logo
Met Police chief says policing football matches across country costs £70m

Met Police chief says policing football matches across country costs £70m

Yahooa day ago
Football clubs should contribute more to the £70 million cost of policing their matches, the head of the Metropolitan Police said.
Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley called for a 'polluter pays approach' and questioned why organisers of events which require policing to support their security do not pay for it.
It comes after Sir Mark called for the creation of 12 to 15 bigger police forces as part of what he described as 'the first serious reform of our policing model in over 60 years'.
Writing in The Sunday Times, Sir Mark said the current system of 43 county forces had not 'been fit for purpose for at least two decades'.
He added that bigger forces would be better able to utilise modern technology and would reduce 'expensive' governance and support functions.
Sir Mark said: 'The 43-force model was designed in the 1960s and hasn't been fit for purpose for at least two decades. It hinders the effective confrontation of today's threats and stops us fully reaping the benefits of technology.
'We need to reduce the number of forces by two-thirds, with the new bigger and fully capable regional forces supported by the best of modern technology and making better use of the limited funding available.'
He also characterised Chancellor Rachel Reeves' decision to increase police funding by 2.3% above inflation each year in the recent spending review as 'disappointing'.
Put to him on the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg that he did not get the money that he had hoped for in the spending review and was already planning to cut 1,700 officers, then asked how many he is going to have to cut now, he said: 'So we've cut 1,600 over the last couple of years… 1,700 officers and staff this year, that 3,300 out of an organisation just over 40,000 is a big hit.'
Sir Mark said they have not got all of the details on the spending settlement but he is 'nervous about whether we'll be able to make ends meet with that' which is why he is calling for police reform.
Put to him that he had warned he would have to de-prioritise some crimes, and asked what the force will not investigate, Sir Mark said: 'So I don't want policing activity to fall off the list, and I know that the mayor and the Home Secretary have pushed hard for the most police funding that we can get.
'We are determined to improve day in and day out experiences of Londoners on the streets. We can only do that if we focus ruthlessly on police work.
'When new recruits join they expect they're going to spend most of their time protecting the public, enforcing the law, catching criminals. Within a couple of years 80% of them are saying 'I spend most of my time safeguarding the vulnerable, that's critical work, but that's not the core work of policing'.
'So we need help to cut away some of these areas where other pressed public services have effectively pushed work to the police. There are 80,000 missing children from children's home a year in the country. That is really problematic.
'It also falls elsewhere. Policing of football matches across the country, mainly Premier League, cost policing £70 million it doesn't get back from football clubs. In London, it's more than a third of that.'
He said there should be a 'polluter pays approach' adding: 'If you're running a profit making event that because of the nature of it, requires security, requires policing to support your security because of the criminality that is going to be experienced, why isn't the organiser paying for that, rather than local communities who lose their resources to go to football matches?'
Sir Mark said the police reforms are 'essential', adding: 'If we look at the spending on policing and public safety from the 80s through to the noughties, it was a much higher level than it is today. Over the last decade or more, the proportion that governments are prepared to put to policing is much lower. I don't see that changing dramatically.
'So we've got to make the best use of every pound that governments can give to us.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's 90-Day Tariff Pause Is Ending. What Happens Next?
Trump's 90-Day Tariff Pause Is Ending. What Happens Next?

Bloomberg

timean hour ago

  • Bloomberg

Trump's 90-Day Tariff Pause Is Ending. What Happens Next?

Never miss an episode. Follow The Big Take daily podcast today. In late April, shortly after President Trump's announcement of sweeping reciprocal tariffs sent markets reeling, the White House announced a 90-day pause on when those tariffs would go into effect. That pause is about to end and while the Trump administration has announced a few tentative trade agreements — including one with the UK and another with Vietnam — they're nowhere near 90. On today's Big Take podcast, Bloomberg's Brendan Murray and host David Gura discuss what the White House has accomplished, what it hasn't and where the trade war goes from here. Listen and follow The Big Take on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. Terminal clients: click here to subscribe. Here is a lightly edited transcript of the conversation:

Before the government overhauls special educational needs, lessons must be learnt
Before the government overhauls special educational needs, lessons must be learnt

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Before the government overhauls special educational needs, lessons must be learnt

Whatever else may be said about the government's plans for the education of children with special needs, they cannot be handled in the same, calamitous way as were the reforms to personal independence payments (PIP). As has been said with enormous force during the low-key commemoration of Labour's first year in office, lessons must be learnt. The education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, is the lead minister in preparing the schools white paper in October, which will include proposals for changes to the special needs framework. She has already caused some concern by refusing to rule out changing the system of education, health and care plans (EHCPs), and the rights groups and backbench MPs in her party have mobilised in response. In fairness, Ms Phillipson and her colleagues have talked about changes to EHCPs in the past. However, the recent welfare reform bill fiasco has both sharpened anxieties and bolstered the confidence of Labour backbenchers that they can defy the party leadership and block reform. The Labour general election manifesto was also oblique on this point. An element of fear, if not paranoia, has entered the debate, and Ms Phillipson's task has been much more difficult because of the mistakes made by her colleagues – Rachel Reeves as chancellor, Liz Kendall as work and pensions secretary, and the prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer. Ms Phillipson is one of the brighter stars in the Labour firmament, but she will be fortunate if she emerges from this process with an improved EHCP regime or her reputation enhanced. Trust has been eroded. For any government of any party, reforming the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) provision for children and young people presents particular challenges, and rightly so. These are among the most vulnerable of people, and they cannot be subject to discriminatory treatment, both as a matter of law and of morality. As a society, there is a duty to provide for children and young people with physical and learning disabilities, and to offer them the best start in life, maximising their independence and life chances. Their parents need and deserve support, and any failure to do so is unconscionable. In contrast to the PIP reforms, there must be no feeling that reform is solely or even primarily driven by the Treasury and the need for savings, though there is no escaping the financial realities. As Ms Reeves and Ms Kendall discovered to their cost, there are red lines that this generation of Labour MPs will not cross solely for the sake of meeting fiscal rules. Ms Phillipson, therefore, must win the arguments – and, as far as possible, carry all those concerned with her as she reshapes the regime and improves it. Therefore, the various groups representing SEND children and parents need to be closely involved in each stage of policy development. This is something she is now well placed to do, given recent events. In any case, because of what happened with PIP entitlements, she has no alternative. The parliamentary Labour Party, emboldened as it now is, will insist on being consulted. When the time comes to publish the white paper, there should be no nasty surprises. If there are, it will be just as doomed as the welfare reform bill. Secondly, this process cannot be rushed, or perceived to be rushed. The deadline of October for the schools white paper is a reasonable one but it should not take precedence over good policy. If the sections on SEND are not ready to be published, then they should be postponed. Indeed, there is a strong case for giving SEND policy a comprehensive study and white paper of its own, given the sensitivities and complexities involved. Again, the lesson of recent events is that a late policy is preferable to a bad policy. There is also a real need for a better understanding – entirely separate from the cost – of the merits of special schools or children's inclusion in the general school system, which will, of course, vary by individual cases. It is also wrong, as seems to be the case now, that variations in provision across different local authorities can be so stark – a postcode lottery. Thirdly, there does have to be some cognisance of the financial trends: why they are happening and how they will evolve. These are not all well understood even by the experts. Many more children are being given statutory rights under their hard-won EHCPs, but the reasons for the sharp increase of some 70 per cent in less than a decade are less transparent. Next year, the projected annual cost of support for children with learning difficulties or disabilities is set to reach £12bn. The system of finance also needs to be changed. At the moment, the costs of statutory SEND obligations are met by school managements and local authorities in the first instance, and they tend to squeeze other important, albeit less vital, priorities. This will put local councils into a large cumulative deficit of £8bn by 2027, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. In other words, more councils will go bust, which helps no one. It would be far more satisfactory if there were a national system of SEND funding based on consistent criteria. Finally – and, again, drawing on an important lesson – the system for SEND and EHCPs should be founded on a cross-party consensus. This, admittedly, is unlikely, but for obvious reasons it would help children and parents, as well as schools and local authorities, to plan ahead and avoid stigmatisation if those with special needs were 'weaponised' for political advantage. That may prove beyond Ms Phillipson's abilities, but she must surely know that she and her government cannot afford another such debacle. This time around, unlike Ms Kendall, she can remind Sir Keir and Ms Reeves of certain political realities.

Business chiefs warn Labour against ‘anti-growth' wealth tax
Business chiefs warn Labour against ‘anti-growth' wealth tax

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Business chiefs warn Labour against ‘anti-growth' wealth tax

A new wealth tax under Labour risks sparking an exodus of entrepreneurs from Britain, business chiefs have warned. Sir Rocco Forte, Sir Martin Sorrell and Sir Philip Hampton are urging Downing Street to ignore calls for a new levy, which they said would scare off the rich and damage growth. The City grandees have weighed in on the debate after Lord Kinnock, the former Labour leader, suggested the Government was 'willing to explore' bringing in a new wealth tax. Sir Rocco, who runs his eponymous hotel chain, said any potential levy would only increase the number of entrepreneurs quitting the country after the Government's non-dom tax raid. He said: 'Labour has already seen a huge exodus of wealthy people which is ongoing, with many more due to leave before the Budget. A wealth tax will further exacerbate the problem.' This embedded content is not available in your region. Sir Martin, the chief executive of advertising firm S4 Capital, added: 'It would result in people leaving the country and not just wealthy people or people who've accumulated those assets but people who were looking to accumulate assets over time.' Sir Philip, the former Royal Bank of Scotland chairman, said it would be a 'very anti-growth policy' that would jeopardise tax-raising efforts. He said: 'What you lose most by having things like the wealth taxes is the people who can invest in the country. 'Those are exactly the sort of people you want, people who are going to work hard and contribute to society as well as becoming well off and making high tax payments. 'I can't think of a business sector that wouldn't be adversely affected by this.' Their criticism represents a firm rejection of the plans put forward by Lord Kinnock, who said the Government could raise an extra £10bn a year by imposing a 2pc tax on assets worth more than £10m. His comments came after the ministers were warned that taxes would have to be raised following the Prime Minister's welfare about-turn last week. Sir Philip said: 'I think it's a very strange idea from a party that was elected to try to secure economic growth. 'It's in contradiction to the election manifesto that the Labour Party fought the last election on.' Sir Martin said that a wealth tax threatened to drive people abroad: 'Trying to distribute a smaller cake doesn't work. What you should be trying to do is trying to create a bigger cake.' In the UK today, the top 1pc of earners pay around 28.5pc of all income tax, according to analysis of HM Revenue & Customs figures. Sir Rocco said: 'The Government has already created a declining economy with large reductions in employment. A wealth tax will make things much worse and further discourage investment.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Sign in to access your portfolio

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store