A POLICE boss has asked the Government to axe the law which could make the force pay for damage caused during last summer's Burnley 'riot.'

The chairman of Lancashire Police Authority has written to the Home Office asking for the repeal of the 1885 Riot Damages Act in the forthcoming Police Reform Bill.

Ruth Henig, who is also chairman of the National Association of Police Authorities, said the act -- which makes police authorities liable for damages during a riot -- is archaic and places an unfair burden on police.

She has been backed by Race Equality Council member Shahid Malik, the son of the Deputy Mayor of Burnley, Coun Rafique Malik, -- even though he and his father disagree with the police insistence that the disorder in June wasn't a riot.

He said he had already raised the issue with Home Secretary David Blunkett and received a sympathetic response.

But people such as uninsured Oxford Road newsagent Mohammed Sarfraz, whose home and business were affected in the disturbances, have said compensation from the police is the only way of rebuilding their livelihood.

The cost of the disorder in Burnley has been estimated at more than £1million.

Lancashire Police, however, are expected to reject claims they are liable as it did not to refer to the disorder as a riot -- a move which could exempt them from payouts.

The Burnley Task Force, set up to examine the causes of the disturbances, also refused to use the word 'riots.'

However, police authorities covering Oldham and Bradford, where there was also trouble during the summer, could find themselves liable for payouts amounting to millions of pounds.

The repeal of the Riot Act would mean the forces were not liable for damage caused last summer but would increase the burden on private insurance companies which could instead be hit with claims for damage to homes and businesses.

In the letter to Home Office Minister John Denham written as a result of the summer troubles, Ruth Henig said: "The legislation is now widely viewed as archaic and an urgent review is justified on a number of grounds.

"In particular, the provisions of the Act apply even when there has been no negligence or default on the part of the police.

"Whilst police forces and authorities clearly have a crucial role to play in maintaining community relations, they clearly operate within a complex web of local partnerships and community groups.

"Moreover, one of the basic assumptions underpinning the Act -- that riots are a failure to provide adequate policing -- is no longer valid in today's environment.

"Provision is not made through the Police Grant to meet such costs and, unless other central funding is available, the costs can only be met through an increase in the council tax precept or reduction in other police services."

Mr Malik said: "There is no doubt from what we saw and to take it straight out of the Oxford English dictionary that what happened in Burnley was a riot.

"But in cases like this those who are found to have carried the wanton damage should be liable for the losses suffered by people like Mr Sarfraz."

Mr Malik said it was unfair that police should be lumbered with such huge costs as the result of a law which had remained unchanged for 130 years.

Newsagent Mohammed Sarfraz is one of those whose home and business were affected in the disturbances.

He is appealing for compensation from the police because his newsagent's on Oxford Road was not insured, owing to what he has called "financial difficulties."

He estimates the cost of the damage to be in the region of £85,000 and said: "If I do not get paid out it will mean me losing everything."

Mohammed has managed to reopen the shop open but has moved his family to rented accommodation in Bracewell Street.