|
Mr. Ainsworth: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman used to enjoy himself so much in his past life, so we are all bemused about why he chose to trade it in and join us in Committee Room 9 so often. I can satisfy him by firming up the language, if that is what is upsetting him, without putting the term ''sign language'' in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West was right. If ''sign language'' were incorporated into the Bill, other languages would have to be covered by it.
I say to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that ''interpreters'' is a general term. It would include those who are competent in sign language. The provision will meet the requirements of article 10 of the convention but, in practice, domestic courts will always provide interpretation in the event of a witness not understanding the language in which the proceedings were being conducted. The interests of justice would not be served without interpretation. That applies to sign as well as to verbal interpretation. Under the terms of schedule 2, rules of court must already make provision for the use of interpreters. The term ''interpreters'' would include those competent in sign language, whenever that was necessary. I have firmed up the language used in another place, if that is what concerned the hon. Gentleman, and it should now be clear that such a provision will be made. It is inappropriate to put it in the Bill.
Column Number: 145
Mr. Hawkins: I am happy with the Minister's further firming up of what his noble Friend Lord Bassam of Brighton said in another place. It was helpful. In response to his initial canard, what used to frustrate me in the seven-plus years that I was practising at the Bar was that so often I came across parts of the law that needed changing. The more frustrating it became for those of us practising in the courts, the more determined I was to try to get here to do something about it. That is why I am in this Room.
The Chairman: Order. I have shown a certain degree of tolerance, but we should draw a line under that point.
Mr. Heath: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Surrey Heath can help me. I will have to display my ignorance about the number of international variants of sign language. Is it an international language? What is the possibility of finding a person who is capable of interpreting from sign language into English a version of sign language that is in another language, as it were? There may be a practical difficulty.
Mr. Hawkins: I cannot answer that question off the top of my head, but the person to whom I could most usefully refer the hon. Gentleman is my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). To my certain knowledge, she has been trained in signing for the deaf. There may be other hon. Members who have received the same training. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
New clause 1
Freezing orders
'.—The Secretary of State shall appoint an independent person to make an annual report on the use of freezing orders and shall lay that report before Parliament when he receives it.'.—[Mr. Paice.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Paice: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is self-explanatory. It would require that an annual report be made to Parliament on the use of freezing orders. We debated such orders in a previous sitting, especially domestic freezing orders, which—despite the phrase—are freezing orders that apply elsewhere. My interpretation of a domestic freezing order is what I shall receive if I do not arrive home at a reasonable time tonight.
The whole issue of freezing orders is a significant development in the legal process. In clauses 10 to 12, we are effectively giving a British court the opportunity to protect evidence overseas before it comes to this country. As we said the other day, that opens up a range of issues.
The point is simple: we think that there should be an annual report, so that we can see how the legislation is settling down. It is interesting that, so far in Committee, we have referred back to the 1990 legislation on a number of occasions. Indeed, we have asked the Minister how certain parts of it have worked, and he, with respect, has not been able to answer because nobody knows. We cannot turn back
Column Number: 146
the clock and start investigating all those issues, but as we are doing something significantly different, it is probably right that we require annual reports, so that we know how the provisions are settling down. It may well be that in a few years everything will be running all right, and an annual report will become less relevant; however, in the early stages, such reports would be extremely useful, and I would be grateful if the Minister would consider that.
Stephen Hesford rose—
Mr. Paice: I have finished.
The Chairman: Mr. Hesford, do you wish to speak?
Stephen Hesford: I was going to intervene; I do not wish to speak.
Mr. Robert Syms (Poole): Good speech.
The Chairman: You are a little late for intervening, Mr. Hesford, but obviously you may address the Committee.
Mr. Ainsworth: I say to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that the new clause would involve unnecessary bureaucracy, impose a considerable burden, and not produce any significant benefits. Orders to freeze evidence are new, and it is impossible to predict how many will be issued. It is likely that numbers will increase as the authorities become more familiar with the procedures involved. The central authority will monitor the numbers to ensure that it is appropriately staffed, in the same way that we monitor the number of mutual legal assistance requests at present.
The effect of such orders is not fundamentally different from mutual legal assistance requests to seize evidence in another state. Freezing orders are a new, faster method of obtaining evidence, but we can already request and obtain evidence. The burden that freezing orders will place on our authorities will not be significantly different. Furthermore, the evidence provided for in clauses 10 to 12 only implements part of a requirement introduced by a framework decision on orders to freeze property and evidence.
Schedule 4 implements provisions relating to freezing terrorist property, and further legislation will be required to implement the provisions relating to the freezing of other property with a view to confiscation. A report on the use of freezing orders made under part 1 of the Bill would therefore present an incomplete picture. I do not know how many reports the hon. Gentleman wants.
A similar amendment was tabled in another place to say that Parliament should know how the provisions are working. I should say to the hon. Gentleman that information about numbers of orders will be available via parliamentary questions. In the same way, we would not reveal information about individual mutual legal assistance requests, but would be held to account in the normal way. I am sorry to say that I am not prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's new clause, and, for the reasons that I have given, I ask him to consider withdrawing it.
Mr. Paice: Well, there is a surprise. In light of earlier comments that the Minister made, reading from
Column Number: 147
his brief, his point is comprehensible, and he obviously supports it. I understand that; I knew he would oppose the new clause. Governments always do, including the Government of whom I was a member. We opposed similar clauses. That is the nature of the beast, but it is still important that the issue is debated. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New clause 2
Application of sections 30 and 31
'.—(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 30 and 31.
(2) Before a person gives evidence he shall be informed in ordinary language of—
(a) whether or not he is compelled to give evidence (and if so in what circumstances), and
(b) the uses to which his evidence (or the fact of his failure to give evidence) may be put by the court in a country outside the United Kingdom before which the proceedings are carried on.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 3—Application of sections 30 and 31 (No. 2)—
'.—(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 30 and 31.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, proceedings before a nominated court are not to be treated as proceedings before a court of any country other than the United Kingdom, and nothing in sections 30 and 31 confers any jurisdiction on a court of any country other than the United Kingdom in respect of anything done in the United Kingdom.'.
Mr. Hawkins: It would be helpful to have new clause 2 as a safeguard in respect of clauses 31 and 32. The information—what I might call the warnings—to the witnesses should be written in ordinary language. I shall not detain the Committee by stressing in great detail the support on the Opposition Benches for the use of plain English, but as the Minister knows from previous debates I have always been a strong supporter of the plain English campaign. I say that despite being a lawyer. I am one of those lawyers who used to support the plain English campaign even when I practised.
New clause 3 is a sensible provision for the avoidance of doubt. It would ensure that we do not get into danger of surrendering our sovereignty. Some of the relevant issues were debated in another place on 23 January in columns GC 104 to 105. There is no point repeating what my noble Friends Baroness Anelay of St. Johns and Lord Renton of Mount Harry said. I am sure that the Minister has read that, too. I beg to move new clauses 2.
Mr. Ainsworth: We believe that proper safeguards for witnesses are already provided in clauses 30 and 31, combined with schedule 2. The two sorts of hearing are subject to different rules. Television evidence is governed by clause 30, which says that witness can be compelled to attend the court. Telephone evidence is governed by clause 31, which says they cannot be
Column Number: 148
compelled. Schedule 2 makes it clear that there is a significant difference between these hearings.
Paragraph (1) of part 1 of schedule 2, entitled ''Securing attendance of witnesses'', relates to the television link and states that the nominated court has powers for securing the attendance of a witness, as it does for proceedings before the court. By contrast, paragraph (11) of part 2, entitled ''Notification of witness'', relates to the telephone link and only gives the court the power to inform the witness of when the hearing will take place. That paragraph states that the court must be satisfied that the witness is willingly giving evidence by telephone.
The usual domestic summons procedures will apply in relation to television hearings. The summons will be issued by the domestic court in accordance with our law under section 97 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Summonses set out when and where the witness should appear, the consequences of failure to comply and details of who to contact for more information. We consider that the existing summons procedures are appropriate.
Schedule 2 sets out the circumstances in which a witness cannot be compelled to give evidence by television link. A witness could not be compelled to give any evidence if he could not be compelled to give it in criminal proceedings in the UK, were he participating in domestic proceedings, if giving any evidence would be prejudicial to the security of the UK, or in his capacity as an officer or servant of the Crown. The first point ensures that the witness is granted at least the same protections as in domestic proceedings, even though the hearing is being conducted by an overseas court.
The requirement in the second part of new clause 2 is not appropriate. It is extremely unlikely that our authorities would be able to provide witnesses with information about the uses for which their evidence may be put. The overseas authority conducting the hearing would inform the witness of as much as necessary on the use of evidence under its law.
Turning to new clause 3, other than for the purposes of contempt of court and perjury, television and telephone hearings are not proceedings before a UK court. The Bill enables witnesses to be heard as part of the proceedings before an overseas court, and they take place under the law of the state that requested the hearing. The witness would give evidence as part of foreign proceedings and the foreign court would not be conducting proceedings in the UK. The mutual legal assistance convention and the Bill are designed to ensure that witnesses are adequately protected under the law of the country in which they are present, even though the evidence they are giving is taken in accordance with the law of a country outside the UK. The provisions ensure that while a domestic court is not conducting the hearing, it has the appropriate powers to safeguard the rights of the witness.
The protections are adequate. They cover the position where the court has the ability to take sanctions against witnesses who commit perjury or contempt as defined in our law, while they are present
Column Number: 149
in our domestic court. I am unable to accept the hon. Gentleman's new clauses.
Mr. Hawkins: As I expected, the Minister has given a similar response to that which was given in another place by his noble Friend Lord Bassam of Brighton. The Minister has slightly expanded on what was said at column GC105. However, my noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St. Johns said, on 23 January:
''My difficulty still remains. We shall be enforcing a system whereby someone could be accused of an offence of contempt which was not committed in this country.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 January 2003; Vol. 643, c. GC105.]
Column Number: 150
We are still not entirely satisfied on this issue, but nothing will be served by taking the matter forward any further today. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and I will confer with our noble Friends in another place, because they might want to return to this matter.
However, for the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday 17 June at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.
The following Members attended the Committee:
Hurst, Mr. Alan (Chairman)
Ainsworth, Mr. Bob
Cairns, David
Gardiner, Mr.
Hawkins, Mr.
Heath, Mr.
Heppell, Mr.
Hesford, Stephen
Iddon, Dr.
Kilfoyle, Mr.
King, Andy
McDonagh, Siobhain
Paice, Mr.
Simmonds, Mr.
Syms, Mr.
| 
