Clause 30 - Hearing evidence through television links
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
3:15 pm
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I am interested in the way that this afternoon's proceedings are going. We seem to have lost the massed ranks on the Government Benches. They might be sitting by the telephone waiting for a call—on such occasions hope springs eternal. However, there will be disappointments. [Interruption.] The Whip is laughing as if he knows the inner secrets of what is going on. Whips always pretend to do that, whether they know or not. If the Minister is called away suddenly during the course of the afternoon, we shall understand why—much as I should like to think it would be because he realised he had lost the argument, it might not be.
Clause 30 relates to the hearing of witnesses in the UK using television links to a court in another country. Amendments Nos. 86A and 44 do stand separately and must run together. Amendment No. 51 is the same and applies to schedule 2. We are concerned about the vagueness of the statement in clause 30(2), which refers to
''the authority in that country which appears to the Secretary of State to have the function of making requests of the kind to which this section applies.''
The phrase ''which appears to'' is incredibly vague. Bearing in mind that we are talking about countries with which we have signed some sort of convention, we should know which authorities have the function of making requests. I tabled the amendment to extract from the Minister why that subsection has to be so vague. Will the Government contemplate granting the power to hear witnesses in UK courts through television links to a court overseas if the Secretary of State is not absolutely satisfied that the request comes from a body that has the right power? The phrase ''which appears to'' is vague and, given that the geography of the world keeps changing and countries break up as well as join together, it is essential that we know which authority can make such a request.
Amendment No. 45 would insert a new subsection in clause 30. It supports what I have been saying in so far as it would ensure that the Secretary of State is
properly assured of why the request is being made. It specifically states that the request should
''(a) specify the reason why it is not desirable or possible for the witness or the expert to attend in person;
(b) give the name of the . . . authority and the names of the persons who will be conducting the hearing; and
(c) state that the witness is willing to give evidence by television link''
in such proceedings. The amendment should be accepted not only because it would support the obligation behind the request, but because it has been taken from the text of the second additional protocol to article 10 of the mutual legal assistance convention—those words appear in paragraph 8 on page 7. If we have already signed up to that convention—and we have, which is why we are passing this Bill—I do not understand why that text cannot be in the Bill.
The amendment is reasonable. The Minister—I was going to say the Secretary of State, but I should not jump to conclusions—will probably say that it is not necessary because all that information will be given in the request anyway. If that is the case, it enhances my argument that it should be included in the Bill.
When we consider proposed legislation, we must bear in mind not only the situation today, but what things might be like while it is still current. It is important to consider authorities in other countries, for we do not know what might happen to the office of Secretary of State in years to come. It is important that the Secretary of State should be given the authority, so that if the request does not contain all the information he needs, he can refuse to accede to it, even if, as the Minister will no doubt assure me, he can refuse to accede to it anyway.
Amendment No. 46 is a probing amendment. Subsection (3) starts with a vague piece of phraseology:
''Unless he considers it inappropriate to do so the Secretary of State must by notice in writing nominate a court''.
What could be construed as inappropriate? There seems to be a change in drafting jargon running through much of the Bill. On various occasions I and other hon. Members have questioned the vagueness of some aspects of the Bill; this is another example. What does it mean? What checks and balances are there on the Secretary of State as to whether something is inappropriate? What if he believed, for example, that the authority in the country that made the request was not the proper authority? What if he did not agree with the Government of that country? Is that inappropriate enough for him to nominate the court in writing? It is odd that such a vague term is used.
The amendment does not require much introduction; it is a challenge to what on earth the Government mean by placing something so vague in the Bill. What kinds of example did they think about in which the Secretary of State might consider things to be inappropriate? The group of amendments covers various issues surrounding the role of the Secretary of State in making decisions on a request to hear witnesses in the UK through TV links. All the amendments are important. I look forward to
hearing the Minister's response to various issues that bear further investigation.