| Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Robert Syms (Poole): The majority. Mr. Paice: French is not the necessarily the first language for the majority, but I think that the majority speak it. However, I also suspect that a significant number will not necessarily understand legal documentation in French. For them, Flemish would be ''the'' appropriate language, but some might argue that French would be ''an'' appropriate language. Similarly, in parts of Spain, Catalan or Basque, and not Spanish, may be the appropriate language. If we are attempting to ensure that the person receiving the notice understands everything in it, we must be doubly certain that it is the most appropriate language for that individual, rather than for people who live in the area. It is conceivable that such a person will not be a national of the country and will not understand that country's languages. He or she may be British and not understand English. [Interruption.] That is not necessarily a humorous remark. Many British citizens' command of English is inadequate for the judicial process. Column Number: 33 Amendment No. 11 is a variation on the same problem. It would leave in the phrase ''an appropriate language'', but add the words
It is another belt-and-braces approach. We want to make sure that whoever who is in receipt of process from a British court understands it. I hope that the Minister accepts that the objectives behind the amendments are clear. They would improve the clause and ensure that the judicial process of the British courts is carried to its completion and that the obstacle of not understanding the process is properly removed from it. Mr. Heath: I support the hon. Gentleman's general contention. It is in the interests of everyone that the process is understood, and it is in the interests of the courts. Process cannot require compulsion in the country in which it is served. There are no consequences of non-compliance and, thus, to put the notice into a form that is not understood by the individual, who is being persuaded to come to the United Kingdom to provide evidence or to provide evidence by other means in the country in which he is domiciled, is not sensible. We must ensure that the authorities issuing the notice take all reasonable precautions to ensure that the language in which the translation is issued will be understood. There is a question mark against the present wording of the clause. Does it really ask a sufficiently searching question of the person who issues the process? For example, has the person really looked into the matter or is he making a bland assumption that a national of a particular country necessarily speaks the national language of that country? There may be plenty of evidence that that is not the case. It is in everyone's interest to ensure that matters are understood. It would be sensible to ensure that that happens more frequently by strengthening the terms of the process. Mr. Ainsworth: The intention behind the amendments is to ensure that a person overseas who receives process relating to United Kingdom criminal proceedings can understand it. The Government believe that the clause, as drafted, achieves that aim. We do not accept that the amendments would bring any benefit. The first amendment would require the process to be translated when there was a sign or evidence that the recipient did not speak English. As drafted, the requirement for a translation exists when the issuer believes that the recipient does not speak English. That reflects the wording of article 5.3 of the mutual legal assistance convention. Under that provision, if the issuer believes that the recipient does not understand the language in which the document is written, he must have it translated into an official language of the country in which the recipient resides unless the issuer is aware that he understands only another language. The Government consider that the drafting is correct. The requirement to provide a translation is a new safeguard. There was no requirement in the 1990 Act—a piece of perfect legislation that the hon. Column Number: 34 Member for South-East Cambridgeshire wants to defend. Furthermore, the amendment would not put the responsibility with the person requesting the process to be issued. As the Bill is currently drafted, the responsibility is with the issuer to provide a translation whenever he believes that English is not understood.
11.15 amMr. Paice: I am interested in what the Minister is saying. He might like to rewind a few seconds, because he said that the Bill is in compliance with article 5.3 of the convention, but then he seemed to read it out, and it was different from what is in the Bill. Unless I misunderstood, what he read out seemed to be far more comprehensive and went much further in the direction of my amendment than the Bill. Mr. Ainsworth: I was reading from the convention, as the hon. Gentleman says, and I believe that that is the position that we will attain. Mr. Paice: Why is it not in the Bill? Mr. Ainsworth: If the hon. Gentleman has any fear that the Bill does not provide the same safeguards, I will agree to consider that point again. Our intention is to follow the mutual legal assistance convention and provide the appropriate safeguards for those who do not understand English. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome says, it is in everyone's interests that we do exactly that. The person making the request for process to be served will be involved in the investigation or proceedings. As he will usually have some knowledge of the person on whom he seeks to have process served, he can judge what language the recipient will understand. For example, if the process is a witness summons, the issuer will know who the witness is, and will be likely to have had previous contact with that person and the authorities in the country of residence. The person might, for example, have given a statement about a crime that he witnessed while in the UK and be subsequently requested to attend a trial and to give evidence. There is no absolute requirement to establish in advance whether the recipient understands English but if, for example, the document is to be served on a Portuguese national residing in Portugal, the issuer is likely to believe that the recipient does not understand English and should translate the document, or the relevant parts thereof, into Portuguese. It would not be in the issuer's interests to serve process that he knows cannot be understood by the recipient, as it could not be responded to. The second amendment would require the translation to be ''in the appropriate language'', rather than ''an appropriate language''. The Government believe that that is unnecessary. A recipient may be bilingual and, therefore, more than one language might be appropriate. For instance, a Belgian might speak French and Flemish, so a translation into either would be appropriate. Again, the convention allows for translation into one of the official languages of the member state concerned. Column Number: 35 The third amendment seems to be redundant. It would require the language into which the service is to be translated to be one that the person on whom the process is to be served understands. An ''appropriate language'' would always be one that the recipient understands. If there were no reason to believe that the recipient understood the language into which the service had been translated, it would not be an appropriate language. I say to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that the fact that it is in the interests of the issuer to ensure that the processes are understood makes it likely that the issuer will seek to ascertain whether the recipient understands the language in which the notice is written. We cannot have an absolute requirement in all cases that the issuer must establish what language the person speaks. That would be burdensome on the courts and prevent service in some circumstances, which we need to avoid. I shall ensure that that position is adequately covered in the legislation as compared with the convention. I do not want to put a requirement on the courts to issue documents in the appropriate language, as that might prevent service in circumstances where it is reasonable for service to be made. It is in the interests of the courts that everything is understood, so there is no incentive for people to be anything other than clear or for notices to be in anything other than the most appropriate language. Mr. Paice: I appreciate the Minister's approach to the clause, and his undertaking to look again at the words that he read out from the convention. My point is that those words seem to go further than those in the Bill. One wonders why it was necessary for those who drafted the legislation to redraft what has already been signed up to in the convention, which was perfectly clear. I confess to a concern about the Minister's last point. Of course it is in the interests of everybody for the system to work and for people to understand the process that it is being served on them. That is self-evident, and we should all agree on that. However, out in the real world—where people in this place do not always live—there are people, including some in the court system, who might not be so diligent about ensuring that people understand. I remind the Committee of the Home Secretary's statements on what he thinks of the current judicial process. People could jump to all sorts of conclusions about the languages that people use. Column Number: 36 The Minister refers to people being bilingual, which is a reasonable point except for the fact that we cannot assume that somebody who to all intents and purposes is bilingual will understand deep legal jargon in both languages. I suspect that there are many Belgians who are bilingual in Flemish and French but who might not be able to understand a legal document in both languages. There are many English people, too, who cannot understand an English legal document, so to suggest that somebody who has a second, albeit fluent, language will be able to understand notices is stretching a point. However, I appreciate the Minister's undertaking to reconsider the matter—
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 10 June 2003 |
