Oral Answers to Questions

Glenda Jackson Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) on part-time working, which makes things particularly difficult for women, but will the Minister also look at the problem of zero-hours contracts, which have a desperately difficult impact on women?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Lady will be glad to know that the Government are looking at zero-hours contracts. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, in which I am also a Minister, undertook an information-gathering exercise over the summer. We are looking closely at what can be done to prevent the abuse of zero-hours contracts where it exists.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Glenda Jackson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

Lords amendments 2B and 196B disagreed to.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has announced on Radio 4 within the last hour that he will make a statement to the House this afternoon, presumably arising from the contributions made to the Leveson inquiry. Has he made that request to you, has it been granted, and if so when will the House hear the statement?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

No message has been conveyed to me, and I know nothing of it.

Before Clause 43

Resolved,

That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendment 31 and proposes its amendment (a) in lieu.—(Mr Djanogly.)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1B, 2B and 196B;

That Mr Jonathan Djanogly, Mr Shailesh Vara, Mr Andy Slaughter, Yvonne Fovargue and Tom Brake be members of the Committee;

That Mr Jonathan Djanogly be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Jeremy Wright.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Glenda Jackson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

Lords amendment 2 impinges on the financial privileges of the House. I ask the House to disagree to the amendment and I will ask the Reasons Committee to ascribe financial privilege as the reason for doing so—and so too with amendments 168, 170 and 171. In addressing the very wide selection that you have just announced, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall begin by looking at the principles that the Government are adopting on the various amendments and the reform as a whole, and at what principles we are inviting the House to adopt.

The scope of legal aid goes to the heart of our attempts to reform and improve the justice system, because targeting funding where it really counts is fundamental, first to the savings the Government are having to try to make in this area as in any other. There is no doubt that the present level of legal aid provision is on any measure unaffordably expensive. I shall not dwell on this issue but it is bound to recur during our debates. Even after our reforms have been carried, if Parliament eventually approves the Bill and it becomes an Act as we intend, we will still have by far the most costly legal aid system in the world. It is almost twice as expensive as that in any other country per head of population. In no other democratic jurisdiction would it be possible to get up and argue seriously that the taxpayer should spend money on the scale that we do on legal representation and advice.

The changes to the scope of legal aid that we are proposing are also part of a broader shift. We are trying to reduce the amount of unnecessarily adversarial litigation. The very broad provision of legal aid has encouraged people to bring their problems before the courts, but sometimes their basic problem is not a legal one and the best way of resolving the dispute or tackling the problem would be not to take a litigious approach. Such an approach imposes costs and does not always resolve problems. Before I move on from the tricky matter of cost let me say that with legal aid the cost is not just to the public purse and our Department. One has to think of the costs imposed on all the other people who are parties to litigation, such as businesses—small and medium-sized enterprises—and the national health service, as this selection includes clinical negligence claims. Everything we agree to do in relation to clinical negligence comes out of the budget that is otherwise available for public services. The growth of the clinical negligence industry is having an impact on national health services at the present time. There is also a cost to individuals, because for an ordinary citizen of ordinary means to be in the appalling situation of being engaged in litigation when the other party has legal aid is not an experience that most people would enjoy. We should bear all that in mind as the background to what we are doing.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State actually arguing that the best way of getting a level playing field is to deny everyone any kind of legal aid? That seems to be the thrust of his argument.

[Mr Clarke]

I am not arguing that. I am saying there should be hesitation before the very powerful and quite legitimate lobbies that have descended on the House since we proposed the changes just sweep everybody into believing that ever-wider provision of legal aid is necessary. There are downsides. In addition to the cost to the public purse, which we cannot ignore because no other democratically elected Government spends this amount of public money on funding litigation and legal advice, if we have a litigious society it imposes costs on all other branches of our life. That is an essential background that we cannot forget as we consider these amendments.

We have applied other tests, but the whole point of having legal aid—and the reason why we are keeping a legal aid system that will still be the most generous in the world even when we have cut it back a bit—is to deal with the needs of justice and those who are vulnerable in society. The other principle that applies is the need to focus taxpayer funding on the most serious and important cases that genuinely require specialist legal advice. Our principled stance is that legal aid should routinely be available in cases where people’s life and liberty are at stake, where they are at risk of serious physical harm or immediate loss of their home, or where their children may be taken into care. It should not routinely be available where other funding is available, where litigants can present their own case, or where the taxpayer is at risk of paying for litigation that any person paying from their own pocket would not finance and participate in. That is the basis on which we look at all the amendments that have come from the other place.

I am grateful to the other place for the time and the detailed debate and scrutiny it has dedicated to the Bill, genuinely improving it in places. I went and listened to parts of the debates myself and I have great faith in the power of the other place to revise a Bill without altering it fundamentally. Wherever possible I have sought to incorporate my noble Friends’ amendments or intentions, and as a result of the scrutiny of both Houses the overall package has moved very significantly from our initial position when we introduced the Bill, and it is all the better for it. Before people press me to agree to more than we are proposing to agree to in this important group of amendments perhaps I should remind the House of the changes we have made since we started this whole process quite a long time ago. They include removing the power to means-test suspects receiving advice and assistance at the police station, adopting the Association of Chief Police Officers’ definition of domestic violence and extending the time limit and range of evidence accepted when it comes to accessing the domestic violence gateway. We agreed to that a long time ago. People got very excited about the ACPO amendment so we gave them that, and then a whole list of fresh demands were immediately made by the Law Society and other groups that have lobbied us. I shall address those issues in a few moments.

Other changes include retaining legal aid for cases involving human trafficking and domestic child abduction—another concession; ensuring that funding covers special educational needs for 16 to 24-year-olds; and putting it beyond doubt that we are retaining legal aid for parents to bring clinical negligence cases in the most serious and complex neurological injury negligence cases for small children, which we always intended to do. Beyond the legislation, we announced at the Budget a further £20 million to go to the not-for-profit sector in each of the next two financial years.

How do the further Lords amendments in the group measure up against the principles I have outlined? I regret that the broad thrust of some of them is still to be rather free with taxpayers’ money. In our opinion, they certainly go way beyond ensuring that the Bill is focusing funding on high priorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I think that I am right in saying that what their lordships tried to do was put one form of definition used by the UK Border Agency on the face of the Bill. That is far too wide, and it is for a different purpose—[Interruption.] Well, that is an indication of the sorts of things it will take as evidence; it is not a qualification for anything. We need something that is the basis for making a clear decision on whether or not people are eligible for money, and we have opted for ACPO-plus. The other difference, as I have said, is that we do not think that we should spell it out and draft each of these forms—I of course bind myself by the words I read out earlier, which are what we are committed to. The advantage of regulating along the lines that the Government are committed to is that, if in the light of experience there is some mistake, it is much easier to make a change. It is always a mistake to fix everything in too much detail in primary legislation, because a future Minister or Government might have to try to find the parliamentary time to make the necessary changes to improve it.

[Glenda Jackson]

I, too, welcome the list that the Lord Chancellor read out with regard to domestic violence. Looking at my constituency, I am concerned about where those women will go to obtain that advice, because we are seeing reductions in the services currently provided by citizens advice bureaux and law centres, for example, as a result of the changes to legal aid. There is a gap between the one who suffers the harm and the obtaining of the advice.

[Mr Clarke]

People can approach their solicitors for advice on family law, as they do now. In an increasing proportion of cases, through the services offered to them, they will be put in touch with the mediation service, with or without the assistance of their lawyers—that is a matter for them—and the case will be mediated rather than both sides being represented in an adversarial manner. That works successfully where it has been introduced and we think it should be extended much further.

Lords amendment 168 seeks to bring the majority of welfare benefits matters into the scope of legal aid funding. Lords amendment 169, along with Lords amendment 240 and amendment (i), tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) to our amendments in lieu, would have similar effects, so I will discuss them together shortly.

The first point to make about Lords amendment 168 is a financial one. Even bringing advice and assistance into scope for reviews and appeals concerning all welfare benefits, which is the intention behind the amendments, could cost as much as £25 million, and we cannot afford provision in an area of relatively low priority. As I said, we will ask the House to disagree with Lords amendment 168, and we will ask the Reasons Committee to ascribe financial privilege as the reason for doing so. In particular, this is because, in line with the principles I have set out, welfare benefits matters should not generally require specialist legal advice.

Before discussing the other issues, let us consider legal aid for advice on welfare benefits. Every Member sitting in the Chamber is used to giving advice on social security benefits, because we do it all the time, and there are other voluntary bodies that give advice, but we do not get legal aid. I suspect that in an ordinary case, where there is no issue of law and it is a matter of fact, because of the huge complexity of social security regulations, the advice given by MPs and some members of their staff can be superior to that which is available from a large number of general family solicitors, but those solicitors get legal aid. No one else gets legal aid. Legal aid should be for those cases where legal advice and expertise are required, and it should be financed by the taxpayer on legitimate grounds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

rose—

[Glenda Jackson]

rose—

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

The amendment was tabled only at 6 o’clock yesterday evening, so we have moved quite quickly to get to where we are now. I suspect that the relevant officials at the DWP have not yet even been involved in discussing this. I cannot give a time scale, but we will move as rapidly as possible.

[Glenda Jackson]

The Lord Chancellor referred to a majority of cases. Citizens Advice says that the proportion of appeals that are upheld in work capability assessment cases, for example, rises from 40% to 90% when a legal adviser is involved. I am not saying that it will necessarily be about a point of law, to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), but there are occasions when a legal mind can clarify the situation. I do not think that the Lord Chancellor understands who the people are who go to appeal. He said that in domestic violence cases, they go to a solicitor. None of my constituents in that situation has a solicitor; they go to the CAB or to a law centre, many of which, in my constituency, are in grave danger of having their ability to provide those services reduced—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Lady has had a good go at intervening three times. Could interventions please be shorter, because we have to get in a lot of other speakers who want to make points?

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Glenda Jackson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

For example, there is an organisation based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East called Christians Against Poverty, and it has people working in my constituency who are really good at dealing with debt. They have been tried and tested by me and others, so if one such element is debt I will often refer my constituent to them. They will unravel those issues and try to get them sorted even when in the county court there might be a legal issue, such as a possession action by the council or a housing association for the person’s flat, which one might need to manage as well.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

In our constituencies we all have equivalents of the organisation Christians Against Poverty, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and there is no question but that they do marvellous work, but the kind of cuts that the Government are talking about will impact either directly or indirectly and, most certainly, on the citizens advice bureaux in my constituency. The real concern—certainly felt by me and, I think, by every Opposition Member—is that a terrible rock is being thrown into the social system, and the ripples are going to take out more and more people and, therefore, reduce more and more the advice that is out there at the moment.

[Simon Hughes]

The hon. Lady and I have inner-city constituencies, and we have exactly the same—not exactly the same, because Highgate and Hampstead must have a slightly different profile from Bermondsey and Old Southwark—

[Glenda Jackson]

Hampstead and Kilburn.

[Simon Hughes]

Hampstead and Kilburn, as it now is, sounds more balanced and mixed, but of course the hon. Lady knows about and has experience of the issues.

I think that the Government, given the constraints of the general economic position, are trying as hard as they can to find the support that the hon. Lady and I wish for. Her party, had there been a Labour Government in this Parliament, would have made cuts in legal aid and to public spending across the board, and she would not have liked it, as she did not when they were in power. Indeed, I remember her speaking against her Government pretty well every week in the previous Parliament, owing to what they were doing, and I was with her and made just those comments.

However, this Government have already put some money into Citizens Advice, for example. Transitional funding is being discussed. My hon. Friends have discussed with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who made a very welcome statement earlier today, putting more money on the table for public servants and the ways in which that might be extended. I understand the hon. Lady's point and we will try, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, to win that argument, but we have to win it within the confines of what is a very difficult position for everyone, including the Government.

On amendment 116, my right hon. and hon. Friends have made the point about clause 12. May I say to Ministers that if clause 12 is not going to be used, it ought to go? I understand why the Government might want a fall-back or safety-net position, but if it is not to be used they should let it go and say so. That is important because, as colleagues have identified, providing someone at a police station with legal advice and assistance will often save huge grief for them and their families and a huge amount of time for the police and other agencies that come to deal with them. Often, it will also save a huge amount of time for the criminal justice process afterwards. I am clear that, in time-efficient and cost-efficient spend, we ought to retain that and not lose it.

Let me make a substantive point about amendment 148, which is in my name, about telephone advice and the telephone helpline. The Government propose that the community legal advice helpline that is currently in use and does a perfectly good job should, once the changes have come into operation, be the sole method of access to the service for certain issues at the beginning. It is proposed that there should be a mandatory single telephone gateway for four areas at the beginning: debt, inasmuch as it is covered by legal aid; community care; discrimination; and special educational needs, subject to exceptions. The plan is that there should then be a phased expansion of the provision of specialist telephone advice into the other areas of law for which legal aid is available, except for asylum matters, and that there should be a pilot scheme.

The Justice Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) has looked into this matter and said that it was not against a telephone advice line in principle, but it advised caution and the Government have responded cautiously. May I make two points about why the Government have to be really careful? First, there is real concern out there, as I know from my meetings with Cambridge House and other organisations that do legal aid work and advice in my constituency and borough, that if people have to go through a central call centre, which is the only way into the system, they will not get the same service as with NHS Direct, for example. With that service, if someone does not like what they get they can go to their chemist, GP or hospital, but this call centre will be the only way in.

However good any advice line might be, some people are not going to be very able to deal with that service. I know that the Government are not being absolutist about this issue and that the theory is that the person at the other end will spot the person who might have learning difficulties, poor English or whatever and make sure that there is a face-to-face service. However, I am nervous that if someone from Bermondsey, to choose a place at random, phones up the national headquarters, which may be in Bradford, there will not be a full understanding of their circumstances as a recently arrived Eritrean with children, for example, who is barely able to speak English and is trying to sort out their housing when there are legal issues. I therefore ask the Government to think again about how we might make sure that there are ways for people to see someone face to face in their community or part of the world that do not require their having that kind of advice only in the first instance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Glenda Jackson]

I am sure that in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, as in mine, there is also the increasing problem of absentee landlords in the private sector who hand over the management of their properties to a managing agent, when often there is no management at all. It is virtually impossible for the individual who is suffering to try to pin down those people’s legal responsibilities without some kind of knowledge and support.

[Joan Ruddock]

I could not agree more. That is so often the case, and often only the threat of legal action can even get us to the point of knowing who we are trying to deal with. That is an essential point.

Then there are those who are unlawfully evicted, and also those who may even be lawfully evicted, but could not or should not be evicted if they had an opportunity to contest the eviction. This morning we had a call from a family of five with the bailiffs at the door. If it had been a couple of days earlier, they could have been sent to a solicitor. We know about the case now, and the eviction could have been challenged. The family could have been kept in that home, although they would have had to be put under a stringent regime of dealing with their financial difficulties, which came about because things had gone wrong with their housing benefit. In future, they would not be able to get the assistance that they so badly needed, and they would therefore, as now, present themselves and cost the state a lot more money, if they could get the help at all.

Then there are the workers who are dismissed and found possibly to have a case for unfair dismissal. Under the Government’s proposals, they could get assistance only if they were able to claim discrimination. My constituency is hugely multicultural. Will people have to be told, “Can you possibly dress this up as discrimination, so that you can get the legal assistance that you will otherwise be denied”? We do not want to have to go down that path.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Glenda Jackson Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

The UK Border Agency has recognised the particular difficulties experienced by people in this position, and the Government helpfully identify four factors relevant to why legal aid should be provided in those cases. They include such things as the risk that victims will stay trapped in abusive relationships for fear of jeopardising their immigration situation; the trauma they might have suffered, which often makes it difficult to cope with making an application; time pressures that apply in immigration proceedings; and difficulties of access to a properly designated immigration adviser. I agree that those are all important issues and protection is needed in those cases, but the point is that those circumstances do not merely apply to those who fall within the domestic violence immigration rule. There are several other situations in which a person’s immigration status is dependent on a partner where the person might be a victim of domestic abuse and might therefore be trapped in an abusive relationship because of fears about their immigration status.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

There is another element in the situation to which the hon. Lady refers. Indeed, I have more than one constituency case where the individual being abused comes, as members of their family have told me, from a culture where such attacks are never reported to the police and these women are expected to suffer in silence. In many instances, these are elderly women.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which raised a really important point. It underlines the fact that we need from the Government a fuller explanation of exactly how they are going to consider the first half of amendment 113.

Let me finish by saying that the people I have particularly in mind are victims of domestic abuse who are not necessarily probationary partners. They might be a partner of someone with limited leave or of a person exercising European free movement rights. Although they do not fall within the domestic violence immigration rule, they might well face the very same problems as those who do. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about how he intends to take forward the concerns raised in amendment 113 and that have been mentioned by other Opposition Members tonight. I very much hope that he can offer some serious reassurance for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Buckland]

It is a pleasure to contribute to the Report stage of the Bill. As a Government Back Bencher, I sat through and took an active part in the debates in Committee. They were comprehensive and dealt with many issues, not least the definition of domestic violence and the proposed criterion by which applicants may in future be able to benefit from representation via legal aid. I make no apology for having expressed, in an earlier intervention, what I considered to be reasonable concern about the application of the criterion. However, I think it important for us to bear in mind that the debate is not about the rights of women as against an approach that would deny them those rights.

Although Opposition Members have made some excellent contributions, one intervention on the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) betrayed a complete misunderstanding of the Government’s approach to the granting of legal aid to vulnerable people. No one is suggesting that there should be an end to legal aid for victims of domestic violence. Far from it. The Government are saying that there should be that protection, there should be that level playing field, and there should be that intervention. People who have been victims of domestic abuse—I prefer that term, because I consider it to be a wider and fairer definition—may be women or men, and they come from a variety of backgrounds. Such abuse knows no social or economic division.

I speak on the basis of nearly 20 years of experience, having prosecuted and defended in cases in which domestic violence was a factor. It is, perhaps, appropriate for me to chart from my personal experience as a criminal legal aid lawyer—although, as I have not practised in civil legal aid in recent years, I have no particular relevant interest to declare—the evolution of the courts’ approach to domestic violence. I remember the days when the phrase “It’s only a domestic” was used to describe these scenarios. That was wholly unacceptable, wholly wrong, and, according to our present standards, archaic. We have come a long way since those unfortunate days, and the courts have rightly been brought face to face with the realities of violence in the home.

Having met hundreds of victims of violence and abuse, I know that many of them do consider themselves to have been victims of domestic violence in the first place. They are people who were involved in a loving relationship, many of whom harbour the hope that they may return to their abusive partners. They are confused and vulnerable. Many are caring for children who have witnessed, or have been a party to, what has happened in the home. They do not know where to turn.

Giving evidence in court is a tremendous ordeal for such people, and many of them do not go through with it because they see it as a way of reliving their experiences in the home. The level and variation of their vulnerabilities is quite complex. I think, for example, of women who, having nowhere else to turn, go to refuges such as the one in south Swindon, in my constituency, which provides an excellent service for vulnerable women and their families. They are not mentally in a position to start immediate proceedings, whether those proceedings constitute a complaint to the police or the instruction of a solicitor. At that stage, when they come to the refuge, they have nowhere else to go and are literally in a state of desperation. They are not mentally prepared for the ordeal of having to go to the authorities. We must bear that in mind when considering the test applied to the finding of fact.

I know that the Opposition had that matter in mind when drafting amendment 74. I have looked very carefully at their proposal, and I sympathise with the motive behind it. Some of it has merit, but there are problems with it because it would not cure the particular mischief that Opposition Members have said could happen. None of us wants there to be any artificial inducement for people to claim that there has been domestic abuse when it has not happened, and my concern is that the amendment would not shut the door on that problem. The Government are right to identify that potential problem, and it was mentioned time and again in the consultation to which the Minister referred.

[Glenda Jackson]

With all due respect, I am having difficulty following the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. He seems to be basing it on the belief that the Government’s desire to find fact is central and essential, yet he has already stated that many women who suffer severe domestic violence are in such a mentally discombobulated state that they find it impossible to speak to the authorities. We have all read recently of scandalous cases in which the authorities have markedly failed to protect women, even though the facts have been written in capital letters. Will he clarify his argument?

--- Later in debate ---

[Glenda Jackson]

In the hon. Gentleman’s argument—and, more centrally, in the Government’s argument—no consideration is given to the possible consequence that what I regard as a crime may lose that classification of criminality, depending on whether the sufferer is or is not granted legal aid. Surely that is a very dangerous road for us to go down.

[Mr Buckland]

I am, as always, grateful to the hon. Lady because she makes measured contributions, and I shall respond to her point. A distinction must be drawn between the scenario in question, which is a civil legal aid scenario, and the concern that she expresses about the potential decriminalisation of what I agree is a serious crime. The tests are different; as the hon. Lady knows, the evidential tests are different, and, if anything, the evidential hurdle would be higher in the criminal scenario.

I have some sympathy with those Opposition Members who said that a uniform definition of domestic violence, not just in the legal context but across the whole activity of Government, would be welcome and a step forward. The Association of Chief Police Officers definition is largely sound, although I do have one criticism of it: it does not mention children. Domestic violence can, of course, be directed towards, or be conducted in the presence of, children. The restriction to adults alone is therefore perhaps a deficiency, and all of us, as legislators and campaigners, should reconsider that.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Glenda Jackson Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ann Clwyd]

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about—and I doubt whether he does either.

The Opposition Front-Bench team has tabled an amendment proposing to create new units in the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan police. As the Minister observed in Committee, however, these units already exist for war crimes investigations. The fact that they already exist, and have done for some time, helps to show us what will happen when the Director of Public Prosecutions becomes a gatekeeper for all universal jurisdiction cases: nothing. Yes, nothing will happen. As we learned from a report in The Guardian last month and the work of the all-party group on the prevention of genocide, nearly 400 war criminals are believed to be in the UK right now—from Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Zimbabwe and the Congo. How many prosecutions have there been? One—just one, which is the Zardad case.

I conclude here because this is the core of my case. The clause is important because it communicates our attitude towards crimes against humanity and towards international justice.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

[Ann Clwyd]

I am concluding; I am sorry.

It is already too hard to try to bring war criminals to justice. Sadly, there are already too few prosecutions. Let us not make it even harder.

Defendant Anonymity

Glenda Jackson Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there has been an improvement in approaches to rape, but is not the underlying factor that informs—in my view, informs absolutely—what the Government are proposing the view that rape is an “avoidable” crime? It is assumed, for example, that if the woman had worn a longer skirt or drunk rather less or had not placed herself in situations that the external eye regards as dangerous, the rape could have been avoided. Would not the according of anonymity to an alleged perpetrator of rape simply reinforce that total fallacy, which it is so difficult to change?

[Maria Eagle]

I agree with my hon. Friend that there are many myths about rape. It is one of the few crimes for which victims are frequently blamed, if not by the statutory authorities, at least by society or certain elements of society or by those investigating the crime. One crucial thing we as a society must do if we want to convict more rapists is tackle all the causes of failure. We have to encourage those who have been raped to report in greater numbers, and we have to ensure that the support is there to enable them to go through the ordeal of trial and investigations, which can carry on for too long, often for many months. We must also provide aftercare and support for the victims. Anything that detracts from that will not help us as a society to deal with this heinous crime, and a consequence will be that more victims and more families will be affected. We should remember that it is often not just the victim herself who is affected by the crime and its aftermath but the children. We also need to bear in mind the fact that many children are themselves victims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes]

I hope that the hon. Lady will allow me to continue just for a second.

We requested that the Home Office commission a new study of why there is such a low conviction rate in England and Wales. We suggested a public information campaign to close the gap between the perception and the reality of rape. Only lastly did we suggest a change in the law—agreed after debate, discussion and a vote by a majority—to prohibit the media from identifying anyone directly or indirectly about whom a complaint of rape has been made, and until such time as they have been convicted.

It was therefore not surprising that the Government have looked at the issue, even though I accept that it was in neither the Liberal Democrat nor the Conservative manifesto. The public did not, therefore, become engaged on the matter in the election campaign. I am not defending the fact that the proposals are in the coalition agreement, but saying clearly that I am sure that if the outcome of this deliberation and the response to the Government’s policy proposal, which came from the Liberal Democrats, is a consensus in the House and around the country not to proceed, both parties are open to persuasion along that line.

I want us to go deliberatively, because there is a strong case for changing the law, but it is not a cut-and-dried, open-and-shut case. I hope that the rest of the debate is much less partisan than the beginning of it, because this is not a party political issue—[Interruption.] It is absolutely not a party political issue. People outside would not understand if we took partisan positions, and I absolutely encourage the Government to think like the Lord Chancellor, who was right that a non-whipped vote would be entirely appropriate. I am in favour of many more such votes on such matters, which are not proprietarily the view of one ideological group or the next.

[Glenda Jackson]

rose—

[Simon Hughes]

Let me make my other comments. If I have time to give way to the hon. Lady at the end, I will do so very willingly.

I want to address succinctly two wider issues that have been touched on. We must deal with the objective of maximising the number of people brought to justice for both rape and other serious sexual offences, but we must also achieve the second objective of avoiding the harmful stigma of such allegations, which can often lead to suicide, attempted suicide and the like, for which there is evidence. There are therefore two big criminal justice issues for our country—this is an England and Wales issue. We need first to decide whether open justice—the principle that the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood said should be our starting point, as it should—should be circumscribed at all. At the moment, we have done that for complainants in certain offences, but should we circumscribe open justice at all in relation to defendants? We could either do that for the category that I would call sexual offences against other people, by which I mean violent sexual assaults, which are not all rapes, or we could propose anonymity for other types of assault. I do not believe that there would be a case for inclusion for any other violent offences, and I am also not persuaded that child pornography or other such offences should be included. However, there may be a case for anonymity in cases involving sexual offences—of any type—against another.

The second question is on the limitation of the period of anonymity. Should we have a very limited period of anonymity, for example, up until charge, a longer period, which could last to the beginning of the trial, or the longest period, which would be up to the end of the trial and conviction?

I should like us to look very carefully and deliberatively at those two sets of options. Are we talking only about rape or about a wider set of sexual, serious, violent offences? Should anonymity last only for the period between arrest and charge or for longer? My hon. Friend the Minister and the Government want to listen to the voices and hear about the research. I hope that the House can do its duty properly and ensure that we come to the right conclusion. That will need a bit of time, but let us please not be overly partisan about it.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) hopes that this will be a non-partisan debate. The speeches that we have listened to this afternoon have been non-partisan in a party political sense. However, in relation to the policy that his Government are presenting, there is a marked lack of evidence that the proposed change is necessary, or that it would bring about any kind of improvement in convictions for rape, which, if I understood him, was at the centre of his argument.

The hon. Gentleman also hoped that given the amount of time the Government are affording to the debate, decisions would come about by consensus in the House and the country. How can there possibly be any consensus in the country if his Government do not enter into the widest, deepest and most detailed consultation? The question remains: why have his Government selected the offence of rape? Why should alleged perpetrators of rape alone, among alleged perpetrators of other crimes of violence, be afforded anonymity? Answer has come there none.

As we heard in the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the implications of that proposal are wider if we go down that road. She touched on the issue of affording anonymity to teachers, and the hon. Gentleman’s Government have again come up with no detail of the alleged offence that a teacher might have committed. She gave the graphic example—and we all know about this—of children who had been abused not only by teachers, but by members of their family or other people in authority, and the automatic response of society at the time had been to disbelieve the children, with the result that the abuse continued in an ever wider circle. I refer to the past, but from contemporary reports we know that this still goes on. The scandal of what has happened in the Catholic Church continues to reverberate. The central essential there was the idea that secrecy was all, and so the imbalance of power between the abused and the abuser was reinforced. That is my fear about this proposal and the selection of rape as the only violent act that is afforded this kind of anonymity.

In his opening remarks, the Minister said—forgive me for paraphrasing, but I cannot remember his exact words—that it is now an accepted absolute that acts of violence against women are anathema, and that everybody in this country, this House, the criminal justice system and the police service are automatically appalled by acts of violence against women and, as a result, are immediately on the front foot, exercising all their abilities, talents and resources to track down whomsoever commits such heinous acts. We all know that that is absolute fantasy. We are witnessing at the moment one of the largest manhunts that this country has ever seen to try to track down a man who, it is alleged, has murdered one individual and shot at and injured two others. He boasted before he left prison of what he planned to do. I have no doubt that prison officials were very busy, but I am equally sure that it went into that little pocket—although it is getting bigger and bigger in my view—of something called “a domestic” in the criminal justice and police system. All it needed was for those officials in the prison to take the threats seriously, to ring the alleged perpetrator’s local police station so that the police there could take those threats seriously themselves, and perhaps the largest manhunt in British history would never have needed to take place.

There is still, as I said in an earlier intervention, a prevailing view in this country that incidents of rape, for example, are the fault of the victim—[Interruption.] Members opposite may groan and moan, but it is not so long ago— I remember it distinctly—that a judge who summed up in a rape case advised the victim of the rape that she should perhaps have worn a longer skirt. I am sure that that would never happen now, but I think that people still have similar thought processes.

[Anna Soubry]

We all agree that there should be more argument based on evidence. Where is the hon. Lady’s evidence for the assertion that people still have those views of those who make complaints of rape?

[Glenda Jackson]

I am sorry, but I did not catch the end of the hon. Lady’s question. I will give her direct evidence of a constituency case of mine, in which a woman had been systematically abused by her partner. The law acted and an injunction was laid, meaning that the perpetrator of the offences was not allowed within a certain distance of their home. What happened? His brothers took over. It is a fantasy to think that everyone in this country regards acts of violence against women as totally beyond the pale. Let us take honour killings, for instance. Does she seriously think that people who are genuinely opposed to acts of violence against women would enter into an honour killing?

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that there is a huge danger, in this debate and any consultation process, of this becoming a battle of the sexes and a gender issue, when clearly it is not? Defendant anonymity and surrounding issues are about trying to impose fairness for all in the criminal justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Glenda Jackson]

With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, the evidence presented in the Chamber—obviously he is not the only person on the Conservative Benches obsessed with evidence-based decisions—shows that rape is exercised almost exclusively against women, so there is a gender base.

[Anna Soubry]

Some 40% of all rape complainants are either male or children, and of the 60% who are aged over 16 and female, we do not know—we do not have the statistics—how many made a complaint about something that happened to them when they were children. It is unfortunate that we do not have those statistics after 13 years of a Labour Government.

[Glenda Jackson]

We have already established that, as far as children are concerned, we are all in absolute agreement. That is why the question has been asked: why has an alleged rapist been afforded the privilege of anonymity, but someone who, for example, has been downloading child pornography has not? It has not been explained to me why rape is the act being afforded this particular privilege. I would argue that, if the Government go down this road, they will deeply undermine the concept of the unacceptability of rape and general acts of violence against women. Far too often, we hear of cases in which, for example, a woman has laid before the police the serious threats she is facing daily from an ex-partner. We then read that the police did absolutely nothing about it. We know of terrible incidents—one cannot say it is more terrible than when children are killed—in which such women and their children have then been killed by those partners. I have already given the example of honour killings.

In a recent, highly publicised case of the most heinous crimes, every report began not with “Three women were murdered”, but with “Three prostitutes were murdered”. I return to what I believe is still a central issue here, and a reason I am so opposed to the Government’s proposal: there is still the belief that attacks on women are engendered by the women themselves.

[Anna Soubry]

indicated dissent.

[Glenda Jackson]

It is no use the hon. Lady shaking her head. We both know of incidents in which people have not reported an incident of rape because they were drunk at the time, and they know that they would be castigated for it. Equally she knows that when women do come forward claiming to have been raped, the initial response in quite a wide circle is that they are making it up, which is why we have to be exceedingly careful about going down this road of putting rape in this special category that other violent crimes are not granted. If the Government were arguing that all violent and violent sexual crimes should be afforded anonymity, and if there were sufficiently wide consultation on the proposal—not just in the House, but in the country at large—I would be prepared to consider the Government’s central argument, which is that a false accusation can damage an individual’s life, their family’s life, and, in some instances, their professional life. However, I entirely agree with the point that if we go down that road, we will be undermining one of the basic concepts of our criminal justice system, which is that accusation and argument in criminal cases should take place in public. I would be extremely chary of moving away from that position, but what the Government are proposing and their lack of commitment to wide consultation cause me grave concern.

My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, made a salient point when she raised the issue of freedom of the press. That is another issue that we must consider deeply before we make any changes. However, I return to the point that I made slightly earlier, and which reinforces my contention that we are still insufficiently adamant or active and that insufficient resources are put into tackling the broader issue of acts of violence against women. I gave the example of the recent incident where three women were brutally murdered and every single news outlet began its report of the event with the words, “Three prostitutes”.

I also think that Dr Shipman would perhaps not have got away with his mass murder if his victims had been young women, as opposed to middle-aged or elderly women, because there would undoubtedly have been a desire on the part of the press—well, perhaps “desire” is an extreme word—to present the case as though these particular acts against women had a sexual undertone. In my view there is still this prevailing attitude—it might not be directly acknowledged, but it permeates so many aspects of the criminal justice system and law enforcement—when it comes to acts of violence against women, for the immediate reaction is to say, “We have to be careful about this.”

Hon. Members will know the argument about malicious accusation, but I have seen too many constituency cases and too many women and their children who have been brutalised because not enough people have taken what has been said to them sufficiently seriously, often ignoring the evidence before their eyes. The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) made a salient point in his maiden speech when he talked about the different approaches to such crimes in Europe, where there are special courts that are properly financed, with support for victims. That is a lesson that we should be learning in this country far more quickly than we are. I absolutely admit that we have made strides in that direction, but we need to make bigger strides and more of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Several Members have asked the rhetorical question, “Why treat rape differently?” The reality is—I say this having had 16 years of experience at the criminal Bar in England and Wales—that it would not be treated differently by the law in several respects. The identity of defendants is withheld every day in hundreds of cases in our criminal justice system in cases in youth courts, or those with persons under the age of 16 who are involved in proceedings. That has been so since the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, so there are plenty of such examples every day. I accept that that relates to young people, but the principle exists.

That principle was reinforced by the previous Labour Government and applied to adults in relation to certain terrorist offences. Thanks to Labour legislation, the anonymity of defendants was applied in those cases, which is why one reads in the media about the cases of N or A. When Labour Members refer to the uniqueness of this proposition, I submit that they are wrong for those reasons.

Rape is also different from other offences. Often it is one person’s word against that of another, particularly as regards allegations when consent is an issue. Of course, in cases when consent is not an issue, the same principle does not apply. A situation in which the evidence is the word of one person against that of another—I do not exclude males here, because males can be victims of rape, as we have discussed—can never be the case in allegations of sexual offences against children. Consent will never be the issue there. When consent is an issue among adults in a rape case, there is often no supporting evidence for a jury to get a grip of that can corroborate a complainant’s account. That makes rape different from many other offences that are prosecuted in our courts and it might partly account for the exceptionally low conviction rate for rape—assuming that one accepts there is an unusually low conviction rate, because that is not universally accepted within the profession.

In every case, jurors have to be sure of a defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt before they convict. When it is one person’s word against another’s, my experience, and no doubt that of others who have practised in the criminal courts, is that juries may be unconvinced that they can be sure enough to convict someone of such a serious offence. In almost every other case nowadays, before a court prosecution is launched, the Crown Prosecution Service will require corroborative inculpatory evidence against the defendant, such as forensic, CCTV or eye-witness evidence. The prosecution would be very unlikely to proceed in cases of murder, grievous bodily harm or similar offences without some evidence other than one person saying, “This is what happened.”

No doubt, hon. Members will know that in every case the CPS has to satisfy itself regarding two criteria—first, that there is a realistic prospect of conviction and secondly, that it is in the public interest to proceed. To satisfy the first test, supporting evidence would invariably be needed. It has been my experience, and that of others from the Bar who have spoken in the debate, that that test seems not to have been applied by prosecutors in rape cases. It seems that prosecutors are much more robust about telling the police that they are disinclined to prosecute grievous bodily harm or actual bodily harm cases to court because there is not enough evidence, whereas that decision seems to be left more to jurors in rape cases. I urge that prosecutors should think carefully about applying a proper test to rape, because nothing in law separates rape cases from the requirement that there should be a realistic prospect of conviction. Rape has those unique characteristics, so it stands apart from most other offences in the criminal lexicon.

A second reason that I offer for the low conviction rate is the fact that the law makes no differentiation between a stranger rape, as they are sometimes called, and another type of rape in which the accused is known to the victim. I am not calling for the law to make that differentiation, but jurors invariably do make a distinction. Many members of the Bar have found that jurors are reluctant to convict of rape when there have been historical sexual relations of a consensual sort many times, because they know that the sentence will be particularly severe.

Labour Members often ask what makes rape different, but their Government made it different legally. One more example of that is that the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 recognised sexual offences as different, and section 41 placed restrictions on the cross-examination of rape complainants, creating a presumption against asking questions about previous sexual history. I do not argue that that is inappropriate, but it does restrict barristers from asking questions in court in a way that simply does not apply to other types of offence.

[Glenda Jackson]

Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the previous Government changed the law in that way? Surely it was because of the kind of severe cross-examination of rape victims that had taken place previously in which victims were reduced to tears in the witness box, which had clear implications. One point that we have been arguing all afternoon is that that reduced the likelihood of a woman who had experienced rape from coming forward and making such allegations.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

I will not, because I have little time and I have a lot to do.

I share my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary’s view that our proposal has been somewhat misrepresented. Our position is not anti-women in any way, shape or form. It does not imply any view of the prevalence or otherwise of false allegations. There is no evidence that our position will reduce the likelihood of women reporting rape, as has been suggested. There is considerable evidence that rape is under-reported and that most attrition happens in the pre-charge stages where victims or the police decide not to proceed. The difficulties involved for victims were well explained by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). They advised that we must be careful not to create barriers preventing victims from coming forward. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) drew attention to the dangers that would result if we got that wrong.

Many Members explained why rape is often not reported to the police. As the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) pointed out, victims may think that the police will not see what happened as rape, they may have a general distrust of the police and criminal justice agencies, or there may be language or communication difficulties. Sometimes there is a fear of disbelief, blame, judgment or further attack, or a fear that friends or family will come to know about the incident. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) noted that rape is not a gender issue. The issue normally comes down to the lack of consent. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) elaborated very well on that point, as did the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah).

Let me make it clear to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) that the Government are not complacent about rape. As she will know, 18% of respondents to a recent London survey of 1,061 people aged 18 to 50 agreed with the statement that most claims of rape are probably not true. That is obviously a matter of great concern, which is why it is so important for the Government to continue to work hard, in partnership with other agencies, to engender a more civilised 21st-century view.

[Glenda Jackson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Djanogly]

I am afraid I cannot.

Let me say to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow that, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told the House earlier, there is no evidence that defendant anonymity would have an adverse impact on reporting. Victims may well be encouraged to come forward by the understanding that the criminal justice system is likely to deal with their complaint effectively and anonymously, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it is difficult to understand how a suspect’s or even a charged defendant’s anonymity can have an impact.

A more interesting suggestion relates to anonymity and previous offending by a defendant. Many people claim that defendant anonymity would prevent other victims from coming forward. Research conducted by Feist and others in 2007 suggests that being able to link an assault to another sexual assault against another victim is likely to help to secure a conviction, so the point is important.

There is some anecdotal evidence that publicity surrounding a case has allowed more victims to come forward. The case of John Worboys is most commonly cited in that context, and was indeed cited today by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). It is not clear, however, whether the defendant’s name or the release of other characteristics, such as a suspect’s distinctive modus operandi, is the most important factor. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, although I think the latter reached a different conclusion. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary spoke in detail about the point during an Adjournment debate on 7 June, and I know that he was grateful for the information he subsequently received from the right hon. Member for Don Valley, who spoke today with knowledge about an issue about which she cares very much.

More generally, the overriding impression given by many Members was of the sheer complexity of the subject matter that we have been debating. We heard about the history of anonymity for defendants in rape cases, which goes back well over 30 years. During that period, the legislation has fluctuated between diametrically opposed policy positions, and it has been a talking point over a number of changes of Administration.

As for the scope of anonymity, some Members have said that our proposals are not specific enough, while others—and, in some instances, the same ones—have said that we are wrong to include only rape, and to exclude other offences. What we are doing is delivering on coalition Government promises. The Opposition may not like that, but this is what we promised, and this is what we are going to do. I note that the Home Affairs Committee may now wish to consider the wider issues. We shall be pleased to see its report, and to engage with it and the House on those wider issues.

Anonymity in rape cases is clearly precedented. If other offences are now to be included, we will need to review which ones. We will need to do that very carefully, not least because of the impact the arguments for press freedom will have on the scope. We will want the scope to be as narrow as possible. This is a big area and we will remain open to discussion, but it needs to be put in that context.

The issue of anonymity for rape defendants has been bound up by some with our other coalition commitment that we will give anonymity to teachers accused by pupils. That also has a long and complex history, as was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, but we do not necessarily see the two situations as the same. The two commitments we have made will need to be reviewed as stand-alone issues even if their remedy may have certain similar aspects.

I have pointed to the complexity of the historical background, but anonymity also raises some complex legal issues. In the particular context of rape, it is clear that anonymity cannot be invariable and absolute, because there may well be situations in which it should be waived. The obvious example is where a suspect needs to be apprehended, but there are others. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe made a strong case for judicial involvement in waiving anonymity where relevant, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) also made some wise observations on publicity. Their experience in this area came to the fore in their valuable contributions.

Another issue was mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General during the passage of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He asked about the situation in which the media want to publicise the fact that public authorities are reluctant to act in a case where action appears justified. Another example could be that where suspects wanted to waive their own anonymity, for example in order to establish an alibi. That would itself generate issues. Should the suspect’s right of waiver be absolute, even if it could result in identifying the complainant in a case? Taking all the above into account, I hope the House understands why we have consistently made it clear that we need to address this subject carefully, keeping our options open until the time is right to made our detailed position known. That approach was clearly right, and remains so.

The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood criticised the coalition Government commitment for containing only a broad statement of principle, but that is what it was—a broad statement of principle. We have now refined it without losing the principle, and we have always been clear that there are various ways in which the commitment could be implemented.

My hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Ms Bagshawe), for Cannock Chase, for Gillingham and Rainham, for Broxtowe, for Hexham and for Oxford West and Abingdon all in their different ways powerfully and appropriately described the real and damaging consequences of false accusation and the importance of presumption of innocence in our law. The theme of false accusation was elaborated on very eloquently by the right hon. Member for Leicester East, who asked if the Government will be carrying out research into false allegations, as called for by Baroness Stern. I can advise him that that is under consideration by the relevant Departments as part of our overall response to Baroness Stern’s review.

The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood mentioned aspects of the previous Government’s record on assisting rape victim support, many of which were very worthy achievements which we hope to develop. She was less forthcoming, however, about the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark noted, after a decade of Labour Government the situation for victims is still very far from what anyone in this Chamber would wish it to be. In that context, I think the Opposition may wish to consider working with us on a consensual basis, rather than adopting an aggressive approach to this serious issue. That is what the public will wish to see, I dare to say. In the meantime, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said earlier, we will continue to investigate those areas that still require further thought, including whether anonymity might frustrate investigations, and any other gaps.

I can assure the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood that we will consult and seek views. However, we do not, as my hon. Friend said, see any case for holding a formal public consultation as we believe that the detailed arguments on the specific issue of rape are very well established.

Let me conclude by saying that the Government—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3))

Rape Defendants (Anonymity)

Glenda Jackson Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) for welcoming me to my new responsibilities and for her kind remarks about my reasonableness. I sincerely hope that she still holds that view when I have concluded my reply to her debate. I congratulate her on raising the issue and on securing the time to discuss it. It is a matter of importance, as the exchanges at Prime Minister’s Question Time last week showed, and it merits very careful consideration if we are to be fair to all sides of the argument.

I would like to remind the House that, long before acquiring my current responsibilities, I took an interest in these issues. In 1999, I introduced the Sexual Offences (Anonymity of Defendants) Bill to protect teachers from the consequences of accusations by children who have anonymity and the subsequent reporting by a sometimes salacious media. My Bill was prompted by the suicide of a constituent, Nick Drewett, a popular and committed teacher who took his own life after being accused of behaving improperly with pupils in his care. The accusations fell very far short of any suggestion of rape, but the combination of the way in which the accusations were investigated by the police and their reporting led to his death. His headmaster, who was charged with him but tried alone, was acquitted.

My experience means that I come to this subject with a predisposition to protect victims, which can sometimes include those who are accused. We are in the business of reducing the number of future victims of crime, not inadvertently creating more.

Rape is a very serious crime. The rights and welfare of the victim are vital, and we are committed to ensuring that every victim of rape has access to appropriate support. In particular, we are looking to establish new rape crisis centres where there are gaps in provision and to put funding for such centres on a stable and long-term footing. There are 39 such centres and we are looking at the possibility of a further 15.

The Prime Minister has already made clear in the House his view that the low conviction rate in this country is a scandal. It is not good enough and we need to improve it. That means, as he has said, working with the police and also doing more to help rape victims, including backing rape crisis centres. Our overriding aim must be to reduce the incidence of the offence, not least by increasing the number of successful rape prosecutions.

The very last thing we want is investigative failures. We believe that they can be countered by more intelligence-led policing. We will carefully consider how we can support agencies’ joint working to share intelligence and good practice, and to ensure that there is an effective response to rape and victims of sexual violence. Introducing anonymity would not prevent the identities of those suspected and accused of rape from being shared among criminal justice practitioners.

As the Deputy Prime Minister made clear this afternoon, our policy on defendant anonymity in rape cases is sensitive—

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Blunt]

No, if the hon. Lady will forgive me. Let me get to the conclusion of my remarks. [Interruption.] I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s sedentary comments. It is the debate of the right hon. Member for Don Valley. I am certain that she and the House will want to hear my remarks—