Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 43, in

clause 29, page 17, line 12, at end insert—

'(1A) An order under subsection (1) shall be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

The amendment would insert new subsection (1A), which would require the affirmative procedure to be used. The Committee will be familiar with the belief of

those on the Opposition Benches that that is an important safeguard.

We strongly support the use of television and video links. Indeed, when I practised as a corporate lawyer, I had the happy experience of using the very first video link suite installed north of the border. I am particularly sorry that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) is not on the Liberal Democrat Benches this afternoon, because it was a particularly enterprising firm of Writers to the Signet of Edinburgh that had installed one of the video suites. I used it for video conferencing, from the offices of the company south of the border to which I was group legal adviser, with the Scots lawyers that we were working with north of the border, on a matter that had not yet gone to court, but might subsequently have done so.

I therefore saw for myself, in the early days of video conferencing suites, how useful they could be in legal cases. I am pleased that they are now used much more extensively, particularly in cases in which witnesses are overseas or that involve child witnesses, and their use has grown in all parts of the legal profession. Nothing that I say about the clause is intended to deprecate the use of the new facilities; I think that they can be extremely useful, and it is good that a general expansion of their use is set out in the clause. However, I would prefer to have the affirmative resolution procedure in the clause.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I concur.

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

The clause allows us to expand, by negative resolution, the types of proceedings in which the UK may request the sort of evidence mentioned in the clause from overseas. The amendment would require such orders to be made by affirmative resolution. We do not believe that that is necessary. The courts can already request such assistance from overseas in certain proceedings by virtue of section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The types of proceedings covered include homicide, serious fraud cases and cases involving the evidence of children.

The clause provides for those sections to apply to further types of proceedings. There are no immediate plans to make the power more widely available. We did not consider that the Bill was the appropriate vehicle to make such amendments, although we consider that clause 29 provides a practical solution, as it ensures that section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 may be extended in future.

The general application of the clause is not restricted to participating countries. That reflects the existing position under the Criminal Justice Act. We consider that those arrangements have a particular benefit in respect of countries outside Europe, which pose greater obstacles in respect of travel for witnesses. That sort of assistance is a useful tool in trials to deal with offences that take place in more than one state, which are often those in which organised and criminal groups are involved. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report on the Bill considered that and made no comment on the power. Therefore, we understand that the Committee was

satisfied with the level of scrutiny given and that the negative procedure was appropriate.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The Minister is introducing the novel concept that because another Committee of the House of Commons does not comment on something, it means that it agrees with it. A silence does not indicate consent or assent, and the Minister should be stern with the officials who wrote that brief because there are many occasions when a Committee does not comment on something. That does not necessarily mean that it agrees with it. If the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had said that it was quite happy with matters, the Minister would be entitled to say that he sees no problem. However, just because it did not mention it at all does not mean that the Minister can assume that the Committee was happy with it.

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

In principle, I would accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying, if it were not for the fact that we are talking about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, whose function is to consider proposals for delegated powers and decide whether they are set at a particular level. It took such action and said nothing about it. If it had thought that the negative procedure was inappropriate, it would be pretty strange that it said nothing about it.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I hear what the Minister says, but I wanted to warn him that I do not think that he is wise to say that because a Committee says nothing about something, it necessarily connotes that it is happy with it. The hon. Gentleman knows what I am saying. He said that, in general terms, he agrees with me. He understands where we are coming from on the issue.

We think that, if there is to be an order-making power as set out in clause 29(1) and that power is to be used, the House of Commons should scrutinise it. The Minister says that the Government do not have in mind any extension at the moment and they did not think that the Bill was the appropriate vehicle to use, but they wanted to give an order-making power. We are always unhappy with open-ended, order-making powers for the Secretary of State, because at some stage matters can go through on the nod under the negative resolution procedure. That is why we considered that it would be better to have the affirmative resolution procedure.

The Minister knows that we will be returning to the issue, and I hope that the Government will use the affirmative resolution procedure more often. He has put his views on the record, and I have put our views on the record. I do not wish to pursue the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.