Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in

clause 3, page 3, line 1, leave out from 'Kingdom' to 'that' in line 2 and insert

'and where there is any indication or evidence'.

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 10, in

clause 3, page 3, line 6, leave out 'an' and insert 'the'.

No. 11, in

clause 3, page 3, line 6, at end insert

'(and, if different, a language that he has reason to believe the person on whom the process is to be served understands)'.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

We now move to what is almost a reflection of the first two clauses: the service of UK process abroad. It deals with British courts that have decided to serve a process on someone living outside the UK. The amendments all relate to the issue of language again.

Amendment No. 9 relates to subsection (3) and the person to whom the request is issued and the subjectivity of the belief that the person on whom it is served does not understand English. The amendment would insert the more comprehensive test of ''any indication or evidence''. As the provision reads at present, whether the person on whom the process has been served understands English is decided purely at the discretion of the person who has asked for the process to be issued. That is the test: there is no other safeguard. That is highly subjective.

In all this part of the Bill, which deals with the service of UK process abroad, hon. Members from all parties must be concerned about the interests of British justice, and with ensuring that people living abroad who receive process from a UK court comply with that, so that if, for example, that means returning to the UK to face trial, they do so.

Our principal concern must be to uphold British justice. Therefore, it is very important that the individual who receives the process understands what it says and means. It would be wrong for it to be taken at face value if one person—the person at whose request the process has been issued or made—believes that the person on whom it has been served does not understand English. Let us be reasonably blunt about this: some people might automatically think that such persons understand English because they live in an English-speaking country. There are many African countries where English is spoken, but that does not necessarily mean that everyone in those countries understands English, or the form of English in which the document is drafted. That returns us to the point made by the hon. Member for North Down.

That is why we drafted an amendment that would remove the purely subjective test of the assessment made by an individual and would replace it with one that states,

''where there is any indication or evidence''

that the person on whom the process is to be served does not understand English. That is a more substantive test, and it would be more likely to ensure that we know for certain whether the person on whom the process is being served is going to understand it.

The other two amendments in the group address the issue of what happens when people do not understand English. The Bill simply states that the court must be provided

''with a copy of the process, or of so much of it as is material, translated into an appropriate language.''

That is, again, far too subjective a statement about what is an appropriate language. Therefore, we have tabled two alternative amendments.

Amendment No. 10 would replace ''an'' with ''the'' to make the provision refer to ''the appropriate language''. Some effort must be made to establish what language the individual who is to receive this process understands. They may understand more than one language, but somebody needs to make an effort to establish that, rather than for it simply to be said that, ''Well, we will send it off in the local national language and we will assume that they understand that. Therefore the process is served.'' If we are interested in ensuring that the British judicial process is completed, that might not be adequate.

I offer two examples, both of which are from within the European Union, because it is not necessary to go further afield. One of them comes from just across the water in Belgium. It may be thought that French is ''an'' appropriate language for a Belgian citizen—I suspect that most people would assume that it is—but, as many of us know, a significant number of Belgian citizens do not speak French.

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

The majority.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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.

Amendment No. 11 is a variation on the same problem. It would leave in the phrase ''an appropriate language'', but add the words

''if different, a language that he has reason to believe the person on whom the process is to be served understands''.

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 David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

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 Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)

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.

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.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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 Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)

I was reading from the convention, as the hon. Gentleman says, and I believe that that is the position that we will attain.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Why is it not in the Bill?

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)

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.

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 James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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.

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—

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)

Before the hon. Gentleman resumes his place, let me clarify what he is saying. He appears to be of the view that we have deliberately rewritten the Bill in language that is not appropriate to the convention. While he has been speaking, I have been reading subsection (3) in detail. It follows the same language that is contained in the convention. Will the hon. Gentleman explain his problem with the wording?

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

It would be helpful if the Minister re-read the bit of the convention that he read earlier, rather than the Bill.

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)

Well, if the hon. Gentleman sits down, I shall remark on the clause. The Bill does not follow the exact words of the convention because that would not be appropriate. However, what it achieves is exactly the same. Subsection (3) states:

''Where process is to be served outside the United Kingdom and the person at whose request it is issued or made believes that the person on whom it is to be served does not understand English, he must—

(a) inform the court of that fact, and

(b) provide the court with a copy of the process, or of so much of it as is material, translated into an appropriate language.''

That reflects the language of the convention. Under the provision, if the issuer believes that a recipient does not understand the language in which the document is written, they must translate it into the official language of the country where the recipient resides. Where is the difference?

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

That is the point.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.