commercial events are responsible for policing beyond their
footprint, if necessary through legislation. (Paragraph 21)
We agree to consider this proposal dependent on how
this matter continues to pan out following the publication of
ACPO's revised guidance. If this dispute continues even with the
new guidance, then it may be necessary for new legislation.
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon David Hanson
MP, Minister of State, Home Office, dated 12 November 2009
Thank you for your letter of 26 October 2009 replying
to our tenth Report of Session 2008-09, into The Cost of Policing
Football Matches. Your formal response was discussed at our meeting
of 10 November. Following this discussion, on behalf of the Committee,
I request clarification of some of your comments. I would be
grateful if this clarification could be provided by 30 November.
One of our recommendations was that, where evidence
was available "that the police are incurring costs because
of "consequential policing" (i.e. policing beyond the
immediate footprint of the grounds of the clubs) this should also
be met by the club". In effect we proposed that for the
purposes of calculating the costs incurred by the police, a club's
footprint could in principle be extended to include municipal
areas such as railway stations and car parks.
Your letter suggests that you disagree with that
recommendation; "I do not believe that this area [the clubs
"footprint"] should be extended outside the grounds
of the football club". However, the Annex to the letter
also states that "The government agree with this statement.
We would wish for full recovery of costs related to policing
football matches where possible". This statement suggests
that government policy is in agreement with our recommendation
that for the purposes of calculating costs incurred by the police,
a clubs "footprint" could include some municipal areas.
We would appreciate clarification of what is meant by "full
recovery of costs" and if this could include costs incurred
to the taxpayer from policing beyond the clubs "footprint"?
The Committee also request clarification on your
statement that "a better system will allows … clubs
[to] be charged on a case by case basis, taking into consideration
the revenue they generate". This seems to suggest a fundamental
change in how costs are calculated. Is government policy that,
in future, clubs are charged on their ability to pay, rather than
on the services they receive? This will be a fundamental shift
away from the current system in which the police resources allocated
to a club are decided by the level of risk involved at each match,
not merely on the clubs' revenue. Can you confirm to us that
this principle will remain in place and clubs will be continue
to be charged according to need, rather than their ability to
pay?
Finally, we thank you for your update on the current
status of the revised ACPO guidance and the progress in arranging
collaborative meetings between ACPO and football representatives.
We are disappointed that offers of a meeting have so far been
declined by football representatives, and reiterate our recommendation
that greater, trust, openness and clarity is needed in this area.
We would appreciate updates on what progress is made in negotiations
between the stakeholders in this issue, and whether you will consider
changing or creating legislation if progress is not made.
Further letter to the Chairman from Rt Hon David
Hanson MP, Minister of State, Home Office, dated 5 December 2009
Thank you for your letter on the 12 November addressing
my earlier response to concerns raised on the costs associated
with policing football matches. Apologies for any confusion caused.
I have noted the clarifications you have requested, and have provided
the appropriate explanations below.
I made the statement 'we would wish for full recovery
of costs related to policing of football matches where possible.'
Case law at present limits the costs that can be recovered from
clubs to the footprint of the stadium. The footprint includes
the stadium and land in the vicinity of the stadium which is under
the control of the club and / or where the police presence is
for the benefit of the club and the purposes of the match. To
achieve full recovery of total costs incurred in policing football
matches would require a change in legislation.
Clubs are at present charged on a case by case basis,
in which the policing requirement for each game is assessed based
on the known risks. Negotiations between clubs and forces are
made prior to finalising the request for special police services.
In advocating that the revenue generated is considered, I would
like to clarify that statement further. For some smaller clubs,
which are at the heart of many communities, who have limited financial
resources, police costs may pose a relatively higher burden on
them than on some larger clubs. However, by using a structured
intelligence approach that leads to a clearer view of required
deployments, it is anticipated that the number of matches where
special police services are required can be reduced, thus limiting
the financial impact on such clubs.
I agree with you that greater trust, openness and
clarity is needed in this area. I am happy to send you updates
on either the progress of stakeholder engagement or should any
further progress be hindered, if we look to amend or create legislation.
| 
