Taylor Swift Eras Tour at Wembley Stadium: questions remain for mayor Sadiq Khan over special policing

The London Assembly’s police and crime committee has demanded that the mayor disclose details of any discussions held between his team and the Metropolitan Police concerning the pop megastar’s security arrangements.

In its letter, sent at the end of October, the committee also requested that he outline the total number of police escorts provided to Ms Swift, as well as a breakdown of the total cost, including overtime costs incurred, amongst other details.

Mr Khan’s office was asked to respond within a week of the committee’s letter, but almost one month on from that deadline, no reply has been received.

Asked whether the delay could be explained, the mayor’s spokesman said only that Mr Khan “will respond to the Assembly in due course”.

Ms Swift performed at Wembley in August, just days after she pulled out of three planned concerts in Vienna after police foiled a terror plot there.

READ MORE: I saw Taylor Swift at Wembley Stadium for a second time and it was even more exhilarating- review and setlist

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said in October: “Neither the Prime Minister nor the Home Secretary, nor the Mayor of London, has the power to override the police on this matter. It is an operational decision for the police.

“They can put their own view. That’s certainly the case. But you would expect the Home Secretary and the mayor of the city where this event is taking place, given the history of what had just happened in Vienna, to be involved in the conversation about security arrangements.”

A spokesperson for the Met Police said at the time that the force is “operationally independent”, adding: “Our decision-making is based on a thorough assessment of threat, risk and harm and the circumstances of each case.”

The Assembly’s letter to the mayor, requesting details of exactly how it was agreed to provide Ms Swift with ‘VVIP’ status, was sent by the police and crime committee’s Conservative chair, Susan Hall – who stood against Mr Khan in this year’s mayoral election.

Giving her own views as an assembly member, rather than speaking in her cross-party role as committee chair, Ms Hall told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: “It’s been over a month since I wrote to the mayor to ask for information about the VVIP escort Taylor Swift received, and yet we have no answers.

“We also have no further answers about any involvement he may have had in arranging that escort.

“He has dodged and ducked responsibility, hid behind flippant answers on the rare occasions when he gives them, and treated Londoners with contempt over this whole shameful affair.

“It is a disgrace to the office he holds and I am deeply disappointed by it – we must have answers and my colleagues and I are determined to get them.”

The mayor is separately facing a complaint over his failure, initially, to correctly declare the fact that he accepted six free tickets – each worth £500 – for Ms Swift’s concert on August 15.

His original entry on City Hall’s register of gifts and hospitality incorrectly stated that the tickets were worth £194, not £500. Mr Khan also took 10 days longer than allowed to declare the tickets, and when he did, he wrongly claimed that they had been gifted by the Football Association, rather than LS Events – which is a contractor to City Hall.

The mayor’s spokesman said this was due to an “administrative error” and had been rectified.

See what’s going on in London - check us out on TikTok

Ms Hall has nonetheless asked City Hall’s monitoring officer, Rory McKenna, to formally investigate the incident as a “potential contravention” of the Gifts and Hospitality policy.

The assembly member’s complaint also referenced LS Events’ status as a City Hall contractor. She asked whether Mr McKenna could “clarify” the rules “regarding the receipt and declaration of hospitality donations from external suppliers and contractors for the Mayor of London and staff”.

As of Tuesday, December 3, City Hall said it had no update to give on whether the monitoring officer will be taking action or not.