Bad press behaviour leads inevitably to politicians pushing for laws to curb press freedom. The flouting of the law of contempt (in the Joanna Yeates murder case, for example) has had an inevitable result.

The Sunday Times reported yesterday that there is support among MPs, including a couple of cabinet ministers, for a change in the law to prohibit the identification of crime suspects before they are charged.

Among the reported backers of the measure are the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, and the attorney-general, Dominic Grieve.

It would mean that media could not name a person who had been arrested for questioning by the police until, or unless, the person was charged.

The private members' bill was tabled was made by Anna Soubry, a journalist-turned-lawyer who last year became Conservative MP for Broxtowe, Nottinghamshire. She is parliamentary private secretary to Simon Burns, a junior health minister.

Soubry clearly had the Yeates murder inquiry in mind. Like so many others, she was outraged by the media "feeding frenzy" suffered by Chris Jefferies when he was arrested "on suspicion of murder."

She is quoted by the Sunday Times as saying: "The law as it stands means an innocent person can be vilified, have their lives dismantled and their reputation sullied with complete disregard to his or her right to privacy.

"Since the media don't seem able to regulate themselves, parliament should do something about it."

She was also influenced by the coverage of the arrest of TV presenter Matthew Kelly in 2003. He endured speculative and negative coverage, but was never charged.

Soubry said the reporting of the Kelly case had convinced her that people should not have their identity reported while under police investigation unless a good enough reason could be provided to a crown court judge.

The Sunday Times quotes Society of Editors (SoE) director Bob Satchwell as saying: "The public are entitled to know when someone is arrested...

"Not naming people who are arrested only leads to speculation and rumour in place of absolute fact."

He added: "If anyone oversteps the mark there are laws of libel and contempt that are already quite capable of dealing with these issues."

With respect, Bob, the current wording of the contempt law is inadequate to prevent feeding frenzies. As for libel, that's all very well, but it's impossible for people of modest means to pursue a legal action. Unless, of course, they benefit from a conditional fee (aka no-win, no-fee) arrangement.

That's why, despite the recent Naomi Campbell ruling in Strasbourg against "success fees", I urged reform of CFAs, not their elimination.

People without the means to sue for defamation must have the right to protect their reputation by going to law.

And Peter Preston, writing in yesterday's Observer, reminded us that the News of the World phone-hacking revelations may never have come to light without lawyers (notably, Mark Lewis) being hired on CFAs.