PEOPLE who made claims estimated at a total of £1million after the Burnley riots may have to foot the bill themselves if the Riot Act (Damages) is repealed.

A repeal, which would let Lancashire Police Authority off its obligation to pay damages, is due to be debated by the authority.

The Government review of the 1886 act follows the violent disturbances in Burnley, Bradford and Oldham in 2001.

Under the current system, if a disturbance is declared a riot, the local police authority has to pay out for damage to businesses and properties.

Lancashire Police have refused to pay out on 16 claims in Burnley, claiming the "serious disturbances" were not a riot.

Cost of the disorder in Burnley, which lasted for three days at the end of June 2001, has been estimated at more than £1million.

Greater Manchester Police have paid out £8,963 for the Oldham riots and West Yorkshire £450,000 for the Bradford disturbances.

The Home Office is to examine whether to keep the 117-year-old Act as it is, repeal it entirely or reform it to limit the amount of public cash paid out by police authorities.

Members of Lancashire Police Authority, who will discuss the plans at a meeting next week, look set to back plans for a complete repeal, which could leave businesses and individuals liable to pay for any damage.

Chairman Dr Ruth Henig said: "I would certainly like to see the repeal of the act, but I think there needs to be some sort of safeguard for people in the community so that if insurance cover is not possible, people should not be left without redress."

One option suggested in the consultation papers is that if insurance cover is not possible then claims could partly be met by the police authority or Home Office.

The consultation paper issued by the Home Office says it is right that something should be done to stop the tax payer facing unlimited liability for riot damage when insurance is available and some compensation could be paid by the court.

But it accepts that there can be problems over insurance claims from businesses caused by riots. It is particularly worried about the effect on removing the "safety net" of riot damage compensation from small firms and shops.

The government is looking to see how -- if at all -- a new system with a cap on the total amount paid out or on individual claims could work fairly and protect small businesses and persuade insurers to take more liability.

The consultation paper asks whether in modern circumstances -- where riots can be sparked by a wide variety of causes -- the basis of the Act that the police are liable for damages for "failing to keep the Queen's Peace" still applies.

The move has been welcomed by Burnley MP Peter Pike who said: "I think the Act needs reviewing but I shall wait to come a decision when the government comes forward with some proposals.

"As far as the current position in Burnley is concerned, the police maintain they are not liable as they were "serious disturbances, not "riots".

"This is always going to be a fine line to decide. I do think insurance companies should take more responsibility and not wriggle out of paying claims because it was "a riot".

"But in view of what happened in 2001 and I think it is right to review the working of the Act." The Government will make a final decision on the issue next year.