Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

That was not a policy; that was a catastrophe. The previous Government went through a phase of allowing their rhetoric and some of their policy intentions to outrun any serious common sense and then found that they had to let people out early, before they had finished their sentence, because they could not physically get them into prisons. Whatever else comes out of a sentencing review, I trust that we will avoid any nonsense of that kind in our period of office.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

Evidence suggests that 75% to 90% of rapes go unreported, and I hope that the whole House will try to deal with that situation to improve it. Is the Justice Secretary at all worried that his plans to provide anonymity for defendants in rape trials will contribute to fewer rapists going to prison?

[Mr Clarke]

I do not think that there is anybody in this House—and there has not been for as long as I can remember—who is not in favour of anonymity for people who make complaints of rape and who does not think it extremely important to encourage women to come forward on all proper occasions to press complaints about the serious criminal offence of rape. The issues surrounding anonymity for the person accused are quite different from that, and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), has just addressed those questions. This is a matter of how far we can protect those people, and others accused of criminal offences, up to the time of charge. That approach was agreed by those on both sides of this House in the not-too-distant past—in the previous Parliament—and it probably will eventually be agreed in this Parliament too.

Police Grant Report

Caroline Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. On 20 April, in a “Daily Politics” general election debate, the right hon. Gentleman, now the shadow Home Secretary, was asked in terms whether he could guarantee that police numbers would not fall if Labour formed the next Government. He replied, “No.” He could not offer any such guarantee. But more than that, we know that the Labour Government were planning—indeed, we inherited spending plans—to cut departmental budgets by £44 billion a year by 2014-15. That would have been £44 billion of unallocated spending cuts. Where did they think they were going to get that money from? What services were they going to cut? They would not tell us, but the figure implied an average real reduction for unprotected Departments of 20%. Let us be clear: where cuts have to be made to police forces, they are Labour’s cuts; they are the cuts that Labour bequeathed to us because of its financial mismanagement.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

What assessment has the right hon. Gentleman made of the increase in costs to the police of having elected police commissioners?

[Nick Herbert]

We will shortly say more about the policy of directly elected individuals. It was a manifesto commitment that we made, and that reform will be valuable in protecting front-line policing and neighbourhood policing. I shall come on to that shortly, if the right hon. Lady will forgive me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend is right. Not only that, but he knows that some 80% to 85% of all policing costs are for police officers and staffing. Today’s reduction, and potential future reductions, will hit staff hard.

Police forces have set their precepts on the basis of the grant agreed in February, so they will now find it difficult to fulfil their strategic commitments this year. Cutting services and police numbers ultimately cuts the ability to reduce crime. I am particularly disappointed, given that Members called for support for the police during their election campaigns, that members of the coalition will go back on their commitments and vote through this unfair cut today.

I pay tribute to the police’s excellent work. They work under extreme pressures, risking their safety to keep us safe. Often, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said, they have to deal with severe emergencies. We want to ensure that we give—as we did in government—the police the powers and resources to get on with their job. As a result of investment under the Labour Government, there were record numbers of police on our streets—17,000 more police officers than when we came to power in 1997—cutting crime and making our communities safer. We have some 16,000 police community support officers—positions that did not exist when the Labour Government came to power—engaged with communities and helping reduce crime. Consequently, crime fell by 36%. In the past year alone, car crime, robbery and burglary were down. Even in a recession, firearm offences decreased by 17%, robbery was down 5%, and overall crime reduced by 5% last year. The chances of being a victim were the lowest since records began. Confidence in policing was nearly 60% and rose over the year. Labour Members fought the election on a manifesto commitment to give the police the resources to maintain that record, to ensure that they had funding and to continue that investment for the next three years.

The Minister’s points about efficiencies did not escape the Labour Government. There were real concerns about how to get best value for the Government’s police funding. That is why I referred to the White Paper that we produced last December, which examined cutting police overtime by some £500 million; ensuring support for merging back-office functions properly and effectively, and supporting the voluntary merger of forces. We got burned by the forced merger but wanted to ensure that voluntary mergers went ahead. We accordingly supported voluntary mergers of forces. I allocated £500,000 to Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire to consider how to develop such a merger in due course. I note that the Minister for Housing, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), opposes such a merger. So much for concerted activity on backroom costs.

We considered national procurement, which the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) mentioned. I initiated national procurement proposals for the next few years for uniforms, vehicle support and air support. We considered removing resources and saving around £1 billion from that budget while maintaining the provision of more money to support forces’ crime-fighting activities.

[Caroline Flint]

On force mergers, does my right hon. Friend agree that it was a question not only of saving money, but of operational efficiency? We have too many police forces that do not have the capacity to deal with serious organised crime. We face that threat alongside what happens in our neighbourhoods and on our streets. The cut in grant will have an even greater impact on that work, but we must also consider structures that inhibit effective policing on such serious matters.

[Mr Hanson]

My right hon. Friend is right. She knows that serious organised crime often requires a cross-border, regional approach. Crime in my area of north Wales is, sadly, often generated from Manchester and Liverpool, and the forces need to co-operate—and they do—to tackle those problems. Regional co-operation is particularly important for tackling terrorism, and it will be hit not only by spending cuts this year, but by the potential for cuts in future years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

I want to clarify something about the deficit from the outset. Labour Members clearly recognise that something had to be done about the deficit, which is why we set out plans to halve it over four years and looked at other areas to see where we could increase growth. What we have here is a Government—a Liberal Democrat-Conservative Government—deciding to cut the deficit harder and faster. That is a choice that the Government have made. In doing so, they are choosing dramatically to take out of the public finances investment that could contribute in some ways to our growth. By taking that money away—whether from local authorities, the police or other agencies—as they have chosen to do, they put us at a greater risk, as many people are now saying, of a double-dip recession. They are also relying on a 40% increase in exports to make up the difference as a contribution to growth. That is the dividing line here. Perhaps the reason why the Liberal Democrat-Tory coalition wants to cut so hard and so fast is that down the road in five years’ time there will be a general election and they want to be able to offer tax cuts to gain re-election. That is really what is going on here.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I am interested in the right hon. Lady’s case. What she is effectively saying is that a future Labour Government would have introduced cuts, but not quite yet. Then she criticises the way in which this Government have chosen to tackle the debt. What she is saying is not that her Government would never make cuts, but that they would not make them yet. As we got closer to a general election, her Government would have done the same thing. What she says is absolute nonsense.

[Caroline Flint]

I direct the hon. Gentleman to the £2.6 million of cuts that his area is going to face. There are choices to be made. We said that we would cut the deficit by half over four years, but your Government are suggesting that we go faster and harder, posing the risk of going back into recession, putting more people out of work and affecting employment in both the public and private sectors. We will watch very carefully to see whether the outcomes that you have chosen to pursue are really in the best interests of the country.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The right hon. Lady is a very experienced Member, who should not use “you”. I am sure that she did not mean it.

[Caroline Flint]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will have to look at the outcomes of the decisions that his Government have made over the course of the last few weeks.

There is concern across the country about the announcement of cuts in police funding. I have listened to some of the comments made by Government Members. The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) has left the Chamber. I believe that she asked why we were spending money on police buildings. One reason why we did that over the past 13 years is that some of the buildings were not fit for purpose. If we are to modernise our police force and have civilian staff carrying out jobs such as following up on crime reports by using the best technology we need buildings that are fit for purpose. It is about investing in a police force for the 21st century.

We should also look at the partnerships created over the past 13 years. It should be recognised that the police cannot do the job of ensuring the safety of our communities, neighbourhoods and streets on their own. They have to work with others in local government, and I worry about how the cuts in the police grant will affect partnerships that have been nurtured with local authorities and community organisations. As those partners will be affected by cuts as well, the pot that is available to them, enabling them to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour in a flexible, dynamic, innovative way, will be further diminished by the lack of flexibility that is being imposed on police forces and local authorities throughout the country.

My constituents will be keen to know how the £3 million cut in funds for South Yorkshire police will affect them, particularly given the Government’s refusal to provide the guarantee to protect overall police numbers which we included in our manifesto.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady must appreciate—once she gets past the rhetoric—that there are difficult choices to be made about financial restraints. She mentioned her constituents. Would they be concerned about the choice to spend £6 million on advertising the policing pledge rather than on front-line services designed for their safety? If they were able to make that choice themselves, what would they decide?

[Caroline Flint]

I am interested in the coalition Government’s attitude to the way in which information is given to the public in order to ensure that there is transparency about the provision of public services. They seem to think that that is not an important part of the compact between the people and those who enforce the law. Regardless of the debating points that are made between the Front Benches, it is clear from the findings of all the surveys in various force areas about public attitudes to the police and crime statistics that crime has fallen. However, as a constituency Member I often find that the public do not know about those figures—or, indeed, about the monthly meetings held by the police, the activities of the safer neighbourhood teams, and who is working with whom. When I give them that information in my surgeries, when I am out on the doorstep or in my newsletters, they are very pleased to receive it. I am not saying that a blank cheque should be handed to those who deal with communications. The issuing of information must be thought through properly. It must be established why the information concerned is important, and sometimes we have to pay for that information to be issued.

I will say this to the hon. Gentleman. We currently have some 43 police forces. All of them have communications departments and press officers, and I believe that that is one of the functions that could be managed better across police force areas. The most important element of local policing for the residents of Don Valley is at borough command level, and the most important public face for people in Doncaster is our borough commander. Most of those people do not know the name of the chief constable; they are interested in what is happening in the Doncaster borough. Discussion about what is the most appropriate organisation and structure at force level, and about the elements beyond local crime that require particular attention, should be part of a debate about efficiency savings, value for money and outcomes that genuinely deal with organised crime better than we are able to at the moment.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

The right hon. Lady is making a passionate case, but I fear that she is demonstrating one of the worst aspects of the record of new Labour governance, namely an obsession with processes and the policing pledge. Is not the real issue, and the real driver for elected officials, the fact that there is currently a huge gap in accountability? At present accountability operates only between senior police officers and the Home Office, and elected officials and residents are squeezed out. That is why local people across the country support elected officials, and why our manifesto commitment has been such a success. The police family, as it is called, is hostile because vested interests are being challenged by ordinary people and elected officials.

[Caroline Flint]

One of the most dramatic changes in the nature of police accountability has been brought about by neighbourhood policing teams. In various parts of my constituency, local people can attend monthly meetings to engage in discussion and hold the police to account. Information from those meetings—along with other information about where antisocial behaviour is happening, which is collected and captured on computers—is tasking the police in a far more intelligent and accountable way than we have ever seen before. However, that did not just happen; it had to be driven by Government, and it was driven by a Labour Government.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

My right hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech, but does she agree that what is most important to our constituents is being able to see police officers on the beat, as well as police community support officers? Is it not absolutely disgraceful that the coalition parties have not guaranteed to protect front-line policing from cuts?

[Caroline Flint]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Fine words about law and order and sanctimonious speeches about how we support the police family and the reduction of crime in our neighbourhoods are all very well, but if we do not will the means, that is not going to happen. Up and down the country, as budgets are stretched and pressures are put on the police, the good work that has been done will take two steps back rather than forward, and that is a crying shame.

I have a long-standing interest in the handling of serious and organised crime, and the impact on that of reductions in police grant. We should view the cuts in police funding in the context of a number of other developments that undermine the ability of our police to do their job. For instance, police powers relating to CCTV and DNA have been reduced, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies); perhaps I should call him my hon. Friend these days. Last week there was an Adjournment debate on CCTV and DNA, and I must say that I welcomed the support from the coalition Government Benches for the views expressed by Opposition Members on that day. Clearly there is some common ground in this era of new politics.

We need a 21st-century police force that is equipped to tackle 21st-century crime and 21st-century criminals. There is no doubt that technology provides a major opportunity for the police to crack down on criminals, wherever they may be. Like many other Members, I am disturbed by some of the comments that have been made about CCTV and DNA. Obviously CCTV helps to the police to deal with antisocial behaviour, but we should not forget that both it and DNA make a major contribution to tackling far more serious and violent crimes which, I regret to say, are committed on streets throughout the country.

I do not think that the present proposals accord with the front cover, as it were, of the Liberal Democrat-Tory coalition Government. They do not suggest that the Government really have the safety of our subjects in mind when they take responsibility for governing our policing community.

I intervened on the Minister of State to ask whether any assessment had been made of the cost of elected police commissioners. I do not suggest that every aspect of the way in which police authorities are organised is the best thing since sliced bread. I think that some do better than others. Colleagues of mine have worked very well on police authorities and have done a good job, but that does not necessarily mean that some authorities do not need to be looked at. But what will the introduction of elected police commissioners mean for policing in our neighbourhoods? How much extra cost will it involve? Will someone who has been elected expect a higher premium on the services that he or she gives to the police? What will be the relationship between the commissioner and the chief constable?

This brings me back to the subject of serious and organised crime. I fear that elected commissioners could find themselves responding, understandably in some respects, to the demand for attention to be paid to local policing—which is, of course, important—to the detriment of the handling of much more serious crimes which require more cross-border co-operation. I worry greatly about the impact on that. I agree that we need to discuss savings, but why has there been no financial assessment of the cost of elected police commissioners and whether, in these times of austerity, that is a good route to go down? I would suggest that it is not. Taken together, therefore, I fear that these proposals could inhibit our ability to fight serious and organised crime, and also make it more difficult to protect the country from international terrorism.

None of us doubts the need for effective local policing. We need bobbies on the beat, and we need civilians to take on some of the jobs that then allow our fully qualified police officers to be out there fighting crime. We need to work with others, such as community support officers and community safety wardens, too. We also must not forget community organisations and groups; those that have good relationships with their local police are a vital source of information and intelligence, and also help to promote what is being done in the community to fight crime, as opposed to the lurid stuff that is often reported in the tabloid press.

We know that every single day people feel angry and frustrated—and often isolated—by the antisocial behaviour and low-level crime on their doorstep, and that must be attended to. However, although effective community policing is rightly a priority for the police, it cannot be their only priority. As I have said, for people in Doncaster it is our borough commander at Doncaster level who, day to day, is the public face of local policing. Above that, I do not think the public necessarily care very much whether it is a south Yorkshire or a Yorkshire and Humber force; what they care about is that other levels of crime that they do not see on their doorsteps should be dealt with effectively. As the Metropolitan Police Commissioner outlined in the annual lecture to the Police Foundation on Monday night, we still face a real and severe threat from terrorists and from serious and organised crime, which costs the British economy £40 billion a year and, in its own way, affects every person in the UK. The drug dealer at the end of somebody’s street, who usually is a drug addict as well, is just a small fish in a big pond. The sharks that feed that crime on the local street are living in big houses; they are not paying their taxes and they are living the life of Riley. They are the criminal entrepreneurs who put the despair on to our streets, and if we do not deal with the sharks we will not get a grip on organised crime in our country. I am very worried about the implications in respect of the police grant and the fact that the Minister said nothing—I will look at Hansard to check this—about the impact on serious and organised crime. I would be happy for the Minister to respond to that or to indicate anything, if he wishes to do so.

When the public are asked for their view they do not always rank serious and organised crime or even counter-terrorism as their top priority for the police. That is because people do not see that directly or immediately affecting their family and their street and community. However, many of the problems they do worry about—drugs, prostitution, illegal weapons—are intimately connected to serious and organised criminals. The real danger is that with cuts to be made and, I am afraid, with these potential commissioners falling over each over to protect the most popular police priorities, the axe will fall precisely on those areas that the public least understand but most need.

[Nick Herbert]

Is the right hon. Lady warning about the dangers of these directly elected individuals delivering what the public actually want in respect of local policing?

[Caroline Flint]

No, I am talking about the cost of these elected individuals over and above what we have at the moment, and priorities being skewed in ways that do not help.

We need to make a better case of explaining how serious organised crime impacts on our neighbourhoods and communities so that people can see the relationship between the drug dealer in their street, the prostitutes in their neighbourhood and the counterfeit goods at the car boot sales and how that leads all the way back up to the organised criminals. I think we should have made a better case of explaining that under my Government, and I certainly think we need to do that in future, so that the link between these policing priorities can be seen. The danger is that that will not be done because these elected individuals will not be interested in that; they will just be interested in getting easy votes, whereas sometimes we as politicians have to explain the big picture so that we get the policy right.

That is a credible and sincere thing to say. I fight every day to make sure that the communities I represent are protected from antisocial behaviour and the other problems they face, but I know, both as a former Home Office Minister and as a constituency MP, that many of the problems in our neighbourhoods develop as the young people and adults involved in antisocial behaviour become more hardened criminals, and that hardened criminals at the top end are often behind the low-level crime my constituents experience. We have to deal with both aspects. The Minister said nothing about that or about looking at better operational capacity—and in doing so saving some money along the way.

[Robert Halfon]

Why is it perfectly okay for people to elect councillors, MPs and all sorts of other representatives, yet the right hon. Lady does not trust people with the responsibility of electing someone who will provide an overview of the kind of policing they want for their neighbourhood?

[Caroline Flint]

We already have elected councillors as part of the police authorities, and I think that model could be improved. At the local level through the safer neighbourhood teams, we already have monthly accountable meetings which the public can attend and talk about their local policing priorities. This is not about being against accountability; it is about what is right and what is fit for purpose—and, to be honest, what is good value for money, which is part of the debate we are having this afternoon.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

rose—

[Caroline Flint]

I want to make some progress, as I have taken lots of interventions and I am very conscious that other Members want to contribute to the debate.

The reality is that as a result of improved communications, new technologies and international mobility, serious and organised crime is becoming more sophisticated and increasingly global in reach, making the police’s job more difficult. As I have said, we are dealing with 21st-century criminal entrepreneurs. They are involved in all sorts of rackets from counterfeit goods to human trafficking, prostitution and, of course, drugs, and what we need is a 21st-century police response.

The reality, however, is that many smaller forces—there are 19 in England and Wales with fewer than 2,000 officers—already struggle to meet the challenges of modern crime, and across the board, as Sir Paul Stephenson made clear in his speech on Monday evening, police resources for tackling serious and organised crime are “unco-ordinated” and “inadequate”. I am afraid to say that that is partly due to the police structures we have and a parochialism that does not address some of these serious crime issues. Many Members—probably on both sides of the House—will defend their force structure, even though it might not help or deliver the capacity to deal with some of the crimes I am talking about. That is why I believe there is a very strong case for borough level local policing, but I am certainly not convinced that at the force level some of the sizes of organisation we have are either manageable, good value for money or even delivering what we need.

The police believe that there are 68 criminal organisations with assets in excess of £10 million. These are organisations whose operations are complex and do not respect national borders, let alone police force borders. While inter-force collaboration is certainly improving—there are many good examples of it up and down the country—as the Bichard report clearly highlighted, the way our police service is structured means that all too often individual forces act separately and fail to share information with other forces. In an age in which criminals can escape quickly across police force boundaries, it is not sustainable for police forces to have to notify other forces in advance, or have protocols in place, before they can track and apprehend criminals. It slows everything down; it is not a good use of resources.

In the case of the London and Glasgow bombers in June 2007, when terrorists placed two car bombs outside a nightclub in London’s west end before driving to Scotland to ram their jeep into the entrance at Glasgow airport, detectives from London following the getaway car were concerned that if they had to make arrests en route they would have to ensure that local forces were notified and put on stand-by. Later there was also confusion about which force should lead on the case—whether it should be the Metropolitan police which had started the investigation, or the Strathclyde police in Glasgow where the case finished up.

It is also difficult for smaller police forces to invest in the assets that are needed to run complex, and often international, investigations effectively. There is a case for investigations into serious and organised crime being led by larger, more centralised crime-fighting units, and merging some functions or responsibilities, or even forces, could offer economies of scale and reduce bureaucracy and costs and lead to better outputs. Alternatively, as Sir Paul Stephenson suggested, we could have a nationally co-ordinated, federated structure for tackling organised crime, whether led by the police service or as part of an extended Serious Organised Crime Agency remit.

[Keith Vaz]

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has had an opportunity to look at the Select Committee’s detailed report on the Serious Organised Crime Agency that was concluded earlier this year, in which we raised the issue of targets as opposed to cost. If the Government are right, we are spending £500 million on SOCA, but it sees only £23 million. Does she not think that these targets need to be improved if we are to get value for money?

[Caroline Flint]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend, and the Select Committee did very good work on SOCA. I am very proud to be the former Home Office Minister who established SOCA. We brought together the National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the drugs investigation arm of Customs and Excise. However, things have gone wrong on asset recovery, on which we needed to make more progress. Also, when we developed SOCA and since, we failed properly to consider its relationship to forces around the country. It is not just a question of having a national body, but of what is happening on the ground. The link between local policing and national police services such as SOCA is absolutely crucial, and I agree with my right hon. Friend that much more needs to be done to get that right.

The point is still well made that we can look for savings as well as better outcomes, but given that we are discussing the police grant, we must task the Minister with explaining how we are to protect the existing situation. Yes, there needs to be improvement, but we do not want to go backwards in our efforts to tackle organised crime through these reductions in the police grant.

Examining this issue has the potential not only to make the police more effective, but to help to deliver the savings that need to be found without necessarily reducing the number of police on our streets, and to become more effective in tackling serious and organised crime. The cost of such crime to the country is £40 billion, and there are 38,000 organised criminals and 6,000 criminal organisations. There will be no new resources for dealing with organised crime and even if there were, they would never be enough to tackle terrorism, for example.

This is a serious issue that needs to be looked at as these cuts are made, in order to ensure that we do not lose our capacity, which is already varied throughout the country, to tackle the most serious crimes that our neighbourhoods face.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

Thank you. Except that on this occasion, of course, I am on the opposite side of the Chamber. I remember the debate on 3 February with the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who delivered his lines in a typically amenable way.

It is appropriate at this point to welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) to his position. He is a seasoned reformer, and if anyone can get to grips with delivering more for less, it is he. I also wish his predecessor as the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), all the best of luck in returning to good health; I am sure I speak for the rest of the House in that respect.

The key word in this debate is “legacy”: the legacy of the fiscal disaster we inherited from the previous Labour Government on 6 May. The shadow Minister made a good fist of synthetic outrage and faux anger at this “swingeing cut” by the coalition Government—the precursor to a plague of locusts and all things doom-laden in the state. However, it is actually a funding cut in-year of 1.46%.

The main point made by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), was that there is nothing mutually exclusive about driving forward shared services and back-office functions across different police forces on an administrative basis, while at the same time dealing with serious organised crime through such collaborations. The problem with the previous Labour Government was that their approach was all about compulsion and a lack of proper accountability and consultation. Fundamentally, Labour did not trust people to make the right decisions, which is why it still does not trust them now and is so hostile to police commissioners.

As I pointed out in an intervention on the right hon. Lady, there is no point in focusing moral outrage on a process-driven issue such as the policing pledge, which people in the Dog and Duck in Peterborough are not talking about at length. What people actually care about is real accountability and whether they have some say in local policing priorities. At the moment, they do not. At the moment, the accountability link is simply between the basic command unit and the chief constable, and upwards to the Home Office. Whether the right hon. Lady likes it or not, what actually drives local policing is what local police forces have been told to do by the Home Office.

I should have prefaced my comments by pointing out that I am biased, in that I made my maiden speech, in June 2005, on the issue of elected police commissioners, the headline in the Peterborough Evening Telegraph being, “We need city sheriff says city MP”. However, it was not as simple as that. It is a question of accountability, but also of understanding that the police authorities model is probably not fit for purpose and does not command the support and respect of the many people who pay taxes and are also afflicted by crime. These are not just people in middle-class neighbourhoods and gated communities who can afford to push crime away; they include people such as those in my constituency who are perhaps not on good incomes and do not live in the most salubrious of neighbourhoods. Such people are afflicted by drug dealing, antisocial behaviour, burglary and other serious crimes. There is absolutely nothing wrong in giving those people a real say by allowing them to influence not day-to-day operational issues, but the strategic overview of the priorities taken by the local police service—in my case, Cambridgeshire constabulary.

That was the problem of 2006, and the shadow Minister will know that it contributed, among other things, to the early departure of his erstwhile colleague the former Member for Norwich South, Charles Clarke, whose successor is in the Chamber today. The problem was one of not listening and forcing things on people, in the typical top-down regional model imposed by the Labour Government, which we have seen in fire control, and in the ill-fated campaign and referendum on the question of a regional assembly in the north-east.

There are a number of key strategic issues that this Government are tackling head on. They are focusing, for example, on the efficiency and efficacy of what is actually done on the ground. Only 14% of police time is spent on the beat; 22% is spent on paperwork. One of the issues we need to look at—hopefully, it will be examined during the Government’s review in the next few months—is the inspection regime that police services are subject to. Not only the police service but local authorities and others are subject to too much onerous, unnecessary and unnecessarily frequent inspection. Constabulary and police authority officers spend inordinate amounts of time preparing for, going through and reviewing inspection, when in fact they should be concentrating their efforts on tackling crime and putting criminals behind bars.

I must take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs, in that this is not a question of getting a key, opening the jail and letting everyone out. However, we do have a massive problem with recidivism and we must deal with it in an innovative way. I should declare an interest, in that Kalyx, which runs the 840-bed category B private prison in Peterborough, has been awarded a contract. It is a very interesting social experiment, and I believe that it will deliver the goods. Kalyx will receive 40% of the indicative cost of incarcerating a prisoner for one full year if it keeps that prisoner from recidivism and reoffending.

I am no tree-hugging lily-livered liberal on this issue—[Interruption.] Well, I guess I am compared with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, whose many contributions on penal policy I fondly remember, not least his comments on prisoners having access to ping-pong tables and Sky television, for instance. I believe it was Albert Einstein who said, “If you keep doing something over and over again and it doesn’t work, try something else.” He probably put it much more eloquently. Our approach has not worked; it costs a fortune to incarcerate people.

When I had lunch with the senior judges at Peterborough Crown court some months ago, they made the point, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has, that there is no point incarcerating people for very short sentences—for instance, serial burglars—if we cannot teach them to read, write or add up, if we cannot give them meaningful work to earn money and if we cannot give them a position where they feel socially useful. Punishment is important, but rehabilitation is too. If we can give them a way forward to be decent members of civil society—Kalyx will do that with the scheme at Peterborough prison—that is good for society, because it will, in the end, save money for my constituents, and those of all hon. Members, in the form of taxpayer funding.

[Caroline Flint]

I agree with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman is making—illiteracy among prisoners is a big problem—but what I do not understand, and what I ask him to clarify, given that we have tried everything else with many of these burglars, is why they cannot learn to read and write during six months in prison.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

May I just remind the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) that we are dealing with the police grant? We have strayed into discussing prisons, and although I know there is a connection, we are stretching it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

Yes, it is. I do not say that everything the last Government did was absolutely perfect. I have related one example to the House on many occasions. I once went up to Staffordshire and looked at the work of Staffordshire police to reduce from 24 sheets to one sheet the documentation that is required when someone is charged. After that, every time the Home Secretary got up, I asked, “Have you rolled out this brilliant idea across the country?” but the answer was no, because the system worked so slowly. We will expect better from this Police Minister, because he is so keen to deal with waste. We want to make sure that good practice is adopted as quickly as possible and is rolled out. We do not want excuses such as that it takes a long time to write a letter to chief constables.

The points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) are correct. I did not know that she actually invented the Serious Organised Crime Agency; had I done so, we would have called her to give evidence. There are examples of our providing huge amounts of money, such as half a billion pounds for SOCA, which seized only £23 million, and £400,000 for the National Policing Improvement Agency, and spending £79 million on consultants. Those are the kinds of issues that we should have dealt with in the past 13 years, but sometimes Ministers cannot, as the new Minister will find, know exactly what is going on.

[Caroline Flint]

They do not stay long enough.

[Keith Vaz]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In her case, she was promoted to become the Minister for Europe and the rest is history. We need Ministers to stay in place long enough to see what happens when their decisions are implemented.

The Select Committee will be constructive and will not just condemn. We are going to put good practice on our website, without waiting for it to go on the Home Office website, with lots of arrows pointing to good practices and asking, “Why isn’t this followed in Cambridgeshire, Essex, Leicestershire or elsewhere?” We will hold the Government to account on that.

The Minister has repeated the words that were used at the Association of Chief Police Officers conference of 1 July, saying that he wants the police to be crime fighters, not form fillers. We all agree with that—there is no problem with that statement—but a reduction in the police grant is proposed today, and if the comprehensive spending review cuts the police budget by 25%, ACPO has said that would mean 20,000 fewer police officers. There will be conflict between the Government and the police force, because it will not remain silent, just as it did not remain silent on police pay.

I had only one really robust conversation with the previous Prime Minister, which will not be in my memoirs, although I have thought of a name for them: I am going to call them “The 23rd Man” rather than “The Third Man”. That robust conversation occurred when I reminded him that we had a duty to respect the police. There is no point in Ministers and shadow Ministers, every time there is some great tragedy, coming to the Dispatch Box and praising the police but then not giving them the pay rise that was agreed in arbitration. When we are in the position of cutting perhaps 20,000 police officers, we will have a severe problem and the police force will be in conflict with the Government. I hope it does not come to that.

I hope also that Parliament will support the Minister in his battle with the Treasury. I know it is difficult for Ministers to do this in the current economic climate, but policing policy needs defending. The Minister should feel confident that he can go to the Chancellor, quote speeches such as that of the hon. Member for Peterborough and say, “At a local level, we cannot have fewer police officers. We must retain the level and we must invest in our police service.” I joined others on the streets of our capital to oppose what the Labour Government did on police pay, because I think that we need to defend the police not just at the Dispatch Box, but outside.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

We have had a good debate and a number of points have been made by right hon. and hon. Members, to which I will try to respond as quickly as I can. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) asked for an assessment of police numbers now, and it is true that some forces were freezing recruitment before the general election. He also asked about our stance in relation to the comprehensive spending review, a point that was also made by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who suggested that the police budget should have been protected. We will not know the amounts that will be available for policing until the outcome of that spending review, and those are precisely the discussions that we are having within Government at the moment. Again, decisions will be made about the special grants, including those for neighbourhood policing and so on, which we will announce in good time.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), who I am sorry to see is no longer in his place, was concerned about the Pope’s visit. I understand that a bid is expected from Warwickshire police, whose region the Pope will visit, and from other forces, such as the West Midlands, and they will be considered under the special grant. The hon. Gentleman complained about policing costs in relation to the Conservative party conference that is due to be held in Birmingham. Considerable economic benefits accrue to places where party conferences are held, in terms of the number of people attending and so on. I understand that West Midlands police have bid for £4.5 million of special grant for the costs incurred in policing the Conservative party conference this year. By comparison, Greater Manchester police have bid for £4.2 million for the cost of policing the Labour party conference in Manchester this year. That is more than the amount awarded to Greater Manchester police in special grant for the costs incurred in policing the Conservative party conference in October the previous year. Labour Members might like to reflect on why in opposition their conference should be more expensive to police than the Conservative party conference was when it was in opposition.

The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) made a forceful speech in which I understood her to propose that there should be compulsory amalgamations of police forces. I know that that is a policy that has long since been abandoned by the official Opposition, having failed to deliver it. I did talk about the importance of serious crime and ensuring collaboration to deal with it.

[Caroline Flint]

rose—

[Nick Herbert]

If the right hon. Lady will forgive me, I have no time.

[Caroline Flint]

rose—

[Nick Herbert]

I have very little time, if hon. Members will forgive me. I want to respond to the thoughtful contribution to the Select Committee Chair.

[Caroline Flint]

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is plenty of time, and as the hon. Gentleman has accused me of suggesting a policy that I did not suggest, I should have the right to intervene.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order. The debate can continue until 3.47 pm, but it is up to the Minister to decide whether to accept an intervention.

[Nick Herbert]

I will allow the right hon. Lady to intervene.

[Caroline Flint]

I thank the Minister. I did not suggest that there should be compulsory amalgamation of police forces. I was pointing out the problems in the current force structure that must be attended to to ensure that we have the best possible capacity to deal with serious and organised crime. That is a debate that we should be having, both in terms of value for money and efficiency.

[Nick Herbert]

I think that many of us heard the right hon. Lady suggest that there should be forced amalgamations. We will be able to read the record and check. I am happy to have her assurance that she did not, in which case her position would appear not to differ from that of the Government. I remind her that I talked about being tougher and about achieving savings and collaboration where there was a policing need, for instance, in relation to serious crime. I do not believe she was making points that had not been understood by the Government in relation to the importance of ensuring that policing serious crime is protected.

I listened with interest to the contribution of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. He drew attention to the importance of assessing the effectiveness and performance of the national policing bodies, including the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the National Policing Improvement Agency, which is under review. We do have concerns about value for money and ensuring that those organisations deliver the necessary outcomes, given the large sums of taxpayers’ money that are awarded to them. He was right to draw attention to that.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s warnings about relations with the police in the future, I should point out that we are asking police officers, in common with other public sector employees, to make sacrifices. We expect the police service to be subject to the same pay freeze—dependent on proper negotiations with the Police Negotiating Board—as other members of the public sector, and we want to ensure that the police are treated both fairly and equally.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) talked about the importance of special constables, and I could not agree more. In the 1950s, partly as a hangover from the war, there were 67,000 specials; now there are 14,000. Some progress has been made in recent years to recruit more, but there is a huge untapped potential to recruit more policing volunteers, and we should take that seriously, rather than dismissing it, as I thought one Opposition Member intended to do.

In an effective speech about the importance of local policing, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) talked about the faux anger and synthetic outrage that we have seen from Opposition Members. We have seen not only that but exaggerated claims about the impact of the spending cuts that we are now asking the House to approve. I repeat that, for each police force, these cuts represents less than 1.5% of the amount of money that they will receive from central Government, and less than 1% of their total budget this year. I repeat also, whose fault is it? It is the fault of the Opposition, given the economic legacy that they have bequeathed to this country, and it is the responsibility of this Government and our Members to deal with it. We will face up to that responsibility, and I hope that hon. Members will support the motion.

Question put.

Defendant Anonymity

Caroline Flint Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of defendant anonymity.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this subject for a second time. On this occasion, I am a little less inhibited by time pressure, but I am conscious of the number of people seeking to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will not delay the House too much. Since I last addressed the House, in the 7 June Adjournment debate, the Government have reviewed the arguments more fully and our thinking has advanced, and I look forward to the opportunity to explain where matters now stand. I also look forward to dispelling some common myths and misconceptions about our policy.

I emphasise again that the question of anonymity for rape defendants is wholly consistent with our fundamental commitment to supporting victims of crime. Violence against women, girls and vulnerable people is totally unacceptable, whatever the context or circumstances. We know that victims of sexual violence often find it very difficult to report a rape to the police, and of course for those who have felt able to come forward, going through the criminal justice process can be an incredibly difficult and painful experience. Our focus is on the rights and welfare of the victim, and we are committed to ensuring that every victim of rape has access to appropriate support. In particular, we are looking at putting funding for rape crisis services on a more sustainable basis and at establishing new rape crisis centres where there are gaps in provision.

The Government Equalities Office is currently carrying out a consultation on a strategic action plan, including Government action on working with a more sustainable violence-against-women voluntary sector, based on cash, commissioning and capacity building. It closes on 23 July. The action plan suggests a capacity-building project to be carried out in partnership with the relevant umbrella bodies, to support their ability to represent Members and work together to influence the Government. The Home Secretary will be chairing a meeting of Ministers across government later this month to discuss how we tackle violence against women more widely.

We will not conflate myths and stereotypes about false allegations with our detailed work on the proposals for defendant anonymity. This debate is not about doubting victims’ reports or repeating uninformed arguments about false allegations. Baroness Stern has stated in her independent and impressive review that this is an area on which we need further research, and the Government are looking into this. I want to make it clear that Baroness Stern’s review of the evidence found that only a very few rape allegations are false:

“It is not possible to establish an exact figure and the research that is available gives a wide range of suggested percentages. Some research suggests that a figure of eight to ten per cent of reported rapes could well be false reports. However, those we spoke to in the system felt that there were very few.”

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Blunt]

I will give way to the right hon. Lady, but I would like to get through the bulk of my remarks, and make clear the Government’s position and the explanation for it. I will then be happy to take further interventions. At this stage, however, I am happy to give way to her.

[Caroline Flint]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has just put it on the record that, based on the available evidence, there is little evidence of a high rate of false allegations. In that context, will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who did not help the debate when he said, having been questioned about falsely accused rape defendants:

“We know that a lot of people are falsely accused”?—[Official Report, 9 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 328.]

[Mr Blunt]

I think that the right hon. Lady will appreciate what I am about to put on the record regarding the detail of evidence in this area. I am sure that the House will be pleased to hear that the Government will make a full response to Baroness Stern’s recommendations in due course. I want to make it clear that the issue of false allegations is not one of the reasons for considering changes to our policy on rape defendants. It would be were there strong evidence that a significantly greater number of false allegations are associated with rape than with other offences, but the Government do not believe that to be the case.

On that question, I remind the House again, as I did in the earlier Adjournment debate, that there are in fact two anonymity commitments in our coalition agreement. One relates to rape, the other—referring to no particular offence—to teachers. The House will wish to note that there is a specific reference in our coalition agreement to protecting teachers from false allegations, but no such linkage over rape complainants. It is therefore important that we distinguish between these two commitments. The criminal justice Departments will therefore need to carry out further work in conjunction with the Department for Education before we are in a position to provide a clear statement of how we intend to proceed on the teacher aspect.

The remainder of my remarks, therefore, are addressed to the issue that has caused the most controversy and interest in the House—the issue around rape defendants. However, we will listen carefully to any contributions today on teacher anonymity, which will help to inform our discussions with other Departments.

We are committed to supporting victims and improving the investigation and prosecution of rape.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

No, I want to make some progress.

The coalition agreement set out the matter clearly. The proposal will not help to bring rapists to justice, and the apparently clear and succinct policy was in neither of the coalition parties’ manifestos. Therefore, it went from not even being important enough to mention when seeking votes from the public and a mandate from the electorate, to being such a major priority for the Government that it merited a specific mention in the coalition programme for government. Why was that? Nobody has told us. I am extremely grateful that we have this debate, which enables us to explore the matter in more detail. Where did the policy come from? Who suggested it? Who thought it was a good, or even workable, idea? Who, if anyone, was consulted about it? How did it go from being unmentioned at the election, by either the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats, to being a top priority over the weekend of the coalition negotiations?

The Minister tried to explain the proposal in a little more detail, but I fear that he has only added to the enormous confusion. Many Opposition Members have raised the matter with a variety of Ministers ever since the coalition programme for government was published. The acting leader of the Labour party, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), raised it at the first Prime Minister’s Question Time of this Parliament. To say that the Government have responded with confusion and inconsistency is an understatement. It is not solely that Ministers from different parties say different things, but that the inconsistency and confusion, hardly helped by the Minister’s statement today, are much more widespread. To an interested observed such as me, it looks like the Government do not have a clue what their policy is, because they have not taken any steps to work it out yet.

[Caroline Flint]

Much has been made of the report by the former Home Affairs Committee, and of the current Prime Minister being present when it took evidence. On 23 April 2003, however, when it took evidence on false allegations, he was not present. People must therefore be careful about laying claim to such knowledge and information.

[Maria Eagle]

I was not aware of that, but my right hon. Friend has put a lot of effort into dealing with the issue, and has raised it most consistently and effectively from the beginning of this Parliament.

It is important to clarify precisely what the Government’s policy is. According to the Minister’s statement today, the policy is to extend anonymity to defendants in rape cases up to charge. However, that has not been entirely evident from what Ministers have said. We have had answers from the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary, the Leader of the House, the Attorney-General, the Minister for Equalities and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate, which have all been different in substance and tone. When pressed, the Prime Minister said that he was in favour of extending anonymity only to charge. The Deputy Prime Minister, when pressed, retreated into immediate and wholesale abandonment of the policy, suggesting that the Government had merely “proposed the idea”, as if he were running an academic seminar rather than a legislative programme. He added:

“If our idea does not withstand sincere scrutiny, we will of course be prepared to change it.”—[Official Report, 10 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 50.]

I hope that that, at least, still holds.

The Under-Secretary of State, until today, has made it clear that he wants anonymity up to conviction. Last month he said that

“it could go wider. There are reasons why it might also be applied to other offences.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 155.]

The Minister for Equalities has also supported anonymity up to conviction, blogging that

“a perpetrator would only be named if convicted.”

That seems to have changed today.

Meanwhile, the Justice Secretary, who appeared to be fed up with being asked the same question more than once, said in exasperation that it was all the Liberal Democrats’ fault anyway because it was their policy. The deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats had better get used to being blamed for everything by his so-called partners in Government. The Justice Secretary went on to say that it was not going to happen quickly, although that is not what we have been told by his Under-Secretary of State in the House today.

The Justice Secretary said that he favoured a free vote, or a “fairly free vote”, as he put it. I must remember to ask the Opposition Chief Whip exactly what a fairly free vote is—or perhaps I should ask the Government Chief Whip.

Compounding an already complicated and confusing picture, a number of Ministers, including the Under-Secretary of State today, have said that they will “bring forward options” or are “attracted by the arguments”. They have said, “We will debate it”, or have called for evidence. Perhaps I am missing something about the new politics that we are told we now have, but I had always thought that Governments did those things before deciding on policy, not afterwards. This Government appear to be indulging in prejudice-based rather than evidence-based policy-making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I feel that it might not be too long before she is elevated to the Front Bench. In addressing the debate, she demonstrated what she brings from her experience, as well as her thoughtfulness.

I congratulate the hon. Members for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) on making their maiden speeches. They chose an interesting debate in which to do so. May I suggest that the debate could, as they start their apprenticeships in the House, be seen as a master class in how not to develop Government policy? I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) forensically took apart the Minister’s opening statement. As the debate is entitled “Defendant Anonymity”, I had hoped that the opening statement would allow discussions to go in a different direction. I thought that the Minister might say, “We’ve thought about this and we may have been wrong to single out rape defendants, so today gives us scope to talk about this on a wider basis.” Unfortunately, however, the Minister has reaffirmed the determination to focus on anonymity for defendants in rape trials, and that is regrettable.

We have had many debates in the House since the general election, including heated and passionate debates on how to cut the deficit, on electoral reform and on the number of MPs we should have, and only this week we have had the statement about which schools will go ahead in the Building Schools for the Future programme—or not, as the case may be. However, few of those issues have provoked the reaction that greeted the proposal to extend anonymity to defendants in rape cases. Little did right hon. Members who are now in government know, all those weeks ago when they were holed up in meetings in the Cabinet Office thrashing out the details of the coalition agreement, the maelstrom that nine words on page 24 would cause. I am afraid that the policy of singling out rape has little evidence to justify it, and that has been confirmed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The policy, in isolation, really does not help the justice system or victims, and Ministers have been saying different things about it from one day to the next.

When the law on giving anonymity to defendants in rape cases last applied, it created a legal quagmire. It was a mess, where those accused of inciting rape were given anonymity but not those who conspired to it. The names of defendants charged with aiding and abetting rape were known, but not the names of those charged with burglary with intent to commit rape. The public knew the names of those who had planned to rape but failed, but did not know the names of those who had succeeded. It is an incredibly complicated area, not only for rape but for other offences, should we go down that route—I have sympathy with the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Broxtowe on expanding that aspect. Let us be in no doubt, however: any movement on the issue, in any direction, will create a lot of controversy. We must be careful about unforeseen consequences.

No one seems able to explain why we need to give rape suspects anonymity in the first place. As has been said, singling out rape defendants sends a devastating message to the victims of rape—that, uniquely, among all other complainants, they are not to be believed, even when Home Office research shows that false allegation rates are no higher for rape than for any other crime.

The proposal touches on what is meant by false allegation. Philip Rumney, of Sheffield Hallam university, provides the best definition I have come across. He says that

“a false allegation can be defined as the description of an event that the complainant knows never actually occurred”

suggesting

“a conscious or malicious motive on the part of the complainant.”

Those two elements—the fact that the complainant knows that what she or he is alleging never actually happened and the malicious motive—distinguish genuine false allegations from other cases when the complaint is withdrawn rather than retracted, when there is insufficient evidence, or when as we know, sadly, that owing to mental health problems the complainant genuinely believes that they have been attacked.

We have not even talked about other vulnerable victims, who often face cynicism about their complaint. Many people with learning disabilities have not been believed. Elderly people suffering from Alzheimer’s or dementia may find it hard to convey what has happened to them and—I am sorry to say—may be dismissed when they come forward or talk to family and friends about what they have experienced.

There is already evidence that too many cases are wrongly classified as false allegation. That is a problem and we need research to make sure that recording is clear, not only for rape but for other crimes too. I think that the police and prosecutors have made huge progress in that area, particularly when they have specialist training, so I do not want the House to misinterpret what I am saying. However, Home Office research in 2005 found that the police displayed

“a tendency to conflate false allegations with retractions and withdrawals,”

thereby feeding a damaging culture of scepticism, which deters victims from coming forward to seek justice. The proposal is likely only to harden such attitudes, when we should be challenging them.

The only other possible justification for the proposal is that the damage associated with being accused of rape is of a completely different order to every other crime. Members have cited other crimes when a person who was falsely accused felt justly aggrieved and distressed, and the result was suicide or other action that caused distress to their family. It is not credible to suggest that being accused of rape is uniquely devastating, in a way that being accused of domestic violence, murder, sexually abusing children, or even defrauding a popular charity are not.

We have witnessed the rather bizarre spectacle of Ministers coming to the House, or writing to Members, asking them to provide evidence to support the Government’s policies. I know that times are hard and Departments are facing cuts of up to 40%, but if the Government are not able to find evidence to support their own policies, it is not our job to do so. Indeed, a month ago the Minister wrote to me requesting evidence and asked me to provide it within a week. I am pleased to tell the House that I was able to meet his deadline, but I am less pleased to have to inform the House that I have yet to receive a reply. Perhaps I should have insisted on a deadline for comments from the Minister.

In response to my Adjournment debate, the Minister said that the Government would proceed on the evidence, and no one doubts the need for more and better research. Baroness Stern made that point very eloquently in her review earlier this year; but she said that the evidence needed to be looked at before the policy is decided. The coalition has committed itself to granting anonymity to rape defendants before even looking at the evidence. That suggests to me that the Government are proceeding not on the evidence, but on the basis of a misconception.

[Mr Blunt]

If I have not formally thanked the right hon. Lady for the letter, let me put that on the record now. I assure her that I was not anticipating evidence from her in support of the Government’s position; it was really a challenge for her to come forward with evidence, on the basis of the issues that I raised in the Adjournment debate and have repeated today. If there is evidence that would cause us to rethink, let us have it. We are looking for it and we will publish our analysis by 28 July.

[Caroline Flint]

I certainly was not seeking to provide evidence to support the Government’s position. I was providing evidence to explain why the Government’s position was wrong. What I have failed to receive is evidence from the Government as to why they are pursuing this singular policy of anonymity for rape defendants.

In one of Baroness Stern’s 23 recommendations—I hope that the Government will give the other 22 equal time and priority—she asks that there should be research, and

“that the Ministry of Justice commissions and publishes an independent research report to study the frequency of false allegations of rape compared with other offences, and the nature of such allegations.”

She was saying that the matter should be looked at in the round.

As I said earlier, I am sad today that the opportunity was not taken by the Government to knock this coalition proposal on the head and move us into an area where we could find some consensus and agreement across all parts of the House.

[Simon Hughes]

In that context, if the evidence that Baroness Stern and others have asked for is forthcoming, in the form of further research, would the right hon. Lady be prepared to look at an idea that goes more broadly than rape? Is she willing to accept, at least in principle, that there may be a case for anonymity in other categories, not single-offence categories?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Flint]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I actually made that point in my contribution to the Adjournment debate a few weeks ago, and I am open to that. What I am not prepared to accept is moving in that direction until the coalition Government have clearly stated that it was wrong to focus on rape, and that they have learned from the contributions and the pressure and the lobbying from Members in all parts of the House to change that viewpoint. That is because I think that it is really important to send a message to the country that when someone gets something wrong, they should say that they have got it wrong. A lot of organisations, which are listening to this debate, are very concerned about the message that was sent from that coalition agreement about the attitudes to victims when reporting rape, and the assumption that they, more than for any other crime, might be guilty of making false allegations.

An issue has been raised in this debate about equality between defendants and complainants. In a report in The People on 27 June, it was stated that the Government planned to extend anonymity to defendants in all cases where the victim is not named, under the cover of ensuring “equality before the law.” Equality before the law does not and cannot mean identical treatment for defendant and complainant. There is a vast array of ways in which the criminal justice system already, and rightly, treats defendants and complainants differently. Both should be treated fairly, but that does not mean identically; if that were the case, presumably we would no longer afford the defendant the advantage of the burden of proof, and complainants would have to be held on bail or in custody before their case came to court. The suggestion betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of why victims of rape are given anonymity in the first place, and that has been expressed very eloquently by colleagues in today’s debate.

It is not credible to suggest either, as the Lord Chancellor has done, that protecting the identity of the defendant protects the identity of the complainant. Just because most attackers are known to the victim does not mean that the victim would be immediately identifiable from the attacker’s name being known. It could be a boss at work; it could be someone they meet on the bus every day; it could be someone they know in the nightclub, or a friend of a friend.

It is in the public interest that the victims of rape come forward and report their crimes, so that rapists do not escape prosecution and are prevented from attacking other victims. There is no equivalent public interest in allowing defendants to remain anonymous. That does not mean that I do not understand the damage that false allegations can cause. We have already heard during today’s debate about a case where someone was tried for making a false allegation and—I think that I heard correctly—got two years in prison. That is a serious sentence for a serious crime.

As I have said, there may well be a case for looking at whether all defendants—not just those in rape cases, or even in cases that involve sexual offences—should be afforded anonymity until they are charged, but I am afraid that that was not the coalition’s proposal. I am still not clear whether the Government will pursue that proposal. Certainly, one thing is clear: if we wanted to consider that wider debate, the way to start it was not to focus on rape at the outset. That has been completely unproductive. The only way that we could start such a debate is for the Government to make a clear statement—today offered the ideal opportunity to do so—accepting that they were wrong to single out rape defendants and acknowledging the damage that that has done.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood said earlier, there have been very real improvements in the way that victims of rape can expect to be treated in the criminal justice system, but there is some way to go. As Dave Whatton, the chief constable of Cheshire constabulary and the senior police officers’ lead on this matter said at the all-party meeting yesterday, the single biggest challenge that the police face is still the lack of confidence among victims, which stops them reporting their attack and prevents rapists from being brought to justice.

The Government must surely now realise that their proposals would make women less likely to come forward and, I am afraid, embed a dangerous culture of scepticism, when so much has been done to improve trust between the victims of rape and the criminal justice system. We need an informed debate. There should be at least a Green Paper, so that we can discuss the issue in detail, and I hope that the Minister will deal with that in summing up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

At the nub of this debate is the question of whether the police should be allowed the discretion to release the identity of people who they believe are serial rapists, with a view to getting more victims and more witnesses to come forward and provide more evidence to facilitate prosecution. That point was touched on in an excellent speech by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who obviously has a great deal of experience in this area. We have heard good debating points, but we really need to get to the nub of the issue, because I fear that if the anonymity proposal for rape defendants goes through, we will end up tying the hands of the police.

We are not talking about allowing all the names of all the people ever accused of rape to go out to the media before charge. Rather, we are talking about whether in certain instances, where people are known to be serial offenders but have not been successfully prosecuted, the police should be allowed—given the statistical background we have discussed—to facilitate the process of getting more people to come forward. I believe that if the anonymity proposal is pushed through, we will simply end up with more rape—particularly by serial rapists—less reporting and fewer convictions.

In my area of Swansea West, as elsewhere, there is serious and widespread concern about this issue. I know that some Members have said that it is not political, but I have encountered people saying, “Look, I voted Liberal Democrat, and I did not vote for hiding the identity of prospective rapists and increasing the number of rape victims. I did not vote for that.” This policy emerged, of course, from a Liberal Democrat conference resolution in 2006. To be fair to the Conservatives, in 1988 the veil was pulled and hidden identity was thrown away under pressure from the police, who said that anonymity was preventing women from reporting. That remains the case, so I hope that the Conservatives will go back to their previous position. I realise that some sort of deal has been done on VAT and everything else, but let us not allow it to get in the way of the rights of women and their protection. Disclosure generates confidence—confidence to stand up and be counted against serial offenders.

Most crime generally is serial crime. We all know that the vast majority of crime is perpetrated by just a few people—and that is certainly the case with rape. Like other Members who have spoken, I have had the great pleasure of witnessing a presentation by the chief constable of Cheshire, Dave Whatton, who showed evidentially the relationship between disclosure, witnesses coming forward and subsequent convictions. The reality is that a person comes up for a rape trial, often on their own, but with disclosure, others might come forward. As I mentioned in an earlier intervention, in some cases, evidence from the first victim might not be sufficient for conviction, but it might be with the collaborative evidence of others. Without that additional evidence, the case is likely to fall and more serial rape is likely to be the result.

[Caroline Flint]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the opportunity for the press to publish information about defendants, which could strengthen the case if more women come forward. Their cases might not get on the charge sheet, but even if it is the first time that they have come forward, it would help to give them closure, in that they would know who their attacker was and their additional evidence would hopefully contribute to a successful conviction and their attacker going to jail.

[Geraint Davies]

That is absolutely right. We talked earlier about the problem of putting things in boxes and isolated cases. Some women go through thinking that they have contributed to the incident or even that it is somehow their fault, but if they knew that the person had a consistent pattern of behaviour in raping women, they would no longer think like that. Sometimes a woman—or a man—does not want to stand in front of a court; a difficult case might fail completely because no one else comes forward and the evidence is insufficient. In those circumstances, the victim could end up being branded as a woman—sometimes a man—who makes false accusations. They have told the truth, but on the balance of evidence available from only one witness, the accused is found not guilty, and the woman then becomes “a liar”. What signal does that send when we want to encourage more witnesses to come forward?

I appreciate that the point was made seriously, but I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee—the point about Google raised by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) was well made—that there is an equivalence between the psychological and reputational difficulties of the accused, although they certainly exist, and a lot more women being raped. There is no qualitative equivalence between them. Quantitatively, the number of malicious, false allegations is minute, whereas the number of unreported—certainly unconvicted—rapes is massive. On the balance of the argument, qualitatively and quantitatively, the case for anonymity is not made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

Nothing I say is designed to make it more difficult for women to make a complaint of rape. I accept and understand from my professional knowledge that it is an extremely difficult thing for women and men to do. However, my example showed how that offence is treated differently by the law. When Opposition Members ask why I say that such cases are different from all others, I fear that their argument is weakened by the provisions in their 1999 Act.

We are not talking about false allegations of rape as such, but it is right to bear it in mind that we have a system that we must cherish: a person is innocent until proven guilty. I accept that there must be no barrier to people making a complaint, because it is already extremely difficult for them to do so; but Her Majesty’s Government are not trying to do that in this proposal. Rape is uniquely stigmatising, so much so that if one goes to prison, as I have done—obviously to see clients—one can see what happens there. Prisoners charged with rape—never mind convicted—are treated differently from other prisoners. The sad reality is that a person charged or convicted of murder or a serious offence of violence can actually be respected in the prisoner context, but those accused of rape have to be segregated. There is a unique stigma.

Rape is uniquely stigmatising and it is already treated differently by the law. I give an example, from my legal knowledge. A 17-year-old military recruit and a younger girl, aged 16, made contact via the internet. He travelled to meet her and they had sexual relations. He drove her home, by which time her father was out looking for her; indeed, she saw him in the car. At her doorstep, the mother asked, “What has he made you do?” The girl had some psychological problems and it was clear from computer conversations with friends that she was very frightened, but it was also apparent that the case was prosecuted wholly partially, with officers repeatedly reassuring her at interview that she had done the right thing. Of course, they wanted to do the right thing for her, but one has to ask whether it was doing the right thing by a complainant to reassure her repeatedly and not put her, or him, to the test on the quality of their evidence. It will be explored in court proceedings, which puts the complainant under even more pressure.

In the case I am describing, the young man was remanded, released on bail and remanded again. The case came before a Crown Court judge and when counsel—not me—asked the first question, “He didn’t rape you, did he?”, the answer was “No”, and the case was dismissed. I regret to inform Members that such cases happen on a regular basis.

[Caroline Flint]

The hon. Gentleman suggests that such cases happen on a regular basis, but there is no evidence for that—it is anecdotal. One of the things Baroness Stern was asking for was better evidence of false allegation in all crimes, including rape. We need to get the data and evidence right, because such phrases do not help the debate at all.

[Michael Ellis]

In the absence of statistics, one can only go by one’s anecdotal experience, and it is reasonable for barristers who have worked in the Crown Court daily for many years to draw on that experience. I differ from what the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said about the number of cases prosecuted as perversions of the course of justice or malicious reporting of rape. That number will be very much lower than the average. That is because it is very difficult to prove a negative, and one would normally have to ascertain that the complaint was made in wholly and probably dishonest circumstances—for example, it might later transpire that the complainant and the victim were in two different locations. But it is illogical for the hon. Lady to draw the conclusion that because there are X prosecutions for perverting the course of justice, there are not that many false accusations. The two are totally different.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I agree with the shadow Minister that we have had a good, informed debate, with tremendous contributions from many informed people. It was excellent to hear so many good contributions from new Members on both sides of the House. Generally, the debate has been non-partisan, which, given the subject matter, is healthy.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) on an excellent and thoughtful maiden speech, which let us in on the lasting effect of his having had a single-sex education. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) made an eloquent maiden speech, and his proposals to beat the fear of crime through a community-led approach were well put. We will forgive him the Simply Red concert last weekend.

The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) made a strong opening speech, but it was sometimes based on proposals that are simply not the Government’s position. She said that we were not saying what the Government’s position is. In response to her, and to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) who made the same point, I say that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), made our position clear in his opening remarks. Let me repeat what he said: we intend to strengthen and formalise the current arrangements for anonymity up to the point of charge in rape cases. We will publish an independent report of existing research on rape before the summer recess, and following the request of the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, we will consider whether new research is required to supplement it. Obviously, we will make a further announcement in the autumn.

The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) questioned the independence of the report commissioned. I assure him that the report will be peer-reviewed by two independent, external experts, that their comments will be addressed by the report authors, and that the process will be rigorous.

To be fair, as the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood noted, we set aside a whole day in Government time for this debate. I trust that that leaves the House under no illusions from the outset about the importance with which we regard this issue, our desire to give direction on what is required, and how we will move the issue forward. Hon. Members, not least the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), made many helpful general points on dealing with rape, which were slightly off the specific topic of the debate but none the less helpful.

[Caroline Flint]

I appreciate the time and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way. Am I right in thinking that the Government intend to look at the issue of anonymity with regard to rape only? Clearly, most Members, in all parts of the House, did not want such exclusivity.

[Mr Djanogly]

It will be in regard to rape, pre-charge—that is correct.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

We are considering Lord Lester’s private Member’s Bill. The issues involved in it are complex and of great breadth, so we will look at it carefully and respond at a later date.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

5. What evidence he took into account in deciding to bring forward proposals to extend anonymity to defendants in rape trials.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What evidence he took into account in deciding to propose to grant anonymity to defendants charged with rape.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

The proposal to grant anonymity to defendants in rape trials was included in the coalition agreement following negotiations between the two coalition partners. All the policy commitments made by the coalition Government were derived from the existing policy of one or both of the governing parties. The issue of anonymity for defendants in rape trials was adopted as party policy by the Liberal Democrat party while in opposition. It was also the subject of an extensive inquiry by the Home Affairs Committee, in its fifth report published on 24 June 2003.

[Caroline Flint]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his answer. His Minister has indicated that he believes the stigma associated with those accused of rape is so damaging that, uniquely, they need further protection through anonymity, but evidence shows that the public are far more hostile to paedophiles and murderers, so why, on the evidence, does he choose to extend anonymity to those accused of rape?

[Mr Clarke]

There are arguments on both sides of the question, and they have frequently come before the House over the years. The Government think it is right to have a reasonable debate on them. That is one of the arguments in favour of anonymity. The argument that I have always thought is the strongest for anonymity is in cases in which the victim has anonymity—when there are allegations by children against teachers and others, or allegations made by women or men in rape cases. Where the victim is allowed anonymity all the way through, there is a case, which the House has accepted on occasions in the past, for giving anonymity to the person who is accused. There are other arguments on both sides of the case. We are not likely to have early legislation on the matter. This was the principal subject of debate in 2003 when there was a Bill before the House, and it divided all three parties. It is not a matter for party political ideology. It is a question that the House as a whole should consider with care.

Rape Defendants (Anonymity)

Caroline Flint Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity this evening to question the Government’s proposals to give anonymity to defendants in rape trials.

I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), to his new position. He is a reasonable man and I know he realises that this issue has caused much concern to many Members. I am grateful to my hon. Friends who have stayed in the Chamber this evening and I am also grateful to Members on the Government Benches. I hope the hon. Gentleman will hear the points that are made tonight.

Rape devastates women’s lives. Every 34 minutes a rape is reported to the police in the UK. Many more go unreported. The Fawcett Society suggests that 47,000 women are raped every year. Much has been done in the past decade. More rapes and sexual assaults are reported to the police, although the conviction rate is still too low. More rapists are brought to justice, and across the criminal justice system rape victims can expect to find greater compassion, respect and sensitivity.

That is welcome progress, and I pay tribute in particular to Vera Baird, not just for her work as Solicitor-General, but also for the campaigns she led for victims of rape and sexual abuse long before she was a Minister or an MP, and for her advice to me in preparing for this debate.

Let us be in no doubt, though, that justice still eludes too many rape victims in too many parts of the country. Only one in 20 rapes reported to the police results in a conviction. On whatever measure we choose to use, most rapists are never held to account for their actions and most victims never see their attacker brought to justice. So what does the coalition plan to do about it?

In its programme for government, the coalition set out its solution in just one short sentence proposing anonymity for defendants in rape trials. Those proposals, if implemented, would deter victims from coming forward and make it far more difficult for the police to charge offenders and convict rapists. We know that many rapists are serial offenders; their trail of victims often runs into double digits. Many women—for a variety of reasons—do not come forward straight away. They are afraid; they want to pretend it never happened. They are embarrassed; they feel as though they did something wrong. They are ashamed; they believe that what happened was their fault. They feel alone.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why young women who may be in a dependent relationship with someone when they are raped do not come forward is that they feel that in some way it was their fault? Only subsequently, perhaps when they hear that the person has done the same thing elsewhere, do they gain the courage to speak up?

[Caroline Flint]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is often only publicity about a rape charge that leads other victims to come forward. It is only at that point that they understand that they are not alone—that it is not their fault and they can do something about it.

Let us consider the case of the black-cab driver, John Worboys. When he was arrested for a string of sex attacks in 2008, 85 women came forward to say that they, too, had been attacked by him. Offering attackers the blanket of anonymity will prevent victims from getting the justice they deserve and hinder the police in protecting the public.

However, the real question is this: on what basis do we distinguish rape defendants from those accused of any other serious, violent or sexual offence? What singling out rape defendants says is that rape victims are less reliable, less credible and less trustworthy—that they are to be believed less—than the victims of any other crime. It reinforces the myth that women who report rape are lying, and gives succour to those who peddle the same old lies about women being responsible for being raped.

Let me be clear that no one doubts the damage that false allegations cause—innocent men find their lives turned upside down, police time is wasted and public money is misused, and they insult genuine victims, belittle their suffering and make juries more sceptical than they would otherwise be—but in the most recent and authoritative report, Baroness Stern could find no evidence that the incidence of false allegations was higher in rape cases than in any other crime. A report by the Home Office in 2005 came to the same conclusion. International research in 2007 showed that, even of the very small number of false allegations, in most cases no offender was named—malice was not the motive; it was a cry for help from a distressed woman. Moreover, the law already deals with those who make malicious complaints against others, because making a false allegation perverts the course of justice and those who do it can, and do, receive substantial prison sentences.

Rape is, by its nature, an extremely difficult crime to prove. Most victims are raped by people whom they know. It takes people a tremendous amount of courage—more courage than anyone who has never been raped can ever understand—to tell someone, anyone, let alone the police, that they have been raped.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are particular issues in relation to young people who have been in the care system in cases of historical abuse and that the Government’s proposal would have a very negative effect on the opportunity for young people to come forward, perhaps at a later date?

[Caroline Flint]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I commend her for all the work in this area that she has done in Scotland. I very much welcomed the time when, as a Home Office Minister, I worked with her. She is right: more and more these days, we hear of people coming forward later, when they have developed the confidence to do so and to talk to others about the crimes that have been committed against them. Again, the serial nature of the crime that we are talking about is important, because when a crime is reported and people hear the name of the person who has been charged, they feel confident to come forward and stand by the victims in the modern day, rather than just in the past.

If we understand what the evidence actually shows—that women are no more likely falsely to report allegations of rape than any other crime—what possible justification is there for giving those accused of rape anonymity? The only other possible explanation is that the stigma associated with being accused of rape is of an entirely different order to that associated with any other serious, violent or sexual offence, but unless we seriously think that there is less stigma attached to being a paedophile, wife beater or murderer than to a rapist, or that society is more understanding of those who sexually abuse children or kill in cold blood, we cannot have anonymity in rape cases without granting anonymity across the board. That principle is totally alien to our system of open, transparent justice, where anonymity is granted only when there are overwhelming, compelling reasons to do so.

I understand that the coalition may be shifting on this matter—I would welcome that—and that it is perhaps considering limiting anonymity to defendants between arrest and charge. That may be worth looking at, but only if the same rule is applied to defendants in all violent crimes, not just rape.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Is it not true that it is very often between arrest and charge, when people hear that someone has been arrested for something, that other people come forward with similar patterns to create the weight of evidence that enables the prosecuting authorities successfully to proceed with the charge.

[Caroline Flint]

Again, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. Where do we draw the line in establishing someone’s identity—whether on arrest or charge—and then allowing other victims the time to present their experiences? We are meddling in something that should not be meddled in. Plenty of other parts of the justice system need to be attended to, and this is not one of them.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I share my right hon. Friend’s relief that the Government seem to be showing signs of back-pedalling or U-turning, or at least having a serious rethink on the issue, but does she share my concern that the proposal was not in either of the other two parties’ manifestos, yet it suddenly appeared in the coalition agreement? Does she share my hope that the Minister will explain why the proposal ended up in the coalition agreement and who was responsible for pushing the idea forward?

[Caroline Flint]

Yes, it was in neither the Conservative nor the Liberal Democrat manifesto at the general election, although I would have thought that that was the platform from which to make such a proposal. I really think that it was nine short words that conveyed this policy in that coalition agreement, and those nine short words developed a policy that has not been thought through, but is very dangerous.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I have been participating in these late-night Adjournment debates for 16 years and I have never seen so many Government Members paying such attention as they are paying to what my right hon. Friend is saying. I pray and hope that what she is arguing tonight will be well received and that we can have a change of policy. Without making a great party claim of victory, the coalition Government have got it wrong, and they should be man and woman enough to accept that tonight.

[Caroline Flint]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I hope that we can end this proposal tonight, because the real issue—the real injustice—is not the rights of defendants, but the plight of tens of thousands of women who are raped but never see their attacker brought to justice. Our priority must be delivering justice for victims of rape and protecting the public from dangerous offenders.

The last time a Government made proposals to grant those accused of rape anonymity was 1975. Despite making much of their parties’ modern, progressive credentials during the 2010 election campaign, the coalition Government’s proposals would take us back to a time when there was a residual doubt about rape victims built into the criminal justice system, which denied thousands of victims justice.

When victims of rape are afraid—afraid of what has happened, afraid to come forward, afraid that no one will believe them—we must show them that we will believe them. When rapists believe that they can attack with impunity, and go on and on wrecking women’s lives and never face the consequences of their actions, we must show them that we will bring them to justice.

When proposals such as this are made—dangerous proposals, I am afraid to say, that insult victims of rape and inhibit the ability of the police to catch dangerous criminals—in this House we must show, through the strength of our case and the passion of our arguments, that we will speak up for those without a voice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

Giving evidence as a complainant is both difficult and stressful, and there are already policies in place to try to make this easier. Anything that can be done to reduce the pressure on witnesses in these circumstances is surely something we should contemplate. Equally, defendants accused of rape and not convicted are entitled to some protection. Anybody accused of rape is likely to be subject to minute scrutiny, often raising matters detrimental to the individual’s reputation that, in any other circumstances, would be regarded as trivial or irrelevant.

[Caroline Flint]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he really, seriously suggesting that the stigma associated with being accused of rape is no less than that associated with being accused of child abuse, assault, murder or wife beating? Why does rape stand out? Is it really about the fact that you just believe—[Hon. Members: “You?”] Sorry, is it really about the fact that the hon. Gentleman just believes that women who come forward to accuse someone of rape must be putting forward false allegations and are not to be believed, when the evidence shows that that occurs in a complete minority of cases?

[Mr Blunt]

No, and no. I should be grateful if the right hon. Lady would, as we ought to in handling such cases, try to take the temperature out of the debate and turn to evidence rather than supposition. Let me continue with my remarks.

If the defendant is acquitted, quite apart from the lingering suspicion of guilt that might remain, there might be a range of adverse material about that individual in the public domain which would otherwise have remained private and which cannot even be expunged by an acquittal. Our approach to defendants who are accused of rape but not convicted will be based on what is just. There are a number of possible options on the timing and scope of anonymity. On timing, it could extend from the point of the accusation until the time the defendant is charged; or to the beginning of the trial; or to the point of conviction.

Further options relate to the scope of the anonymity in so far as the offences are concerned. It could cover anonymity in rape cases, but it could go wider. There are reasons why it might also be applied to other offences. I remind the House that our coalition agreement also states that we will give anonymity to teachers accused by pupils and take other measures to protect against false accusations. The principle is linked to anonymity in rape cases, as the tragic case of Nick Drewett showed. It was the reputational damage that caused him to take his own life, and, although we recognise the difficulties in any extension to particular professions or classes of offence, anonymity for those in positions of trust could apply more widely than to sexual offences. We have not yet discounted any options.

Whatever our conclusions, I can make it absolutely clear that we have no intention of extending similar protections to rape defendants once convicted. The media will be able to report the cases of convicted defendants in the usual way. A reason in principle for bringing forward the proposals is to help to restore the balance in rape cases with the anonymity given to complainants. It has often been said that the justification for complainant anonymity does not apply to defendants, on the basis that the purpose of complainant anonymity is to encourage more complainants to come forward—a factor that does not apply to defendants.