HC Deb 13 April 1994 vol 241 cc357-60
Mrs. Diana Maddock (Christchurch)

I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 109, line 33, after 'a' insert 'Police Authority, or by a'.

This is a very straightforward amendment. It allows the Government to ensure that the now regrettably escalating costs of funding security at party conferences do not fall on the council tax payers in the counties hosting the conferences. The current arrangements hit local taxpayers particularly hard in those few areas that have been chosen as the main venues for the party conferences of our main political parties. The towns are Brighton, Blackpool and Bournemouth in Lancashire, East Sussex and my own county of Dorset.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire)

Would the hon. Lady care to explain which are the two parties that meet in those venues?

Mrs. Maddock

We are going to Brighton this year. We have been in Bournemouth in other years. The point is the cost, whoever goes there. It does not matter which party it is.

There is no doubt that since the tragic bombing of the Grand hotel in Brighton in 1984 a number of heavy security costs, especially to do with searching and the extra manpower in the streets surrounding the conference centres, are now incurred not only by the political parties but by the police authorities in the counties that I have mentioned. In my own county of Dorset, the chief constable estimates that the cost of policing and security at this year's Tory party conference in Bournemouth will be £2.6 million.

Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre)

Will the hon. Lady confirm that if Bournemouth does not want to hold the Tory party conference, it need not do so? It can be held elsewhere. The fact that it is being held there means that it should be of some commercial benefit to the town.

Mrs. Maddock

If the hon. Gentleman is patient he will have an answer to his point.

In a letter to me the chief constable says: This large amount of expenditure in one financial year means that the force must create a reserve by annual contribution to pay for this severe drain on our financial resources. It means that every year in Dorset there is less money to spend on general policing in the county, less for crime prevention measures, less for police patrols and less for solving crimes and catching criminals.

At conference times, there is an additional drain on Dorset police's human resources, with officers necessarily drafted in from elsewhere in the county to patrol around the Bournemouth international centre.

That is extremely bad news for the people of Dorset, because between 1979 and 1992 there has been a 78 per cent. increase in motor vehicle thefts and a 171 per cent. increase in the number of domestic burglaries. In the past year alone, there has been a 10 per cent. increase in serious crime in the county.

All police forces have occasional major incidents, and the mass murder inquiry that is under way in Gloucestershire is a current example. However, few have regular drains on their resources. Dorset, East Sussex and Lancashire do. I have heard that there is a strong possibility that the Tory party conference will soon start coming to Bournemouth every other year. I can understand that. Bournemouth is a congenial place—Christchurch is, too, of course—with a beautiful setting, excellent accommodation and an excellent modem conference centre. In answer to the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), Dorset people welcome conferences with open arms, but they do not welcome the extra cost falling on all of them for something which is part of our national political scene.

Mr. Robert Banks (Harrogate)

The hon. Lady will recall that the Liberal Democrats have held many conferences in Harrogate. Would she like to have a whip round among her hon. Friends to reimburse us for the cost of policing those conferences?

Mrs. Maddock

If the Government are generous enough to pass the amendment, all people will have the benefit. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that Liberal Democrats do not cost so much when they have party conferences. We are much better value for money. My fellow Dorset Members of Parliament believe that the cost should be born nationally, and they have endeavoured to persuade the Government. They have liaised with East Sussex and Lancashire, and the new Liberal Democrat administration on Dorset county council has, through its deputy leader Robin Legg, also tried to further the cause. I understand that members of the Lancashire police authority had a meeting with the Minister of State, Lord Ferrers, in December and they have asked for a further meeting with the Home Secretary for representatives from the three counties affected.

In 1986, the Government recognised that political parties should not have to bear all the costs that they incur in providing security at conferences, and that they should be reimbursed from the national public purse. Since that time, payments have been made under the authority of the Appropriation Act. Only with the clause that my colleagues and I are seeking to amend will this at last be put on a statutory footing.

There can be no better time than now to deal with the unfairness of distribution of local police authority costs. I appreciate that the Government are responsible for 51 per cent. of police spending, and that additional grants from the Government to local authorities make up some of the other 49 per cent. However, the grants and formulas under which they are calculated do not specifically take account of the additional burden of funding the policing of party conferences.

The standard spending assessments, capping limits and grants ignore what is a significant part of the police budget for the areas affected. Party conferences have a special place in our democracy—those words were used by Margaret Thatcher—and I am sure that we all believe that they must be allowed to take place. Likewise, none of us would argue that conference-goers and people involved in running conference should go unprotected. I believe, as do many hon. Members and members of local police authorities, that the source of funding should reflect the national nature and importance of party conferences and not fall unfairly on the people who live in the areas that attract large conferences.

This is a fair amendment; it is common sense to make it at this time and it would welcomed by those police authorities which are affected. They would get the extra resources that they need to protect party conferences and would be allowed to keep their existing resources to tackle rising crime.

Mr. Maclean

From time to time, every police force has to cope with demands which are not routine and most forces can claim to have responsibilities with strong national implications comparable with those carried by forces involved in policing party conferences.

12.30am

We regularly review the funding arrangements, but to date it has not been considered right to single out policing costs arising from party conferences for additional central Government funding. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Forward to