Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Graham Evans. He is not here. Mr Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Has the Secretary of State read the research commissioned by Lord Ashcroft and conducted by Populus called “Crime, Punishment & The People—Public opinion and the criminal justice debate”? If he has read the report, which I commend to him, will he confirm that its findings, which will make sobering reading for him, will be part of the proposals on sentencing?

[Mr Clarke]

I shall look at the report to see whether it is the source of my hon. Friend’s views on the subject of crime and punishment, which he frequently gives, and then I will try to find some counter-reading to recommend to him. I will try to study it if I get the chance.

The purpose of sentencing in this country is to punish offenders effectively and proportionately for what they have done. The purpose that I intend to add to that more clearly is to try to reduce the number who simply offend again and come back into the system. If we cut reoffending, it will mean fewer crimes and fewer victims, and we will make a positive contribution instead of recycling the same old people through the same old not very well functioning system.

Assaults on Police: Sentencing

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Philip Davies]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many assaults on police officers resulted in (a) custodial and (b) non-custodial sentences in the latest period for which figures are available;

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is very important that community sentences reflect the principles of sentencing—I made that point in the original answer. If they do not carry credibility in respect of punishment and protecting the public, people will rightly expect us to make a greater use of custody. As we know, short custodial sentences are not always in everyone’s best interests.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Given that the probation service says that there are already 6,600 high-risk or very high-risk people serving community sentences, and that the reoffending rate on the intensive supervision and surveillance programme in recent years has ranged from 74% to 92%, may I urge the Minister to ignore the siren voices of those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, and perhaps even in his own Department, who are calling for more community sentences and fewer people to be sent to prison? What Conservative Members want is more robust sentencing and more people sent to prison.

[Mr Blunt]

I know that my hon. Friend agrees that what we want is what works, and we want to ensure that there are fewer victims of crime in future. When our policies deliver rehabilitation far more effectively than those of the previous Administration, we will have protected the future victims of crime, and I know that he will—

Regulation

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Philip Davies]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many regulations sponsored by her Department have been (a) introduced since 18 November 2010 and (b) revoked since 2 February 2011.

[Official Report, 7 March 2011, Vol. 524, c. 878-79W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Nick Herbert:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) on 7 March 2011.

The answer contained two typographical errors: in the first table the transposition of the words ‘Accession (Immigration’ and an incorrect S.I. number, and in the second table the omission of a reference to the revoked regulation 3 of S.I. 2009/3136.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Nick Herbert]

The following statutory instruments in the form of regulations have been made by the Department on or after 18 November 2010.

Police

Philip Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I did not say that; I said there was no simple link, and there is not.

All parties agree with Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that police forces can make savings of over £1 billion a year while maintaining police availability. However, that will mean smaller police work forces in order to support the £1 billion a year of savings HMIC says can be made, which I do not think the Opposition have understood. That is why I regard it as so unacceptable that the Opposition should campaign on the issue of police numbers when they are committed to cutting spending by over £1 billion a year, which will lead to a reduction in police numbers.

The challenge for the service is to improve efficiency, drive out waste and increase productivity so that front-line policing is prioritised and the service to the public is maintained or improved.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I agree that the police can save money, and they might start to do so by addressing some of the equality and diversity politically correct drivel on which they waste millions of pounds each year. If the Government were simply cutting the police budget and savings could be found, that would be fine. However, the problem with the Government’s argument is that they are doing this against the backdrop of restricting the police’s ability to use the DNA database to catch criminals and trying to restrict further the use of CCTV cameras which also help the police catch criminals, and they are releasing people from prison and having fewer criminals in prison. They cannot do all those things with fewer police.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

As I have already said, we must have much shorter interventions.

Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Friday 4th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I was going to deal with precisely that point. I would much prefer the profession that I was once a member of to self-regulate in the way that it used to. I am grateful that a member of the PCC contacted me to talk about the code of conduct. I think that in 2003 there was much consideration of a change to the code of conduct following the arrest, under the Terrorism Act 2000, of various people, I think in Birmingham. Unfortunately, that never resulted in anything. With respect to those whom I used to work with, and the profession that I am proud to have once been a member of, I am afraid that we have gone way beyond self-regulation.

I wish that the media would regulate themselves. To be blunt, I wish that people would not buy the newspapers or watch the television news programmes that they then condemn for the type of coverage given to the first man arrested in the Bristol case, but unfortunately that will not happen. We could just wait for common sense to prevail and for the previous convention to be returned to, but my fear is that other people will suffer in the meantime in the way that he has suffered. That is why I believe that it behoves this place to look at how we can improve the law to ensure that this mischief is cured once and for all.

I might have to explain, although perhaps not to everyone in this place, why it is wrong for people who are arrested to have their names published in the newspapers. A slur is placed on them, because the attitude that there is no smoke without fire always prevails. At this juncture, I should explain that the police must have reasonable suspicion before arresting someone, but there is a good argument that they are perhaps a little too keen to secure an arrest. Members may remember the expression, which was used in newspapers and on television and the radio, that a man of such and such an age was “assisting the police with their inquiries”. There now seems to be more of a tendency in those circumstances for the police to arrest someone to secure their attendance at the police station and ensure that the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 are abided by, because being an arrested person gives that individual certain rights once they are in the police station. The police need only a reasonable suspicion to arrest someone.

However, individuals are charged only when there is at least a prima facie case, and charging normally comes towards the end of an investigation when all the evidence has been gathered and considered. In serious cases, the charging decision is shared with the Crown Prosecution Service, sometimes with leading counsel brought in so that the right charge is decided upon. The CPS and the police will have gone through various tests to decide, for instance, whether it is in the public interest to charge an individual, whether there is a reasonable chance of conviction and so on. By the time they come to charge the individual, therefore, they are a long way down the track in an investigation, and hopefully closer to securing the right person to be placed in the dock, because once someone is charged, they are very swiftly in court.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I do not happen to agree with my hon. Friend on the Bill, but I certainly commend her for initiating the debate. Does she not accept that the ability of newspapers and the media to publish the names of people who have been arrested is a great control on potential abuse by the police? If the police can go around arresting people and the media are not allowed to report it, that could lead to the police in certain circumstances arresting more people than is necessary, and no one would ever find out about it.

[Anna Soubry]

My hon. Friend will have read the Bill and will know that it makes provision for the police, the arrested person and the press to be able to apply to a Crown court judge for leave to publish the name and address of an arrested person if it is believed that that would be in the interests of justice or in the public interest. I will move on to the detail later, but I want to make it clear now that there are exceptions in the Bill to ensure press freedom in the right circumstances and so that the police, or the arrested person, can have a name and address published if they so wish.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that explanation and think that this sort of debate is helpful. Would it not be better to have the presumption that those details can be reported, but that in exceptional circumstances they should not be? Surely, in the natural course of events, that is the more proportionate way around.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who made a measured and thoughtful contribution. I have not had an opportunity to have any dealings with her before, so I made some discreet soundings about her among my Liberal Democrat colleagues, and there was broad agreement that she is a very sound, responsible and dignified Member of Parliament. I am therefore pleased to have the opportunity to support some of her comments.

Like the hon. Lady, I will try to avoid mentioning any names. She did such a good job in disguising the details of one of the earlier cases that she mentioned, which related to a TV personality, that I am not sure whether she was talking about the person to whom I am going to refer, in very vague terms, who was also a TV personality and who, several years ago, received press coverage indicating that he had committed some very serious offences. Only yesterday, my researcher, who had been looking at the Bill, pointed out to me that that person was in fact found not guilty of anything at the end of the process. It was lodged in my mind, and I suspect the minds of millions of other people around the country, that this person was guilty of something, and that is what remained from that coverage. The hon. Lady’s point is therefore a very good one. The press leave people with the clear implication that people who have been arrested are guilty of a crime, and although that subsequently proves not be the case, the thought is lodged in people’s minds that they are guilty.

The hon. Lady’s Bill, as she has clearly stated, would prohibit the publication or broadcast of the name, address or image of a person arrested for an offence if such information would lead members of the public to identify him or her as the person suspected of committing the offence in question. She has set out the necessary safeguards to provide that a Crown court judge would have the power to direct that reporting restrictions should not apply in a particular case—for instance, where identifying a suspect in the press might lead to the coming forward of additional complaints or information that would assist the police investigation of the suspect. I wonder whether she thinks that that would have allowed the Crown court judge in the most recent case that she mentioned to have lifted reporting restrictions. Perhaps in a case such as that, as in many others, the lifting of reporting restrictions could lead to the coming forward of additional complaints or additional information of assistance to the police. It is therefore hard to see where the line would be drawn between assisting the police and protecting the individual who has been arrested but has not been charged. The Bill rightly makes it clear that existing constraints on reporting, such as those relating to people under the age of 18, would still apply. It proposes no changes to those constraints.

Some counter-arguments to the Bill have been expressed in interventions. One relates to the degree of protection for people who are arrested under the current arrangements and then have their name publicised. As I understand it, the Bill is flexible enough to allow an arrested person to seek to have their own name put into the public domain if they feel that it would help them to prove their innocence or to protect them by making people aware of their arrest, for example in cases where there are concerns about what might happen in police custody.

I promised to keep my remarks short, and I will keep that promise. To conclude, I think that the hon. Lady’s Bill has merit. She has explained succinctly, using much supporting information, what she is seeking to achieve. She has identified an area in law that requires greater clarity. We need to improve the protection for innocent people who are wrongly implicated by the press as potentially having committed a serious crime. It is clear from the comments of press editors that even they think the law is unclear in this respect. Perhaps they are using that as a protection or justification for some of the things that they do. However, if the law was clearer, they would not be able to fall back on that as a defence for the fact that they often put information into the public domain that should not be there.

[Philip Davies]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in many high-profile cases there would be no end to the speculation, rumour and gossip in the local community? In many cases, the media printing a factual piece of information giving the name of a person who has been arrested prevents gossip and rumours that would vilify other people in the local community who are not in any shape or form involved.

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman highlights why this is not a straightforward issue. Although the hon. Lady’s short Bill makes an important contribution and moves the debate on, I suspect that it does not cover all the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, or, indeed, mine. There are other issues with the Bill, such as its non-applicability to Scotland. There is therefore the potential for matters to be raised in the Scottish press and thereby get some coverage here. Clarification is also required on how the internet and websites would be addressed.

The hon. Lady referred to the Press Complaints Commission. In responding, perhaps the Minister will update us on the PCC’s progress in relation to the most recent case to which the hon. Lady referred. We want to hear that it is taking the matter seriously.

I would be happy to see the Bill make further progress. However, if its fate has been sealed by a shadowy cabal of conspirators behind closed doors, I hope that the Attorney-General will consider its merits and take on board the hon. Lady’s legitimate concerns.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who has introduced this Bill at an important moment in the development of our media.

So far, the debate has concentrated, quite properly, on press and print journalism, whether in the form of the local newspaper that we read every day or the web pages of such newspapers, which are read increasingly widely. Therein lies the important development—the internet. The internet has had an effect not just through local newspaper websites, but through Facebook, Twitter and the myriad ways in which individuals can share and disseminate information, and spread false information. Therein lies the problem.

I have said before in this place that the issues relating to reporting restrictions go wider than those of justice and move into the area of media and communications, which is the province of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Although it would be Canute-like to try to hold back the tide of the internet, we have a lot of work to do with local press, national media and networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter to get a degree of consensus about when it is inappropriate to allow the spread of misleading and false material. The Bristol case is but the latest and most extreme example of the mischief that my hon. Friend seeks to cure. None of us has all the answers on how to deal with the proliferation of modern media, but we have to acknowledge that it lies at the heart of this matter.

In my view, the Bill goes some small way to resolving what is an entirely grey area: the stage between arrest and charge. The current situation is mixed. Hon. Members have pointed out that we have the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and I will come back to that in a moment. More relevant to the stage between arrest and charge is the police guidance. The police guidance on the naming of adult suspects is simple. The police will not usually name a suspect until charge, but it remains a matter for individual discretion. In other words, there are no hard-and-fast rules. It is not advisable to name a suspect, but sometimes there will be good reason to do so.

The Bristol case is significant, because the police never confirmed the name of the man who had been arrested. The information reached the media by different means. That relates to my first point about the viral spread of alternative media and means of communication.

[Philip Davies]

Of course, the other law that is in place to protect people is the law of libel, which prevents people from spreading untrue allegations. Is not the hon. Gentleman’s first point about the power of the internet one of the reasons why the Bill is flawed? In practice, the restrictions in the Bill would apply to newspapers, the broadcast media and perhaps some of the more responsible aspects of other media, but there would be no way of effectively controlling what was put out by websites based abroad—they are based all over the place.

[Mr Buckland]

I readily concede that my hon. Friend makes an important point about the practical implementation of the legislation. The Bill goes as far as it can to deal with the mischief. His point is sadly common in issues relating to the misuse of media. There are issues with cybercrime and with the use of internet sites that are based in far-flung places abroad, over which we have no control. This week, I heard about a nasty little website that deals with gossip among schoolchildren, which is based in Belize. It has caused a lot of misery for our schoolchildren, yet it seems that there is little we can do about it. My hon. Friend therefore makes a fair point about the natural limits of jurisdiction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. As I said earlier, people can be haunted by internet stories about—worse than a charge that is not proven—an innocent person, against whom false allegations, which did not pass the test of the burden of proof, are made. We must hold on to our principles and remember that young people have their lives before them.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) about demonising young people, but, sadly, as with adults, there is a majority of good young people and a minority of bad apples. I therefore make no apology for a robust approach to the miscreants in our communities, some of whom are, sadly, young people, who cause genuine misery to some of my residents, and those in constituencies throughout the country. It is perhaps a little too glib to say that we should not publicise the names of young people who are given ASBOs. I mentioned the difficulty with interim ASBOs, but the presumption should be in favour of publication.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend seems to place great faith in people applying to a court for a reporting restriction. Is he not concerned about the courts being clogged up with such cases, given that the Courts Service is already under pressure? What does he envisage happening if a newspaper won its case? Who would meet the costs? If the newspapers are for ever expected to pay the costs of the case, very few will want to go through that expense regularly.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the practicalities. Let me take the opportunity to tell him something that he may know—I ask him to forgive me if I am teaching granny to suck eggs. There is already a procedure in place in the Crown court for dealing with young people. Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 allows a reporting restriction to be granted on application when dealing with those who are under 18. It is the norm when a young person comes into the Crown court—obviously, for a more serious offence—that the application will have been made in the magistrates court, with a through-order carrying the restriction to the Crown court. Nine times out of 10, no objection is made to that, but there are occasions when local newspapers—reporters or the editors themselves—come to court and are allowed to speak directly to the judge and make representations.

It is very seldom, other than in cases of real public or national significance, that counsel and a panoply of lawyers come down to the court to represent, for example, a local or regional newspaper. It is quite a simple procedure. In my experience, many judges will hear a newspaper’s representations and then make a ruling. It is actually quite a short procedure and not unduly cumbersome, so I am not as concerned as perhaps my hon. Friend is about the possible clogging of our court system. He is right to make the point, however, because I have seen the baleful effects of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which suddenly filled the courts with loads of applications and led to lots of paperwork and lots more time and—frankly—money being spent by lawyers on procedures that could have been dealt with in a far more streamlined way. So it is an entirely proper point that we should all bear in mind when we consider the mechanisms of this procedure.

The one area where I could envisage some growth is in applications made to a court between arrest and charge. I accept that, but I would urge on those listening and the Government that if we are to make that change we ensure that we do it in a streamlined way that allows for simplicity. I want to emphasise the fact that these things have to be done quickly, and the idea of elongating and complicating proceedings should not form part of a court’s considerations.

Clause 13 of the Education Bill is highly germane to today’s Bill. That is the only reason I want to talk about it—I hope you accept that, Mr Deputy Speaker. It relates to a proposed reporting restriction on the publication of the details of teachers—as I understand the explanatory notes, that includes supply and peripatetic teachers—arrested for “relevant” criminal conduct following a complaint made by a “registered pupil” at the school where the teacher works. I welcome that long overdue proposal. We have seen some horrendous cases. My hon. Friend the Minister has had constituency experience of the problem, and I well remember quite a sensational case in south Wales about 10 years ago that resulted finally in either an acquittal or a variation of sentence on appeal. It was a highly publicised case that caused a lot of angst and anxiety for everybody concerned.

There is a strong public interest in preserving the privacy and reputation of teachers, who sometimes—sadly—are falsely accused of various criminal acts. However, like every exception to every rule, the boundaries and parameters of the restriction become quite difficult on closer examination. Let us consider the school environment. Clause 13 covers teachers, and the Government say that supply and peripatetic teachers are included in that, which is good news, but what about teaching assistants? They have a day-to-day role in the care and conduct of pupils and students. Are they to be treated differently? On the face of the proposal before us, it seems so. What about other members of the school staff, such as caretakers or people working in the canteen, who will come into contact with pupils and could be put into that vulnerable category? They are not included within the parameters of the Bill.

I make those points in the spirit of constructive criticism—but criticism none the less—because, as Members might acknowledge, there is a difficulty when we try to restrict these principles to one area of either the law or the community. That was the problem that we got into when we discussed the rape reporting restriction last summer. People could see the danger in singling out that type of offence, and the question was well put: if it is to apply to rape, why should it not apply to other sexual misconduct and types of conduct—violence, for example—between men and women? Quite rightly, the Government acknowledged that essential flaw as a result of quite a few debates in the House.

I am not saying that clause 13 creates the same level of problems as the rape proposals, but it is a problem none the less. I urge the Government to consider, in its widest context, the impact of the clause as well as the operation of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. I urge them to consider the problem on a more global basis and to come to a reasoned conclusion along the lines of the proposal in Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe.

It is astonishing that, having reached the second decade of the 21st century, with a criminal justice system that has, certainly since the late 19th century, developed to quite a high level of sophistication, we still have a lack of clarity when it comes to the reporting of the details of arrested persons before charge. I say “astonishing”, because we have in this country developed—to far too great an extent, some of us would say—regulations to deal with all sorts of other types of perceived mischief. As a Conservative, I would say that a lot of those regulations have proved to be disproportionate and unnecessary. However, here we have an area where we have a fundamental balance to maintain—between the liberty of the individual and his or her reputation, and the wider public interest in knowing about the course of justice and the principle of open justice that has to underpin all criminal court proceedings. It is astonishing that we have allowed this grey area to prevail for so long. That loophole needs to be closed, which is why I commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I do not intend to speak for too long, but I feel the need to be here to support my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), not only because her constituency is adjacent to mine, but because her Bill has great merit. She will be aware of how busy I am in my constituency office, given the debate over the forestry proposals and the fact that my constituency is Sherwood. None the less, I feel the need to be here to support her Bill. This matter truly requires more debate. Although I am committed to supporting the Bill in the hope that it can make further progress, today’s debate has shown that there clearly is a balance to be struck. I will try to address that balance during the next few minutes.

The case in Bristol, which my hon. Friend mentioned, was a good example of how the furore around such cases can develop its own momentum and take on a life of its own. Of course, this was not a good thing in that case, but we have heard of cases in which the opposite was true. I recognise that the Bill aims to limit the ability of the media to go off on their own mission, but I also like the fact that other clauses would assist people in getting names out in the media, if that would be of benefit. That is really important. There have been a number of cases in which an accused individual received publicity that allowed other members of the public to come forward and say, “Actually, I have been affected by this individual as well.” That enabled the police to build a case against that person.

Fundamentally, this debate comes down to a balance between what is interesting to the public and what is in the public interest. That is very difficult to legislate for. When I was a teenager in Nottingham in the 1980s, there was a real issue with the red light district in the city. Nottinghamshire police ran a great campaign to arrest people who were kerb crawling. The Nottingham Evening Post would then print the names of the individuals who had been arrested, and I could never resist buying it just to see whose names were in it that week.

[Philip Davies]

Was my hon. Friend looking to see whether his name had been published?

[Mr Spencer]

Unfortunately, as a 15-year-old boy, I could not get there on my scooter. Clearly publishing those names was interesting to the public, but was it in the public interest? The honest answer is: probably not. Did it add anything to the criminal justice system? Probably not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I think that that could be dealt with by the code of conduct for newspapers, which I understand already exists. There is no reason why that could not happen. In any event, the difficulty nowadays lies with the explosion of information on the internet. Therein lies the real problem. Everyone would agree that it is entirely laudable and sensible to ensure that the innocent accused should have their right to anonymity protected. The difficulty is whether we can achieve that in this day and age.

[Philip Davies]

The issue that my hon. Friend seems to be coming to is that people are not just innocent until they are charged, but innocent until they are convicted. Does he not think that what is being proposed could become a Trojan horse, and that the next move could be to say that nobody’s details should be released, not just until they are charged, but until they are convicted of something?

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Bill seeks to suggest that someone who was accused of a criminal offence and then arrested should be entitled to anonymity, but that that anonymity would be lost the moment that a charge was brought. Logically, if the reason for going down that road is the rule that someone is innocent until proven guilty, we ought to maintain the anonymity of the accused right up to the trial, although I can appreciate that there may be reasons why they may not want that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

The initial release of such information could well come from someone who had seen their neighbour being taken away by the police in the early hours of the morning, and who had used a social media platform such as Twitter to tweet the news to their followers. Would their friends think, “This information has come from Fred, and I don’t believe it”? I suspect that their friends would think, “Yes, I do believe that.” One of those friends could be a journalist at Sky, who might think, “This has come from Fred, so it must be true,” and, within minutes, the information could be on Sky News. I am not sure that my hon. Friend’s scenario works.

[Philip Davies]

I tend to agree. Does my hon. Friend accept that when certain websites about which we know very little are competing with the more respectable end of the media and the press to report a particular case, people might choose to say, “I believe the stuff that’s on the BBC and in the newspaper that I read, rather than the stuff on that website”? If, however, there were no information about the case on the BBC or in the respectable press, the public would not be able to differentiate in that way, and they would have to accept that what they were reading on the website was true.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. That raises the question of whether the BBC and the other outlets would then have to release a story denying what was on that website. These issues would all arise from the operation of the Bill. I referred to the case of someone who tweets that their next-door neighbour was taken away in the early hours by the police. Would that be caught by the Bill? I am not sure. The Bill has been released without explanatory notes, so I apologise if I refer to matters that might have been clarified in them.

How far must publication go before an offence is committed? Does one tweet count as publication, or is it only published when a neighbour passes it on or when the tweet is picked up by mainstream media? It is a minefield.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend will agree that a fine of that nature would probably not deter most international media outlets, but the threat of prison might do so.

[Philip Davies]

Does my hon. Friend not see great irony in the fact that, while we appear to be moving in the direction of letting lots of people out of prison, and allowing people to commit multiple burglaries and violent crimes without being sent to prison, the Bill could send a newspaper editor to prison simply for stating a fact?

[Mr Nuttall]

There is a risk that someone convicted under the measure could be sent to prison, as the Bill provides for that, and it is possible that it could happen to an editor. Clause 6 helpfully sets out exactly who might be affected, and applies

“if an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate”.

If

“the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent of connivance of—

(a) a senior officer of the body corporate, or

(b) a person purporting to act in such a capacity,

the senior officer or person (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”

Clause 3(3) provides the relevant definitions:

“In this section—

‘director’, in relation to a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members, means a member of the body corporate,

‘senior officer’, in relation to a body corporate, means a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate.”

The term “manager” is rather vague, because there are lots of managers in an office, and we would not want all of them to be affected by the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley is right that, theoretically, the editor of a publication could be imprisoned if their publication was found to have contravened its provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Flello]

I fully understand what the hon. Lady says, and I have a great deal of sympathy for her view. However, if the media had simply published the name and address of the individual concerned, some people might still have drawn that conclusion. The problem comes from the vilification rather than the simple reporting. There is a lot of merit in what she says, but there is also an alternative view on it.

It is safe to say that the now positive comments coming from the media had been mentioned in all but the briefest of ways in articles in the previous days, and the media’s fixation on the landlord did not lead to him becoming any less strange or weird in their eyes, but the tone of their reporting changed markedly once he was released on bail. It can be assumed only that the papers concerned considered such information to be important only while he was being treated as a murder suspect. This will become more relevant later in my speech when I refer to the fact that the media are required by the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to make no speculation about an individual’s guilt and avoid comments that might interfere with the course of justice.

The hon. Lady rightly made the point that the media cannot be relied upon to police themselves. The sad fact is that stories such as that of the man in Bristol sell papers and keep people tuned into 24-hour news channels. I appreciate what she has said about it being incumbent on all of us not to buy those newspapers or watch those TV programmes, but I suspect that, unfortunately, the vast majority of us have that failing in our character that makes us interested in such cases. It is hardly surprising that there is a race between news outlets to uncover the most outrageous and startling rumours about an individual, to the extent that having blue hair or looking slightly eccentric suddenly become an indication of criminal activity.

With the costs and difficulties of bringing a case of libel or defamation before the courts, which are often perceived as a barrier, there is little reason for media outlets to temper their vitriol and innuendo. The Bill has great benefit, therefore, because it at least explores a possible remedy. At face value, it could address precisely the problems raised and protect individuals such as the man in Bristol.

The problem is that it is unfair to portray the entire media as simply feeding on such cases. There are countless examples of the media helping the police hugely by providing details of an arrested individual. For example, after an individual has been brought to the attention of the public, other victims have been known to come forward and either reveal more details about the crime under investigation or show that the crimes were more extensive than first thought.

Perhaps the most high-profile recent case in which media coverage has had that effect is that of John Worboys, the serial rapist, as the true extent of his crimes was known only after the police made an appeal and encouraged the media’s involvement. The case is well known. Mr Worboys was a licensed London taxi driver who was given an indefinite sentence in April 2009 on 19 charges of drugging and sexually assaulting women. He would pick them up in the centre of London or Bournemouth in the early hours of the morning and targeted victims who looked as though they had been drinking. He would then rape or sexually assault them. On waking, many victims could not remember the events.

In the years leading up to Mr Worboys’s arrest, 14 women notified the police that they had been sexually assaulted in taxis, but no link was ever made. He had previously been arrested and released in July 2007, allowing him time to attack many more women. At the time of his conviction, detectives suspected Worboys of being responsible for 83 horrific crimes. Although it was not the coverage of his arrest in particular that led to huge numbers of women coming forward, it was the efforts of the police and media following his conviction that led to the number of women that police suspect were attacked by Worboys rising to more than 100. That would make Mr Worboys possibly the most prolific sex offender in British history.

The purpose of mentioning that case is to highlight the benefits to victims of identifying an individual who has been arrested. Women who had perhaps lost hope of ever getting justice following their experience at the hands of people such as Worboys were able to face their attacker and could at least achieve some closure. We must always have in mind the victims of crime when discussing measures such as this. We, as parliamentarians, cannot pass a law that would impact on those who commit crimes without giving a great deal of thought, indeed probably more thought, to those who are subject to those crimes.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, research suggests that victims of rape and sexual abuse require more support than victims of other crimes, and people arrested for such crimes seem particularly likely to be subject to the kind of media attention that we are discussing. Therefore, we need to be particularly careful during this debate. I fear that there is not enough mention of the victims during discussions of the Bill, both today and in discussions in the wider media. I would have liked to hear more reaction from victims groups, which are in a much stronger position to provide evidence on how the matter is viewed by the people who suffer the crimes.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman said that he would have liked to hear the views of victims groups, and I commend the tone of his speech so far. Is he aware that Victim Support’s conclusion is that the Bill, although well intentioned, is ill conceived?

[Robert Flello]

Yes, indeed. The widespread view is that the Bill is well intentioned, but, as I hope to tease out from the rest of my speech, as hon. Members have already said and as comments to come will show, either there are other ways of dealing with the matter or further work is needed.

I can see the arguments from both sides. I can see that for the victim of a crime, seeing their attacker or someone accused of being their attacker on the front page of a newspaper or in other news coverage would undoubtedly be painful. I can see also, as in the John Worboys case, that it would provide an opportunity for a victim to achieve some closure and make police fully aware of the extent of an individual’s crimes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), and I find myself in the unusual position—no doubt he will find it an uncomfortable position—of agreeing with an awful lot of what he said.

It is only fair that I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) on introducing the Bill. Although I do not particularly agree with it and take issue with many parts of it, I wish to make two points at the outset. First, she has touched on an issue of concern to a great number of people around the country. I am sure that a lot of people in both my constituency and hers accept that there is a problem and that something should be done. Secondly, I was incredibly impressed by her speech and thought that she made her case incredibly well. I am sure that many people listening to it who were neutral beforehand were persuaded of the merits of the Bill simply by the quality of her speech and argument. Unfortunately, I was not persuaded of its merits, but that probably reflects more on me than on her.

The main point on which I wish to focus is the importance of having a free press, free media and open justice. The hon. Gentleman touched on that by saying that although the Bill was considered a Ministry of Justice matter, many of the issues that it covered related to the DCMS. He was right, because an awful lot of the debate that we have heard today has been about the activities of the media as opposed to the activity of the law. As a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, I feel strongly about that, and I commend to every hon. Member who is here today the report that the Committee published only last February, “Press standards, privacy and libel”. We looked in great detail at people’s concerns about the standards of the press.

The press are clearly not flawless—none of us is. We all make mistakes. I probably make dozens every day, some of which I do not even know about. The press are no different, and we should not expect them never to make mistakes. They will acknowledge that from time to time they get things wrong. Given the vast number of matters that they report on each day, and the vast number of articles in every newspaper, it would be extraordinary if they did not make mistakes from time to time.

However, whatever flaws there may be in the media, and whatever inconveniences those flaws occasionally cause us in politics, the principle of a free press and media in this country, operated by self-regulation rather than statutory control, is good not just for us but for the country at large. We should be wary of any attempt to interfere with that free press and media. One of the media’s great roles is to act as an essential check and balance on the state and its power. We would be in a far worse position if the media were increasingly restricted.

I made the point, to which I hope to revert in more detail, that I foresee a dangerous situation of trying to go down a route whereby the police could go around arresting people, and nobody would know about it because the media would be unable to report it. I do not know what type of country has a system under which the police can go around arresting people and it cannot be reported by the media, but it is certainly not the sort of country I want to live in.

[Anna Soubry]

Nobody will stop the police reporting that people have been arrested. The Bill’s intention is to prevent people who have been arrested from being named. Does not my hon. Friend agree that that is a profound difference?

[Philip Davies]

No, I do not agree. I do not want the decision about whether to name people who have been arrested to be left in the hands of the police. I like the fact that the media are out there, investigating what the police are doing and holding them to account and in check to ensure that their power is not being abused. The media are an essential control on the state.

[Mr Buckland]

The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) makes is that we want to revert to the position that existed some years ago, whereby the press said, “A local man has been arrested,” or, “A local man is helping the police with their inquiries,” rather than going into the further detail that causes the mischief about which we are concerned.

[Philip Davies]

I am not a fan of restricting the information that people can give when it comprises simple fact. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South made the point particularly well. These things normally work through reports such as “A 25-year-old man from Hastings has been arrested for a crime.” I do not understand how that damages the judicial system. In many respects, the Bill is a solution looking for a problem because, in the vast majority of cases, crimes tend to be reported in the way in which my hon. Friend wants.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

My hon. Friend probably acknowledges that I yield to nobody, not even him, in defending people’s rights against unlawful arrest. His case would stand up better if what was being argued was for no naming whatsoever rather than naming at the point of charge. Since we have limitations on detention without charge—about which I am quite expert—my hon. Friend’s case would fall after two or three days.

[Philip Davies]

My right hon. Friend knows that no one in the House admires him more than I do, although we do not always agree. Indeed, many people have said that he did not become leader of the party because my support for him was disclosed far too early. There is some truth in the assertion that his candidacy went downhill from the very moment that I declared my support for him. The fact that he still talks to me is testimony to his courtesy.

However, if it is damaging to someone who is arrested that their name is mentioned, because they can be vilified through a “no smoke without fire” approach, that applies not only to them, but to those who are charged with an offence, those who go to court and those who are acquitted. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would acknowledge that, in many cases, people go to court and are acquitted, and local people still say, “He must have been up to something; they wouldn’t have arrested him for no reason.” In dealing with the “no smoke without fire” issue and in arguing that people should not be vilified just because they have been arrested, the ultimate logic of the Bill is that we should not name anybody charged with something until they have been convicted. My right hon. Friend might consider that desirable, and it is a perfectly respectable view to hold—although I do not know whether he does hold it—but it is not one I agree with. It would not be a positive, but a negative development.

The thing that I most wish to defend is not just the freedom of the press—although that is important—but the important principle of open justice in this country. A Government research paper last November entitled, “Providing anonymity to those accused of rape: an assessment of evidence”, helpfully included the reasons why an open justice principle is so important to this country. It is important because it

“helps ensure that trials are properly conducted”,

it

“puts pressure on witnesses to tell the truth”,

and it

“can result in new witnesses coming forward”,

which is an important point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South. It also

“provides public scrutiny of the trial process”,

which is also an important factor, and

“maintains public confidence in the administration of justice”.

I am a big believer that the more information the public know the better. Finally and crucially, it

“reduces the likelihood of inaccurate and uninformed comment about proceedings”.

That final point is one of the most crucial. Following a high-profile case, no matter what laws the House decides to pass, we cannot prevent people from speculating on what has happened, on who was involved, on who might be guilty or on who they think it is. I am sure it happens in many households around the country following a crime; I am sure that every household has its resident Inspector Clouseau listing who they think is guilty—“It must be somebody they knew,” “It’s probably a relative,” and all that kind of thing. That is not going to stop, no matter how many laws we pass.

[Mr Buckland]

I am pondering whether my hon. Friend meant Clouseau or Poirot—but it does not matter. He is right to mention open justice, but I think that the document from which he takes those important points was a Judicial Studies Board document on reporting restrictions in the criminal courts and relates only to proceedings in court. However, the Bill deals with the period between arrest and charge. It deals with a stage before that and covers a different issue.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, my point is that these principles are just as important at this stage of the process as they are at the court stage. I personally do not see any great distinction; I do not see why these principles should not apply at this stage too.

It is inevitable that this sort of frenzy will follow a high-profile case. However, it can be more damaging for certain individuals to be the victim of rumour and innuendo in their local community based on no facts whatsoever; and it can be more damaging to have their character unfairly vilified because nobody actually knows what is going on. A simple factual statement by the police in the media stating that a certain individual has been arrested might not be liked by the particular individual, but it might come as a great relief to the lots of other people in the local community suffering from smear and innuendo—“Was it them who was arrested?”, “Have they been arrested?”, “Why haven’t they been arrested?” and so on. In more cases than not, the media help rather than hinder the progression of cases. The fact that the media can put information in the public domain does more good than harm.

As a matter of principle, I do not think that people who have been arrested by the police or other authorities should be anonymous. That is a vital principle of open justice. As I said, it is also in the interest of the arrested person. That principle has been gained over many years. The opposite principle is much more likely to be seen in a totalitarian regime, where people are taken from the streets, arrested and never seen again, without anybody ever knowing what happened to them in the first place. I do not want to see the worst aspects of that kind of regime introduced in this country.

That principle is particularly important at a time of high interest in crime and fear of crime. I cannot speak for my hon. Friends, but whenever I do surveys across my constituency and I ask people what their biggest concerns are, whatever else happens to be in the news, the fear of crime tends to be at the top of the list. Against that backdrop, it would be extraordinary for the public not to have a right to know who might have been arrested for certain crimes in their area. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South said, the naming of suspects can also enable further evidence to be gathered to help the administration of justice, by encouraging people to bring it forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe made the perfectly fair point that her Bill would allow people to appeal to a court to provide for an exception to the reporting restrictions. I certainly welcome a step in that direction, and some people may well be satisfied with that safeguard, but I do not see how it will work in practice. The Government have just gone through a process of closing down a number of courts around the country. The capacity of our courts system will be less than it is currently. At a time when we are closing courts down, I do not see why we would want to introduce legislation that would only have the effect of clogging up the courts, as individuals, local communities, the police or the media went to court to ask for exceptions to the reporting restrictions.

My hon. Friend might have mentioned this when I was not here—I apologise profusely for missing the first part of her speech—but I did not hear her say how many extra cases she thought would be heard by the courts, as people applied for exceptions to the reporting restrictions. I do not know whether she or the Government have made any such assessment, but if the Minister has done so, it would be particularly interesting to know what his assessment is, because I fear the courts being clogged up with people asking for reporting restrictions to be lifted. Such applications may or may not be granted. However, if very many applications were granted, that would indicate that the law is an ass and it would need to be changed anyway, and if not very many were granted, I would argue that that would amount to an unfair restriction on the public’s right to know and the media’s freedom of speech.

It would also be interesting to know the possible costs of running such cases. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said that newspapers could go and represent themselves, and that there would not be a great legal bill at the end of such cases. However, I am slightly cynical about these things, because whatever happens, there always tends to be a big legal bill at the end of such cases. However, even if there is no great bill to the newspaper, there will be a cost to the Government of cases being heard in court and the courts system being clogged up. I would be interested to know what that cost would be, who would meet it and whether anyone applying for an exemption to the restrictions would be expected to contribute. If they were expected to contribute, it is quite extraordinary to imagine that people would volunteer to pay such a cost on a regular basis, especially given what we have heard about the dire financial straits of many newspaper groups, and particularly of local newspapers. Therefore, even though there is a safeguard, in practice I do not see how it would be fashioned.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a good point. Does he share my concern that if someone is arrested and they wish their identity to be revealed, we would be interposing an enormous bureaucratic burden on them before it could be revealed?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not know whether it is envisaged that reporting restrictions would be lifted in most cases. If so, would it not be more sensible to have a legal framework in which there is a presumption that everything could be published and in which people could apply for their details not to be published in exceptional circumstances? That would be a more sensible way forward than doing it the other way round. The proportions in the Bill are the wrong way round. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe might be right to say that some cases involve particular issues, but it is those cases that should be treated as the exception, rather than the vast majority that take place without incident. The Minister will know the figures better than I do, but let us think about the number of people who are arrested in this country every year. How many of those cases give rise to concern? It seems completely disproportionate to make a presumption that reporting restrictions should apply in all cases and that people would need to apply for an exemption. All the evidence suggests that it should be the other way round.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend is making some very fair points in his practical analysis of the matter. Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), may I suggest that the Bill could be amended to allow for the arrested person to give their consent to the release of their details? They could sign a consent form or give their consent through a solicitor at the police station for the publication of their name in the newspapers or on the internet. That would be a practical solution.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. That would certainly make the Bill better than it is now, but I am not entirely sure that it would totally address my concerns. I shall certainly take his intervention in the spirit in which it was intended, however, because his suggestion would be a helpful step in the right direction.

I want to talk about the effect that a blanket restriction would have on local papers. National papers cover all sorts of gossip and showbiz, but local papers are all about providing information on issues of massive importance in the local area. If a massive event had taken place in an area, attracting a great deal of local interest, the local paper would be at a huge disadvantage, compared with the websites that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) mentioned, if it could not publish all the information that the public needed. Such a restriction would certainly not prevent all the rumour and innuendo from being published on the internet, perhaps on websites in other countries and all sorts of different backdrops. It would put local papers at a huge disadvantage if people in the local community could not find information in the paper that was readily available from other sources.

Not being able to name an arrested person would place a huge restriction on anything being reported about a case, because there could be a danger of inadvertently identifying the person by publishing other information. There could therefore be a danger of not reporting crimes that people ought to know about, and that would previously have attracted huge media interest. Such restrictions could have a “chilling” effect on local newspapers. They might not actually fall foul of the provisions in the Bill, but their fear of so doing could have a “chilling” effect that would prevent genuine informative reporting from taking place. That could force local communities to get their information from other sources. It would be incredibly sad if we were inadvertently to put another nail into the coffin of local newspapers, but I fear that that could happen.

I again commend to the House the Select Committee’s report on press standards, privacy and libel, and our other report on the future of local media, which will give hon. Members a feel for the dire straits that many of the regional and local media are now in. We should be very wary of doing anything that could have a negative impact on them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North made an important point about the rules applying only to England and Wales and the effect on media in other countries, especially in the United Kingdom, and I am not sure whether his exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe on the matter was resolved satisfactorily. How would reports in newspapers in Scotland and Scottish editions be tied in? As the laws apply only to England and Wales, The Scotsman might feel emboldened to print the name of somebody who had been arrested for a high-profile crime in England that was newsworthy in Scotland. That would be an extraordinary situation, given that we live in the United Kingdom.

The fact that many Scottish editions of papers are sold in England is an added complication. The Scotsman is also sold in London, as many people here want to buy it. Is the market for which that paper was intended the key factor? Would the law be breached by a newspaper that was intended for a Scottish market but that had somehow found its way into England? Would there be a due diligence defence? The Bill is unclear on that. We might end up with a strange anomaly whereby information that people are not allowed to know in England is available through print or broadcast media in Scotland. There is neither rhyme nor reason to such circulation being legitimate in Scotland, but not in England.

[Anna Soubry]

The Contempt of Court Act prohibits any publication that could prejudice a fair trial in current court proceedings. Therefore, the press in Scotland do not print anything that could fall foul of that Act, as the publication concerned might be sold or made available in England and Wales. With great respect to my hon. Friend, he is putting a red herring into the pond.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Lady seems to be arguing for the Government to change the Contempt of Court Act. If so, she should say that. I do not know whether the Minister would be receptive. However, we are discussing not that, but whether to introduce a new piece of legislation, which is entitled to be seen in isolation. She might know how matters will be interpreted by the courts, in which case she is in a better position than I am: I never cease to be amazed by how the courts interpret certain pieces of legislation.

[Mr Chope]

Does my hon. Friend know whether the Contempt of Court Act applies throughout the United Kingdom? Even if it does, Scotland has a different system, whereby the Advocate-General for Scotland is responsible for enforcing the Act there, and the Attorney-General is responsible for enforcing the Act here. There is already that distinction.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right. There is the added complication that the law might be applied differently depending on the characters of the individuals who happen to hold the positions, so there is scope for tension.

[Mr Nuttall]

Regardless of the outcome of the debate on the extent of the Contempt of Court Act, one thing of which we can all be sure is that it does not apply to Australia, for example. The Australian, which is on sale in newsagents in London, could easily publish the kind of information under discussion.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One need only visit any newsstand in London to see a huge number of foreign newspapers being sold. Because they are being sold in this country, those editions might well be covered by the Bill—

[Anna Soubry]

They are.

[Philip Davies]

But it is a question of how effectively that would be enforced. I do not know whether a claim that the paper that had been caught out had been intended for a foreign audience might serve as a “due diligence” defence. It is impossible to know that at this stage.

[Mr Buckland]

I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) that the Contempt of Court Act does apply in Scotland: it contains provisions dealing with penalties relating to offences in that country. It is important to note that it has that cross-jurisdictional application.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. The Bill, of course, does not have that benefit, as it applies only to England and Wales.

As the vast majority of newspapers throughout the United Kingdom have signed up to the code of practice of the Press Complaints Commission, there is bound to be some uniformity in their behaviour, whether they happen to be in England, Scotland or Wales. There is no way that the press would sign up to the provisions in the Bill as part of their code of conduct, and the Scottish papers would therefore feel no need to observe those provisions. I still feel that there is a potential for anomalies. Indeed, such anomalies already appear frequently in the newspapers.

Barely a week goes by without the appearance of some salacious story about a celebrity—a footballer, a broadcaster or some wealthy individual—who has issued an injunction with the aim of preventing the publication of information that has been passed to the newspapers. More often than not, after a few days the identity of the person concerned comes to public recognition through the internet. The story is published in a foreign country, and then turns up in chat rooms and rumour mills.

I do not know a great deal about websites of that kind, being a fully paid-up member of the Luddites, but what I do know is that, by one means or another, the names of such individuals tend to come to the surface at some point. It has always struck me as extraordinary that when everyone in the pub—virtually everyone everywhere—knows the identity of some individual who is involved in one thing or another, the only place where no one can discover it is the newspaper, because of some bizarre injunction.

[Anna Soubry]

I struggle to believe that the hon. Gentleman can believe—and I am sure that he will correct me—that the coverage that we saw in the media of events in Bristol in relation to that first arrested man was right.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend made a very good point about the case in Bristol. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am not claiming—and I do not believe that anyone is claiming—that the media are without flaw, and never make mistakes. The media have made some horrendous mistakes, as they themselves will accept. We need only consider the case of Madeleine McCann. The press made some horrific mistakes in their reporting of that case, and I think that they would be the first to acknowledge it.

No matter how hard my hon. Friend tries, we will never have a system in which the media are perfect, and everything that is reported is accurate and for the public good. There will always be instances in which the media make mistakes, and we make mistakes. We all make mistakes in life. The only people who do not make any mistakes in life are those who do not make any decisions. Anyone who makes decisions makes mistakes, and the press are just as liable to make them as the next person—as are politicians, I might add. The thrust of my argument is about the bigger picture: a free and open press and an open justice system are far more worth while than attempts to try to restrict them, no matter how good the motives behind that restriction.

[Mr Chope]

Does the problem not stem from the fact that the Bill is premised on a number of hard cases? We know from our experience in the House that if we begin to legislate for those hard cases we are likely to make bad law. As the phrase goes, hard cases make bad law.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. There are a number of examples of people being appalled by an event in a certain part of the country. We have rushed to do something about it with a general feeling of “Something has happened; the Government must do something about it.” As a result, we have introduced laws that, with hindsight, were rushed and, from a wider perspective, did not serve any particular good. The thing that those cases have in common is that they are all well intentioned and are all based on highlighting a real or perceived problem that matters to many people.

I return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe has hit on something about which many people are concerned, and which they regard as a problem. I therefore commend her on opening the debate. We are all interested to hear the Minister’s reply, so I do not intend to detain the House any longer. Whatever the merits of my hon. Friend’s argument and the problems that are out there, whether perceived or real, we should tread very carefully indeed, because we restrict the freedom of the press and the information that we give the public at our peril. I hope that the Minister will show caution in his response to the Bill, and it would be far better if my hon. Friend went back to the drawing board and returned with something much more limited in scope that might be more acceptable to all concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

I sincerely hope that over the course of the Parliament and by the time we get full implementation of an effective payment-by-results scheme on drug addiction, which will address the principal driver of shoplifting, those numbers will begin to decrease significantly.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

In 2009—the last year for which figures are available—241 people with more than 101 previous convictions and 13 people with more than 200 previous convictions were convicted of shoplifting but were not sent to prison. Does my hon. Friend think that people with that many previous convictions should not be sent to prison? If so, how many crimes should people commit before anyone thinks about sending these creatures to prison?

[Mr Blunt]

Plainly I do not agree with my hon. Friend’s proposition. Prison is there for prolific and serious offenders and, by any judgment, the examples he has given are of prolific offenders. I would need some explanation of why there are such cases, where people simply have not responded to the treatments available, particularly in the new environment where we can deliver effective rehabilitation. If such people fail to address that and pick up the services that are made available, they should expect to go to prison.

Rehabilitation and Sentencing

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

Of course I acknowledge that crime fell during that period, as it did throughout most of the western world. I have always acknowledged that. Where we will not agree is on the simple cause and effect that the right hon. Gentleman puts forward. Let me quote from a source whom it would be unexpected for me to quote with total favour: Mr Newt Gingrich. A recent article he published in an American magazine about the situation in the state of South Carolina states:

“Often, in…fiscal crises, we hear that no area of state spending is exempt from budgetary review. But in reality, prison spending often is the proverbial sacred cow. That’s partly because voters…mistakenly believe reductions in the prison budget will lead to putting the ‘bad guys’ back on the street.”

This morning, I was put on Alastair Campbell’s blog. Newt Gingrich seems to agree with the direction we are taking, Alastair Campbell appears to believe that we are going in the right direction, and Members from all three parties, including the Chairman of the Select Committee, agree. The right hon. Gentleman is the representative of a failed past.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Last year, 3,000 burglars and 4,500 violent criminals with 15 or more previous convictions were not sent to jail, and people with more than 100 previous convictions who came before the courts were more likely not to be sent to jail. They reoffended not because they went to prison, but because they did not go to prison. How on earth can my right hon. and learned Friend accept the figures that his Department has issued and say that too many people are going to prison? Most people would look at those figures and conclude that too few people are going to prison.

[Mr Clarke]

A court has to look at the nature of the offence and the individual offender and give the right sentence. For serious criminals, that means going to prison; for recidivist offenders, that means going to prison; for others, it might be more appropriate for a strong community sentence to be made available. It is not possible to generalise in such a way. At the heart of what we are doing is ensuring that judges give the right punishment and that they give us a rest while people are in prison. The system is simply failing to prevent people reoffending. That is what the policy focus has to be and that is what will reduce crime if it is successful.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

One of the failings of the last Government was to take a popular subject from the popular press and make rather shallow partisan points out of it. Sentencing in individual cases is not a matter for Ministers, and should not be a matter for sensational comment to the newspapers by Ministers with the frequency that it was. We have to ensure that justice is done, particularly to the victims of crime, and that justice is carried out in such a way as to reduce the risk of reoffending. We have made our approach to crime perfectly clear: we must punish the guilty. Prison is the right place for serious criminals—they will not commit more crimes while inside—but we also strive to avoid reoffending. The case that the right hon. Lady mentions was obviously a serious case for the victim, but newspaper cuttings from Salford are not the source of future criminal justice reform.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to acknowledge that very few people are sentenced to prison for a first offence? The vast majority of people who serve short-term prison sentences do so only because they have been given community sentence after community sentence, all of which have failed. The last thing to do with those people is to give them another community sentence, only for it to fail once again.

[Mr Clarke]

It is very pleasant to say that I largely agree with my hon. Friend. He has probably been upset by reports that I am minded to abolish short prison sentences. Actually, I have always expressed precisely the opposite opinion. It has never been my view that we should abolish all short prison sentences. Indeed, I have rather shared his opinion that with the kind of irritating recidivist offender who is causing a lot of damage, if they offend over and over again there is quite often no alternative to a short prison sentence. There are too many such offenders, and although there are cases in which we can avoid the use of short prison sentences, if we do that we must have a very effective alternative.

Police Grant Report

Philip Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

rose—

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

rose—

[Nick Herbert]

I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Of course there are greater opportunities for the 43 forces to share services and to procure collectively. I will say more about that later, if she will forgive me.

I promised, perhaps unwisely, to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley.

[Philip Davies]

I agree with everything that the Minister has said so far: nothing that he is announcing today will in itself cause a problem to the police. My concern is not what he is saying but things said by other Ministers that will drive up pressures on the police. For example, the Secretary of State for Justice has decided not to send persistent offenders to prison but to let them out into the community, and to stop the police using CCTV and DNA to their full capacity. Does my right hon. Friend accept that these things are putting upward pressures on the police that are not consistent with what he is announcing?

[Nick Herbert]

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

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

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