Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett]

If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard that I am not at all against reform or continual review, as no organisation ought to be. As events change, and as our understanding of crime and youth justice develops, as it will do over time, no doubt the YJB and other ancillary bodies will be reviewed, but it looks to me very much as if the Government have dogmatically made up their mind that the board must change and, in effect, be abolished.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Youth Justice Board has done fantastic work to date, for which it should be commended? The fact that it is not going to be abolished is a positive move. In terms of reform, youth offending teams will have to manage with smaller resources and teams, and it will be under incredible pressure, so does he also agree that the YJB is going to have to change the way in which it works, if only to respond to that?

[Jon Trickett]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point. No doubt there is financial pressure on all public services, and probably rightly so given the climate in which we all live, but the truth is that dealing with justice and, in particular, with protecting the interests of young people is an important and primary function of government, so we ought not to make decisions in haste or for purely financial imperatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Flello]

Let me begin by adding my praise to INQUEST, the Royal British Legion and a host of other organisations, which are almost too numerous to mention, that have been behind the campaign to ensure that the Government finally saw sense on refilling the post of chief coroner—not appointing someone to the post, because it was filled. Somebody was appointed, but then, shall we say, let go. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for the work that he did, which is much appreciated.

I am extremely disappointed that, having been told time and again, and shown the error of their ways, the Government waited until the 11th hour—or not quite the 11th hour: it was probably around half past 7—finally to change their mind. However, they then behaved like a small child. Having been found out, they now want to kick the toys around spitefully. Section 40 can be introduced over time, in a measured way, using pilots. However, simply saying, “Okay, have the chief coroner, but you can’t have appeals,” looks petulant and leaves the Minister and the Ministry of Justice looking stupid. [Interruption.] Allow me to rephrase that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not mean for a moment to say that the Minister looked stupid; however, the stupidity of the actions stands out.

INQUEST has said as recently as today that it envisages that section 40 would

“remain on the statute book until, at a time to be agreed in the future, the provision would be brought into force by the Secretary of State under section l82 of the Act so a full pilot and review of the appeals process could be undertaken by the Chief Coroner.”

That is totally sensible. It continues:

“This would enable a properly costed, informed decision to be taken about rolling out a new avenue of appeal across coroners courts in England and Wales. Terms of the pilot and review would be decided between the Chief Coroner and the Ministry of Justice and, under our proposal”—

the proposal put forward by it and RBL—

“an appeals process would not come into effect for several years.”

All that is eminently doable, and to say otherwise is frankly wrong. INQUEST continues:

“An appeals process overseen by the chief coroner would offer families a route to resolve poor decision making.”

That relates to the interventions from the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke)—[Interruption]—who is probably tweeting at the moment.

[Charlie Elphicke]

indicated dissent.

[Robert Flello]

I have got his attention—marvellous.

As INQUEST says, this is about

“poor decision-making by coroners before and during the course of the inquest so that any legal questions on these points could be dealt with quickly and efficiently. Currently, the only avenue of appeal for bereaved families about the decision-making of coroners and their conduct of an inquest is through judicial review which, as well as being expensive and complex, will often result in lengthy delays and adjourned inquest hearings while the issue is dealt with by the High Court.”

Let me give a quick example. Sheila Taylor bravely came to this House and spoke at a meeting with INQUEST on 20 October, following the tragic death of her son Mike, in April 2007. She says, among many other deeply poignant things:

“The Coroner’s Office didn’t inform us that we had a right to be present at the post-mortem. That had already been done before we were informed of Mike’s death, which made us suspicious. Was there some sort of cover-up? Had he been murdered? Had he been given the wrong drugs? The Coroner’s Officer was so rude in response to our questioning that we had to get our solicitor to speak to him on our behalf. We decided we needed a second toxicology report, but that caused a delay of 8 weeks before we could hold the funeral. You can imagine how upsetting that was.”

We can also imagine how upsetting it is for a family who have something that they are not happy about—indeed, something they have deep concerns about—but for whom the only avenue currently open is the judicial review approach, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said. Families such as the Taylors have to decide whether they want their son’s funeral delayed even further and the coroner to take even longer to look at their case, while they go through the expensive and lengthy process of judicial review. It does not need to be like that.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to suggest that I was tweeting. In fact, I was looking up the difference between judicial review and section 13 applications under the previous arrangements and section 40 appeals under the current arrangements, and it struck me that there was not much difference between the two. I wonder whether we are actually talking about a slightly illusory right of appeal.

[Robert Flello]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should go and use a fully sized computer to conduct some proper research, rather than using a small hand-held device in the Chamber, which is probably not allowed by “Erskine May” in any case.

The Government have previously referred to cost, but—this has been said several times already, but I shall say it again because it is so important—the whole cost issue is a nonsense in many respects. Answers to parliamentary questions, responses to freedom of information requests and discussions with the Ministry of Justice have shown that the Government have not analysed the current costs of judicial reviews of coroners’ decisions or made any attempts to ascertain what the future costs might be, and have thus been unable to make any comparison with the section 40 appeals process.

If section 40 remains on the statute book, things can be done properly, carefully, steadily and slowly. There is no need for them to be done tomorrow. There is no need to say, as the Minister has, “We want to ensure that all this can be done quickly, so we must omit section 40.” I am sorry, but that is wrong, and I suggest that he should read the Act again.

I do not know whether the Minister suddenly thought “We are going to lose at the other end of the Corridor”, or whether there was a moment on Remembrance Sunday when he stood thinking about the ultimate sacrifice that people had made, and about the small sacrifice that the House could make by doing the right thing. Whatever the reason for his decision, however, I know for certain that he will not want to upset the Whips today, and that he therefore will not tell the House that he will not press the amendment that would remove section 40. That is a tragedy.

No doubt the Government will win the vote despite the brave stance of many Government Members, but notwithstanding that victory and notwithstanding the removal of section 40, which I am sure will happen, I ask the Minister to ponder this: he may win the vote, but he will have lost the moral and ethical argument. He will also have lost any chance of being viewed positively by the—sadly—tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of bereaved families out there, and those who represent them, who know that section 40 is the answer. He has done the right thing in regard to the chief coroner, for whatever reason, and I now ask him to do the right thing in this regard.

[Stephen Mosley]

I believe that the Minister wants the chief coroner to be able to ensure that coroners are fully trained and know how to deal with issues so that no mistakes are made. Appeals are necessary only if things go wrong, so is not the solution to ensure that they do not go wrong in the first place?

[Robert Flello]

I might have a little more sympathy with that argument had the Minister not said on previous occasions that there was no need for a chief coroner, and that the precautions listed by the hon. Gentleman were not necessary. He cannot have it both ways.

[Mr Djanogly]

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Government’s reforms provided for training under alternative proposals.

[Robert Flello]

I do not disagree with the Minister—he did say that the Government wanted to provide for training—but the point was made time and again from the Dispatch Box that there was no need for the chief coroner to do any of the things that were mentioned by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley). Thankfully the Minister has seen sense in that regard. However, if the hon. Gentleman is right and the existence of a chief coroner means that all coroners will finally be up to standard, there will be few if any appeals, so where is the harm in including section 40? I suggest that there is no harm in it at all.

I think that the Minister needs to do the right thing. I know that he will not do it today, but I know that it will be done at some point in the future.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

It is not true that they are unable to sue. We have a dispute about how much the lawyers should be paid in the event of a successful claim, which is an important matter, but I do not accept the assertion that none of these actions will be brought unless we leave the present no win, no fee arrangements completely untouched.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

On 12 October the Prime Minister announced that he had appointed Louise Casey to a new job. The Secretary of State has had at least a month to arrange for a new victims commissioner to take up his or her role. A month on, not only is no one in post, but the position has not been advertised and the Government have not said what plans they have. Victims charities and organisations and the Opposition have urged the Government to move swiftly, so who is it to be? Sadly, we have seen empty words on victims’ rights, and in this case we also have an empty post.

[Mr Clarke]

I am extremely grateful to Louise Casey for the work she did and the discussions I had with her while she was in office. I find the hon. Gentleman’s question amazing. The post of victims commissioner was created by Act of Parliament in 2004, but the previous Government failed to appoint anyone for five years and a fresh statute was introduced to revise the post in 2009. Louise Casey was appointed in early 2010. We are reconsidering—again—the basis on which we make the appointment, but to be accused of tardiness by someone who was in the last Parliament is positively farcical.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

I certainly congratulate the coroner on his work in tough circumstances. I also wish to tell my hon. Friend that I have met representatives of the RBL on a number of occasions. I believe that our reforms will improve the situation for the armed forces tremendously, through the national charter that we are providing and the ability to train coroners to military standards.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

There is a long list of organisations that wish to see a chief coroner in post and just the Minister who thinks he knows better. The Government’s fragmented proposals for the coronial system contain no mechanism to improve the appeals and complaints process—that was to be a key function of the chief coroner’s office. Nobody really believes that the proposed coronial board, reporting to Ministers, will fulfil that role. Does he think it acceptable to expect families to have to continue to pursue expensive judicial reviews and litigation in respect of coronial decisions, at great cost also to the taxpayer, and have no way of holding to account those coroners who do not deliver for bereaved families?

[Mr Djanogly]

As I have said, the Government are committed to urgent reform of the coronial service, and this is exactly what we are going to be doing. We are putting in place all the provisions under the 2009 Act, except the appeal process, which was going to cost £2.2 million a year. We feel that the existing processes are adequate.

Rights and Protection of Victims

Robert Flello Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Over recent weeks, the treatment of victims and their families has come to the fore in the UK. We have seen the family of Milly Dowler speak about the appalling treatment they received at the hands of defence lawyers acting for Levi Bellfield; we have read the report from the victims commissioner, Louise Casey, about the needs of families bereaved by homicide; and most recently we have been sickened by the revelations that the mobile phones of victims and others have been hacked into by elements of the media for whom the story comes before any sense of morality.

Under the previous Labour Government, great strides forward were made in championing the rights and needs of victims and their families, although we would be the first to admit that there was and is more that could be done. Under Labour, we saw the introduction of the national victims service—an £8 million support scheme for relatives of manslaughter and murder victims that offered victims a dedicated support worker—in response, of course, to the report published by Labour’s first ever victims champion, Sara Payne. As a result, the CPS now has a victim focus scheme committing it to a post-charge and post-conviction meeting for murder, manslaughter and road death cases in the Crown court. There is also a new protocol for Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service for bereaved families and a statutory victims code of practice that commits the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, the probation service and others to providing information within certain time scales. The CPS has a prosecutors’ pledge, setting out how Crown prosecutors should conduct the case, and the probation service provides a victim liaison scheme for certain victims of crime or their next of kin as regards some elements of the offender’s movements within the prison estate and release information.

Labour introduced the victim personal statement scheme and the policing pledge, and in April 2010 we launched a £2 million homicide service, with the police allocating a family liaison officer to each family following a homicide or a culpable road death. In January 2010, Labour also introduced the compensation scheme for British victims of terrorism abroad as part of the Crime and Security Act 2010 and declared that it would be retrospective to 2002. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will take on board the fact that it is still to be implemented. All those measures came on top of a cut of 43% in crime, which reduced the likelihood of being a victim of crime.

Although the Government have made the right noises about victims being at the heart of their approach, it is fair to say that they have stumbled a few times: over how legal aid cuts have been targeted, over the changes to remand proposed in the latest justice legislation and over the dropped manifesto commitment on knife crime, for example. Let me be clear that although we will hold the Government to account when we feel they have taken a wrong turn, we will support them when they do the right thing by victims, as they have with the welcome announcement of an additional £500,000 for practical changes following Louise Casey’s report.

For now, we are debating a draft directive from the European Union that gives the Government the opportunity to pick themselves up and show that they can be on the side of the victim. We are considering four things this evening: the draft directive that establishes minimum standards for the rights, support and protection of victims of crime; a draft regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters; a Commission communication on strengthening victims’ rights in the EU; and the explanatory memorandum dated 16 May 2011 to a Council resolution on a road map for strengthening the rights and protection of victims, particularly in criminal proceedings.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for setting out the Government’s position on those four documents. Let me add to the debate by setting out our view of these important documents and the improvements they could make for all member states. Although the UK leads the way, as the Lord Chancellor said, I think he would also readily accept that more is required of the UK in its treatment of victims of crime.

Let us consider the scale of the issues that challenge us. From Louise Casey’s report on the needs of families bereaved by homicide, we know that the vast majority of victims’ families—more than 80%—have suffered trauma-related symptoms, that three-quarters have suffered depression and that one in every five have become addicted to alcohol. Every person in the survey said that their health had been affected in some way. Some 59% found it difficult to manage their finances following the bereavement and one in four stopped working permanently. The average cost of the homicide to each family was £37,000, with costs ranging from those for probate to those for funerals, travel to and from court and even for cleaning up the crime scene. The majority of those people got no help with those costs and some were forced into debt. The victims commissioner’s review shows that such effects persist for many years.

The scale of the issue comes more into focus when we consider that, as the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee said, 30 million crimes against persons or property are recorded each year across the European Union, resulting in about 75 million direct victims of crime every year across the Union. The number of homicides will, thankfully, be only a small proportion of that number, but the impact of any crime on victims will have many of the characteristics I have mentioned, with the most horrendous crimes bringing the hardest burdens of all.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way as I have not been here for the whole debate. One thing that concerns me and that exacerbates all the problems is the free movement of people within the European Union. If we had borders that were enforced, criminals would not be able to travel so freely through the European Union and individuals going on holiday would be more conscious of the fact that they were going to different jurisdictions with different standards and levels of health protection and be more wary and concerned. Above all, traffickers in human beings, particularly in children, would have a more difficult time if we had internal borders.

[Robert Flello]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes his points very well and I will return to some of those issues shortly.

British citizens should receive the highest standards in any member state when they are the victim of a crime. In the draft directive, the European Union has sought to build on the 2001 Council framework decision, which established general minimum standards. The rationale behind it is that the 2001 framework was not implemented across member states in a satisfactory way, with some member states doing more than others—I think the UK can hold its head high in that regard—leaving a patchwork of uneven standards of protection and support for victims. One of the Commission’s conclusions that speaks volumes in the light of the Dowler family’s experience is that

“Member States generally do not ensure that victims are treated in a manner equivalent to that of a party to proceedings.”

The Commission found that there was “ambiguous drafting”, a “lack of concrete obligations” and a “lack of infringement possibilities”.

In the Lord Chancellor’s comments on each of the articles in the draft directive, there are some positives which are very welcome, but there are some less welcome and possibly worrying observations too. The Government straight away use the phrase

“proportionate to the needs of victims”,

but we have seen from the victims commissioner’s recent report that the needs of victims are not being met, so who will judge what is proportionate to the needs of victims? Will it be the Lord Chancellor, his Department or the victims commissioner? Who will decide?

It is vital that the directive should help to provide greater uniformity across the EU to improve the service that UK citizens can expect. More must be done to ensure that victims’ families do not have to suffer unnecessary delays and further trauma following the loss of a family member abroad. At this point I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) for raising the terrible and tragic issue of Gary Dunne and the work being done by Lesley and Steve Dunne to whom our sympathies must go out. It is also important to raise the cases that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), whom I congratulate on his imminent esteemed elevation to the Privy Council. I suspect that we all have examples of such tragedies in our constituencies. For example, a constituent of mine died in Tenerife last year. Again, because of the Spanish coronial system, the victim’s family had to wait months before the body was repatriated to the UK.

I turn to some of the articles. Article 2 is welcome. It sets out the wider impact of a crime beyond the person who has been killed or suffered some immediate injustice. It should not be the subject of detailed clarification. Some clarification is required, but the Government’s comments about the need for clarification are a little troubling.

The first part of article 4 deals with the provision of information to victims. Although the Lord Chancellor says he is confident that this article is generally compatible with current practice across the UK, I wonder just how confident he is about the uniformity and quality of current practice across the UK in the light of the victims commissioner’s report. The second part of article 4 covers the sensitive issue of informing victims of the release of an offender. I agree that we should be mindful of the risks to the offender. We do not want to see lynch mobs at the prison gates, but we also do not want to see victims unexpectedly coming face to face with the offender in a supermarket because no one has forewarned them, as has happened time and again.

I am not sure that in their response to article 9 the Government fully understand how variable is the use of the victim personal statement. I suggest that the Lord Chancellor takes a moment or two to read the strategic audit of the criminal justice system, a report prepared by Victim Support. It makes sombre reading about the use of the victim personal statement. It notes that the police are responsible for offering victims the opportunity to make a statement, but that they are not required to do so by law, and VPSs are not even mentioned in the Government’s primary document setting out the services that the victim can expect.

The report from Victim Support continues:

“The actual situation on the ground is poor—of those whose cases reach court, less than half recall being offered the opportunity to make a VPS. Moreover, of those who did make a VPS, only two-thirds felt it was taken into account. Furthermore, the likelihood of being given the chance to make a VPS varies considerably across England and Wales. For example, victims living in London were less than half as likely to be offered it as those living in Northumbria. The likelihood of the victim feeling that the VPS is taken into account also varies considerably across regions.”

Article 13 deals with the reimbursement of victims’ expenses. Once again, it is concerning that the Government appear to be back-peddling on the concrete commitments that the directive is supposed to require. Once more, we must remind ourselves that the victims commissioner’s findings are damning of the cost barriers for victims’ families who want to see justice done. I am hopeful that the Government, despite their heavily caveated words in response to article 19, will take on board the needs of victims to avoid contact with offenders and their families, and thereby avoid the all too frequent situation where a victim’s family sit alongside that of the defendant, listening to them laughing, joking and making hurtful comments.

The Government’s comments on article 20 worry me greatly. Although I have some sympathy with the view that not all victims need necessarily be interviewed, provided that other methods for hearing the voice of victims are strengthened, it feels as though the Lord Chancellor is going behind the term “proportionate” again.

I would like to spend a moment on article 23 and the relationship between the media and the privacy of victims. In much the same way as a few bad apples spoiled the reputation of the House, so the behaviour of irresponsible and, it seems, criminal elements of the media have severely damaged that profession. With reference to Bellfield’s trial, Chief Constable Mark Rowley has called for greater protection of victims and witnesses during court cases. Rowley said it was a

“most bizarre and distressing coincidence”

that the Dowler family had their privacy destroyed at a time when footballers and celebrities were being granted super-injunctions to protect details of their personal lives.

It is all well and good for the Lord Chancellor to ask that article 23 respect the principle of media independence, but at what cost? The case of Milly Dowler shows the need for greater training of professions, notably the judiciary, in how victims’ families are treated. The draft directive is a good starting point, but there are things that are not in it—notably, despite the European Commission's identifying why the 2001 framework failed, where are the teeth in these proposals? Where is the mechanism for effective redress when member states do not provide the services or support that the draft directive requires? Where are the rights to request a review of the decision on what charge the offender will face? The draft directive is an opportunity for the Government to negotiate a better deal for victims at EU level; it should not be used to make what we already do look like it fits with the directive as it is written.

Turning to the draft regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters, it can only be a positive thing that civil law protection measures issued in one member state should be recognised and applied in another, so the draft regulation is to be welcomed. I note that the European Scrutiny Committee has its reservations about safeguarding the rights of the person subject to the order as well as the person who has requested it, and although I fully understand the need to give the person subject to the order the opportunity to safeguard their rights, I have concerns about how any such safeguarding could be applied.

For example, if the person with a civil law protection measure goes on an extended holiday or goes to work in another European country for a year, would the person subject to the order need to know when and where? The regulation as drafted seems already to provide adequately, through the certification process, that an existing measure can be recognised and applied throughout the Union within the limits of the original application. Indeed, the fundamental rights safeguard at article 10 and, of course, the rights of the person subject to the order at the time it was applied for seem more than adequate, but I look forward to hearing from right hon. and hon. Members if they think otherwise on this point. I am pleased that the Secretary of State, in his explanatory memorandum dated 2 June, seems to welcome this regulation.

I will turn now to the council resolution on the road map. The road map essentially shows how both the draft directive and the draft regulation fit into an overall scheme for improving the EU’s approach to victims’ rights. Given the reasons why the Commission felt that the 2001 framework failed, it is a little sad to see the Government seeking to press for less detailed measures on how the victims directive can be brought into effect. The European Scrutiny Committee, in putting forward the document for debate on the Floor of the House, asked the Government to provide more information on the probable substance of each measure that the Commission is to propose as part of the road map.

I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for welcoming this evening’s debate and recognise that the Government have provided a good explanation of their views in the memorandum, but sadly we seem to be lacking the additional detail this evening that the Committee requested. That point is worth repeating: the European Scrutiny Committee, in putting forward the document for debate on the Floor of the House, asked the Government to provide more information on the substance of each of the measures that the Commission is to propose. I am not sure whether the Lord Chancellor intends to provide that when he winds up—I can only hope.

A good place to begin my concluding remarks on the matters before us is the question of how the Commission’s proposals compare with the victims law for homicide cases proposed by Louise Casey. The victims commissioner has addressed the situation in the UK in homicide cases, and to my mind that is a good benchmark for what we should expect for all victims across the EU. The victims commissioner believes that a victims law should make it clear that the coroner will release the body to the family for burial within 28 days, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The proposals before us do not mention that at all, and yet we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members this evening that this is one of the fundamental issues that they feel passionately about and that affects constituents up and down the country time and again. In my humble opinion the Government are plain wrong in their stubborn refusal to implement the position of the chief coroner, and I hope that when they are made to see sense, they will also ensure that the chief coroner addresses this distressing issue and that such measures will be raised with the Commission in negotiations on the road map.

The victims commissioner also believes that the police should legally have to keep families updated at each stage of the investigation, and I believe that the draft directive addresses that key point. It must not be watered down in negotiations. Similarly, Louise Casey believes that a police protocol should be put in place for reviewing cases that remain unsolved and that it should set out clearly how and when families are to be consulted and kept updated. Again, although not part of the draft directive or road map, that is clearly an area that the Lord Chancellor’s Department should raise with the Commission.

Another point made by the victims commissioner is that families should have the right to information from the Crown Prosecution Service, and to meet the CPS lawyer at key stages of the process, including on conviction or acquittal, and on appeal. That is covered by the draft directive, and should be strongly pursued. Those needs are addressed in the draft directive, but they should be enshrined in law, with the right of redress when not met.

In conclusion, the Opposition welcome the Commission’s approach, and urge the Government not to procrastinate or seek to gain wriggle room, but to embrace the opportunity to turn the page on their recent errors of judgment, and give their approval to measures that should ensure that victims of crime across the European Union have at the very least a minimum standard on which they can rely.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the absolute priority as far as we were concerned was to put the reforms in the legislation into practice but in a way that was not going to incur the cost that I am afraid we cannot afford at the current time. That is what I believe our proposals will do.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Following the Secretary of State’s most recent announcement in June, Chris Simpkins, director general of the Royal British Legion, has said:

“Ensuring there’s a functioning Chief Coroner is the least we can do to honour the ultimate sacrifice made by our Armed Forces and to ease the pain those left behind will always feel.”

Helen Shaw, co-director of Inquest, has said that instead of having a chief coroner,

“the government proposes to dismantle the office of the Chief Coroner and add yet another layer to the current, fragmented structure where lines of accountability are opaque and clear leadership is absent.”

How many organisations that, unlike the ministerial team, actually know what they are talking about will the Secretary of State ignore? As he is in the mood to do U-turns, will he do the right thing and leave the chief coroner out of the Public Bodies Bill?

[Mr Djanogly]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the RBL manifesto he will see that we are meeting most of its requests for reform without having a chief coroner. If we were simply leaving the office on the statute book and not implementing any changes, I would agree with that claim. However, regulations about training for coroners, including for service personnel cases, will be possible for the first time under our proposals. We will be implementing powers to transfer cases more easily within England and Wales—and for the first time to Scotland—when required for cases involving the deaths of service personnel abroad. Those are real and significant improvements to the system that will directly improve the experience of service personnel families who come into contact with the coroner system.

Victim Support

Robert Flello Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in this Chamber, Mr Scott. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing today’s debate on an extremely important issue that has troubled him for more than a decade. Even though it is some 15 years since Claire was murdered, I should like to take the opportunity to express my condolences to her family for the ongoing pain that I am sure still results from her death.

The hon. Gentleman made a number of very good points. Certainly, his concern is not lost that, in circumstances such as those that he described, rather than the scales of justice being blind, they are weighted against the deceased. Indeed, how can it be correct that a murderer remains in all circumstances the next of kin? I find it incredible and horrifying that, where a prima facie case exists, those rights are still in existence and are not suspended. The point made that the criminal justice boards no longer need to file certain reports is also very worrying.

The relevance of today’s debate is heightened even more in the light of the Government’s review into the criminal injuries compensation scheme and the role of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. In the time available, I should like to bring to the discussion the issue of financial support for the victims of crime and the wide-ranging financial consequences that a crime can have on victims and victims’ families.

The impact of crime affects each person differently and can have various wide-ranging emotional, physical and financial implications. As we have heard, organisations such as Victim Support play a fantastic role in providing victims and witnesses of crime with both practical support and varying forms of emotional support. The valuable support and advice that Victim Support and others provide victims with should not be understated. Victim Support contacts more than 1.5 million victims of crime each year, but it and other voluntary organisations cannot provide the financial support and compensation required to help victims recover from the financial impact that crime can have on them and their families. The effects of crime can take many forms and, as I said, crime impacts on each individual differently. Victims can become isolated and suffer from anxiety, depression and amnesia. They are scarred and can become scared or reluctant to leave the house.

Victims of crime can also find it difficult to take pleasure in activities and social events that they previously enjoyed. That can have a damaging effect on a person’s family and social life and can therefore have a harmful effect on their relationships with family and friends. Many victims of crime develop anxiety or depression, which can lead to dependency on alcohol, tobacco or even precipitate drug use. Although crime rates have fallen significantly in recent years, one in five people is still likely to be a victim of a form of crime. Of course, for those people who are victims, the overall decrease in crime does not make their own experience as a victim any less traumatic. Given the wide-ranging emotional and physical impact that crime can have, it is imperative that financial support is provided to cover its direct financial impact—for example, as we have heard, the costs of counselling and other remedies such as emotional support therapy and health costs for any rehabilitation.

The commissioner for victims and witnesses, Louise Casey, recently revealed ahead of the publication of her policy review that families bereaved through murder, manslaughter or culpable road death face costs of an average of around £37,000. That includes costs for trials, legal fees, court proceedings, counselling and loss of earnings. Figures from a specific survey of 36 bereaved families show that legal costs range from between £280 and £150,000, with the majority of families meeting the costs themselves and only one family receiving legal aid. The survey found that the total estimated costs incurred for the 36 families were £1.3 million, which rises to a higher figure if loss of earnings is included. The annual figure of costs incurred is around £37,000 or, indeed, £113,000 if loss of earnings is included. Counselling costs for those surveyed averaged around £2,500, and 35 out of 36 of the families surveyed experienced loss of earnings.

The majority of victims of crime were unable to work, in some cases because of post-traumatic stress disorder. Some people lost their jobs; some had to leave work; and some got unpaid leave from their employer. Bereaved families also have the costs of child care to think about when a parent or guardian is murdered. One example of how a bereaved family can suffer a loss of earnings is provided by the situation of Barry Mizen, whose son Jimmy was tragically attacked and killed in a horrific attack in London, with which all hon. Members will be familiar. Barry Mizen was a self-employed shop owner. He had to shut his shop in the wake of his son’s murder and therefore had no money coming in for a substantial period.

Freedom of information requests made by the Daily Mirror show that the average amount of compensation received by the families of the 12 people shot by Derrick Bird, the gunman who murdered 12 people in Cumbria, was around £12,250. The figures highlighting the costs incurred by victims and victims’ families put into context the financial compensation awarded and shows how it would be, to say the very least, regrettable—indeed, it would be a severe blow to victims—if the Secretary of State for Justice approves cutting the Government’s payment awarded to victims and victims’ families, as is feared will happen. That would be highly regrettable and, as we have heard, says much about the Government’s attitude towards the victims of crime, particularly when they have still not implemented the compensation scheme proposed in the Crime and Security Act 2010, which had cross-party support.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) said, although British victims of terrorist attacks in the UK are eligible for compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme, that does not extend to the victims of overseas terror. Hon. Members will also be aware that travel insurers in the vast majority of cases do not pay out to victims of overseas terror attacks. The victims of overseas terrorist attacks are all still to be compensated by the Government—for example, Will Pike who was paralysed in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack, the victims of the Bali bombings and the victims of the 2005 Sharm el Sheikh bombings.

It cannot be right that, when the rights of prisoners and criminals appear to be enhanced all the time and the Lord Chancellor constantly has to defend his position, British victims of terrorist atrocities overseas are still waiting for compensation promised to them by the Government. If a terrorist attack should happen somewhere in the world tomorrow—heaven forbid—UK citizens and their families would be ineligible to receive Government compensation. The Government must re-evaluate how they treat victims of crime both here and abroad. If they cut the financial support offered to the victims of crime and do not compensate the victims of terrorist attacks abroad, it will have a devastating effect on the well-being of both victims and victims’ families, as well as sending the message that helping the victims of crime is not viewed as important by the Government.

I should like to take a moment to comment on a few of the speeches that have been made so far today. Hon. Members from all parties have made very good contributions. In the few moments remaining, I shall mention the speech of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I find it extremely worrying when I agree with much of what he says. I am not sure whether I find it more worrying than he does—I suspect he finds it more worrying than I do. The use of closed circuit television and the DNA database is extremely important. When we were in government, we were great advocates of those systems, and it is surprising that the Government do not seem to be continuing with that. On the 50% discounted sentence, perhaps sometimes through gritted teeth the 33% discount is there, but the push to make it 50% seems very strange indeed. Victims will see an extremely worrying trend.

Overall, the Government must finally put the victims of crime at the heart of their justice policy. They cannot prevaricate any longer; they must take action to do so. The rights and well-being of victims and victims’ families should always come before those of the criminal. Sadly, that is something we are not seeing and have not seen for a while.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

I pay tribute to Victim Support, which plays an extremely valuable role in supporting victims and witnesses throughout the country. This year we agreed a funding deal with it, involving a grant of £38 million every year for three years, giving it greater financial security. Victim Support is also able to bid for additional money for local projects from the £18.5 million victims general fund, for which we invited bids this year. Overall, the Ministry of Justice is committing more money to the victims voluntary sector this year than last year, which of course, in the dreadful financial circumstances that we inherited from the previous Administration, shows our priorities.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

The Government talk a really good game about supporting victims, but the reality is that under cover of a review the British Crime Survey is cutting questions on victims’ views, the witness and victim experience survey has ended and Her Majesty’s Courts Service’s court-users survey is coming to an end. We need to listen more to the victims of crime and put them at the heart of our judicial system, so can we have an assurance that the Secretary of State will reinstate survey questions or, indeed, improve on them, and not push under the carpet the experiences of victims and witnesses of how the British legal system operates?

[Mr Blunt]

There we have it—a demonstration of acquiring inputs, measurements and targets rather than focusing on outputs. The last thing that we do, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, is ignore victims. When we come forward with our strategy for victims and witnesses, he will see the extent of our commitment to ensuring that victims and witnesses are properly supported in the justice system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I am as committed to the Act as anyone else. The UK should remain at the forefront of the fight against corruption and bribery internationally. The delay, as the hon. Gentleman calls it, has been the result of consultation to ensure that legitimate business is not faced with additional costs and burdens that are not necessary for the implementation of the Act. We will announce the results of our consultation and information on when we will implement the Act very shortly.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

The United States has expressed concern about guidance watering down the Bribery Act. The OECD is concerned that Britain will be weak on corruption. Business is rightly worried about London’s reputation, as shown by the letter from investment fund managers in today’s Financial Times. Even the Ministry of Justice must be concerned, as it still has on its website an announcement that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) is the anti-corruption champion. With the head of the Serious Fraud Office warning about weak guidance, will the Secretary of State now wake up to the seriousness of the issue and, with the eyes of the world on him, draw up robust guidance that protects Britain’s reputation and British business?

[Mr Clarke]

I have been in touch with the United States Attorney-General and with Angel Gurría, the secretary-general of the OECD, and reassured them that Britain’s commitment to the anti-corruption drive internationally is not remotely in doubt. I am happy to join the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), as his successor as a champion against corruption. We are introducing the Act in a way that will enable us to modernise the law and catch corruption without putting burdens and costs on legitimate businesses, which are easily frightened by some sections of the compliance industry into believing that millions of pounds need to be spent on complying with it and that perfectly ordinary hospitality has to be banned. It has other fears that we hope to be able to dispel.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I give that assurance, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am trying to get on with it. I believe it is possible to satisfy those who think we should give a lead in helping to stamp out corruption in international trade and other aspects of international relationships, and at the same time satisfy honest businesses that do not want unnecessary costs and burdens put upon them. They want the situation explained clearly to them so that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) said, ordinary hospitality cannot possibly be affected by the Act.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Although I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that the Act will eventually be implemented, his comments today sound like rather a watering-down of the proposals. Yet the Foreign Secretary said at the Dispatch Box just two weeks ago:

“Both parties in the coalition supported the Bribery Act when in opposition, we support it now, and it will be brought in rigorously, effectively and fairly.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2011; Vol. 522, c. 733.]

Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that that is how the Act will be applied?

[Mr Clarke]

First, there is no watering-down of the Act. All parties supported it when it went through the House, and we are going to implement it properly. It requires me to provide statutory guidance to businesses on what steps they should take to ensure that they are trying to prevent bribery, and that is what I am working on. I believe that it is possible to produce guidance and enforce the Act in a way that produces the rigour and fairness that the hon. Gentleman demands. There is no backing down from the principles of the Act at all.

Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill

Robert Flello Excerpts

Friday 4th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to see the Chairman of Ways and Means in the Chair.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) on introducing the Bill. I know all too well the pressures involved in choosing a suitable topic, and this Bill is worthy of the opportunity brought by being drawn in the ballot. I appreciate how much thought the hon. Lady has given to the matter. I am sure her heart sank when certain hon. Members entered the Chamber. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) will forgive me for saying that seeing him walk in is always an interesting indication.

Many Members have mentioned or alluded to the tragic Joanna Yeates case, which happened over Christmas, and the media’s dreadful treatment of her landlord. The shameful way in which that man was portrayed in the press—from “weird-looking” to “strange”, and with questions raised about his sexuality, his teaching practices and even his hairstyle—should embarrass and shame our media.

The phenomenon is not new. Countless other examples spring immediately to mind—for example, the speculation, which I believe we heard again this morning, about a well-known actor and television presenter back in 2003, which has done untold damage to his career, despite the fact that no charges have ever been brought, or the American press treatment of Richard Jewell as a suspect in the 1996 Olympic park bombing, although in fact he was a hero on the day who saved countless lives through his actions.

As I think everyone listening to the debate will know, on 17 December 2010 Joanna Yeates left her place of work and joined her colleagues in a Bristol pub for a drink. On 20 December, Avon and Somerset police launched their first appeal for information about Joanna’s disappearance. It was around this time that the national media, perhaps because of the Christmas period, when there is generally considered to be little for the media to report, began to pay attention to the case. Over the next few days, it was given ever-increasing media attention, and more details emerged about Joanna’s final movements.

A key part of the case became a pizza that Joanna was seen buying in Tesco Express, but of which there was no trace in her flat, and the police used the media to ask the public whether they had seen anything relating to this. Joanna’s parents made a number of public appeals at this stage, believing that she had either gone missing or perhaps been abducted, and the media carried those appeals and contributed a huge amount to efforts to find Joanna safely. It is important to remember, as we discuss this Bill, that the media have traditionally played a huge role in such situations, and there are countless examples of missing people having been found as a result of information that has been obtained following appeals.

Tragically, on Christmas morning, a body was found in an area of north Somerset that was quickly confirmed to be that of Joanna. Over the next few days, the media concentrated on the reaction of the family and friends, before, on 29 December, the police interviewed Joanna’s landlord. He advised that he saw her leaving the flat with two people on the night that she was murdered. But the next day, Avon and Somerset police confirmed that a 65-year-old man had been arrested on suspicion of murder, and it was rapidly reported that this was her landlord.

At this stage the media turned their attention to what can be described only as a detailed character assassination of this man. Papers revelled in the nickname used by students at the college where he formerly taught, and a particular tabloid—I will not mention which one, but I think it will become apparent—ran a story entitled “Weird, posh, lewd, creepy”, in which it described him as “weird-looking” and ran quotes from a number of former pupils in which the overriding comment seemed intent on painting a very negative picture of this man. This continued over the following few days as police obtained further time to question the gentleman in question, and more of his former acquaintances came forward with stories about his apparently odd behaviour.

On new year’s day, this man was released on bail, at which point the tone of the stories changed. He was no longer weird or strange, with the newspaper in question now preferring to describe him as “wild-haired eccentric”, and most attention in the article reporting this being paid to comments from his aunt and former colleagues who supported him, expressing their view that they would never think him capable of such a crime.

[Anna Soubry]

I am very grateful for the exceptionally helpful comments that have been made thus far by the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that at the point when this gentleman was arrested and there was a media feeding frenzy attacking his character, it would be fair to say that there must have been women in Bristol who concluded that the police had him and that therefore they were safe? If events are proved right, women were effectively made more vulnerable in the mistaken belief that the attacker was no longer on the loose.

[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.

[Anna Soubry]

None of the women whom John Worboys assaulted and attacked knew his name. They came forward because there was publicity about his modus operandi, not because of his name. That is a big flaw in the argument, and it occurred last year in the debate about anonymity for people accused of rape. The victims came forward because they knew a taxi driver who operated in that criminal way had been arrested by the police, but it is a big mistake to put that argument forward as a reason for naming somebody who has been arrested.

[Robert Flello]

I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from, but I am trying to make the important point that the media have a significant role. The publication of an individual’s name or face, or a detailed description of the circumstances in which they operate, can lead to more people coming forward, but we do not want to see vitriol, innuendo and shameful behaviour. That is the nub of what I believe the hon. Lady’s Bill tries to address.

Equally, I can see that, for the family of someone who has been murdered or subjected to some other horrendous crime, seeing the suspect’s identity revealed and feeling that the police are making strides in bringing the killer to justice could come as a great relief. Some people, however, might find it painful to see details of a case spread across the papers.

In an ideal world, perhaps the victim or their family could play a greater role in deciding whether an individual’s identity is revealed. I suspect the hon. Lady suggests such a situation in the part of her Bill that deals with the grounds for revoking anonymity, but in practice it is likely to be far too complicated to provide for affording as much importance to the views of the victim or their family as many of us would want. Indeed, the circumstances would be so emotive and distressing that they would undoubtedly have an impact on the family.

[Anna Soubry]

rose—

[Robert Flello]

I can see the hon. Lady leaping to her feet on that point.

[Anna Soubry]

With great respect, I think we are moving into really difficult territory, because Joanna Yeates’s family did not know whether the man who had been arrested was the person who had murdered their daughter or fiancée, so in those circumstances it would be fallacious to argue that the victim’s family should be involved, in any way, in the publication of an arrested person’s name.

[Robert Flello]

The point, however, is that we are looking at proposed legislation born of several high-profile cases, and trying to find a way of addressing how the victim and their family feel and the impact of any publication are important elements in the situation. It is an incredibly complicated situation, however, and that is the point.

Another example is that of Harold Shipman, because it was only when other cases and family members of other deceased individuals came forward with their experiences that the extent of the horrific crimes committed was truly known. As the promoter of the Bill has stated about her efforts, I, too, am not trying to bash the media out of hand or to lay the blame for the situation solely at their door. As I develop my speech, I shall try to deal with how the current situation has come about, but the point is that, without the media, public knowledge of the justice system would be much worse. As well as accepting that there are many unsatisfactory aspects, we should be thankful for their coverage of court proceedings. I am pleased, therefore, that the hon. Lady’s Bill addresses this matter in clause 2, where powers are in place for certain individuals to disapply the restriction on the naming of an individual if it were felt that the reporting would be

“in the interests of justice”

or “in the public interest”. The clause goes on to give some examples of where the former might be applied, such as when it

“may lead to additional complainants coming forward”

or to the provision of

“information that assists the investigation of the offence”.

My discomfort results from the fact that the provision arguably makes the system more complex and puts the decision in the hands of a judge, and therefore relies on the view of the judge being correct. It may not be immediately apparent that the publication of a name would lead to further complainants coming forward. There can be no tried and trusted method of knowing in precisely which cases further crimes are likely to have been committed, but rather only a suspicion on the part of the investigating officers.

There is therefore a discussion to be had about whether it is better that the names of all arrested persons are reported in the knowledge that, in some cases, further information or complainants would come forward, or better that the names of no arrested persons are reported and we have faith that opportunities will not be missed by judges. I think that the hon. Lady would agree—I am sure that she will leap to her feet if she does not—that this is not really about anonymity but about the vitriol and appalling behaviour of some parts of the media.

[Mr Buckland]

That is a very important point. Although the title of the Bill uses the word “Anonymity”, it is really a “Reporting Restrictions” Bill, which as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, is a different thing. We should emphasise that point, because that was the mistake that we got into in the debate about rape; it should always have been about reporting restrictions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Flello]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point very well, and I will return to it shortly.

I should like to touch on other concerns that I have about the Bill, some of which relate to whether it is necessary and some to how it would work in practice. First, it is worth mentioning again the current legislation relating to contempt of court. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 is the most important piece of legislation in this field and, if used properly, it should be sufficient to deal with the problems that the Bill seeks to address. Section 2(2) of the Act states that the press are prohibited from the reporting of information which

“creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced”.

In the Joanna Yeates case, the Bristol man would almost certainly not have had a fair trial if he had indeed been guilty of the offences. Therefore, use of the 1981 Act should have been looked at more closely.

Of course, the simple reporting of an individual’s arrest would not impede or prejudice an investigation. I suspect that few Members have a strong objection to the simple reporting of an arrested person’s name; we have pretty much heard agreement on that today. Indeed, this reporting is crucial to the rule that administration of justice should take place in the public eye. Simple reporting of a name ensures that speculation is avoided and protects other individuals. The problem has arisen from the fact that the simple reporting of a name has grown and mutated, in a ridiculous and appalling way, into in-depth investigations about an individual’s past jobs, hobbies and actions.

The media are expected to refrain from reporting on a suspected person’s previous convictions or making any sort of speculative comment about an individual’s guilt or otherwise. I would argue that in the Bristol case, and in others, a number of press outlets were indeed guilty of precisely that—effectively carrying out their own investigations into the case and speculating as to why the person would carry out this crime with only the merest of efforts to mention that no charges had been laid. This mutation has been allowed to happen because of the failure of various bodies, including Ministers, to ensure that the law is implemented properly.

In the Bristol case, I am afraid to say that the reaction of the Attorney-General was not what I would have expected of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. His so-called warning to newspaper editors consisted of little more than the gentlest of reminders of the law as it stands and the importance of nothing taking place that might prejudice a fair trial. Indeed, according to reports of this “warning”, the Attorney-General was very careful not to address precisely the coverage of the Joanna Yeates case. I dare say that had the Attorney-General taken a stronger view and warned media outlets that some of the reporting was at great risk of being in contempt—I think that hon. Members agree that it probably was in contempt—a slightly more measured approach might have been taken.

[Anna Soubry]

I would not criticise the Attorney-General. That is not just because I support him as a Government member, but because the Contempt of Court Act simply does not address this problem in the way we all want it to be addressed. I am grateful that hon. Members agree about the way it should be addressed. The fault is not with the Attorney-General but with the Act, whether because the test is too high or because it does not address the pre-charge situation.

[Robert Flello]

We might just have to disagree on that point. I think that a gentle warning was insufficient, and that the Contempt of Court Act could have applied. Perhaps we will discuss that on another occasion. I would feel some trepidation about enacting further legislation before we are sure whether the existing legislation could be made to work in the way we would like the Bill before us to work.

My second major concern is that although the Bill would address concerns with the print and TV media, it would not address the largest problem—the internet. Hon. Members have commented on this point at length. I appreciate that the hon. Lady has included the prohibition of electronic publishing and transmission in the Bill, but it is almost impossible to police these things in cyberspace. It is not impossible, but under current legislation it is all but impossible. It is all very well individuals’ identities being kept secret from the traditional media, but it would be almost impossible to stop rumour and speculation revealing those identities. Much comment has been made about Twitter, and I know that Mr Speaker has his own views on Twitter in this Chamber. However, many people believe that if something has been tweeted, it is fact. It is a very public method of disseminating information. It is not like a conversation over the garden fence, as has been said; it is more like a conversation over a garden fence in the middle of a football field on a crowded Saturday afternoon using megaphones.

In my view, that is the strongest argument against the Bill. Although the media may not have covered themselves in glory in reporting the arrest of the gentleman in Bristol, if an individual’s identity will be known anyway, I would much rather place my faith in traditional media than in the self-policed world of internet blogs and news sites, where there are countless examples of uninformed comment and speculation. To deny the traditional media the ability to report an arrest when the identity of the individual is well known on the internet would be deeply unfair and would risk even worse coverage than we have seen in the past few months. If we cannot find a way to make the Bill address the problems of the internet, it might be almost impossible to implement. No good comes from passing a Bill that solves one problem while creating an arguably more difficult one.

If we are to pass the Bill on the basis that we do not feel it is fair for someone to be identified when they are simply being questioned by police, should we not also consider the fundamental issue that someone is innocent until proven guilty? That point has been made by a couple of hon. Members. Just as much damage can be done to a person’s reputation if they are vilified when charged but subsequently found not guilty as if they are arrested and then not charged. If the Bill leads us down the road towards anonymity throughout the legal process, which would be almost impossible to achieve and which flies in the face of justice being seen to be done, that might be a dangerous move.

Finally, I am interested to know what discussions the hon. Lady has had about the Bill with Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. She may wish to intervene on that point.

[Anna Soubry]

indicated dissent.

[Robert Flello]

Although the Bill is mainly of concern to the Ministry of Justice, much of the day-to-day regulation of what we see on our screens and in our newspapers is done by the DCMS. There is a strong argument that were Ofcom or, heaven forbid, the Press Complaints Commission to take a more proactive approach to such issues, perhaps citing the Contempt of Court Act where necessary, we might not have to make a law such as this. That would warrant further investigation were the Bill to pass to Committee stage.

Although at face value it appears simple to change the law, a multitude of issues complicate the matter and turn it into a difficult question that affects a huge number of areas. We must balance the view that the most important thing is that justice is seen to be done with the view that we must ensure that everything possible is done to ensure that justice can be done. We must balance the idea that the press should be free to report as they see fit with the fact that an individual should be considered innocent until proven guilty and has a right to be able to continue with their life unmolested if police inquiries prove that they are not linked to the crime and no charges are made. We must also consider the fact that although we might not like the way in which the media have reported some of the more high-profile cases in recent years, there are also many examples of their having made a huge contribution to justice being done and criminals being brought to justice.

The Bill addresses a crucial problem and a particularly unsavoury aspect of the way in which crime is reported in our press. However, I feel that as it stands, it does not address the problem as thoroughly as I would like, and it would certainly need significantly more work to become a successful law. Ideally, I should like the themes of the Bill to be incorporated into a wider Bill that also addressed a number of other points on the subject. I say to the Minister that perhaps that should be considered as part of the forthcoming libel and defamation Bill.

If the Bill receives its Second Reading today, I hope it will receive more detailed scrutiny in Committee, and I hope that we will ultimately be left with a Bill that satisfies and respects the rights of the victim, the accused and our law enforcement bodies alike.