HL Deb 03 November 1987 vol 489 cc887-9

3.7 p.m.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the cost of providing security at the Conservative Party Conference at Blackpool; what contributions they will make to this amount; and whether they consider that such expenditure should now be borne from a central fund rather than from local rates.

The Minister of State Home Office (The Earl of Caithness)

My Lords, the chief constable of Lancashire has reported that the additional cost of policing the Conservative Party Conference was £829,500. The Government make a contribution to all police expenditure both directly through police grant (at 51 per cent.) and also indirectly through block grant. Taken together, those cover some 70 per cent. of police expenditure in Lancashire.

My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has given careful consideration to whether to grant additional central funding to meet Lancashire's costs but has concluded that he would not be justified in departing from the normal police funding arrangements in this case.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I may ask him whether he is aware that all police authorities and all local authorities receive that form of grant. Surely such an event is a unique occasion for a county, whether it be Lancashire, Sussex or wherever. Will the Minister again make representations to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary and ask him whether he will ask his right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to make funds available from contingency moneys to cover expenditure which is unique to any local authority and cannot be classified as day-to-day administrative expenditure?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the question raised by the noble Lord has been carefully considered by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, but he has concluded that there is insufficient justification for making a special payment. Special payments have only been made to police forces in cases of exceptional circumstances, generally of an unforeseen nature, by which the efficiency of the police force would otherwise have been threatened, which is not the case in Lancashire.

Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

My Lords, will my noble friend also bear in mind that the various seaside resorts which receive party conferences of all denominations usually gain a good deal thereby and are very glad to get them in October?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, my noble and learned friend, who is much more experienced in party conferences, has made a very valid point.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, will the Minister take into account that sometimes the ringing of bells at seaside places will in itself constitute a security? And will the Minister reflect upon this point? The question of security at party conferences is one that all of us recognise as being essential, especially after the tragic events in Brighton, of which all Members of your Lordships' House have some very vivid and sad memories. Is it not a fact, though, that this is a question of protecting national figures, of whatever party it may be, at a conference of a national party? Is it not therefore right that a central fund should bear the responsibility for these costs, whatever political denomination that conference happens to have?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I remind the House that there is a tripartite structure for policing arrangements in this country. This gives a large measure of local influence and limits the degree of central intervention. If one followed the route proposed in the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, it would have an influence on that point.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn

My Lords, while I appreciate everything that the Minister has said, perhaps I may ask him whether he will remind his noble and learned friend the former Lord Chancellor that he is completely out of date as regards what goes on in seaside towns where political conferences are held these days. People do not want to go there. They are frightened. What is more, the security is so great that it is no longer a pleasure to go and shop when conferences are taking place.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I do not think there is any need for me to remind my noble and learned friend. I think he heard for himself.

Lord Mellish

My Lords, will the Minister look at this matter again? There is already a precedent. A central fund is in existence to ensure that opposition parties, for example—in the Commons, at any rate—are able to function properly, and certain funds are paid direct to them. Surely the same principle would apply. If political parties are to get special security—and I agree that they should—surely this should be paid for centrally and not by local ratepayers. No one can defend that, can they?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has said, but 1 think 1 have answered the point as to why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary believes there is not a case for 100 per cent. funding when about 70 per cent. funding is given at the moment.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that a large number of noble Lords are not entirely satisfied with the replies he has given? Will he be good enough to discuss the matter with his right honourable friend and draw his attention to the arguments which have been deployed in the House this afternoon?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, of course I will draw them to the attention of my right honourable friend. But that will not be needed, because my right honourable friend follows with care anything in this House that concerns the Home Office.