Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend’s comments will have been noted. As he knows, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), visited Rothbury yesterday and met local police and residents to discuss those issues. However, my right hon. Friend will understand that the Government cannot comment further, given that two people have been charged with conspiracy to murder and that there is an IPCC investigation.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the importance of multi-agency risk assessment conferences in communicating between prisons, the police and others on any ongoing threats posed by specific perpetrators of domestic violence, and therefore in stopping that ongoing violent criminality in particular cases? Given that domestic violence accounts for 14% of all violent incidents, that almost 80% of victims are women, and that increasing focus on taking that crime seriously led to a 64% fall in its prevalence between 1995 and 2008, will he guarantee that MARACs will continue and even that they will be placed on to a statutory footing?

[Nick Herbert]

I am afraid that I cannot offer guarantees to the hon. Lady, but we can say in relation to that specific case that it is very important that all the lessons are learned about appropriate information sharing. The Government understand the significance of the domestic violence issues that she raises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

We are now dealing with quite a narrow point because it was agreed in 2003—[Interruption.] It is quite a narrow point; it was agreed on both sides of the House when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 went through Parliament that all people charged with offences ought to have their identity protected until the point of charge. That is the guidance that the Press Complaints Commission put into effect in 2004. There is an issue around the strength of that guidance and, as I said in the debate 12 days ago, we are not satisfied that it is strong enough. We want in the first instance to try to find a non-statutory solution, and given that we had 21 Criminal Justice Acts passed over the 13 years of the last Administration, I am sure that Labour Members will understand why we are loth to find even more statutes to put on the statute book.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) is one reason why this idea—it was tried before between 1976 and 1988—was abolished by a previous Conservative Government? It did not work. Given that this idea was in neither the hon. Gentleman’s manifesto nor that of the Liberal Democrats, what possible reason can he have for failing to provide a proper consultation before changing the law in the ridiculous way he proposes to do?

[Mr Blunt]

First, when it was ended in 1988, it was not because it did not work. The hon. Lady should have paid rather more attention to the points put forward by the noble Lord Ackner in the 2003 debates when he spoke to his amendments on this subject. She should also note that the nature of rape changed, by definition, in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. All that means that the situation has changed since 1988.

Courts Service

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing this debate, which has been widely welcomed by Members from across the House. In particular, we have an extremely healthy representation of MPs from Wales, who are obviously concerned about this issue. The context of the debate is the truly massive programme of court closures that the Government announced by written ministerial statement on 23 June. The proposal to close 157 courts—almost 40% of all magistrates courts and nearly 25% of all county courts—is exceptional in its size and scale. It is not just me who thinks that. Frances Gibb from The Times called it

“a draconian plan for the widespread closure of courts across England and Wales.”

Andrew Porter from The Daily Telegraph said:

“Magistrates courts in England and Wales are to be severely reduced as part of the Government’s cuts programme.”

It is for the Minister to answer the points that have been raised during this debate, but I noted with interest the MPs who had things to say. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) spoke, as did the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who has come back for a second go. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) made a contribution. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), whose constituency name has changed, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who is one of our English participants, and the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) also spoke.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. Divisions are a bit like the World cup—we get extra time, but no penalty kicks.

I call Maria Eagle again.

[Maria Eagle]

Thank you, Mr Hood. I was about to start setting out the position of Her Majesty’s Opposition as we were called away for the Division.

We believe that there are legitimate questions to be asked about the scale and the purpose of these proposals for court closures. They are unprecedented in size and scale, which in itself means that there are questions that must be asked. The previous court closure announcement, which was made while I was a Minister at the Ministry of Justice, concerned 20 courts rather than 157. Given the scale of the proposals, the Minister must offer an explanation and make a concerted effort to reassure people.

Let me be clear that we do not oppose, by any stretch of the imagination, all court closures regardless of the circumstances; that is not our position. As we all know, courts have their ancient origins in much smaller administrative areas than those that exist today and they originated at a time when travel costs, travel patterns and the practicalities of getting across long distances within a reasonable amount of time were all very different from what they are today. Although individual Members have raised particular local issues as they know them in their own areas, that is just a case of Members being good local representatives; it is for the Minister to deal with the issues in his consultation.

Courts were run locally in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and they continued to be organised locally until the formation of Her Majesty’s Courts Service in 2005. Things now are very different from how they were in the past and that can mean that we need different ways of organising things.

As a party we are still committed, as we were in government, to providing local justice and access to local justice. However, it is equally important that there should be a modern court estate that is properly aligned to local needs and that court services should be provided not on an historical basis, but on the basis of what we need today. It is important for there to be efficiency in the court facilities and in the utilisation of the court estate. Therefore, it is appropriate that there should be reviews and that Ministers, as they come and go, examine the issue of how the estate should be utilised. There is no problem with that.

It is also important that our more modern ways of doing things in the courts should be reflected in how the courts are organised. These days, that must include the separation and protection of witnesses, to ensure that special measures, which are increasingly used in our courts, can be dealt with properly. There must also be proper access for disabled court users. All those matters must be examined. In my experience, value for money is and always has been an important consideration. I believe that the formation of Her Majesty’s Courts Service in 2005 has allowed a better overall strategic grasp of the entire court estate.

As an Opposition, we do not oppose all court closures per se as a matter of principle. Some court closures are clearly justified. Indeed, courts have closed in numbers over the years to deal with both the historical legacies and the practical requirements of a modernising system. Some of those closures were locally determined by magistrates courts committees and some were nationally determined.

Research indicates that there were about 650 magistrates courts in the late 1970s. There are now about 335; the Minister will have the precise figure, although given the performance of the Secretary of State for Education in respect of marshalling lists, I hope that the Minister has had a close look at his. I am sure that he will have double-checked it.

I accept fully that in certain circumstances and for appropriate reasons, courts might have to close. That might also mean that new ones should open—indeed, we opened 23 new magistrates courts during the last Administration. Given the size and scale of the proposals, I also think that the closures should proceed, if the Minister decides that they should, only after extensive and genuine consultation. The proposals are a major acceleration of any previous court closure proposals introduced in the past few decades. It is incumbent on the Government to be clear that they are getting it right according to all the correct criteria.

Many Members who have contributed to this debate have called for a proper extension to the consultation so that most of it will not take place in August, when people might reasonably be expected to be on holiday. I hope that the Minister will respond to that request. I cannot see why there should be any objection, so he should consider it. The Department has issued an extensive consultation document. We have heard from some Members that it has apparent inaccuracies; obviously, they will take up that matter with the Department. I hope that the Minister will listen to the consultation. Otherwise, on today’s showing, he is likely to incur the wrath of his own colleagues.

I notice that if one looks at local newspapers, the Government appear divided on the programme. Senior members of both parties in the governing coalition appear to oppose it when it applies to their own constituencies. Has the Parliamentary Under-Secretary spoken to the Solicitor-General lately? It appears that the Solicitor-General opposes the programme of closures, at least in so far as it affects Harborough in his constituency. There are proposals to close courts in Harborough, Coalville and Melton to save £300,000 a year. The local bench opposes it, and the Liberal Democrat group has launched a petition against it, which the Solicitor-General supports, in opposition to the Under-Secretary’s proposals.

The Solicitor-General said to his local newspaper, the Harborough Mail:

“We need to gather a good evidence-based case to put in through the Ministry of Justice consultation process with a view to their realising what a mistake it would be to close Harborough’s court…we need to organise and get the campaign rolling.”

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

The hon. Lady, like me and other Ministers, has had to sit in this Chamber on many occasions and listen to the genuine representations of Labour Members critical of the local aspects of her proposals.

[Maria Eagle]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct. However, I did not expect to read promises in local newspapers that members of my Government, bound by collective responsibility, would campaign against my proposals.

[Dr Murrison]

In a similar vein, does the hon. Lady recall the conduct of Jacqui Smith, the former Member for Redditch, in relation to the closure of facilities in her constituency when those facilities were the responsibility of the Department in which she was a Minister?

[Maria Eagle]

My view of ministerial and collective responsibility is that Ministers talk to each other behind the collective view of the Government if they want to make representations. They do not send press releases to their local newspapers.

[Chris Bryant]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Maria Eagle]

Briefly, but I need to make my speech.

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Maria Eagle]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“These are savings we must make”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This has been a full debate, with many hon. Members speaking with passion for their constituencies and, indeed, for the courts in their constituencies. I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) for not only initiating the debate, but broadening the scope of the discussion to the whole Courts Service, rather than just focusing on the courts in his constituency. That is helpful in allowing me to set out the wider position, although I recognise that the number of hon. Members from Welsh constituencies who have attended the debate is significant.

I will set out the Government’s position on the court reform proposals and discuss the reasoning behind the proposed reorganisation of court provision in England and Wales. In my new role, I have taken the opportunity to visit courts and I have been very impressed by all I have seen so far. It is evident that courts are run by a dedicated partnership of Her Majesty’s Courts Service staff and judiciary. I am personally committed to continuing to support their contribution to justice.

What has also been clear in my first few weeks in office is the country’s economic position and the immediate need to take action to address the structural deficit. The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) compared the previous Government’s 20 closures in five years with our consultation on a much larger proposed closure programme. She will appreciate that the deficit is somewhat larger now, which, as she recognised, requires that we get better value for the money we spend.

Following the emergency Budget, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor outlined our plans to consult on the closure of a number of courts, and to seek wider views on how court services could be modernised. That is one strand of the Ministry of Justice’s plans to look critically and holistically at how we deliver justice and to think about how we continue to deliver those critical services in the future. We have also announced plans to look at sentencing and legal aid. I am committed to consulting on the proposals, and to considering broader ways to improve and reform the Courts Service, which is why I welcome this debate. However, I say to the hon. Lady that we consider the consultation period to be adequate in the circumstances.

The decision to consult on the closure of courts was not taken lightly or in isolation. I wish I could say to the hon. Lady that the savings would be adequate to meet Treasury requirements, which I think was a point she made. However, that is sadly not the case. It would be wrong to tie the number of courts that finally close after consultation to overall savings requirements. We know we cannot deliver the quality of facilities that the public rightly expect and deserve, because we are working out of too many courts.

A low utilisation rate of only 65% across England and Wales in the magistrates courts and an average of only 130 sitting days per year—compared with a target of 200 sitting days—in the county courts shows that we do not need the number of courts we have. Recent improvements in transport and communication links mean that people can travel further in less time if they need to and more can be done to access justice online and via the telephone. That reduces the circumstances in which a visit to court would be necessary.

[Maria Eagle]

Does the Minister accept that such under-utilisation is because of a fall in crime of more than a third during the last period of the Labour Government?

[Mr Djanogly]

There are a large number of issues. I will come to some of them, but if I give way frequently, there is no way I will get through the points made today. We need to focus on delivering more with less, and on ensuring that we are delivering value for taxpayers’ money. When HMCS owns, manages and pays for a court building, it is my responsibility to show that it is cost-effective. It is right to set a minimum utilisation rate of 80% across each local justice area so that local courts and magistrates can make local decisions about where work should go.

The court reform consultation seeks views on proposals to close 103 magistrates courts and 54 county courts that are underused and/or have inadequate facilities. The consultation lasts until 15 September and all responses will be fully considered before a decision is made. The consultation sets out a sustainable arrangement of court services across England and Wales to meet the needs of local communities, and allows us to deliver services in the most efficient way. The proposals will achieve running-cost savings of some £15.3 million per year, as well as enabling us to avoid a backlog of some £21.5 million of maintenance costs. A further assessment will be necessary of the level of savings that could be achieved and the potential value that could be released from the disposal of properties.

Local justice is important. We need to think about what that means for today’s society, and I welcome responses to the consultation. People should not have to make unreasonably long journeys to reach a court. The vast majority of the public should be able to access a court within an hour’s travel, but proximity to a court should not be the only consideration. We also need to consider utilisation, the maintenance situation, the speed cases are dealt with and the quality of the facilities for court users within a courthouse.

I confirm to the hon. Member for Ceredigion that we are considering how we can enable magistrates to work more effectively. HMCS will work with justices of the peace to rota them to the courts that are most convenient for them. The structure and organisation of our courts has evolved over years. We need to take a step back and think about how we would ideally organise this important public service. We need to make courts available in the areas that need them, but I contend that we simply do not need 530 courts across the country. Instead, we must focus on ensuring that our courts are multi-functional and able to deal with all the work quickly and effectively.

In recent years, we have seen a dramatic reduction in cases that need to go before magistrates and county courts. In answer to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, in magistrates courts that has happened in part thanks to the increased speed and efficiency at which the magistracy process works, allowing a reduction in the time taken between charge and disposal, and a dramatic reduction in the number of unnecessary intermediate hearings. However, we also know that more defendants are pleading guilty at the first hearing, and that certain types of case no longer need a judicial hearing, such as low-level nuisance offending and licensing cases.

It may help the hon. Lady if I mention some figures that illustrate that trend. Cases commenced in the magistrates courts fell by 33% between 2004 and 2009. In 2009-10, 33 magistrates courts sat for less than 33% of their total available hours, and 55 courts sat for less than 50% of their total available hours. Since 2007, the number of hearings per case has fallen by more than 20% to 2.26 hearings per case in 2009-10. So in five years, there has been an overall reduction in the magistrates work load of around a third. In turn, that has resulted in the magistrates court estate being utilised at an average of only around 65%. In county courts, reductions in work load stem from the wider availability of alternatives to court, such as the range of alternative ways of resolving disputes. If people can be spared the inconvenience and, for some, the stress of attending court for routine matters that do not need to go before a judge, we should do all we can to open up alternatives for them.

I turn to the matters relating to the constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and the proposal to close Cardigan magistrates court. He will have a fuller answer than other hon. Members, because he initiated the debate. However, if other Members wish to know more, they can write to me later.

If Cardigan magistrates court were to close, the work would mainly transfer to Aberystwyth magistrates court. Merging the Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire local justice areas, as is also proposed, would allow cases to be heard at Haverfordwest magistrates court. I am aware that the utilisation rate of Cardigan magistrates court is extremely low—just 22%—which is in part because of the lack of custody facilities at the court. That has resulted in a much reduced variety of work being heard there.

Let me make the situation clear. The utilisation rate across the whole Dyfed Powys criminal justice board area is just 47%, which means that there is a general over-supply of courtrooms and little justification to spend additional money on new facilities and courts in the area. If Cardigan magistrates court were to close, the hon. Gentleman is understandably concerned about the difficulty his residents and people who live in the surrounding area would face in travelling to court elsewhere.

The hon. Gentleman made the case generally for west Wales. He should advise the consultation of his concerns, which will be listened to and considered in the consultation’s impact assessment. I welcome responses on that and any other concerns about potential impacts.

Defendant Anonymity

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

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

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

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

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

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

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify in more detail the proposals on teacher anonymity? Is he suggesting anonymity in respect of abuse, sexual abuse or rape, or have the Government not yet clarified in their own mind in precisely what circumstances teachers will be granted anonymity? Furthermore, will it extend to teaching assistants and other staff in schools, such as caretakers?

[Mr Blunt]

I am surprised by that intervention because the Government made their position clear yesterday in a written ministerial statement by the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb). It bears repeating:

“Finally, we will give teachers the strongest possible protection from false accusations. We will give anonymity to teachers facing accusations from pupils. This Government want to put an end to rumours and malicious gossip about innocent teachers which can ruin careers and even lives.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 12WS.]

As I said, we will now hold discussions with the Department for Education, the Home Office and the Law Officers about how to proceed. Right now, however, I do not want to say anything further about that, as I have a significant amount to report to the House on the Government’s position on rape defendants. I want to focus on that now.

[Mr Blunt]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I would like to set out the Government’s analysis and position, and then I will be happy to take further interventions.

We are committed to supporting victims and improving the investigation and prosecution of rape. It will be useful to the House if I share our best understanding of what happens to rape complaints made to the police. In 2008, 13,093 complaints of rape were made to the police. Based on a Metropolitan police survey in 2007, we would expect that one third of these were no-crimed and that 30% of this third—about 10% overall—were false allegations, which I believe to be reasonably consistent with false allegations around other offences. That is why the number of false allegations is not part of the reason for changing our position on this issue. Police identified 80% of suspects, and 73% of these were arrested, but only 44% of those arrests resulted in a charge by the Crown Prosecution Service, perhaps due to withdrawal of evidence by the victim, which could be caused by fear of reprisals, the court process or the lack of emotional strength to continue.

What we know about case disposals in 2008 is as follows. Some 2,395 cases were proceeded with at a magistrates court, of which 1,822 were sent to the Crown court, with 24% of cases not proceeded with for various reasons, including the charges being dropped, although in some cases the defendant will have been convicted of other offences at the magistrates court. Of the 1,822 cases that proceeded to the Crown court, 24 were not tried for a variety of reasons. However, 1,798 men went on trial accused of rape in 2008, 51% of whom were convicted of rape, with 77% convicted either of rape or another offence. Of those who went on trial, 406 pleaded guilty and 1,392 pleaded not guilty. Of those pleading not guilty, 36% were convicted of rape, while 885 of those pleading not guilty were acquitted of rape or attempted rape. I estimate from the information made available to me that about half those will have been convicted of another offence, but it is not yet possible to be precise about that from the data examination that I have been able to undertake before today’s debate.

We need to empower police officers to improve rape investigations. We are all aware, as the recent Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation into Kirk Reid has again demonstrated, of the terrible consequences that investigative failures can have. To demonstrate our commitment to improving the criminal justice response to rape, the Home Office will continue to fund the rape support programme this year, providing additional targeted support to forces to improve their approach and practice on rape investigation. We will also consider carefully how we can support agencies’ joint work on sharing intelligence and good practice.

The anonymity debate has been characterised by a number of myths and misconceptions, which have unfortunately served to obscure rather than clarify matters. For example, it is alleged that anonymity for defendants would deter victims in general from coming forward. One can easily understand the argument that depriving complainants of anonymity would indeed have that effect. Their cross-examination about painful personal matters would be exposed to the public gaze, which is bound to have a deterrent effect on the willingness of others to come forward. Parliament has long recognised that reality. However, it is difficult to understand how the anonymity of a defendant could possibly have such an effect. There is an argument that reducing publicity around rape investigations and trial should make it easier for complainants. That would be an effect of protecting the defendant’s identity. The strength of that effect before and during any trial will be a matter of judgment.

[Maria Eagle]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that one of the reasons why people fear that introducing anonymity for defendants just in rape cases will deter reporting by victims is that he would be singling out that one crime for such treatment? Extending anonymity to defendants in all cases might not have the same impact, but by singling out one particular offence, the hon. Gentleman is in danger of sending a clear signal to victims that they will not be believed.

[Mr Blunt]

I understand that that is one of the counter-arguments, but in the end it comes down to a matter of judgment and balance among a number of competing arguments. I am quite happy to concede that the argument that the hon. Lady has set out has some weight, but other arguments have to be weighed in the balance too. Let me therefore put those arguments before the House.

To turn to our proposals, we have now had the opportunity to consider both the arguments and the background in further detail. The last time the subject was debated at any length in Parliament was during the passage of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Reference to those debates is highly instructive, and I would like, if I may, to dwell for a while on that subject. Anonymity for defendants was first raised in another place not by a Government or Opposition Member, but by a Cross Bencher, Lord Ackner, the late former Law Lord, who had tabled an amendment to the Bill. Lord Ackner’s view was as follows:

“For 12 years this anonymity”—

that is, defendant anonymity—

“was enjoyed. I have heard nothing to suggest that during those 12 years there were occasions when it worked to the disadvantage of justice. I have not limited my request to pre-trial because pre-trial is only part of the issue.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2003; Vol. 648, c. 1095.]

Their lordships narrowly accepted Lord Ackner’s amendment, so that when the Bill passed to this House it contained provision for defendant anonymity. The then Government decided to resist that in its entirety. In Committee, the Opposition tabled alternative, probing amendments that would have granted anonymity either all the way to conviction or, as the case may be, up to the point of charge. Only the latter amendment was pressed to a Division. A similar Opposition amendment was tabled on Report and was also pressed to a Division. Interestingly, the Government of the day indicated that they accepted the desirability of pre-charge anonymity in principle, but preferred a non-legislative solution. Some scepticism was expressed by a number of speakers in both Houses about whether the non-legislative approach was realistic. However, there was also some support for the suggestion that a non-legislative solution would be ideal.

When the Bill returned to the other place for consideration of this House’s amendments, Lord Ackner moved an amendment similar to his earlier one, but on that occasion it was defeated. However, the coalition partners joined together to support a narrower amendment, tabled by Lord Thomas of Gresford, that would have provided statutory anonymity at the pre-charge stage. That amendment was duly passed. When the Bill returned once again to this House, the then Government maintained their previous position and the Lords amendment was again deleted from the Bill. The matter was once again pressed to a vote. That was followed by yet another round of debate in the other place. Ultimately, no further Opposition amendments were pressed, for fear that the whole Bill would fall as a result.

In the latter stages of the Bill, Ministers indicated that discussions had been held with the Association of Chief Police Officers and with the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. As a result of the latter discussions, the press was looking at its code of conduct, to see how it could be strengthened to ensure that those suspected of offences—but not yet charged with them—were not named in the media. The burning question prompted by this saga is: what happened next? The answer is that the Press Complaints Commission issued a note in 2004 that specifically addressed the reporting of people accused of crime by reference to the relevant sections of the editors’ code of conduct.

It appears to be widely assumed that there is a self-regulation scheme in place that clearly prohibits the reporting of anybody accused of a crime but not yet charged with it. On close examination, however, the 2004 interpretative note does not provide complete reassurance. Nowhere does it contain an outright general prohibition on the reporting of pre-charge allegations. In fact, in the main, no mention is made of the distinction between pre and post-charge reporting at all. For that reason, anybody affronted—for example, by the reporting of an allegation that was not followed by charge—and who wanted to complain to the PCC about the matter might well find that they had no grounds to do so under the interpretative note or code.

A further point, which soon became apparent from the exhaustive examination of the issue undertaken in this House and another place during the passage of the 2003 Act, is that both the then Government and the then Opposition parties settled on a position of agreement—in principle at least—to non-reporting up to the point of charge and normal reporting procedures thereafter.

Much has been made in the past of the importance of open justice and the free reporting of criminal trials as key elements of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system. We support that view. There is, however, another important reason of principle for distinguishing between the reporting of trials and the reporting of allegations before the point of charge. In the case of the latter, we are dealing with allegations that have not been subject to a full range of investigation.

[Mr Blunt]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to set out where the Government are on this issue, and then I shall be happy to take further interventions.

When there is an allegation before the point of charge, there may have been some degree of investigation into the allegation, but there will have been no formal assertion on the part of the state that anybody has a case to answer. Those points provide grounds to inhibit reporting that are not present at the trial stage. Therefore, having carefully reviewed the extensive background, having taken account of the fact that nobody should be appearing in a criminal trial unless the prosecuting authorities have assessed all the available evidence including any exculpatory unused material, and prosecutors having applied the other provisions of the code for Crown prosecutors and decided to bring criminal charges, the Government are minded to strengthen anonymity up to the point of charge. This is consistent with the findings of the Home Affairs Select Committee—on which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister served—in 2003, and also with the reply that he gave to the Leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister’s questions last month.

[Maria Eagle]

Is the Minister saying that the Government are going to do this only in respect of the crime of rape, or are they planning to do it in respect of any criminal charge?

[Mr Blunt]

This is about the crime of rape.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

[Simon Hughes]

I agree that the idea is not to put people off, but to encourage them to come forward when a criminal justice process is being gone through. Does the hon. Lady agree that, as the police say, it is often not the name or physical identity or picture of the suspect that brings people forward but the knowledge of the method of operation? I speak as the MP of John Worboys, who operated as a cab driver. The knowledge that the offender was a cab driver was enough to encourage others to come forward. It could be knowledge that the person committing the offence usually climbs through a window at 1 o’clock in the morning. The point is that is often the operation, not the identity, that is important.

[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.

[Meg Munn]

The Minister made a great deal of the issue of balance, but vulnerable victims are often abused by someone in a position of power, who gets themselves into that position in order to carry out abuse. The weight of difficulty for victims is so enormous that equating their situation with that of a defendant is completely erroneous.

[Maria Eagle]

I agree with my hon. Friend: equating the position of the complainant with that of the defendant is erroneous.

The Minister tried to clarify the Government’s policy, but the coalition Government’s programme set out in nine words, with seemingly admirable succinctness and clarity, that

“we will extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants”.

However, since its publication, all kinds of outrage, consternation and surprise have been caused, for two reasons. First, many people, including me, believe that the policy will not help to bring rapists to justice, but will do the opposite. I do not think anyone in the House would disagree about the need to bring more rapists to justice.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady not also conscious of the need to prevent false accusations against innocent people and the connected wrongs?

[Maria Eagle]

Indeed, I assume that must motivate the Government’s policy, but the Minister did not set out in great detail in his speech why the coalition had such a focus.

This country has a system of open justice, which is extremely valuable and an important part of our justice system. It should be changed only with great thought and for very good reasons. As anyone who has practised the law would be keen to set out, one can be accused of many crimes that can have an extremely deleterious effect on one’s reputation, on one’s standing in society, and on one’s capacity to hold down a job, hold a family together and live a normal life, whether or not one is found guilty. Rape is certainly among such crimes, but so are murder, downloading child pornography, stealing when one is in a position of trust and many others. What surprises me about the proposal is that rape, rather than all sexual offences, is singled out for such treatment.

[Michael Ellis]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

No, I want to make some progress.

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

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

[Caroline Flint]

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

[Maria Eagle]

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

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

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

I hope that that, at least, still holds.

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

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

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

“a perpetrator would only be named if convicted.”

That seems to have changed today.

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

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

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

[Mr Blunt]

The hon. Lady certainly ought to give way at this point, having been part of a Government who indulged in policy-based evidence-making rather than evidence-based policy-making. She is entitled to her fun, but she should recognise that what I have said today is clearly consistent with the coalition’s programme. The coalition has listened to the contributions that have been made, including the questions to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and the debate led by her right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary. We have reached a view on the appropriateness of the scope, and how the law should be applied. We are also still asking for evidence relating to the issue that was raised earlier. The hon. Lady will have to get used to the fact that ours is a Government who will actually listen, and take account of evidence that is promoted.

[Maria Eagle]

That was a very long intervention, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be as good as his word, and will listen. I hope that his travelling on the issue has not been completed. He has obviously changed his mind: until recently, he was saying that he wanted anonymity up to conviction, and that it “could go wider” in respect of other offences. Even after his speech, it is still not entirely clear to us precisely where the Government are. The Justice Secretary made it plain that this was not a priority, that it would be kicked into the long grass, and that when it did come up there would be a “fairly free vote”. That is not what we have been told today.

[Mr Blunt]

rose—

[Maria Eagle]

I will give way to the Under-Secretary of State in a moment.

To reach a conclusion without any consultation—to decide the policy first and consult afterwards, when the effectiveness of the policy and the likelihood of its success are such an issue—is not a sensible way of proceeding.

I shall leave aside the difficult task of pinpointing precisely what the policy is. The position has changed today, but it is still not absolutely clear. What is absolutely clear is that no one was consulted. There seem to be no ideas and no evidence about the impact of what I believe to be a retrograde and deeply troubling policy. The Ministry of Justice has confirmed in written answers that no written evidence was considered before the policy was presented. Ministers have met no victims’ organisations, rape crisis organisations or members of the judiciary.

Given that the Under-Secretary said today that there would be no consultation, it is clear that Ministers do not intend to meet and properly consider the views of those who know most about the issue and have most to say about it. That is a disgrace. Only now, after the policy has been decided, are Ministers analysing options and implications and asking for evidence, and they keep changing their minds about exactly what the policy is. Only now, after the policy has been decided, are they asking MOJ statisticians to pull together the existing evidence base. Should not the Under-Secretary have done all that before? Of course he should.

I hope that I can help a little. I believe, and the Opposition believe, that it is not in the public interest to abandon the principle of open justice when it comes to such serious offences as rape. Singling out rape as an offence for which, uniquely, the defendant is granted a right to anonymity clearly suggests that false accusations are widespread, and that victims should be disbelieved by the criminal justice system, by investigators and by juries. That will deter people from reporting rape, which the Under-Secretary says he does not wish to do.

[Michael Ellis]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

Not at this point.

In fact, people accused of sexual crimes should not be treated any differently from other defendants. If the Under-Secretary singles out rape from all other sexual offences, let alone offences of violence, he will send a clear signal that there is a reason for his action. That will impinge on victims’ capacity to come forward and the likelihood that they will do so, which will in turn impinge on the conviction rate.

The argument that there should be anonymity for defendants because there is anonymity for complainants is a false one. There is a public interest in bringing rapists to justice. A victim is a witness to a crime, not simply another party to a family law case or a civil case in which some kind of equivalence might be seen between parties. Rape is often a serial crime, and it is often only after many crimes that a perpetrator is brought to court. Previous victims often come forward at that point. That can be essential to the securing of a conviction, but the Under-Secretary’s policy is likely to make it less efficacious.

Many organisations have contacted Members about the proposed policy, including Rights of Women. It has endorsed a statement signed by 50 leading women’s and human rights organisations, including many rape crisis centres and organisations that deal with victims of rape. It believes that giving suspects anonymity, whether until charge or until conviction, will hamper police investigations, enable serial offenders to evade detection—thus placing more women at risk of sexual violence—reinforce erroneous and harmful myths about the prevalence of false reports of rape, thereby deterring women from reporting it, and send a clear message to women that they are not to be believed. It calls on the Government to drop their proposals on anonymity, and instead to focus their energy where it is needed by concentrating on securing sustainable services for survivors of sexual violence and improving the investigation and prosecution of rape.

The ACPO lead on rape, Chief Constable Dave Whatton—who knows a thing or two about the subject—has said

“The proposal to extend anonymity in rape cases beyond victims would require primary legislation. ACPO has yet to see the detail of the proposals but would welcome being part of the formal consultation process.”

Well, apparently there is not going to be a formal consultation process, although the Under-Secretary did say that he would talk to ACPO, which is at least something.

Chief Constable Whatton also said:

“The welfare of rape victims needs to remain a priority. Our main concern would be in regard to the impact any changes on anonymity would have on victims, in particular on their confidence to come forward and report rape.”

It seems to me that the entire focus of the Under-Secretary and the Government on the issue of anonymity for defendants in rape cases rests on the level of false reports, although the Under-Secretary said that it did not. I think that one of the strongest arguments advanced by Members on the Government Benches who favour the proposal is the idea that there is a lot of false reporting. The last Home Office research on that was in 2005 and it suggested that the true figure was closer to 3% than the 8% to 10% that has been stated. However, false reporting is obviously a concern for those who are falsely accused, and it must be tackled. There is no disagreement between us on that. The question is whether the best way to tackle this is to allow anonymity for anybody who might be accused of any kind of offence, including all the people who are guilty. We argue that that would lead to less reporting and less ability to convict the guilty.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to draw a distinction between acquittal and false allegation? Rape is a difficult crime to prosecute and juries will sometimes not convict, and that is right, but that does not mean that the complainant lied.

[Maria Eagle]

That is right; my hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. There are very few examples of malicious reporting. When the public talk about false reporting, they are often really referring to malicious reporting, which we all agree is a perversion of the course of justice, and can be, and is, charged as such where it is discovered.

We must make it clear that in the current context anonymity in effect means reporting restrictions. What we are talking about, therefore, is not an objective descent of anonymity on to a named individual, but inhibiting our free press from reporting matters of public interest. I had a word with the Newspaper Society about what it thinks about that.

[Michael Ellis]

rose—

[Maria Eagle]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Michael Ellis]

The hon. Lady is very generous. There are already episodes in our criminal justice system where names are withheld. Her former Government enacted terrorist offences legislation that allowed the names of defendants to be withheld, and for “A”, “B” or “C”, for instance, to be used instead. There are also thousands of youth trials every year in which the names of young people are withheld, and that has been the case for decades. This step would not be unique, therefore.

[Maria Eagle]

We do not, however, say in respect of any crime that there should be a generalised anonymity for defendants. Particularly for the crime under discussion, that is what would lead to the deleterious side effects I have been outlining. Having looked into this matter, I do not think the downsides of granting anonymity just in respect of rape could possibly justify the impact on the very few instances of malicious reporting that it seems there are—we do not know the precise number.

The Newspaper Society says that the law should remain unchanged; the victims of alleged sexual offences are protected against identification during their lifetimes, but even those restrictions can be waived or lifted by the court in specific circumstances. It thinks the Government’s proposals are potentially far-reaching, and that that is fuelled by an imprecision in how they are set out. It thinks they could prevent the release, exchange, dissemination and publication of material, and that they could prevent investigation and reporting, including in respect of accuracy and legal checks, despite the real public interest in that being done. It also thinks they could fuel rumour and malicious gossip that is not just confined to the actual subject of the allegations, rather than prevent or curb that. It said, too, that the written statement on teacher anonymity was very imprecise, and that it is against it because of its imprecision and the potential impact on the capacity of a free press to do its job.

[Meg Munn]

I wanted to raise the following matter with the Minister, but he would not give way to me. I am unclear as to whether we are talking about anonymity for any accusation, such as a teacher being suspended in a disciplinary situation, or only for any criminal matters, such as rape.

[Maria Eagle]

I agree that some imprecision remains, and we would have many questions about the Government’s intentions. One can understand, of course, that teachers who are maliciously accused of things have a terrible time. There is absolutely no doubt about that, but if the suggestion is that we revert to not believing children when they make allegations of abuse, that is a very dangerous and retrograde step. For too many years in the past, before we took safeguarding children quite as seriously as we now do in our society—and I hope we will continue to do so—children who made allegations were frequently disbelieved, with the result that abuse, including sometimes serious sexual abuse, continued for years. That destroyed lives, and we left vulnerable children completely unable to be protected because of the then attitudes about whether to believe what they said. Any signal—and this Government have given a number of them—that we are reverting to that practice is extremely retrograde.

I do not believe that getting rid of the rigour of the barring and vetting scheme, which arose out of the Bichard report into the Soham murders, sends a good signal about safeguarding children. I do not believe that abandoning ContactPoint sends a good signal about the intention to safeguard children. I do not believe we should add in anonymity in all circumstances for teachers against any allegation made, and perhaps for a wider range of school staff, because why stop at teachers? Why not school caretakers as well, and dinner ladies, teaching assistants, or any other number of staff in schools? I do not believe that sending that signal can possibly help us safeguard children in this country. It is a retrograde step. I do not believe we have seen any real evidence, thought or policy development that has led to those specific nine words and the other paragraph about teacher anonymity in the coalition agreement.

I believe the Government are undertaking a calamitous and retrograde march backwards into the past. Given the range of views that there clearly is among Ministers, I believe there is still time for the Government to think about this, and to do better than they are proposing. I believe they should think again about consultation, as this kind of policy should be properly consulted upon. The experts out there in our society dealing with these situations every day, whether in schools or in our criminal justice system, deserve and need to be asked by this Government what they think the impact of these policy suggestions would be.

Given that the Minister’s boss, the Secretary of State for Justice, clearly signalled to the House that this policy is not on the list for early legislation, and given that he clearly signalled that he intended his party to have a fairly free vote when it was brought before the House, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), should say to the House in winding up, “We will consult. We will take this away. We will think again. We will have evidence-based policy making, not prejudice-based policy making.” I urge him to do so.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

May I begin by paying tribute to the excellent maiden speakers? In that, I single out the astute comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who mentioned all his local newspapers. It made me wish that I had mentioned during my maiden speech what fantastic publications we have in the Oxford Mail, the Oxford Times, the Abingdon Herald, and the Oxford Journal.

From the outset, I must declare that I have great sympathy with some of the objections that I heard today. Just last week, there was an attempt to abduct a young girl in my constituency from outside a primary school just five minutes from my home in Oxford. I would not want to support any action that would make it harder to find that man and bring him to justice, or action that would make it harder to prevent him from actually succeeding on a future occasion.

I have spent some time investigating sexual violence in conflicts for the Conservatives’ human rights commission and as a volunteer for the local domestic abuse group. I have met, and heard the testimony of, victims of some of the worst crimes imaginable. Those testimonies are seared on my memory, and it is difficult for me to remain completely objective on this issue. As a result, the suggestion of granting anonymity to rape defendants made me very nervous. I am worried that the proposal will send the wrong message to rape victims at a time when we have managed to turn around the culture of disbelief and the poor treatment of rape victims by police and the courts. Credit must go to the previous Labour Government and some of my hon. Friends for the impressive work they did in the past decade to achieve that.

I am also concerned that anonymity will prevent women who find out that their rapist is charged with another offence from coming forward. At the same time, we must accept that in this country, innocent until proven guilty is the fundamental tenet of our law, and we must defend it fiercely. The imperative to protect ourselves, our families and our communities is one of the strongest that we experience, but we must ensure that in trying to do that, we do not give away the very life we want to protect. The rule of law shields us in our innocence and punishes us only in guilt.

I must disagree with some of the comments made today. On the moral spectrum of our culture, sexual offences—especially rape and paedophilia—rank higher in public disgust than many other offences. It is for that reason that if we heard that a teacher at our child’s school or a local GP had been accused of rape, we would find it very difficult not to take action to protect our children on the basis of that suspicion, but if we found out that one of the governors had been accused of theft, we would wait to test the veracity of the allegation before taking action.

[Maria Eagle]

The Government’s proposal is not to give anonymity to those accused of paedophilia. Rumours abound in schools when things go wrong, and if someone were protected by anonymity and another child were to be hurt by that perpetrator, what kind of signal would that send to society?

[Nicola Blackwood]

I am merely trying to make the point that our culture ascribes greater disapprobation to sexual offences than it does to other offences—as some in this Chamber have claimed.

I have a constituent who was wrongly recorded as being a sex offender for 15 years before he discovered the error, and the distress that he has experienced has been extreme. Ironically, the very fact that conviction rates for rape are so very low and reoffending rates so famously high perpetuates this culture. When so many defendants are acquitted, there is a sense that it is not because they are innocent but because the system is so poor that it is letting off the guilty. There is a sense that even if they got off that time, the likelihood is that they will do it again and probably do something worse. That means that acquittal in sexual offence trials accords the defendant legal innocence, but does not necessarily accord them innocence in the court of public opinion—they may have lost that for ever.

--- Later in debate ---

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

We have had an extremely good debate across the Chamber on this thorny issue. I welcome the debate, and thank the Leader of the House for listening to the entreaties for one, and the Government for finding the time to provide it. It might have something to do with the lack of legislation at present, but none the less we are grateful to the Government for finding the time to have it.

I congratulate all those who have spoken on both sides of the House, because the debate has been of an exceptionally high quality. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who is no longer in his place, but who earlier made his maiden speech. Although I did not agree with absolutely everything he said, Labour Members were grateful for his kind remarks about his predecessor, Paul Clark, who is a friend of mine. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was a bit of a rebel, because he said he believed in anonymity for all sexual offences until conviction, rather than just until charge, which the Minister argued for.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley), who is in his place, on his maiden speech. He conjured up a picture of his constituency that I think we all enjoyed. However, he conjured up more of a picture of his family, which we all enjoyed possibly even more. I would have liked to have met his grandmother—I wonder what she would have thought about him sitting on the Tory Benches. [Interruption.] He does not have to answer that. She would no doubt have been proud in one way. The hon. Gentleman admitted to seeing Simply Red with his mother and girlfriend, which was a risky thing to do, but none the less I am sure he will prove an assiduous Member of the House. He paid generous tribute to his predecessor, Tony Wright, to whom we on both sides of the House have reason to be grateful—I have more reason than most because I inherited his office. From my point of view, therefore, it is particularly good to see the hon. Gentleman in his place—if he understands my point!

I want also to congratulate Members from both sides of the House. Perhaps more so than in most debates, we have heard contributions informed by the professional experience of those Members who have spoken. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) was a criminal barrister before he came to this place, and he spoke from his experience in that respect. He also set out—in some detail and quite illuminatingly—the source of the policy that the hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench are having to front up, which is a policy that probably did not appear in the coalition programme for government at their suggestion. He set out in detail the policy that the Liberal Democrats adopted, which appeared to be a minor part of an extensive debate at their conference. Indeed, the suggestion appears to have been made that there should be anonymity to conviction, and in a much wider range of offences too.

The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) also has experience as a criminal barrister, as do the hon. Members for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and for Northampton North (Michael Ellis). One of the things that struck me about many—although not all—of the contributions that we heard was a deep scepticism about the possible consequences of the policy, if it is proceeded with in the way that it is set out at present, for ensuring that rape victims come forward to report rape and can be supported all the way through to trial, and that justice is served and those guilty of rape are found guilty of it and dealt with appropriately by society.

All those speakers had helpful points to make about their experience and suggestions for how the policy—wherever it came from and whatever its provenance—might be improved. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Broxtowe and others for the tributes that they paid to the strides taken by the previous Government. The hon. Lady said that she had a private Member’s Bill, and we look forward to seeing her take it forward. I am not quite sure what number she came in at, but—[Interruption.] I gather that she will get a chance for a Second Reading, in which some of us will no doubt take part.

Like many Members, the hon. Lady also questioned why the coalition had decided that rape was the only offence where the defendant ought to be protected in the way proposed, and I do not think that we have yet heard a satisfactory answer to that. Many Members have suggested that even if one accepts the unique difficulty of dealing with the offence of rape, there are other sexual offences that have similar difficulties. With respect, I do not think that the explanation that the hon. Member for Northampton North gave convinced all of us on this side of the House. He referred to the youth courts, but defendants in the youth courts are granted anonymity because of their youth across the entire range of offences. Therefore, the argument about singling out defendants in rape cases as uniquely needing such protection is not dealt with by his point.

We also heard from the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who I had not realised was a forensic medical examiner. She brought to her speech the clarity and succinctness of her scientific background, speaking briefly but making some extremely salient points. She said that, from her experience of dealing with victims at that sensitive time shortly after they have been attacked and reported the incident, she knows that the majority of such crimes are not reported and that fewer than 5% of the women she saw ended up securing a conviction.

Perhaps most importantly, the hon. Lady made it clear that it was her impression, from her professional experience, that many women have the courage to come forward and report an incident—thereby setting out on that long and difficult road—only because they think that they are helping other women. If any policy, well intentioned or otherwise, prevents women at that sensitive time from thinking that they will help other women by reporting, we will be doing them a disservice by proceeding with it. What will happen is less reporting; consequently, there will be more scepticism and more rapists will get away with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), among others, made the important point that serial rapists would get away with it, which would equate to there being more victims. The speech of the hon. Member for Totnes was brief, but it was extremely salient.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) made an extremely good speech, as we have come to expect from her. She took up this issue at an early stage and pressed the Government on it, and, as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) knows well, she does not let go once she gets started. Her speech was not only powerful but extremely salient. She said that the Government had today spurned the opportunity to retreat a little further, having thought about the matter in more detail. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) would do us all a favour—including, I dare say, his colleague, the hon. Member for Reigate—if he were to tell us at the end of the debate that the Government would be willing to listen a little more than they have so far, and would be willing to go away and do a number of things, which I shall come to in a moment.

Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) brought to her speech her experience as a social worker of dealing with some of these issues. Her speech was also extremely powerful. It helps the House, when we are considering these matters, to have such a professional perspective from Members. She said that this was an ill-thought-out policy, and as many people have done she urged the Government to think again. She brought great insight to her remarks, based on her professional experience, and said that we should never underestimate the difficulties involved in prosecuting rape.

Importantly, my hon. Friend said that we had to proceed from a position of believing people. We do not necessarily need to say a complainant, “I’m going to believe you 100%, regardless of the evidence arising out of the investigation”, but when a woman, man or child comes forward to report a rape, we must not start by giving them the impression that we probably do not believe that it happened. There was far too much of that from the statutory services in the past, but we have moved away from that now. The barristers on the Government Benches who have spoken today made it clear that things have improved, and I agree with them. We must not do anything that takes us back to those bad old days.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West urged the Government to think again, describing the anonymity proposal as a dog whistle, and saying that it would protect serial rapists, resulting in more people getting away with rape and fewer victims coming forward. It ill behoves the Government to ignore those warnings; they really should bear those concerns in mind.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) pointed out the inconsistencies and complications of the policy, as well as some of the unintended consequences that might follow if it is introduced very quickly. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) tackled the issue of false allegations, and set out the argument why, in her opinion, the measure would represent a retrograde and undesirable step. She made her arguments very strongly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) powerfully described the experience of one of her constituents, illustrating how publicity can be important in certain instances. Other hon. Members have also set out the experiences of those who have been wrongly accused, which were different from that described by my hon. Friend. Of course, one case alone cannot change the law, and we must look across the board at the impact of all these factors on this particularly sensitive issue.

The Government should be asking themselves a number of questions when they go away to consider these matters further, as I—and Members across the House—urge them to do. What will be the impact of anonymity at whatever level—for charge, for conviction, for rape or for a wider range of offences—on the ability of victims to report attacks and on the likelihood of them being believed? It is important for Ministers to consider that question. Also, what impact will it have on the ability of the police to investigate and catch rapists? What impact will the proposed reporting restrictions have on our free press and the concept of open justice? We must remember that the wider we extend such a provision, the greater the impact on the very basis of our justice system, according to which allegations are made, cases are heard and dealt with in public, so that justice can be seen to be done as well as be done. These are important concepts and the wider we range across breaching that system, the more fundamental the risk to it.

Will these proposals really make it easier to catch and convict rapists? Why, oh why, single out rape as a crime for different treatment? We should look at the impact—not just the intentional impact, which one accepts is obviously not to make things worse—of doing so. What will be the practical impact on the victims who might otherwise have come forward? Let us have the research done on the level of malicious false reporting. Baroness Stern has called for it, and a number of Members have said that the evidence base is not extensive enough for us to be clear. That is true, so let us have that report.

Finally, how does anonymity for defendants improve the conviction rate for rape? At the end of the day, it is the conviction rate that we all want to see improved. That is what will send out the signal from society that this crime will not be tolerated and that we fully intend to crack down on it.

Let me ask the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon three things before he replies. Can this new research on attrition and the level of false reporting that Baroness Stern has called for be carried out before the policy is finalised, implemented and legislated for? Will he give us an assurance that the research will not simply be a review from a senior civil servant—all of whom in the Ministry of Justice I greatly respect, by the way? We do not want just a survey of the existing evidence base, which would be helpful but would not take us forward. We could all go to one place to read it, but it would not add to our knowledge. Can we have real research, as Baroness Stern has suggested, into the real level of malicious false reporting? That is the important issue here.

Secondly, can we have a proper and full public consultation? The call for it from across the Chamber has been widespread, including from some Members who have supported the proposals and others who have expressed grave doubts about them. I was concerned when the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate promised “a consultation”, but only a short, limited and restricted one. For a subject as sensitive and important as this one, such a low and restrictive level of consultation is insufficient, especially when the change could have a big impact on our capacity to deal with this crime. There is no argument against having a proper and full public consultation, particularly if it is true that the Government do not intend early legislation on this issue. I want the Minister who is about to reply to commit himself and his Government to giving us the consultation that we want.

Finally, I have been struck by the high level of dissent expressed by those on the Government Benches behind the Minister. It has been gently and politely put and has rightly been couched in professional terms, but it is dissent none the less. A great deal of concern has been expressed by Government Members, while for Labour Members the concern is universal. The policy that the Minister who opened the debate seemed determined to pursue is wrong. It is not thought through; it is not based on evidence; and it will have deleterious, and possibly devastating, effects on women victims of rape and on those who seek to improve the outcomes that society wants in dealing with this horrendous crime.

Will the Minister who just about to reply do this for us? Will he withdraw the proposals, admit that they were not properly thought through, go away, think again, get the evidence in order, and then come back to the House with fully thought-through proposals that are evidence-based and convincing, having consulted widely? Were he to do that, he would get a cheer at the end of his speech. Let us see what he will get.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The Government are committed to providing up to 15 more rape crisis centres. I agree entirely with the hon. Lady that, obviously, nobody is questioning the long-standing decision that anonymity be given to all victims making allegations of rape. It is obviously important that everything possible be done to encourage more women who have suffered from that crime to come forward and seek the prosecution of the perpetrator.

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

I listened with great care to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State said about the mystery of where the policy came from, but can he enlighten the House as to why, over that weekend of negotiations between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party about the coalition agreement, the matter suddenly became a major priority when it had not been in either manifesto before? Will he also please tell us how many women were involved in those negotiations?

[Mr Clarke]

I was not involved in the negotiations, but the policy actually emerged from them. I remind the hon. Lady that the Liberal Democrat assembly voted in favour of the policy in 2006, but it did so against a background of considerable debate. People from all parts of this House decided to vote for anonymity in 2003, and we recently had a report from Baroness Stern, who I do not think supports anonymity but recommended that the matter be debated more extensively.

The one thing that I can say to the hon. Lady is that the idea that the proposal was a male decision to the exclusion of female sensitivity on the subject is, frankly, slightly wide of the mark. Nobody in the House denies that rape is a serious offence; nobody in the House wants to reduce the protection that is given to women who are threatened with it or experience it.