I will ignore the division between Ministers about the value of being a lawyer.

Lawyers will remember that section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 was vital to all courses on the law of evidence. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary—like myself and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire—spent many hours studying the work of Professor Sir Rupert Cross, the leading authority on the law of evidence. One of the issues that is beloved of all textbook writers on section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 may not have been fully thought through by the Government. It could be akin to the point raised in relation to the last clause.

Subsection (6) states:

``statement to be tendered in evidence to be served before hearing on other parties to the proceedings'' and,

``service of the statement is to be taken to have been effected by or on behalf of the prosecutor.''

However, subsection (4) states:

``The statement is to be treated as properly served . . . even though the manner of service is not authorised by subsection (8)'' of section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The Government are saying that the normal rules from section 9 of the 1967Act will be bypassed. The new law will provide an exception to that Act and a different procedure.

I can see why the Government want to do that. They are attempting to make handing over the short form of the notices a quick procedure. There is no doubt in our minds that that is laudable. However, Conservative Members—I have discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire—are worried that the quick procedure might create a complex series of arguments to establish what is, and what is not, proper service of statements of evidence. The Government must convince us that they have consulted widely on exactly how the bypassing of section 9 of the 1967 Act will work. Are they confident that the first time that the short service of statements of evidence is tried and challenged for validity under the Human Rights Act, it will be upheld? I am not convinced that it will be.

I have a dreadful fear that there may be a test case in which a distinguished human rights lawyer, such as Michael Mansfield QC, may be instructed. For example, the director of Liberty could be involved in a big demonstration and be wrongly issued with a fixed penalty notice. I cast no aspersions on that gentleman, but he would have access to the top human rights lawyers in the country. Are the Government satisfied that if he decided that the short form of service of statements of evidence needed to be challenged in a test case, the legislation would be fireproof and Human Rights Act-proof? I am not convinced.