Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I did not move amendment No. 194 because I thought that it might be defective. It referred to both comment and inferences. The amendment was inadequate, as it was designed to improve the proposed new clause 11(6) of the 1996 Act, which refers back to proposed new clause 11(5) of that Act, which breaks the matter down.

My understanding is that under the provisions the leave of the court would no longer be required for comments to be made or for adverse inferences to be drawn in certain circumstances. Must the leave of the court be sought, so that the seeking of an adverse inference always requires judicial sanction? I hope that that is the intention, and assurance of that would be helpful.

Mr Hilary Benn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leeds Central, Labour)

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that leave would be required in relation to witness notices. I hope that that is helpful.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I will reflect on the answer.

Mr Hilary Benn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leeds Central, Labour)

So will I.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Six o'clock till Tuesday 14 January at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.