Clause 3
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
11:00 am
Mr David Heath (Somerton and 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.