Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 93, in

clause 86, page 40, line 10, leave out

'by a judge of the High Court'.

The amendment relates to a small point on which we wanted to probe the Government. The Government propose to change the arrangements for moving a Crown court trial when there is an application for variation of the place fixed for it. Although we understand why the Government might say that that sort of application need no longer be heard in open court, we think that it would be helpful if such applications for an alteration were heard by a High Court judge. That is why we have sought the deletion of that phrase, and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.

In terms of the convenience of witnesses or other court users in a Crown court trial, applications for taking a major step such as moving a trial from one venue to another are important, but I hope that they will not be too common. The traditional practice, whereby which such applications are heard by what is known in the profession as a ''red'' judge—a High Court judge—should continue. I am slightly puzzled as to what the Government have in mind, and I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)

I am not entirely sure that the amendment would achieve what the hon. Gentleman hopes it would, but I will not be too pedantic about drafting issues. I will take it that this is a probing amendment, intended to flush out the true reasons behind clause 86.

We feel that we need to aid the simplification of court procedures wherever that is possible, and to help give courts as much flexibility as possible so that they can manage the cases before them. The amendment is unnecessary and unhelpful in that respect.

Clause 86 simplifies the proceedings of the Supreme Court Act 1981. Section 76 of that Act sets out what has to be done if the defendant or the prosecution wants to alter the location of the trial of a case before the Crown court. If the defendant or the prosecutor is dissatisfied with the location, they can apply to the court for a direction varying the place of the trial. Section 76 requires such an application to be dealt with by a High Court judge in open court. The time has come for those provisions to be changed. In most cases, they are unnecessary. An unnecessary delay in proceedings can be caused by the requirement for there to be both a High Court judge and—in particular—an open court hearing, simply on the issue of moving the location of the trial.

Clause 86 makes it clear that those applications do not have to be dealt with by a High Court judge or held in open court. They can be dealt with by the presiding judge in the normal way, without the open court process. I hope that I have managed to clarify the purpose of clause 86.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

It is worth getting that on the record. In the circumstances, I am content to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 87 to 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.