People like Cliff Richard deserve anonymity if they haven’t been charged with a crime – but MPs under investigation for misconduct certainly do not

For decades, the police failed to expose Jimmy Saville, Cyril Smith and Stuart Hall – these monsters flourished in plain sight, right at the heart of the establishment

Cliff Richard’s successful legal action to establish his right to privacy has enraged media luvvies who claim that it curbs press freedom. I profoundly disagree – if someone has not been charged with a crime (or, as in this case, not even been arrested), why should they be identified until there is enough evidence to prove that naming them is in the public interest, to protect other potential victims? Anonymity should be guaranteed until criminal charges are brought – at which point, the police will be more certain they have gathered enough evidence to secure a conviction.

In cases of alleged sexual abuse, all too often the police act on a single unsubstantiated rumour, and the spurious argument put forward by the media that public naming and shaming encourages other victims to come forward has never really washed with me. What newspapers and broadcasters love is a name and a face – it fills up pages and starts social media throbbing.

Naming someone who turns out to be guilty of absolutely nothing – as in the cases of Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini – is likely to attract total time wasters and fantasists to join in the witch hunt, and once the allegations start on social media, it is almost impossible to repair reputational damage. More often than not, the accusers are granted anonymity even when they turn out to be liars.

For decades, the police failed to expose Jimmy Saville, Cyril Smith and Stuart Hall – these monsters flourished in plain sight, right at the heart of the establishment. So why did the police make such a song and dance about raiding Cliff Richard’s home (on the basis of one historical allegation) and why did the BBC take such delight in naming the singer, paying for a helicopter to film from the skies and broadcasting footage of the police holding up Cliff’s personal possessions for the benefit of the cameras? In future, anonymity until charged should be the presumed position, and if the police or CPS seek a variation, then they can appeal to a court, where submissions could be made by both parties before a ruling was made.

Anonymity is already an elastic concept – super-injunctions are a tool used by the very wealthy to prevent us knowing what hot water they’ve got into and what sexual scandals they might be implicated in. Super-injunctions cost a vast amount of money, and are used routinely by high-profile sportsmen and woman, media stars, politicians and businessmen to block all publication of various aspects of their private lives.

A judge has to rule that it is not in the public interest for this information to be disseminated. Often small children may be involved, or a divorce is being sought on very embarrassing grounds. Some of the same people complaining about curbs on press freedom are willing to use super-injunctions to sweep their dirty laundry out of sight of the rest of us common folk.

Now, MPs have voted to get the precious anonymity that Cliff was denied and forced to spend over £3m to fight for in court. In the wake of expenses and sex scandals involving MPs, a cross party committee lead by Andrea Leadsom has been drawing up a new Code of Conduct for everyone who works in Westminster. The new rules have been published and propose that victims of bullying and sexual harassment should remain anonymous because it is too easy to identify them under the existing system.

Earlier this week, there was a sneaky attempt in the Commons to extend this anonymity to anyone under investigation for misconduct. At present their name is published on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards website, along with rulings, fines and suspensions. The day after the Cliff judgement, MPs voted through an amendment extending the right to anonymity given to victims of sexual harassment and bullying to anyone accused of misconduct. Immediately, the names of MPs currently under scrutiny were wiped from the website, including Keith Vaz, who – back in 2016 – was alleged to have discussed buying drugs with a rent boy, at a time when he was chairing a parliamentary review into prostitution.

Mysteriously, Vaz’s future is still unresolved, as he continues to claim ill health (and full pay), even though he has subsequently visited India and Saudi Arabia and opened a local swimming pool. Ian Paisley Jr MP has just been handed a 30-day suspension from the Commons for his "unintentional failure" to reveal he had benefitted from free holidays to Sri Lanka for his family to the value of £50,000. Sadly, he missed the blanket of anonymity.

Why should MPs, who are paid out of public funds and serve the public, have the right to anonymity if they are being investigated for misconduct? For the victims, it is a different matter – the Houses of Parliament employ thousands of staff from cleaners to highly educated support staff. Those workers are entitled to anonymity, for fear of reprisals and bullying.

But for MPs to demand their names are kept secret, quite simply, stinks. Whatever happened to open government and transparency?