Football club recharges

Report: 08
Date: 16 January 2003
By: Commissioner

Summary

Accenture completed a report on Income Generation as part of the Efficiency and Effectiveness reviews. One of the recommendations was for the full cost of policing Association Football matches to be recovered. ACPO are taking cost recovery forward on a national basis. There may be some scope for the MPS acting unilaterally in attempting to recover the costs incurred policing matches in the capital.

A. Recommendations

1. For the MPA to agree a policy, in line with the Accenture recommendation, to recover the full directly attributable costs of policing commercial events, including the costs of policing both inside and outside of premises.

2. For the MPA to consider the following options:

• To await the outcome of the current national negotiations, or;
• To continue to explore methods of ensuring that football clubs to pay the full costs of policing football matches in the Capital.

Either option would, if successful, reduce the cost to the residents of London and lessen the abstractions from borough policing.

B. Supporting information

1. In the financial year 2000/1 policing football events cost the MPS at least £7.4M in police staffing costs alone. Only £1.6M was recovered from clubs. This takes no account of additional costs (horses, accommodation, catering, transportation etc.). Barriers and signs around football clubs on match days cost the MPS a further £218,000.

2. The Accenture Review into Income Generation estimated that £5 million in additional annual income could be generated through cost recovery from the policing of football matches in London. This took account of Premier League clubs only. Accenture estimated that it would cost the MPS in the region of £20,000 to set up a cost recovery system.

3. Consultation has taken place between Lord Harris, Sir John Stevens and representatives of London football clubs to discuss the issue of the cost of policing football events.

4. Assistant Chief Constable R. Hogg, Durham Constabulary, represents the Association of Chief Police Officers on this issue and is taking it forward at a national level. Paul Acres the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire has also become involved in the cost recovery debate. He is due to meet John Denham at the Home Office in January and February 2003 to discuss the issues. The Football Association will be represented at the meeting.

5. It is likely that Mr Acres will suggest that payment should be made directly by the FA and not from individual clubs. This will reduce the impact on some clubs of police forces billing them directly.

6. The MPS Public Order Branch (CO11) has explored maximising the cost recovery from football matches. CO11 outline the possible options for the future as:

• Creating primary legislation to enable more comprehensive cost recovery from commercial events.
• Requesting that clubs make a contribution to the cost of policing outside the premises. This may be an option from some clubs however it being voluntary it may be refused or withdrawn in the future.

7. The onus is on the club to satisfy the local authority that their arrangements are safe. If they do so, the Local Authority may issue a licence under the Safety at Sports Grounds Act 1975 authorising the event.

8. A considerable number of the police staff deployed outside of the ground could be said to be there to ensure the safety of the crowd. This may be either: in the form of traffic management; to ensure access & egress of emergency service vehicles to the ground; for dealing with the access & egress of large numbers of fans, or; to deal with an emergency evacuation. 9. Chief Officers have an obligation to provide an efficient service (s6 Police Act 1996) and have wide discretion as to the deployment of their officers. They should have regard to the resources available and the costs of providing such. This has been confirmed in Harris v Sheffield United and more recently in ITF v Sussex Police.

10. The MPS may take the view that they are unwilling to sustain the current level of support to what is a private commercial event held on private premises, either in terms of staffing or the direct cost of barriers and signs. If the MPS were so minded and staff numbers were reduced, it would then be for a club to satisfy the local authority that their plan for the event was safe.

11. This prospect could provide a stronger platform from which the MPS may 'negotiate' with clubs and thus recover a greater proportion of the costs of policing the event. Clearly this would be unpopular and is likely to provoke a negative response from clubs. It would require the MPS to be sure exactly of our legal obligations. Additionally Local Authorities may not be minded to refuse or place restrictions on the safety certificates.

C. Equality and diversity implications

1. There are no issues, which adversely affect equality or diversity.

D. Financial implications

1. Up to £ 5 million of revenue may be recovered in London if the Football Association reimburses the full cost of policing matches within the MPS.

E. Background papers

• CO11 Public Order Branch paper dated October 2002. Attached as Appendix 1.

F. Contact details

Report author: Ian Thomas. Chief Superintendent. DCC 2 (2)

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1: Cost recovery for football

Metropolitan Police
Public Order Branch
Review Unit

3rd October 2002

This paper deals with cost recovery for football

On an average Saturday, 500 officers are lost to their communities policing football matches throughout the MPS. s25 Police Act 1996 (Annex A) allows for the recovery of costs for 'special ' police services. In the case of football, Home Office guidance (34/2000- Annex B) directs that the cost of police deployed for football matches should only be recovered for officers deployed on club premises or for that period of duty they perform on club premises.

Last financial year (2000/01) football cost the MPS at least £7.4M in police staffing costs alone. Compared with the £1.6M recovered from clubs. This takes no account of additional costs (horses, accommodation, catering, transportation etc.). Barriers and signs around football clubs on match days cost the MPS a further £218,000.

An example: 68 officers are deployed at Chelsea FC for a category A game at a cost of £13,700 to which should be added £1600 for the cost of barriers and signs. The contribution from Chelsea FC toward these costs is £397 resulting in a cost to the MPS of nearly £15,000. The cost to the MPS rises to £28,000 in the case of a category C game.

At Tottenham Hotspur the cost to the MPS for a category A match (inc. barriers at £1350) is nearly £22,000 and £40,750 for a category C game.

Should clubs pay more?

As council taxpayers clubs have a right to expect a policing service. But are they entitled to a greater service than the 'normal' police services (crime investigation, advice, response etc.) enjoyed by other businesses?

Fulham FC had a council tax bill of £20,151 last year, of this, the contribution to policing was 6.73%. This equates to a contribution of £1356 toward policing (less than £68 a game). The cost to the MPS of a category C game (after the club contribution) is nearly £26,000.

Chelsea FC had a council tax bill for its stadia, shop, night-club, restaurant & pub of £331,320 last year, of this, their contribution to policing is 6.73%. This equates to a contribution of £22,297 toward policing (less than £1115 a game). The cost to the MPS of a category C game (after the club contribution) is greater than £26,000.

How can the cost of policing football in the MPS be reduced?

Reduce our commitment to football

Move away from roles that are not our responsibility such as:

• traffic management
• the provision of barriers and signs (£200K+/year)
• the provision of escorts and security to visiting teams

Recover more from clubs

This would require changing or stepping outside Home Office guidance and either:

• a change in legislation
  Whilst s25 of the Police Act 1996 allows for the recovery of costs for the provision of special services of police it requires a request to be made by the person to whom the service is supplied. To date, none of the clubs have signed the revised SSA distributed this year. In certain cases the request may be may be implied such as in the case of officers on the premises of football clubs (Harris vs Sheffield United). However, Counsel advice is that a request would be required to charge for officers deployed other than on club premises. Section 25 also does not provide a definition of a 'special police service'.
• for clubs to request the services of police outside their premises
  Clearly some clubs may be unwilling to pay more than they have been without some form of encouragement.

What we have done

Made representations to the Home Office to change the guidance contained in 34/2000 (Annex C). The Home Office have not dismissed this as an option but have not rushed to change it.

Sought legislative change through the Police Reform Act. This appeared in the draft for the Act but was removed from the final bill. Advice from the Home Office is that this would be a lengthy process that would contain a number of hurdles.

Possible options for the future

1. Continue to seek a change to legislation, either:
   • to modify s25 Police Act to clarify exactly what a 'Special Police Services' means; or
   • to create primary legislation to enable more comprehensive cost recovery for commercial events (Social Impact Certificate - Annex D)
2. Ask clubs to make an informal 'contribution' to the cost of policing outside the premises
   This may be an option from some clubs however it being voluntary it may be refused or withdrawn in the future.
3. Find a way to encourage clubs to request services of police outside their premises.

The onus is on the club to satisfy the local authority that their arrangements are safe. If they do so, the Local Authority may issue a licence under the Safety at Sports Grounds Act 1975 authorising the event.

A considerable number of the police staff deployed outside of the ground could be said to be there to ensure the safety of the crowd. This may be either in the form of traffic management: to ensure access & egress of emergency service vehicles to the ground, or for dealing with the access & egress of large numbers of fans or to deal with an emergency evacuation.

Chief Officers have an obligation to provide an efficient service (s6 Police Act 1996) and have a wide discretion as to the deployment of their officers. In this they should have regard to the resources available and the costs of providing such. This has been confirmed in Harris v Sheffield United and more recently in ITF v Sussex Police.

The Commissioner may take the view that he is unwilling to sustain the current level of support to what is a private commercial event held on private premises, either in terms of staffing or the direct cost of barriers and signs. If he were so minded and staff numbers were reduced, it would then be for a club to satisfy the local authority that their plan for the event was safe.

This prospect could provide a stronger platform from which the MPS may 'negotiate' with clubs and thus recover a greater proportion of the costs of policing the event.

Clearly this would be unpopular and is likely to provoke a negative response from clubs. It would require the MPS to be sure exactly of our legal obligations. Additionally Local Authorities may not be minded to refuse or place restrictions on the safety certificates.

Submitted for information and consideration.

David Howe
Inspector CO11

Annex A: S25 Police Act 1996

S.25 (1) The Chief officer of police of a police force may provide, at the request of any person, special police services at any premises or in any locality in the police area for which the force is maintained, subject to the payment to the police authority of charges on such scales as may be determined by that authority

Annex B: Extract from H.O. guidance 34/2000 (Guidance on football - related legislation)

Extent of charges

13.3 It is Government policy that the costs of special services should be paid in full by those using the service and that no part of these costs should be allowed to add to the general level of police expenditure. Charges should be reviewed and adjusted as necessary on an annual basis.

13.4 The aim in principle should be to recover the full cost of:

• those police officers who are deployed at football matches on the private property of the football club; and
• where officers are posted outside the ground for part of their tour of duty and inside it for the remainder, the full cost of their time spent inside should also be recovered.

Annex C: Proposed change to H.O. guidance 34/2000 (Guidance on football - related legislation)

Extent of charges

13.3 It is Government policy that the costs of special services should be paid in full by those using the service and that no part of these costs should be allowed to add to the general level of police expenditure. Charges should be reviewed and adjusted as necessary on an annual basis.

13.4 The aim in principle should be to recover the full cost of:

• Directly attributable costs incurred as a result of policing a specific football event. This should include the cost of all staff deployed in connection with the event together with other facilities required.

N.B. This should include: searching serials, reserves and mobile reserves, 'escort' arrangements for fans, mounted officers & horses, arrangements for traffic management, 'piloting' services provided for visiting teams, arrangements for prisoner transport & charge centre arrangements, transportation, catering and any other directly attributable costs.

Annex D: Social Impact Certificate

An option that may assist could be the introduction of a Social Impact Certificate.

This would require the grant of a certificate or licence for any event held for commercial gain that is likely to involve the attendance of over 3000 (say) people before the event could be held. It could be issued by the Local Authority and would take a wide approach to the event examining the wider impact of it rather than just looking at one specific element such as safety.

It could run along the same lines as the stadia 'safety certificate', indeed the safety certificate could be included within it. Organisers would be required to show that consideration of the 'Social Impact ' of their event had been taken into account and a plan agreed with the relevant authorities. This would include acceptance by the organiser of the necessary costs incurred by statutory authorities such as Local Authorities (traffic) Police, Fire etc. arising from their event.

Topics to be considered could include disorder, safety, crowd safety on entry and egress, traffic impact etc.

The arrangements should be 'negotiable' to enable event organisers to make their own arrangements to facilitate particular roles and thus release the public servants to their 'core' duties.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback