Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 52, in

schedule 2, page 65, line 8, at end insert

'including those competent in sign language'.

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 55, in

schedule 2, page 66, line 2, at end insert

'including those competent in sign language'.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, although I am sure that you will not want us to be detained too long with my recollections, Mr. Hurst. I must explain why, for the avoidance of doubt, I want a clear provision in the Bill that that sort of interpretation should include sign language. Finally,

before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I must say that we might have got along better in the fraud case if we had had sign language, rather than having someone trying to translate a Breton dialect.

Mr Stephen Hesford (Wirral West, Labour)

That story could be categorised as a long phrase in English, which is as impenetrable as the hon. Gentleman's ''long phrase'' in Urdu, or whatever he attempted to convey. The relevance of it escapes me. Returning to the amendment, paragraph 8 of schedule 2 states that

''Rules of court under section 49 must make provision for the use of interpreters.''

What other definition could someone signing on behalf of someone else to demonstrate to the court what that deaf or dumb person is trying to say be listed under, other than interpreters? It is an administrative convenience for the court to obtain the right interpreter for the right purpose. It is not necessary to spell that out, otherwise we could spell out an entire list of what might be an appropriate interpreter for a specialised situation. I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken about that.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman understands—I hope that he was listening to what I said—that the amendments were originally tabled in another place by Baroness Anelay of St Johns at the request of two worthwhile charities, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the British Deaf Association. We did not consider on reflection that the Minister's answer that it is bound to be covered because he thought that the phrase ''interpreters'' covered sign language was sufficient. We cannot see any reason why such a provision should not be in the Bill, for the avoidance of doubt. That is all I need to say.

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

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.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

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.

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

Order. I have shown a certain degree of tolerance, but we should draw a line under that point.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

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 Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

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.