Reforming Civil Justice

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

If my hon. Friend looks at our proposals, he will see that we intend to provide greater incentives for the settlement of cases. We also intend to impose cost penalties—beyond those that already exist—on those who either refuse good offers or do not meet the reasonable first demands of their opponents, but settlement is always preferable when it is possible.

I think I shall have to discuss with the judiciary the question of whether wider circulation could be given to recent awards of damages. However, I agree that in this day and age it ought to be possible to move on a little from the old days when gossip among members of the Bar about what they considered to be the current tariff for a particular injury was the best way of spreading knowledge about the direction in which the figures were moving. I will discuss my hon. Friend’s proposal with the Lord Chief Justice and others.

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

The Secretary of State will know the situation facing families with household savings of less than £15,000, and that families with savings of over £16,000 are ineligible for benefits. Does he not think that raising the bar for access to justice through the small courts from £5,000 to £15,000 may be seen as rough justice for the many poorer families who might want a proper hearing for their case? It will have a massive impact on their household budget, and a much greater one than a larger amount for a richer family.

[Mr Clarke]

This has sometimes been looked at, hence it has been possible to raise these levels by quite large amounts as they have not kept in line with inflation for the last 15 years. What we are doing in respect of the small claims courts should be of assistance to people of low means, because the small claims courts have been quite successful as a reasonably informal, very low-cost way of resolving simple disputes or collecting straightforward debts which people cannot recover from those who owe them. It is right to extend that jurisdiction so that people are not faced with the daunting prospect of appearing before a judge in a formal court setting, and possibly having a lawyer on the other side and so forth, which comes at the next stage up, at county court.

Guantanamo Civil Litigation Settlement

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

That is why we need the Green Paper, in order to try to establish some rules on the admissibility of intelligence evidence or evidence that may be of relevance to national security. As I believe I said in answer to an earlier question, this issue is cropping up with ever more frequency and we need to resolve it. This is not just something that the Government or Parliament can simply declare we are going to do. We have to resolve this in a way that is compatible with the rule of law, with the judgments that British Courts are likely to come to and with the strong opinions held by the judiciary in this country in their role of defending our fundamental rights, the rule of law and the independence of the courts. We have to consider our international obligations. It will not be easy to produce a Green Paper, but that is the secret to getting back to resolving these matters at a decent pace. I entirely share the hon. Gentleman’s wish that we could do that, so that they can be sorted out pretty clearly, fairly and straightforwardly whenever they arise.

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

You will know, Mr Speaker, that my former constituent Feroz Abbasi was held for many years in Guantanamo Bay in intolerable conditions without charge and was later freed. May I ask the Justice Secretary that if members of MI5 or MI6 are found to be complicit in torture, what penalties will they face?

[Mr Clarke]

That is speculative. I should make it clear that the allegations in these cases were not, so far as I am aware, that any member of the British security services had directly been involved in torture or ill treatment. They were argued to be complicit—that is, they had known that others were doing that and had somehow been complicit, which is not admitted by the security services. That was the issue. No one, I think, has been accused of torturing. It would be a very serious matter if anybody in the British intelligence services was ever found to have taken part in torture or the deliberate ill treatment of a detainee.

Police Commissioners (Wales)

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you presiding over us today, Mr Walker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) on securing the debate, and on the clear passion with which she has put her case. I disagree, however, with almost everything that she said. I am sure that this topic will be the subject of considerable debate over the coming weeks and months, not least when the Government bring forward the legislation that will provide for the introduction of directly elected police and crime commissioners as a replacement for police authorities.

I will try to take both the hon. Lady’s points and those raised by other hon. Members in turn. First, the hon. Lady suggested that the consultation period was only eight weeks rather than 12. In the run-up to the formal consultation period, the Government, and I, did extensive pre-consultation with stakeholders, including police authorities and police chiefs. We have been anxious right from the beginning to discuss the matter with stakeholders, but we are also anxious to ensure that we introduce the Bill in time, and secure its safe passage so that we can hold elections in 2012.

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

I have also been taking soundings, from Mark Mathias, the chief superintendent for Swansea. As my constituency is in Swansea, I shall be neutral and use Cardiff as an example. In a middle-class area, such as Heath, voter turnout is very high, but in the Ely area, where there is a lot of crime, voter participation is very low, and there is a concern that there will be a tendency for the person running for office to say, “Let’s do antisocial behaviour in a middle-class area and deploy the resources there, because that’s where the votes are, and not do so much activity in the poorer area.” The output, other than the loss of the money to run the democratic process— £50 million, I think, across the UK—is that the money that is left, which is being reduced, will be targeted in the area of least operational need. Does the Minister not think that that is an inherent problem of the whole system?

[Nick Herbert]

I do not agree. We live in the age of transparency, and the decisions of people in elected office are rightly subjected to intense public scrutiny. Those of us who are elected to any public office have a responsibility to represent all the people we are elected to represent. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I would agree on that in relation to our own constituencies—that we must include the people who did not vote for us, and people from all sorts of backgrounds and different parts of the constituency. That is our obligation.

One thing that I will come on to is the experience of the Mayor of London. He represents a very large number of people. The enhanced visibility and accountability of that elected office has been a good thing, and it has broadly been welcomed by Londoners. I am sure that the Mayor has an acute sense of his responsibility to represent people in all sections of the community in relation to policing, and to hold the police to account. I do not, therefore, accept the hon. Gentleman’s premise.

[Nick Herbert]

I absolutely disagree. There are elected members of police authorities from all parties, and the chairman of a police authority can represent a party or be independent. I do not believe that the experience in London suggests that the Metropolitan police has become in any way politicised. Were that to be suggested to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, or to his staff, he would absolutely reject it. We need to ensure that the operational independence of the police is fully safeguarded, and the Association of Chief Police Officers is rightly concerned that it be protected. Of course, decisions were taken by the newly elected Mayor that resulted in the previous commissioner resigning, but I do not believe that that amounted to any kind of politicisation in the party sense.

[Geraint Davies]

There is an issue of geography, of making comparisons with London. We understand that London is one place—it is a metropolis. In south Wales, the perception of people in Swansea—if I may, representing Swansea West—is that the chief of police there is well integrated with local political stakeholders, including councillors, Assembly Members and MPs, and the worry is that with a ballot we would end up with a commissioner in Cardiff. We would become Cardiff-centric and, as I have already said, there would also be a propensity to be middle-class focused. All those things are beginning to take away to some other place the accountability of the police and their sensitivity to local problems. The problems of south Wales are very different from the problems of London, which is one place. Rather than getting closer to the people we would become more isolated, with decisions being made by middle-class people in Cardiff.

[Nick Herbert]

Again, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The chief constable has to represent the force and cover the whole area concerned. He succeeds in doing that, so why should not the elected individual who holds him to account? We are, of course, proposing the introduction of police and crime panels that draw on locally elected councillors to ensure that the local authorities in the police force’s area have representation in holding the commissioner to account, and independence as well. That will be one way of ensuring that voices within the whole police area are heard.

I will now continue to address the points made by the hon. Member for Newport East. I have talked about the consultation period and the fact that we conducted extensive pre-consultation ahead of the formal consultation period. Even those who would disagree with us about the proposals, such as the Association of Police Authorities, would, I am sure, agree that we have been very ready to talk to them about the detail of all this and to consult widely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

Yes, and I will come to that. There certainly has been consultation, and it is important that there should be.

The hon. Member for Newport East suggested that the idea of police and crime commissioners is opposed by a wide range of people, including the Association of Chief Police Officers. Actually, it is noticeable that it does not oppose the introduction of commissioners outright; it rightly expresses its concerns about operational independence. Nor, even, is the Association of Police Authorities—although it does not support the proposal—mounting a great campaign against the change. I think there is recognition that it makes sense to work with the Government to ensure that the design of the proposals will be right. That is a sensible way forward. The Government, after all, have a mandate in this respect. Both the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats stood on a platform of reform of police authorities. The Conservative party wanted to introduce a directly elected individual; that was in our manifesto. The Liberal Democrats wanted to introduce direct elections to police authorities. Therefore we have a joint mandate and the proposal is part of the coalition agreement. Our views were very clear and formed part of the manifesto that we put to the country. We are entitled therefore to introduce the Bill and proceed with the policy.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

Perhaps the hon. Lady could tell me what checks are placed on politicians elected to this House when they assume high office. That is not the basis on which we work. We have a system of public scrutiny but we trust the people to elect to office the politicians they prefer. In relation to the hon. Lady’s contention about the appetite for change, I believe that there is a strong appetite for the police to be connected with communities, and to be visible and available. We live in the age of accountability and transparency, when people expect public bodies to answer for their performance. The problem with police authorities is that they are relatively weak and to be invisible bodies. The public do not, in the main, know who they are. Creating a single point of accountability, so that a single individual holds the police to account, will hugely enhance accountability. We saw that in London: through the persona of the Mayor, albeit that he delegates decisions to his deputy, people feel that he has a responsibility for London’s policing. That has broadly been welcomed, and I believe there will be a very beneficial effect on policing.

The proposal is an important part of the exchange we want to effect: we want to reduce the degree of central direction of the police that has accrued in recent years, as police forces have been subjected to increasing interference from the Home Secretary and the Government. In my view, the old, tripartite arrangement of a balance between the chief constable, the police authority—representing the local—and the Government or centre, has been distorted. Our proposal is an important reform, which will enable us to reduce central interference, target and central direction, while ensuring that the police are properly held to account, in this case by their communities. It is important to understand that that is the exchange that is proposed. I do not believe that we could cut back on all the central direction while leaving police authorities in their current form. They would not be strong or visible enough to hold the police to account and we would find that the police were not answering to anyone. That would not be acceptable to any of us.

As to the hon. Lady’s point about costs, it is true, as my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for this matter said, I think last week, that we intend that the reforms—the introduction of both police and crime panels and police and crime commissioner—should not cost more than existing police authorities. That is the last thing that any of us would want in the current age, when resources are tight. There will, however, be a cost in relation to the elections, which will be held every four years. Those of us who propose the change must accept that; there is a price to democracy and that will be budgeted for separately. We shall set out the costs when we launch the proposals. There will be a full assessment of the cost when we introduce the Bill. However, we must secure the design of the proposals before we can set out the costs; that is what the consultation is about.

I do not accept any of the contentions that have been made, either in this place or outside it, that the restraints on spending that will necessarily have to be imposed overall on policing will result in an increase in crime. Indeed, those who contend that they will do so are unwise; I doubt whether there is any academic evidence to suggest such a link.

I have already addressed the matter of diversity—

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Nick Herbert]

No, I am not going to give way any further. I have only four minutes in which to complete what I want to say, and I have some important points.

Police and crime panels will play an important role in ensuring that there is diversity. As to collaboration, we are placing duties on the police and crime commissioners to ensure that such collaboration as has happened in Wales can be extended. Crimes cross force boundaries and collaboration is necessary to deal with serious and organised crime, and to drive down cost. We want to ensure that such collaboration can continue.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly made an important point about the specific position of Wales and the Welsh Assembly Government. We have made it clear that we shall work closely with the Welsh Assembly Government to ensure that the framework within which commissioners operate reflects and respects the devolved responsibilities. I visited Cardiff as the recess began in the summer, to have discussions with officials and to consult police authorities and police chiefs. Officials have maintained a dialogue with officials from the Welsh Assembly Government about all those matters. We were not able to meet Ministers at the time. I have spoken to them on the telephone, but we—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I—plan to meet them in a short time to make sure that the consultation takes place.

I assure hon. Members that, whatever our differences on this matter, we intend to respect the devolved arrangements in Wales. That is particularly important with respect to those areas that are the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly Government, essentially relating to areas in which the police and crime commissioner will have a role. That includes community safety partnerships, which at present answer to the Welsh Assembly Government. We must get the design right for Wales, consult properly in Wales, and, where appropriate, secure the agreement of the Welsh Assembly to the proposals. We intend to proceed on that basis.

We want to introduce the reform and to include Wales. It is a reserved matter but we want the design fully to reflect the position in Wales. I am confident that the reforms will improve policing in Wales and rebuild the bridge between the police and the public, and that we shall continue to ensure that police officers are out in the streets doing the job that people want them to do, preventing crime and tackling it where it occurs. Our whole purpose is to improve policing and ensure that that essential public service is shaped to withstand the challenges of the future.

Police Grant Report

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern and hear the passion with which he intervenes on me. The purpose of damping was to ensure that no force received less than a minimum increase in funding each year and therefore to provide financial stability, but I appreciate the concerns about the process, not least from forces such as my hon. Friend’s in Northamptonshire, which feel that they have lost out by subsidising others. It has been the intention for some time—it was the intention of the previous Government—to remove the damping mechanism, and I shall look again at those issues and the position of individual forces once we know the situation in the spending review, to which I shall come. I shall try to ensure fairness, but I should say to my hon. Friend and to right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House that there is no pot of gold or easy solution to the situation that all forces currently face and will face. Whatever the funding formula and the adjustments, we and every force will all have to make significant savings, and I should not pretend otherwise to my hon. Friend.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in constituencies such as mine, where the police are already having to make efficiencies, these further efficiencies—of £6 million throughout Wales, I think—will inevitably lead to cuts in front-line policing, and that, alongside cuts in education, which will lead to more drug abuse, and cuts in the number of public service workers, which will lead to unemployment, there will be greater pressure on the police and fewer police to sort out that pressure? Will we not see an increase in crime, as we did under the previous Conservative Government?

[Nick Herbert]

No. I accept no part of what the hon. Gentleman says. We are talking about in-year cuts in relation to police forces of less than 1.5% of their Government funding, and we do not believe that that will mean that police forces have to cut front-line services. We believe that forces can make efficiencies, albeit in in-year services, so we do not believe that it will impact on crime levels. Indeed, I should say that the reason we have to make these savings is this Government’s inheritance from the previous Government, which left us with a budget deficit. It is our responsibility to tackle it, and if the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have concerns about future police funding levels, they should address them to their right hon. Friends who were in charge of the country’s Exchequer and finances, and who supported the misjudgments that have left us all in this position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

I knew that it was a mistake to give way to my hon. Friend. He must not inadvertently misrepresent what my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary said about the use of imprisonment. We have said that we must do more to reduce reoffending. Reoffending rates, particularly in relation to short-term prison sentences, are far too high. We must break the cycle of crime. That means doing far more, innovatively, to ensure that offenders can be supervised and supported using “payment by results” models. I am sure that when my hon. Friend investigates that more closely, he will welcome the radicalism in what we are saying.

The Government will play their part in helping to protect the front line by reducing the burden of bureaucracy on forces, which several of my hon. Friends have mentioned. The Home Secretary has already announced that we will scrap the central targets, overt and back-door, that have bedevilled policing, and we are reviewing the nature of force inspection with the same aim. Labour’s 10-point policing pledge will go. The previous Government spent £6 million of taxpayers’ money on promoting that pledge, including on totally misleading advertisements that claimed that 80% of police time would be spent on the beat—adverts that were censured by the Advertising Standards Authority. We know what that pledge was about—propaganda and spin. That discredited Government have gone, and so has their approach.

In place of the centralised, bureaucratic accountability of the past decade, which undermined professionalism and added cost, we will introduce local democratic accountability. The introduction of directly elected individuals in 2012, together with a new focus on outcomes rather than processes, will not only strengthen the links between the police and public but unshackle police forces from Whitehall’s tick-box tyranny. We want the police to be crime fighters, not form writers. We want forces to work for local people, not for Whitehall officials or Westminster politicians.

[Geraint Davies]

As regards the democratic election of these police officers, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a danger, first, that they will no longer engage with the wider democracy of MPs, Assembly Members, councillors and so on; and secondly, that they will be hijacked by a small group about a niche issue and ignore some of the important things that the police do, such as counter-terrorism?

[Nick Herbert]

No, I do not believe that either of those two things is a risk. In relation to London, for instance, we now have policing arrangements that Members of Parliament in London find it perfectly possible to engage with, and we have a system whereby those who are responsible for supervising policing still attend to the functions of policing that reach beyond the local. It is perfectly possible to institute a more democratic arrangement that addresses that requirement. The important point is that there is an exchange in this regard. If we want to reduce the amount of central direction on policing and free the police to take more decisions for themselves and to have the ability to manage their forces and address local issues, then the police must answer to someone, and that is why we propose to enhance local accountability.

Defendant Anonymity

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I begin by welcoming both the Under-Secretaries of State for Justice to their ministerial places to discuss this extremely important matter, in which there is much interest on all sides of the House and outside it. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), made an interesting speech, and I intend to take up some of the points he raised, but let me say that we do not disagree in this respect—rape is a heinous crime that wrecks lives and causes many victims unending suffering.

Rape is a more prevalent crime than is often imagined in the public consciousness. I have here some figures derived from official statistics. Every week, up to 2,000 women are raped, up to 10,000 are sexually assaulted, and between 75% and 95% of rapes are not reported to the police—these are figures taken from the joint inspection of the Crown Prosecution Service and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. More than a third of all rapes recorded by the police are committed against children under the age of 16. As I think the Minister recognised at the beginning of his remarks, all that shows that this is a matter of huge import, not only to Government and Opposition Members but to all our constituents—and particularly, I might say, to women. Although men are subjected to rape—about 7% of victims are male—it is overwhelmingly women who are the victims of this particular offence. I do not intend to ignore the fact that it is not only women who are involved in this type of offence, but, as I say, it is overwhelmingly women who are affected.

Looking back at the history of this crime over many decades, it is clear that there has been agonised and sometimes passionate debate—in this House and in the wider society—about how best to deal with rape, how best to make sure that perpetrators are brought to justice and how best to assure women and others that they can be protected by our society’s statutory authorities from being subjected to this crime.

Despite the terrible figures, there is some cause for optimism. Following a great focus on improvements, the last decade or so has seen some forward movement, and a great deal of effort has been put in by partners, statutory and otherwise, across the criminal justice system who have done good work to bring together their input to focus on the key question and to tackle low levels of reporting and low levels of conviction. Labour Members accept, as we did when we were in government, that more needs to be done. We can say that reports to the police have doubled in the last 10 years, which is a good thing. We can say that there has been a 50% increase in the level of convictions—and the Minister’s figures implied that, although he did not put it in that way. From charge to conviction, about 58% more have been convicted of rape or other sexual offences.

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

Does my hon. Friend accept that there are cases where someone is accused of rape, as a result of which other victims come forward and the person accused of rape can be convicted as a result of that, although he would not have been convicted if the others had not come forward? In other words, the first accusation might not have been completely conclusive, so the anonymity of defendants can lead to more rapists and more rapes.

[Maria Eagle]

I accept what my hon. Friend says. There is no doubt that rape can be a serial offence. Perpetrators of rape often do not stop at one offence; they continue their offending behaviour, so anything that deters victims or those who have been attacked from coming forward might have the unfortunate effect of making it more difficult to catch serial attackers at an early stage. It has been recognised for decades that gaining convictions is hard. The Minister read out the figures on attrition rates, to use that shorthand. Those figures show how hard it is to convict the guilty, so anything that makes it harder or deters people from coming forward or anything that makes it more likely that they will not believed when they do come forward can only be bad for the impact on conviction rates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that revealing the modus operandi can bring women forward. Often, women do not want to report, and only when it is reported in the media or elsewhere that the person is committing the offence against other women do they have the courage to come forward. Anything that inhibits that process can damage efforts to catch serial rapists and to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done.

[Geraint Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way twice to me. Is she aware of cases in which, in response to individual children coming forward to say that they had been abused by a man running a teenage football team and by teachers, other members of the football team and the class concerned came forward with evidence of a multiplicity of abuse, leading to convictions? If defendants are given anonymity in rape cases, and if teachers are given anonymity in cases of sexual abuse, it will lead to more rapes, and it will lead to more rapists, including teachers, being free.

[Maria Eagle]

I fear that my hon. Friend is correct. In a meeting of the all-party group on domestic and sexual violence yesterday, I listened to Chief Constable Dave Whatton, the Association of Chief Police Officers lead on rape, give examples from his force of the phenomenon to which my hon. Friend refers. For example, when allegations were published about a particular teacher, further victims came forward, enabling a conviction that might not otherwise have happened. Another similar example from his force concerned a vicar. We need to be careful to balance the potential advantages and disadvantages of the approach that the Government now say that they will take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

Does my right hon. Friend feel that there is an equivalence between the sort of case being discussed, in which someone is accused and found innocent, and someone being raped? We seem to be making out that there is some sort of equivalence, but surely there is not.

[Keith Vaz]

No, there is not an equivalence—that takes the debate in the wrong way, and we need to be careful and temperate in the language that we use. There is no equivalence, but we should not forget those who are falsely and maliciously accused but have not committed an offence of that kind. The newspapers revel in reporting allegations about offences of a sexual nature because it titillates the editorial writers in our tabloid papers. We should not forget how awful it is for someone to have a malicious rumour spread against them, but that is in no way equivalent to the rape of a man a woman, which is a terrible crime. I think that all hon. Members in the House agree on that.

Let me read the recommendations of the Select Committee in 2003. I shall not read all of them—just the couple that are relevant to what we are discussing. The Committee said:

“On balance, we are persuaded by the arguments in favour of extending anonymity to the accused. Although there are valid concerns about the implications for the free reporting of criminal proceedings, we believe that sex crimes do fall ‘within an entirely different order’ to most other crimes. In our view, the stigma that attaches to sexual offences—particularly those involving children—is enormous and the accusation alone can be devastating. If the accused is never charged, there is no possibility of the individual being publicly vindicated by an acquittal.”

The second relevant recommendation is:

“We therefore recommend that the reporting restriction, which currently preserves the anonymity of complainants of sexual offences, be extended to persons accused of those offences. We suggest, however, that the anonymity of the accused be protected only for a limited period between allegation and charge. In our view, this strikes an appropriate balance between the need to protect potentially innocent suspects from damaging publicity and the wider public interest in retaining free and full reporting of criminal proceedings.”

From what the Minister said today, I gather that is what the Government are suggesting. Even though I was not chairing the Committee at the time, it would be totally churlish for me to say that the Select Committee got it wrong.

--- 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.

[Mr Buckland]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Geraint Davies]

Briefly, as I mentioned Google.

[Mr Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there is a trade-off between the effect on an innocent person and rape being undetected and victims not being served by the system, is he?

[Geraint Davies]

We must maximise our impact on injustice against victims and the wrongly accused. Ultimately, however, there is a trade-off, because if we push forward with anonymity, there will be more rape, more rapists and more rape victims. A few innocent people might get accused because of the culture and environment we create, but it is obvious where I stand in that trade-off.

The chief constable of Cheshire gave the example of a vicar who used to be a teacher. There was a media revelation about him being accused, and immediately eight more victims came forward, as a result of which he was convicted. We have heard about the 12 women who came forward about the black-cab driver; suddenly, after photos were published, 81 more women came forward. In the case of the paedophile running a teenage football team, publicity led to 14 more victims coming forward. Under the anonymity proposal, that would not have happened, and we would not be protecting the victims, including children.

There is a prisoner’s dilemma whereby we rely on the brave victim coming forward and encouraging other people to have the confidence to do so. With anonymity, the risk is that that person will stand alone, and that in the time between the accusation and the court case, she will be open to harassment through texting and phone calls saying, “You haven’t got a chance. You know you’re going to lose.” Then, when she does lose, other people will look at her and say, “I’m not ending up like Mary. She was harassed for ages, and now she is regarded as a liar.” Anonymity changes fundamentally the power relationship between victim and accused. The accused will realise that, it will reduce the risk to serial rapists who use drugs or alcohol to carry out their crimes, and it will increase rapist confidence.

Under the proposal, the balance could tip even further against the victim. The statistics already suggest that 0.5% of women are raped each year—about 140,000 women a year. Of those, about 100,000 do not report the rape. Why is that? Obviously, there is a systemic problem with the justice system. About 5% of women in the population—1.4 million—have been raped. Despite that horrendous figure, we are discussing measures to deter people from coming forward.

The chief constable of Cheshire gave a snapshot of statistics in the year to March 2010. He reported that 155 crimes had been recorded as rape, 33 of which were prosecuted, with 23 convictions. Nobody was found to have put forward a malicious, false accusation, although 13 cases were regarded as non-criminal. His evidence suggested that, occasionally, accusations are dismissed. I do not pretend that there are not malicious, false allegations, but there are few of them. Obviously, false allegations are serious, because when people are found to have made them they are punished by, for instance, as has been mentioned, two years in jail, which is fair enough. However, we should not change legislation because of a small number of people, when a large number of people are suffering very serious consequences, against a backdrop of a massive amount of rape. We should not rush a change through before the summer recess as has been suggested.

Women, in particular, will see the proposal in the wider context of a new Government suggesting that there should be less closed circuit television and less use of DNA, and now they are suggesting that there should be anonymity. Plus they are cutting £125 million from the police grant. When all that is put together, it does not look good to the victim, or suspected victim, of rape. To those watching this debate, I point out that 1.4 million women have been raped. Again, that is against a long-term cultural backdrop of endemic sexism in the judicial system. I see men on the Government Benches raising their eyebrows, but we have all heard about contributory negligence: “She was drunk”; “She had a short skirt on”; “He couldn’t help himself”; “He was a former boyfriend”; “And what about her sexual history?”; “What about his military career?”—all irrelevant, erroneous considerations. Consent is consent.

[Anna Soubry]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

I consent to the intervention.

[Anna Soubry]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those days are long past? Raising the sexual history of a complainant is specifically prohibited, apart from in extremely rare circumstances, under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. Does he agree that that is a long time ago? We have moved on greatly in the past 15 to 20 years.

[Geraint Davies]

No, I would not agree. I heard of a recent case where such suggestions were made about clothing and all the rest of it by the barrister in putting the defendant’s case. That is still the backdrop. We can all pretend that we do not live in the environment in which we do. The environmental context is pulled in when such cases are considered, and that is another reason why people do not want to come forward. They say, “Oh no, I was out on a Saturday night and I’d had a few drinks, so it’s an I-was-asking-for-it type of thing.”

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

To be fair, in the past 13 years, the hon. Gentleman’s own Government made immense efforts with the judiciary to change previous judicial thinking, however misinformed it may have been, as the judiciary would tell him. The previous Government did a huge amount; does he not agree with that?

[Geraint Davies]

I must agree with that. A huge amount was done by the previous Government in this direction; that is completely true. My simple point is that the statistical backdrop is horrendous, the direction of travel of the proposal is regressive, and the cultural backdrop is sexist. As was said, the previous Government did a lot to move in the other direction. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), the sort of arguments that I mentioned are frowned on, but what about the image of the system held by the people whom it serves? We have a situation where 100,000 people are not coming forward into that system because they have no confidence in it. At the same time, a dog whistle is being blown, as regards defendant anonymity. I genuinely think that such anonymity will protect more serial rapists and lead to more rape.

This is a key moment for the Government, with regard to the future of justice in cases of sexual violence. I very much hope that they pull back from what I regard as a retrograde, regressive, sexist and backward position.