Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—Application of sections 30 and 31 (No. 2)—

'.—(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 30 and 31.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt, proceedings before a nominated court are not to be treated as proceedings before a court of any country other than the United Kingdom, and nothing in sections 30 and 31 confers any jurisdiction on a court of any country other than the United Kingdom in respect of anything done in the United Kingdom.'.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

It would be helpful to have new clause 2 as a safeguard in respect of clauses 31 and 32. The information—what I might call the warnings—to the witnesses should be written in ordinary language. I shall not detain the Committee by stressing in great detail the support on the Opposition Benches for the use of plain English, but as the Minister knows from previous debates I have always been a strong supporter of the plain English campaign. I say that despite being a lawyer. I am one of those lawyers who used to support the plain English campaign even when I practised.

New clause 3 is a sensible provision for the avoidance of doubt. It would ensure that we do not get into danger of surrendering our sovereignty. Some of the relevant issues were debated in another place on 23 January in columns GC 104 to 105. There is no point repeating what my noble Friends Baroness Anelay of St. Johns and Lord Renton of Mount Harry said. I am sure that the Minister has read that, too. I beg to move new clauses 2.

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

We believe that proper safeguards for witnesses are already provided in clauses 30 and 31, combined with schedule 2. The two sorts of hearing are subject to different rules. Television evidence is governed by clause 30, which says that witness can be compelled to attend the court. Telephone evidence is governed by clause 31, which says they cannot be

compelled. Schedule 2 makes it clear that there is a significant difference between these hearings.

Paragraph (1) of part 1 of schedule 2, entitled ''Securing attendance of witnesses'', relates to the television link and states that the nominated court has powers for securing the attendance of a witness, as it does for proceedings before the court. By contrast, paragraph (11) of part 2, entitled ''Notification of witness'', relates to the telephone link and only gives the court the power to inform the witness of when the hearing will take place. That paragraph states that the court must be satisfied that the witness is willingly giving evidence by telephone.

The usual domestic summons procedures will apply in relation to television hearings. The summons will be issued by the domestic court in accordance with our law under section 97 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Summonses set out when and where the witness should appear, the consequences of failure to comply and details of who to contact for more information. We consider that the existing summons procedures are appropriate.

Schedule 2 sets out the circumstances in which a witness cannot be compelled to give evidence by television link. A witness could not be compelled to give any evidence if he could not be compelled to give it in criminal proceedings in the UK, were he participating in domestic proceedings, if giving any evidence would be prejudicial to the security of the UK, or in his capacity as an officer or servant of the Crown. The first point ensures that the witness is granted at least the same protections as in domestic proceedings, even though the hearing is being conducted by an overseas court.

The requirement in the second part of new clause 2 is not appropriate. It is extremely unlikely that our authorities would be able to provide witnesses with information about the uses for which their evidence may be put. The overseas authority conducting the hearing would inform the witness of as much as necessary on the use of evidence under its law.

Turning to new clause 3, other than for the purposes of contempt of court and perjury, television and telephone hearings are not proceedings before a UK court. The Bill enables witnesses to be heard as part of the proceedings before an overseas court, and they take place under the law of the state that requested the hearing. The witness would give evidence as part of foreign proceedings and the foreign court would not be conducting proceedings in the UK. The mutual legal assistance convention and the Bill are designed to ensure that witnesses are adequately protected under the law of the country in which they are present, even though the evidence they are giving is taken in accordance with the law of a country outside the UK. The provisions ensure that while a domestic court is not conducting the hearing, it has the appropriate powers to safeguard the rights of the witness.

The protections are adequate. They cover the position where the court has the ability to take sanctions against witnesses who commit perjury or contempt as defined in our law, while they are present

in our domestic court. I am unable to accept the hon. Gentleman's new clauses.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

As I expected, the Minister has given a similar response to that which was given in another place by his noble Friend Lord Bassam of Brighton. The Minister has slightly expanded on what was said at column GC105. However, my noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St. Johns said, on 23 January:

''My difficulty still remains. We shall be enforcing a system whereby someone could be accused of an offence of contempt which was not committed in this country.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 January 2003; Vol. 643, c. GC105.]

We are still not entirely satisfied on this issue, but nothing will be served by taking the matter forward any further today. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and I will confer with our noble Friends in another place, because they might want to return to this matter.

However, for the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday 17 June at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.