Business of the House (Police (Detention and Bail) Bill)

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to move as swiftly as possible with this legislation, but we should always note whenever emergency legislation is going through in one day that it has to be an extraordinary process because, in the ordinary course of events, the House should have an opportunity after Second Reading to table amendments that could then be considered on Report on a different day. When everything is truncated into one day, it is impossible to do that. I recognise that the Government tabled a business motion—and we agreed it earlier this week—that allowed the tabling of amendments before today. In the end, that is not best practice, as I know Government Members would fully accept. With the proviso that we do not do this often—as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said, we can end up with legislation that is either bad or not as good as it might be—I support the motion.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I think that we have responded to that to some extent. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), will wind up the debate, and he will have time to consider the matter.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

And so will others.

[Mr Clarke]

Indeed. Ministers have talked about the matter and considered it carefully, and I leave it to my hon. Friend to give an authoritative reply in his winding-up speech.

I hope that I have already indicated that the mess that we have inherited requires a bold, sustained and principled effort, not salami slicing and half-measures. The Bill is one part of the balanced package of reforms that is needed. Unusually, I made a full statement to the House last week on the subject, and it was debated for one and a half hours, so I do not propose to repeat in depth what I said then. Let me turn to the inevitable controversy that any measures on criminal sentencing are bound to provoke. It is a natural part of contemporary political debate to simplify the subject and to make extremes out of it all. I am resigned to the fact that on law and order issues above all there is a tendency to polarise, and to frame reforms as either dry and tough, or wet, soft and liberal. The truth is somewhere in between. The aim of the measures I proposed was to consult on a balanced package, and it remains so.

The measures address the weaknesses that we inherited. For serious crime, the public must have confidence in the system of effective punishment and just retribution, so my reforms include, for example, introducing a 40-hour working week across the prison estate to introduce productive hard work into prisons in place of enforced idleness.

The Bill toughens community sentences by allowing courts to curfew offenders for longer—16 hours a day for up to 12 months—and to ban them from going abroad. As I signalled last week, we intend to introduce measures to clarify householders’ rights of defence and to consult on criminalising squatting.

The Bill creates a new offence of possessing a knife to threaten or endanger a person, with a prison sentence of at least six months for over-18s to send a clear message to those who possess a knife to threaten others.

We are conducting a review with the intention of replacing the discredited sentence whereby people are locked up for an undetermined and indefinite time—the so-called imprisonment for public protection—with a tough determinate sentencing regime. I propose to deliver a system that offers better reparation to victims. The Bill will replace and augment the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996, which the previous Government never implemented—it was a Conservative measure. This will allow us to deduct wages from prisoners so that instead of their just being a drain on the system we can deduct money to help to pay for services for the victims of crime. The Bill places a positive obligation on courts to make offenders pay compensation directly to victims.

[Mr Clarke]

We are having a review, so I will look at that. Legislation was enacted in 2003, in the belief that a few hundred people might be affected. It commenced in 2005. The previous Government, of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member, tried to reform it in 2008, because it was already out of control. I proposed further reforms in the Green Paper, and a very large number of people in the criminal justice system said that the legislation should be repealed. Last week, I quoted David Thomas, the author of “Thomas on Sentencing”, who described the whole thing as an unmitigated disaster. I will look into the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion to see whether some aspects of the Northern Irish system might be appropriate.

After punishment and reparation comes rehabilitation to reduce reoffending, which is at the core of our process of reform. Sentences must be punitive and reformative. The Bill will help to ensure that more offenders with drugs, alcohol or mental health problems are addressed and receive treatment at the earliest opportunity.This complicates our efforts—

[Chris Bryant]

Complicates?

[Mr Clarke]

Complements—it might do both, but I hope it will complement our efforts to tackle drugs in prison.

Drugs are widely available in prisons, but we shall start by introducing drug-free wings. My single most radical proposal on rehabilitation is a non-legislative change to introduce a fundamental shift in how we approach the issue by paying by results to unlock private capital, benefit from the innovation of the voluntary sector and get the whole system pulling in the same direction. We will pay providers a return on their ethical investment for what works in the public interest: turning criminals into ex-criminals should be an object of the system.

Sentencing

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

Let me just take our proposal on early guilty pleas. Let me get into that. I am sorry to be unkind to my hon. Friend, but I have to bear in mind the people trying to be called, otherwise there will be no BackBenchers’ debate, and as someone who was until recently a Back Bencher for many years, I always used to find it irritating when we had a short Opposition day debate.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

You always got called early.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I really should sit down soon.

Let me deal with what we are trying to reform and why. The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), said in the Daily Mail on Friday that I should

“order a wholesale review of how the court system works”.

He went on:

“my own jury experience left me staggered by the sheer waste of time and public money resulting from the chaos in our courts.”

[Chris Bryant]

It is the judges.

[Mr Clarke]

After 13 years, they say it is the judges. It is actually that the system does not facilitate the disposal of cases in the best possible way in the interests of victims, the police, the taxpayer and, above all, justice itself.

I have found quotations from the former Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who unfortunately is not in his place. He is the one who placed a more onerous obligation on judges to follow the early guilty plea guideline. Perhaps he is not here because, like me, he cannot understand what on earth got into the head of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) in thinking that this was a suitable subject for debate.

I remember the right hon. Member for Tooting declaring in this House that he welcomed plans for a clear sentencing framework. In December he thought that they were

“a perfectly sensible vision for a sentencing policy, entirely in keeping with the emphasis on punishment and reform that Labour followed in government”.—[Official Report, 7 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 171.]

I pay tribute to him for being so helpful and constructive in response to our proposals. It is a pity that he has been bullied into picking out bits and distorting them in this debate. The principle of a more efficient system of justice is not wrong, and the principle of the early guilty plea is not wrong—I am afraid that it is the state of the Opposition that is really wrong. That is what has brought the debate to the House.

The former Prime Minister’s old speechwriter, Phil Collins, apparently said last Friday:

“Labour don’t have a particularly strong position on crime of any kind”.

Well, we will help them. We have a policy, and it is very clear. We will reform the criminal justice system to focus it on punishing offenders, protecting the public and tackling the scourge of reoffending. We intend to make prisons places of hard work, not enforced idleness. We will get prisoners off drugs, and drugs out of prisons. We will toughen up the current weak and failed system of community sentences, and we will introduce a radical payment-by-results approach that will introduce innovative public and private sector solutions focused on what really matters, which is breaking the devastating cycle of crime.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

It is important to remember that, with the exception of the two independents—another example of how I would not have designed the system—the majority of panel members will be democratically elected, representing their councils in their system. They are not directly democratically elected, but they are indirectly democratically elected. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, the model in London is a two-thirds majority for scrutiny of a democratically elected individual, so I am more comfortable with two thirds. That does not make a huge difference for a typically sized panel, which will have 12 people. We said in Committee that the difference will be between nine votes and eight votes, but it is more useful to look at it the other way. In order to stop the veto, the commission would have to get four or five people either to vote with him or not to be there. That makes a bigger difference as the panel gets bigger.

The structure of the new clause is more positive than has been described, because it leans towards trying to have sensible discussions and negotiations. It starts with a commissioner making a proposal. Then the panel looks at the proposal and comments on it, before the commissioner works out what he will do. Unless it is vetoed, the precept is set, but if it is vetoed, it does not go to a referendum straight away. Ultimately, that is something that we are all trying to avoid, because of the associated costs of running unnecessary referendums and the risk of re-billing, which is a particular problem with this issue and capping. There is then another opportunity, over 14 days, for the two sides to negotiate and see whether they can come to a more sensible arrangement that works for both of them. Only if that is not possible is a further step taken.

That step is not about saying, “Secretary of State, tell us what to do. It’s up to you.” It is about saying that what should be done is up to local people. It is up to the commissioner to set one option and the panel to set another, and then the public will decide which they prefer. That is a much more appropriate way of doing things. The panel would act responsibly when it came to cost, with the exception of the independents, who do not have that responsibility and are a piece of undemocratic grit in the system. However, it will be local decision making that makes a difference. Local people should have a say in how their precept should be set and how their policing should be run. That is what I would like to see. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) has moved the new clause for discussion, and I hope that the Government will consider it carefully.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It feels as though I have entered a meeting of the Home Affairs Committee, which is where I was yesterday, but I am not going to talk about the Metropolitan police in quite the same way today.

I sympathise with some of the arguments about localism which have been advanced by the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who spoke in favour of the new clause, but I say to them that, although there may be a natural constituency in some police authorities, in many there is not. In the South Wales police area, for instance, it is not easy to conceive of a single constituency of interest. The area does not exist in any other denomination, as it were, and it crosses local authority boundaries, brings together Swansea and Cardiff, which is something extraordinary in itself, and brings the valleys together with two of the three big cities of south Wales, so it would be very difficult to come to a really local idea.

The new clause is primarily about money, however, so I want to ask the Minister a few questions. I realise that he may not be able to answer this evening, but I hope that he will write to me on some of these matters, because they are—in relation to chapter 6, in particular—quite important.

The Bill partially determines the way in which somebody is elected, but there is a great deal more work to be done on exactly how the electoral system will work—for precisely the reason that I mentioned: the constituencies do not exist. New constituencies are being created, and we need to ensure that, in terms of how elections are managed, there is some consistency within the constituency that we create. I just wonder whether—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just gently point out to the hon. Member for Rhondda that it is on the subject of precepts that he will want to focus his remarks?

[Chris Bryant]

I know I am chancing my arm, Mr Speaker, but I cannot chance it anywhere else on Report, and these issues have not yet been covered.

Of course, the issue of precepts is fundamentally about money.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just remind the hon. Gentleman that there will be an opportunity on Third Reading for him to dilate? Whether that is convenient for him is unknown to me—but it might be appropriate.

[Chris Bryant]

Mr Speaker, I do not know whether you really want me to dilate at any point.

I was merely trying to say that, on the matter of money, which is the point at hand, there is a question about how any commissioner would be able to make sure that in advance of future elections there was enough money to be able to pay for the process of explaining to the electorate the supplementary voting system, which will not have been used in many other parts of the country. I would be grateful if the Minister were able to expand on how he will achieve that, on the precise powers that will be available to the Electoral Commission and on when he will bring forward supplementary powers in relation to that.

Having chanced my arm as far as I think you will allow, Mr Speaker, I surrender to the rest of the debate.

[Nick Herbert]

In the three minutes that are now available to me, I will have to try to explain why my hon. Friend’s approach is interesting but wrong in relation to how the precept is dealt with.

I explained in Committee the process following a veto, and the Home Secretary will set that out in regulations. They will require, as the amendment would, that the police and crime commissioner considers the panel’s recommendations and then proposes an amended precept, which must take the panel’s recommendations into account.

This is where the Bill diverges from the proposed changes, however. Under the regulations that we propose, we say that, if the amended precept is “excessive” under the definition in the Localism Bill, the police and crime commissioner will set the precept but a referendum will be triggered. The panel will not be able to prevent that, but it will be able to propose an alternative precept with accompanying reasons that will have to be published. The public will then have to decide—having both sides of the story.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are very grateful, but I think that it sounded a bit better from Churchill.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

And I should say that the people of the Rhondda remember Churchill’s period in relation to the Tonypandy riots. However, the Lord Chancellor has responsibility for marriage law, and he will know that the law forbids civil weddings from including religious readings or music, even though many people who are not able to get married in church or who do not want to do so would like to have such readings. The Government say that they will allow that for civil partnerships, but not for civil weddings. Can we not have a little more equality for heterosexuals?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Nick Herbert)]

I am answering this question because I am the only one in the village. [Laughter.] I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that his question was transferred. The Equality Act 2010 removed the express prohibition on civil partnership registrations taking place on religious premises. In response to that amendment of the law, the Government are committed to talking to those with a key interest in how to take this forward. That will include consideration of whether civil partnerships should be allowed to include religious readings, music and symbols, and the implications for marriage will have to be considered as part of that.

Courts Service

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Williams]

My hon. Friend draws our attention to a practical problem. Some of us are looking further ahead to ensuring that the magistrates court system serves people. We are discussing not short-term decisions, but a longer term view of the network that we want. The issue is valid.

I note that the consultation objectives include the commendable pledge to

“ensure the estate supports the challenges of rural access”.

Having looked at the documentation, I contend—I suspect that others will share my view—that that is not the case. The problem of access is not unique to rural areas, but it is a huge problem, and will be detrimental to Cardigan and the surrounding area.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made the point about rural and non-rural areas. The Rhondda is not rural in one sense, because there is a conglomerated community and people live close to one another. However, if Llwynypia magistrates court disappears, the number of people who are unable or fail to attend court is likely to increase dramatically because they will have to travel all the way to Pontypridd. It is likely that many people, including the victims of crime, will not receive justice, and defendants may get off scot-free.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing the debate, and on signing my early-day motion. Many hon. Members have specific concerns and have rightly advanced arguments about equality of access to justice in rural areas. As I was pointing out, my constituency in the Rhondda is not, properly speaking, rural, although we still have sheep parading down the streets most days of the week—mostly in an inconvenient way—and nearly every house is within half a mile of a farm. Those are very different farms from the ones in Surrey and other parts of the country, but nevertheless it feels to many people as if they need only lift their eyes to see the hills. The Rhondda feels like a rural community. More importantly, the communities there are valley communities, and the further one goes up the valley the less access there tends to be to larger shops or, for that matter, the services provided by national Government, the Welsh Assembly Government or local government. That is one of the problems driving depopulation at the top ends of some valleys, which may be very beautiful but none the less have economic problems. People rightly ask themselves, “Is someone just choosing to close us down?”

One of the very few national Government presences in the Rhondda now, other than the police, is the Llwynypia magistrates court. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has moved out many of its staff who worked in the Rhondda. In fact it has been moving them out of Pontypridd as well. My argument to the Government is that I of course fully understand that savings must be made—the Ministry of Justice must ensure that it operates justice in the most financially efficient way available, especially in these straitened financial circumstances—but there are two functions involved. The first is that of providing justice efficiently and effectively; however, the other is how to create links with every other aspect of government. If it feels as though whenever a choice must be made, the Government constantly choose to close offices in more peripheral communities, longer-term economic problems are effectively created in the areas concerned, and they will have to be rectified by another part of Government.

The classic instance is crime in the Rhondda. If we have a greater sense of deprivation and of the Rhondda being a place where people lived in the past, but where they should not bother to live in the future, because even the Government cannot be bothered to keep a magistrates court there, we will have greater problems with economic revival in the constituency, and that will lead to greater crime problems. In addition, the Rhondda is not an easy place to get around without a car, and many of my constituents cannot afford one—in particular the 13,000 pensioners. Because of that geography, with two valleys—some say a passport is needed to go from one to the other—it is already all too easy for defendants never to turn up at court. For that matter, it is pretty easy for witnesses to crimes not to bother to turn up. Consequently, magistrates court officials and the police spend vast amounts of time pursuing defendants who should have been at court on a certain day, to get them to make an appearance the following week. That is one of the most significant elements of the inefficiency in the present service. I am concerned that the problems will multiply if Llwynypia magistrates court, which has managed to improve its statistics dramatically in the past 10 years, is lost and the services are moved to Pontypridd a few miles down the road, which has some bus services and a train service from one half of the constituency but not the other. The police will again spend more time trying to force defendants and witnesses to go to the first court date, rather than a second or third. That will mean that fewer people will get justice.

The Rhondda is not a high-crime area. Sometimes, because of the way the valleys are often presented by the BBC and national newspapers—we are of interest only when there is a drugs death—people think that the level of criminality is high. That is not true. For the most part it is a safe area, and many people still leave their front doors open perfectly contentedly, because they know that. None the less, there are significant areas of crime, including domestic violence in particular. The local senior police officer recently told me that if he added together the domestic violence cases from the three constituencies around mine he would not get to the number of cases from my constituency. An important aspect of the work done in our magistrates court is getting justice in domestic violence cases, particularly in light of the steady growth in such violence that may go on in a household. My anxiety is that if people feel that such justice will be more distant and that it will not be as easy to get access to it, we shall be likely to bear down less on the domestic violence problems in the Rhondda.

I have one other concern. I remember the last attempt to close the Llwynypia magistrates court, which was under a Labour Government. I was then Parliamentary Private Secretary to Lord Falconer, who was trying to close it, and I managed to see that closure off—with the help of the present interim leader of the Labour party, who was ferocious in my support. A key argument, besides equality of access, in particular for some of the poorest communities in south Wales, was the investment that had already been made in the building. The question arose of how to ensure that witnesses could have secure access and a separate entrance, to prevent intimidation, which can happen all too easily in small, tight-knit communities; how to provide secure accommodation for complainants; and how to make the whole process of involvement with the court safe and secure. That is possible in part because the court is in a beautiful rural area, immediately next to the Glyncornel park, which has, as I am sure the Minister will know, the largest colony of Deptford pinks in the country. I am concerned that if the magistrates court closes there will be yet another building in the Rhondda to symbolise the retreat of the Government from areas in the valleys. The sense of that, especially given that the building is not far from the old powerhouse where the Tonypandy riots happened a hundred years ago this year, will feel emotionally to the people in the Rhondda as if something important has closed.

As a final point, I hope that the Minister will consider this as he proceeds: “More haste, less speed.” We have seen in the past few weeks that trying to make cuts too fast, and therefore producing inaccurate lists that lead to further problems, not only causes more anxiety in communities than necessary, but makes people feel that the judgments being made are somewhat arbitrary. I hope that the Minister will extend the consultation period by a month so that more people can take part, not least because some of the professionals involved want to be able to arrive at a coherent policy. None of us wants to oppose for the sake of opposing—we understand the financial situation—but I hope that the Minister will postpone the cut-off date so that it does not feel quite so arbitrary as it may do now.

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) has assured me that he will take only two minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Maria Eagle]

Briefly, but I need to make my speech.

[Chris Bryant]

Does my hon. Friend remember all the excoriation poured on Jacqui Smith for doing precisely what she did?

[Maria Eagle]

I remember that also. The point is that collective responsibility is still a constitutional principle in this country, yet a senior Law Officer appears to be opposing an element of the Under-Secretary’s proposals.

It is not only the Solicitor-General. The Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), opposes his Government’s proposal to close Frome magistrates court and has made that opposition clear to his local newspaper, the Frome and Somerset Standard. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)—a Cabinet Minister, no less—has also

“vowed to lead the fight to save a city magistrates’ court”,

according to the Birmingham Mail. A swathe of newly elected Conservative Members also opposed the announced closures—we have heard from one or two of them today; more power to them—and the hon. Member for Ceredigion, who secured this debate, is also a member of a governing party. The Minister might have difficulty on his hands. He is in danger of starting a revolt among his Government supporters rivalling that created by the Secretary of State for Education. It will take some going, but he might get there.

How genuine is the consultation? A number of hon. Members have asked that question during this debate, partly because of the scale of the proposals, the speed with which they have been produced and the speed with which the Minister intends to proceed with them. How much is the announcement of a huge court closure programme driven by money alone, and by this Government’s increasing dogma of slashing the size of the state—some might say for ideological reasons—at all costs?

The Justice Secretary made a speech on 30 June that was reported mostly for his comment that he wanted to reduce the use of prison as a way of tackling crime. However, he also said about the courts:

“Obviously it would be nice, for historic reasons, if we could keep all of the old court buildings that we are used to across the country. But in these difficult times, an under-used and under-repaired courts estate is an extravagance we simply cannot afford. So we have identified the potential to make a one-off saving of £21 million and annual savings of £15.5 million in running and maintenance costs. These are savings we must make”.

That smacks of a decision already taken and suggests that the consultations might be no more than window dressing. I am certainly not the only person who has raised that issue in this debate. The Justice Secretary has already determined the outcome:

“These are savings we must make”.

Those savings depend on the closure of 40% of all remaining magistrates courts and 25% of our county courts.

We will be watching closely to see whether any of the Minister’s proposals that we are discussing are not implemented. In the past, proposals to close courts have not all gone ahead. Some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have explained today that they saved courts from closure proposals, which showed a listening Government who were willing to change their mind. Will this Government be willing to change their mind, or will the Minister go ahead with all the proposed court closures? We will be watching to find out.

It is perhaps not surprising that the Justice Secretary should be suggesting that the fall in crime by one third during Labour’s tenure in office—at least he accepts that it happened; the Home Secretary does not—had nothing to do with serious and dangerous offenders being locked up. Both the MOJ and Home Office budgets will be cut by between 25% and 40%, inevitably leading to a justice system that is less able to cope with the number of people involved in it.

We have concerns about whether the closure programme is merely a part of the overall attempt to reduce the size of the justice system generally. We fear so. The Under-Secretary will no doubt protest that it is no such thing, but let us see how many of the proposed closures do not proceed. That will be one litmus test by which we can determine whether my fears or the reassurances that he will no doubt give are accurate.

As well as those assurances, I seek a couple of other answers from the Minister about whether he is taking important matters into account. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised the issue of domestic violence. How many of the courts that the Minister proposes to close are problem-solving courts, domestic violence courts, community courts, mental health courts or drug courts? Has he considered that?

The previous Government planned to select and establish 128 domestic violence courts by 2011, and had reached 122 by the time of the general election. Domestic violence is a devastating and hidden crime. The courts that we set up brought together a range of aspects of the criminal justice system to ensure that that crime was tackled properly. It worked. Prosecutions have doubled in the past four years, with 72.5% of cases resulting in a successful prosecution. That is a great success.

What steps is the Under-Secretary taking to preserve the Courts Service’s capacity to deliver such a difficult, problem-solving approach in the remaining court estate—however big that ends up being? What account is he taking of the need to preserve the excellent work that has been done, which has led to a joined-up and co-ordinated approach from all criminal justice agencies?

Finally, will the Minister give us some reassurances about the length of the consultation and say whether he will extend it? There is clearly a concern across all parties and among a wide range of Members that his swift announcement has provided too short a time to allow proper reassurance and proper consultation to take place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

The mechanics of the scheme are being consulted on, and we hope to start making payments towards the end of this month.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

In his capacity as the new anti-corruption tsar, will the Justice Secretary have a word with Andy Coulson? Andy Coulson and Rebekah Wade both admitted that they had paid police officers for information when running newspapers. They paid police officers; that is suborning a police officer. Will the Justice Secretary institute a review of the process whereby newspapers sometimes pay for information from police officers, and put a stop to it?

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

Personally, I think that this Government are going to give a very high priority to restoring and, I trust, maintaining this company’s reputation—[Laughter.]—this country’s reputation as one of the leading advocates of the elimination of corruption in trade and in Government contracts. We shall also ensure that the Bribery Act 2010, which we supported, is properly enforced, and that we are in the forefront of the people paying regard to this matter. With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman’s question bears very closely on that. I would also say to him that making allegations against people who are not Members, under cover of parliamentary privilege, should be done with great caution. He should not accuse people of corruption in the course of putting a question to me on this subject.