Police Officer Reductions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I requested a debate on police cuts to look at the evidence. My constituents are interested in the numbers of front-line police and in how those police protect them and their families. I will also look at the evidence on how the number of front-line officers affects crime and at the effect of the cuts in different parts of the country.

I pay tribute to police officers in front-line and so-called back-office roles, to community support officers and to civilian staff who support their uniformed colleagues. The hard work and dedication of the police has made a huge difference to communities throughout Merseyside and the rest of the country. The dedicated people who work as police officers and support staff feel, however, that their hard work is being compromised by cuts that go way too far and that those cuts will undermine the ability of the police service to keep the people of Merseyside safe. They also have grave concerns that cuts in police numbers will put pressure on them to go on duty alone, rather than with a colleague—a risk not only to personal safety, but to ability to do the job.

Turning to the evidence, according to the Home Office in July, the number of police officers had dropped by nearly 10,000 under this Government—more than the inspectorate of constabulary expected and showing the depth of the cuts involved. Substantially more than half the cuts so far are from 999, neighbourhood and traffic response—officers we rely on in an emergency. That represents the lowest number of police officers on our streets in almost a decade. The number of police community support officers has fallen by 9% in the past year alone. The British crime survey shows that crime fell by 43% under Labour and that such progress has ground to a halt under the Tory-led Government, whom we now know have cut almost 10,000 officers. Our first piece of evidence therefore suggests a link between the number of police officers and the level of crime.

When Labour left office, record numbers of police were on the street: over 16,500 more than in 1997, in addition to more than 16,000 new PCSOs. I will come to the worrying Government plans for PCSOs shortly. The record number of police officers meant that not only did crime fall by 43% under Labour but the chance of being a victim of crime was the lowest since records began. Also, for the first time since records began, crime fell in a recession. That, sadly, is no longer the case, as we see the fall in crime grinding to a halt in a double-dip recession made in Downing street. Indeed, the lack of jobs and growth is putting additional pressure on the police.

Historically, people unable to find work might, from economic necessity or lack of anything productive to do, find crime to be an alternative. That was resisted initially in recession through a combination of prevention and policing. Preventive measures put in place allowed people to keep their homes and caused unemployment to be much lower than in previous recessions. Another key measure of the previous Labour Government was the excellent neighbourhood policing initiative, which helped to cut crime rather than cutting the police.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend referred to prevention. Does he agree that our police officers work hard to fulfil the first and primary responsibility laid down by Robert Peel, which is to prevent crime, rather than only chasing after criminals? Does he also agree that it is greatly to the credit of the police that they do not whinge about their difficult situation but get on with the job? In a way, however, the effects of the reduced numbers to which my hon. Friend referred are therefore played down.

[Bill Esterson]

My right hon. Friend will make an excellent police and crime commissioner. I shall touch on the post for which he is standing a little later, but he is absolutely right that the police do get on with things. They soldier on regardless of what is put before them by politicians, and they try to make the best of a bad job—the record police cuts qualify as a bad job.

The record number of front-line police under the previous Government ensured that any inclination to crime that resulted from being out of work or short of money was challenged by the police because there were enough of them. A combination of prevention and enforcement therefore meant that crime continued to fall in a recession.

Now we have fewer police and worrying signs of a reverse in the levels of crime, following unprecedented cuts in funding, all at the expense of those at risk of suffering from crime up and down the country. So much for being tough on crime and tough on its causes—more like tough on the victims of crime, as they are the victims of a political dogma that sees the opportunity to cut the size of the state, not least policing.

People in my constituency want to see police on their streets, but 624 police officer posts will have been lost from the Merseyside force between 2010 and the end of 2012-13, as a direct result of the Government’s 20% cut in the police budget. A further 178 staff support posts will be lost over the same period. The Prime Minister promised to protect the front line, but that has not happened. It is no good Ministers blaming chief constables and police authorities. A 20% cut by the Government is not the fault of the police service. If they are so keen to cut the amount spent on police officers, why have they insisted, with due respect to my right hon. Friend, on a new bureaucracy that will cost more money to set up—money that could be spent on front-line officers? I am, of course, referring to police and crime commissioners.

The prospect of having Tory commissioners striding around their patches, lauding it over professional police officers, is not a happy one. I understand that Tory candidates plan to have their own uniforms, like some latter-day sheriff of Nottingham, although I hope that the people of Nottinghamshire will have the good sense to vote Labour in the elections on 15 November, to avoid the dreadful prospect of a series of Tory commissioners playing at cops and robbers.

I turn to another part of the police service and the excellent men and women who also contributed to the cuts in crime that we saw under the previous Government. I mentioned them earlier. Police community support officers are a key part of neighbourhood policing, which makes a big difference through the relationships that they and their police constable colleagues can build and in their work in crime prevention and helping to create productive activities, particularly for young people, often directing them away from crime and antisocial behaviour.

From April 2013, funding for PCSOs will no longer be ring-fenced. In my view they are essential to the success of neighbourhood policing, but given the massive cuts being made by the Government, it will be very difficult for chief constables to keep the current number of PCSOs. On Merseyside, only one local authority has been able to continue its funding of PCSOs in support of the police authority funding. Local government has also been clobbered by this Government of course, and it is no surprise that councils such as mine in Sefton had to end their funding for PCSOs several years ago.

In 2011, a Unison campaign to protect PCSOs in Lancashire obtained more than 5,000 signatures from the public and created supporting motions in the House of Lords. Council leaders responded to such a groundswell of opinion throughout Lancashire by agreeing to continue to support funding to keep PCSOs on their streets.

What is happening to police services, as the police make the cuts imposed on them? Some 75% of front desks have closed in Merseyside and Lancashire alone, resulting in significant loss of direct service to communities and of long-serving staff who have built up local knowledge and connections that will not be replaced. In my constituency, front desks in both Formby and Maghull have closed. Many people, especially elderly people, feel safer when they know there is a police station round the corner that they can go to, even if they do not use it often. People do not always like to use the phone, or have a car to go to a police station miles away.

One third of custody suites have also closed throughout Merseyside. There are also concerns about forensic science and fingerprint services. The concern raised with me is that there will be a significant reduction in police staff and loss of a highly skilled work force in services that play a major part in catching criminals. Potential closure of those specialist services is in advance of a national review that is due to make its own recommendations for all forces to implement.

Next on the list are control room staff. The 999 and general inquiry services are experiencing high turnover of staff in north-west England, resulting in the use of transient, inexperienced agency workers. Forces such as Cheshire have evidence of low morale in this group, which is forced to work to unrealistic Government targets on call time allocation and other indicators. Some police services are considering outsourcing, which will increase the risk of having staff without the local knowledge and relationships needed to ensure that such work retains its focus, despite targets, on the proper response that the public need, not on statistics or profits. That reminds me that the Government are closing coastguard stations around the country, including the one in my constituency, to make way for two super-national call centres that will have no local knowledge. Service and safety are being sacrificed in the coastguard service, and it seems that the same may be happening in the police service.

Police services throughout the country have no option other than to deliver the Government’s cuts agenda. Chief constables say that many of the jobs that go in the various specialisms will be have to be done by police officers, who will therefore spend less time on the beat and more time in an office, with the added expense that that will incur. That will add to the already sizeable reductions in the number of police on the beat.

The biggest cuts have been in the poorest areas. As with the fire service and local government, the metropolitan areas have had the biggest cuts. A 20% cut in Government grant across the board hits those with the lowest council tax base hardest, because grant makes up a bigger proportion of the total finance available.

I met representatives of the Merseyside Police Federation who told me that the Government’s cuts to the force are dangerous. The federation warned me that Merseyside police will be

“significantly affected by the 20% cut in police budgets imposed upon police forces”.

The effect of the Government’s cuts on the police has been even greater in Merseyside, as I demonstrated, because of how the police budget is calculated. The ration of funding to the police is dependent on the demographics of the area. Merseyside is funded with 83% Government grant and 17% council tax precept. Surrey is funded with around 50% Government grant and 50% precept, on account of the relative wealth in the area.

The Government’s decision to slash its police funding by 20% has a greater impact on areas with more deprivation than on more affluent areas, particularly those down south. As a result, Merseyside police are being hit particularly hard by the cuts. Merseyside is set to lose 650 police officers, as well as 103 police community support officers and 452 civilian staff, because it must lose £61.4 million from its budget over the next four years.

The Police Federation tells me that Merseyside has already lost around 500 of the 600 police officers due to be lost through the process of natural wastage and a recruitment freeze. The police authority is doing its utmost to make savings to counter the loss of such a large number of officers. This week, it was announced that 40 new officers are being taken on because of the savings that have been made, but that is a drop in the ocean considering the losses that Merseyside police has experienced. Forty gains against 600 losses is a pretty bleak score card, and Merseyside police still face losses because of the huge savings in the next few years.

One of my major concerns is that the excellent work by Merseyside police officers in recent years, particularly in reducing crime rates, will be reversed. Merseyside police have taken great strides in combating crime rates over the past decade, but the Police Federation believes that it is inevitable that crime and disorder throughout Merseyside will rise, so turning round the continuous reduction that has been witnessed in recent years. I have spoken to officers who warn that the cuts are dangerous and will lead to a rise in crime. The Government need to know the damage that they are doing to policing in Merseyside. The result will be not just a rise in crime, but an increase in the fear of crime in our communities.

I said that I would look at the evidence, which is found in the figures produced by the Home Office and in what police officers say when responding to surveys. A survey by the Police Federation shows that police officers in England and Wales believe that the Government’s cut of 20% in the police budget over the next four years and the reduction in police officer numbers will have a detrimental effect on crime and result in the public receiving a poorer service. That is what police officers say. The evidence is also found in what the Police Federation says, in the experience of the public through the loss of front desks, police officers and PCSOs on the beat and in the increase in crime.

In Lancashire, the acting chief constable, Chris Weigh, told the Lancashire Evening Post that his force was taking 513 police officers off the streets and that that had led to an inevitable increase in the number of offences. The force has an annual budget of £287 million and must save £42 million over four years. Mr Weigh described how he has been tackling burglaries in the county and how his officers had tackled burglary spikes last year. He asked how much longer special operations can continue to be employed to target burglary, when resources are falling. Figures released in April show that serious acquisitive crime in Lancashire rose by 8%, house burglaries were up by 8.4%, vehicle crime was up by 6.4% and assault without injury was up by 15%. The acting chief constable said that there has been

“a genuine, real increase in offending”.

That was confirmed by the chair of the Lancashire Police Federation, Rachel Baines, who said:

“It is the inevitable result. Officers are being hit from every angle.”

In just two years, the Government have cut police numbers back to what they were nearly a decade ago, weakened police powers, undermined morale and reduced crime prevention. What is required is a change of course and for the Government to implement a proper plan to cut crime, not police officers. We need real change from the Government to make our streets safer. Neighbourhood policing must be prioritised, antisocial behaviour must be taken seriously and the causes of crime need to be tackled, with police and local authorities working together. We should ensure that there is no privatisation of core policing and that strong communities are built, with respect to all, and responsibility by all.

I welcome the Minister to his post today. I hope that his response will provide confidence to my community and others around the country that he will listen and act, not only on the points that I have made today, but on what the police and public say about the need to reverse police cuts.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Turner, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on securing the debate, even though I do not agree with a great deal of the assumptions and analysis he has presented this afternoon.

Perhaps we can start on a point of agreement, however, by recognising the work of the police service. As the Minister with responsibility for security during the Olympic and Paralympic games, it has been a privilege for me to work alongside the police. I pay tribute to their incredible work over the 105 days of the policing plan for the events, which ensured that safety and security were provided. We all recognise the job that the police do and the big contribution that they make to keeping our communities safe. In the context of Merseyside police, I also pay tribute to the work of Chief Constable Jon Murphy, which is providing a sense of assurance, and I want to recognise the work that individual police forces and police authorities are doing to respond to the challenge of dealing with budget settlements over the comprehensive spending review.

Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s central argument, the Government have no choice but to deal with the deficit that was caused by the actions of the previous Government, meaning that all public services must constrain their spending. As a service spending £14 billion a year, there is a broad consensus that the police can and must make their fair share of the required savings. The Government are clear that savings need to be made while ensuring that the quality of service that the public receive is maintained and, where possible, improved. This is not about salami-slicing policing resources; it is about transformation and long-term change in the way that services are delivered.

Furthermore, there is a great deal of talk about the reduction in central Government funding for the police, but we must be clear that that is only part of the picture. The police service, nationally, receives around a quarter of its income from the police precept element of council tax. The exact proportion varies from force to force, and I should stress, the level at which it is set is a matter for individual police authorities —or, from November, the police and crime commissioners—to decide.

Nationally, about £2 billion of savings needs to be made by the police service by 2015. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has challenged forces to drive through efficiencies, and it has shown that over half the savings required nationally—some £1.15 billion—could be achieved by forces raising their performance to that of the average of comparator forces.

Action to date in support of and among local forces includes our having extended the public sector pay freeze to police officers and staff, which will save at least £350 million by the end of the spending review period. Savings arising from the implementation of part 1 of Tom Winsor’s “Independent Review of Police Officers’ and Staff Remuneration and Conditions” will support chief officers in keeping posts and maintaining and improving services for the public. The police can, and are, making further savings by adopting an increasingly national approach to buying equipment and services, and forces can also make substantial savings in their IT spending.

On procurement, we are seeing the service operating with increasing commercial intelligence and using its collective buying power to buy more smartly and at a reduced cost. We have supported the service in doing that by mandating the use by all forces of specified framework agreements for purchases in key categories of goods and services, identified through the collaborative police procurement programme.

There is already evidence of the service’s success in delivering even better value from national frameworks by working together to purchase equipment through them. The service can go further in making procurement savings through reducing the volume of spend, as well as through price savings. The Government have consulted on extending the range of mandated categories and are considering the consultation responses. They have also identified the scope for the service to save at least £200 million a year by joining up procurement of non-IT goods and services.

Forces are also making substantial savings in IT. We have seen police spend fall by £73 million last year compared with 2009-10, and we are clear that there are real opportunities for further savings to be made. The new police information communications technology company will play a key role in helping forces make the most of such opportunities. In total, forces are planning to make about 24% of their savings through reducing non-pay costs. As just under 20% of forces’ budgets are spent on non-pay areas, that shows that forces are prioritising finding savings from non-pay budgets.

[Bill Esterson]

The Minister touched on a point that I did not raise, which was about using private companies to run police services. As he will know, that is of great concern to the Police Federation and many others. Perhaps he can help me understand how a private company, where it needs to make a profit, can run services more cheaply to the taxpayer than if the efficiencies were sorted out in-house.

[James Brokenshire]

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that that has been the experience; a number of private companies, in specific roles and with specific functions, have carried out those services, and many police forces around the country are utilising private companies to deliver some specialist services.

I should apologise for the absence today of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, who is at the police superintendents conference and is therefore unable to respond to the debate. I know that he would want me to send his apologies. He has made the point, as the hon. Member for Sefton Central may know—my right hon. Friend’s comments were reported in this morning’s newspapers—that the private sector can and does have a role in the delivery of certain services. We are clear, however, that the fundamental principle of warranted officers conducting police services is always to be the bedrock of policing. Although the hon. Member for Sefton Central may find it strange to think that private services can deliver, and assist in the delivery of efficient and effective services, we believe that there is a role for the private sector in such a context.

The hon. Gentleman asked about officer numbers. The Government are clear that what matters is how officers are used and deployed. For instance, when the last Government left office, about 25,000 officers and PCSOs were working in non-front-line roles. In some cases, there may be understandable reasons for that, but by and large that is not where the public expect to see them. It is not where their skills, experience and professional judgment are best used and, frankly, it is not where they will deliver best value for money for the taxpayer.

The Select Committee on Home Affairs said in February 2011:

“We accept that there is no simple relationship between numbers of police officers and levels of crime.”

That point was reiterated in the report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, “Policing in austerity: One year on”, published in July 2012. It is borne out by the evidence from the majority of forces, which, despite also experiencing reductions in budgets and officer numbers, are successfully managing also to reduce crime in their areas. I pay tribute to their work and therefore disagree fundamentally with the analysis that the hon. Member for Sefton Central sought to make.

The Government have a clear vision, which focuses on restoring professional discretion and reducing bureaucracy in the police service. We are committed to taking central Government out of local policing and concentrating instead on the national issues on which the Government should focus. To increase local discretion, we have cut police red tape, saving 4.5 million police hours, the equivalent of 2,100 officer posts. Additionally, the Government are replacing bureaucratic accountability with local democratic accountability through directly elected police and crime commissioners. On national issues, we are introducing the new National Crime Agency, which will lead the UK’s fight against serious and organised crime, strengthen policing at the border and ensure that local police are linked up to work nationally and overseas.

What matters is how effective the police are at fighting crime, and the effectiveness of a police force depends not on overall numbers but, ultimately, on how well it deploys its resources. That is why although total officer numbers across England and Wales fell between March 2011 and March 2012 by 3.6%, recorded crime also fell by 4.2%. I believe that that national picture is reflected in Merseyside.

Merseyside has seen its central Government funding reduced by 6.7% in 2012-13. This year, Merseyside is receiving £264 million of Government revenue funding. The local authority also agreed to increase council tax by 3%—it was one of 22 to do so—meaning that the authority is receiving an additional £64 million of funding through precept for 2012-13. Plans show that Merseyside is planning to increase by 2015 the proportion of officers on the front line from 85% to 91%, which is higher than most other forces. The force has also planned to have 76% of its total work force on the front line—again, a higher proportion than most other forces.

Service delivery continues to be protected. In the past year, recorded crime has remained flat in Sefton Central and has fallen in each of the other Merseyside police boroughs. Between March 2011 and March 2012, total recorded crime across Merseyside fell by 3.5%. The force currently retains more than 200 points at which the public can access police services. I also point out that victim satisfaction for Merseyside is, at 88%, greater than the level for England and Wales as a whole. I pay tribute to the work that is conducted in Merseyside.

Although we may disagree on a number of fundamental issues, I trust that the hon. Member for Sefton Central will agree with me that the vast majority of police forces are rising to the challenge posed by the funding and work force reductions made necessary by the budget deficit, which, I say again, was caused by the actions of his Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

We do indeed want decisions to be made in a timely manner. That is better for the individuals themselves and for their families, if it is possible. If the hon. Lady writes to my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, he will look into the case.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

9. What assessment she has made of the effect of change in police numbers on the level of crime since May 2010.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

16. What assessment she has made of the effect of change in police numbers on the level of crime since May 2010.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

The Home Affairs Committee said last year:

“We accept that there is no simple relationship between numbers of police officers and levels of crime.”

The Government agree.

[Bill Esterson]

There are 385 fewer front-line police officers in Merseyside than there were in March 2010. According to the British crime survey, there has been the biggest increase in recorded crime for a decade. People in Merseyside could be forgiven for thinking that there was a link between the two. Will the Minister now stand at the Dispatch Box and deny the existence of that link?

[Nick Herbert]

I have already quoted the Select Committee’s view that there is no simple link. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that according to the latest official figures relating to crime in Merseyside, published earlier this year, in December last year overall crime had fallen by 2% and the number of instances of violence against the person had fallen by 7%. There are areas of specific concern, but it is not true to say that overall crime has been rising in the hon. Gentleman’s police force area.

Abu Qatada

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend helpfully clarifies again the definition of the deadline; it was, indeed, Monday 16 April. This is a very simple matter: this Government want to deport Abu Qatada. We have taken action to do that, and we will resume it when it is once again possible, but I was clear that it may take many months to do that, and there are various legal avenues available to Abu Qatada.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It seems to me that the raw and naked opportunism came from the Home Secretary seeking good headlines from announcing this prematurely. She has admitted that she knew of the BBC advice. Will she confirm whether she had advice from her officials that there was doubt about the deadline—yes or no?

[Mrs May]

That is interesting, as we have now learned that the Opposition’s view is that the best advice to Government should always come from the BBC. I can only assume that that is what they did when in government. What this Government did on Tuesday was take, at the first opportunity, the action to resume the deportation of Abu Qatada. After 11 years, we want to take the action that will see Abu Qatada deported. That is what we started to do on Tuesday, and it is what we will do again when it is open to us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am happy to confirm to my right hon. Friend that only police officers have the power of arrest. They will continue to patrol the streets, to respond to 999 calls, and to lead investigations. The public expect the police to be experts in catching criminals, and that is what we want them to be. We do not want them to be experts in human resources or IT, which are entirely the sorts of areas that can involve collaboration with the private sector.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Of course, collaboration and sharing of good practice has been going on for very many years, including in national resilience. Would the Home Secretary not do better to put in place the collaboration arrangements that she talks about so fondly before making cuts of 16,000 in front-line policing?

[Mrs May]

Police forces up and down the country are doing what is necessary to make the savings that we are asking them to make. They are transforming the way in which they provide policing and rightly looking to ensure that the private sector can be brought in where that will increase efficiency and save money. A Labour Government would have cut police spending and reduced police budgets. Nobody on the Labour Front Bench has said that they would intend to reverse the cuts in police spending. It is about time that the Opposition stopped opposing every opportunity that we are giving the police to ensure that they can save money from back offices and get the police out on the streets.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)]

We have published the new missing children and adults strategy, which has three important provisions. The first of these is prevention and reducing the number of people who go missing in the first place. The second is protection and reducing the harm to those who do go missing. The third is provision—providing support and advice to missing persons and their families by referring them promptly to agencies and ensuring that they understand how and where to access help.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Merseyside police have been very successful in cutting metal theft in my constituency, particularly by working with reputable traders. They deserve congratulations on their approach. Will the Home Secretary help the police across the country and back Labour’s four-point plan, including tougher police powers to close down rogue traders?

Hillsborough Disaster

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

May I add my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and commend the families of the 96 for their dignified fight for justice and truth? The families that I have spoken to simply want to know the truth behind what happened that day. I want to tell the story of one family in their own words and raise some of the questions that need to be answered.

My constituent Barry Devonside was at the match. His son Chris was 18 and he died that day. I shall continue in Barry’s own words:

“Having left the ground at around 3.45 I made my way to the Halifax road and hopefully on to the point where we had arranged to meet following the game. I was halfway up the Halifax road when I met up with Chris’s friend and two others who had travelled with us, asking where Chris was. Jason, Chris’s friend, told me I should expect the worst. He said Chris had been killed. I turned around and made my way towards the ground. As I passed a telephone box, there were about 100 people wanting to use the phone. I suppose they were wanting to ring home to let their family know that they were safe or to give bad news.

I spoke with a female constable and said to her that I had just been told that our son had been killed in the ground, and she said I should go to the gym which was being used as a temporary mortuary. I made my way there in total fear that what Jason had said to me was true. Arriving at the gym, I asked a lady where is the temporary mortuary. She pointed me in the direction, which was a few yards away. I knocked on the door and it seemed a lifetime for someone to answer.

It was a policeman who answered. He must have been the biggest policeman that I have ever seen. I realised why he was there: the police must have been expecting trouble. I gave him my name and that of our son Christopher and our address. He said, ‘Stand there.’ He went in. He must have been away 10 or 12 minutes. On his return he told me that there was nobody of Christopher’s description, which I could not understand as Jason had told me that he had gone into the temporary mortuary and given Chris’s full details to the police, his name, address and the name of his father, and stated that I was at the game.

I also gave the police officer a description of Chris. He was wearing a Welsh international rugby shirt but I was told no, he was not there. I wanted to call my wife but I could not remember our telephone number. A police sergeant offered to help. He spoke on my behalf but was told that we were ex-directory.”

Mr Devonside said that his number had never been ex-directory, but he was refused the opportunity to be put through to his wife. He went on:

“It was at this point that a lady a resident of Sheffield, Betty Thorp, kindly offered me help. She offered to drive me around a number of hospitals, looking in hope that Jason was wrong and Chris might be in one of the hospitals. I think we visited three hospitals, including a mortuary where we saw a number of police officers sitting on the floor looking shocked, and in the middle of the floor was a pile of clothes about 3 ft high.

Having been looking for Chris for about 5 or more hours, I was told to go a police station where they may have some information. This I did and waited for my brother and brother-in-law to arrive. Following this, around 11pm, we were told to go to the temporary mortuary, where Chris was all the time. Having identified Chris, the police wanted certain information from me. Apart from the relevant information, the only interest they had was about alcohol and had we consumed any. I can only think the police needed time to get their story right, though why they would need that time to keep a father away from his dead son I don’t know.

On leaving the gym with Betty Thorp and leaving the ground to look for Chris, there were a large number of press. They were shouting over to me, ‘Do you have any comment to make about Liverpool supporters urinating on the dead and stealing from the dead?’”

Those are Barry’s own words.

Let us hope that tonight we are a step closer to the full disclosure of the documents that the families need. I have been asked to raise some questions. The families need to be satisfied that they have all the information, otherwise many will wonder whether they know the truth or not. Why did certain things happen? Who took the decisions? What was discussed by police officers? Why were changes made to the notes of junior officers? What discussions took place between politicians? What influence did the culture of the time have? Why were the ambulances not allowed on the pitch? Why were fans pushed back into the enclosure as they tried to escape?

Some of these questions were answered in Lord Justice Taylor’s inquiry, but other answers are still needed, and the truth may be different from what was said at the time, and the truth may be different from what is in the Cabinet papers. Did police officers agree a line? Why did the press say that Liverpool fans stole from the dead and urinated on the bodies? Why did The Sun vilify the dead and show them and their families such disrespect?

Why was the most experienced senior police officer in South Yorkshire removed from his duties, yet not replaced with someone who understood how to balance safety with control? That person who knew in 1987 to delay the start of the same game was not there in 1989. I attended that game in 1987 and I remember how dangerous it could have been on that occasion. The same thing could have happened that year, but the police preparation was different.

The culture at football matches in the 1970s and 1980s was a disgrace. There was no balance between dealing with football-related violence and antisocial behaviour on the one hand, and public safety on the other. Anyone who watched football at that time experienced the ill-treatment of fans. The vast majority of us who watched football went to watch football, not to engage in violence, but the culture was such that safety was of no interest to those in charge of policing football, so people were pushed back into the central pen as they tried to escape, ambulances were prevented from coming on to the pitch, and the worst of the media lied about the dead and their grieving families.

The families of the 96 need the truth. They need to believe that they have all the facts. If the Government release their papers, they need to release all the papers once and for all. I heard the explanation from the Home Secretary about why the Government will withhold some personal details, but I caution her. The families and the wider community have faced countless obstacles, insults and setbacks—

[Mrs May]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and enabling me to clarify the point. The Government will not withhold any details. Any decision about redaction—and it should be minimal redaction—will be taken by the panel. The hon. Gentleman referred to personal details. It will be for the panel to discuss with the families whether personal details should be redacted, and that decision will be taken jointly. The Government will not redact anything in the papers that they release.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that clarification. She has made that point three times now, and it is extremely important that she is firm about it. It is the families’ perception that matters. They need to have total confidence. That is the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). The families need to have every confidence that the information released is all the information. That is what I am trying to achieve by pushing that point with the Home Secretary.

The families have faced countless obstacles, insults and setbacks as they have pursued their campaign for justice and for the truth, so we need to be very sure that all the information is released and nothing is hidden. Full disclosure must mean full disclosure.

Metropolitan Police Service

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Perhaps the hon. Lady should have raised that with the last Cabinet Office Minister, under the last Government, because that was when those issues arose.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

If Sir Paul Stephenson was right when he said that he made an error of judgment in his appointment of Neil Wallis at a time when he had not been implicated in phone hacking, what does that say about the Prime Minister’s judgment in appointing Andy Coulson at a time when he had already resigned once over the very same issue?

[Mrs May]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman could have listened to the answer that I have already given—on a number of occasions now—about the difference between the Government and the Metropolitan police. Of course, the point is that the Metropolitan police are responsible for investigating allegations of potential wrongdoing at the News of the World.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am very happy to tell my hon. Friend that the Home Office has, of course, protected £28 million over the next four years for specialist support services in relation to domestic violence and violence against women. At a meeting on 14 June, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and I heard from stakeholders, including the providers of women’s refuges, about the funding issues that they face. We have discussed with local authorities, mainly through the Department for Communities and Local Government, how local authorities should continue to support women’s refuges in their important work.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Each year, 5,000 people are arrested but not charged with rape. Will one of the Ministers, hopefully the Home Secretary, tell me for how many of those 5,000 it is appropriate for the police to apply to hold their DNA on record?

[Mrs May]

The whole point of the arrangement under the Protection of Freedoms Bill is that it will be for the police to make a decision about those individuals for whom they think it appropriate to apply to retain that DNA. However, I repeat a point that fellow Ministers made earlier: we are taking a different overall approach from the previous Labour Government because we believe that we cannot assume that everyone who is arrested is automatically guilty. The Labour Government made that assumption. We are putting safeguards in place to ensure that the police can make a judgment and apply for the retention of DNA for those arrested and not charged in circumstances that the police believe to be operationally important.