I beg to move Amendment No. 523, in

Clause 100, page 58, line 38, at end insert

'but only after such steps as may reasonably be taken to address that fear have been taken'.

This is a crucial area of consideration that fits in with what is by common consent a major factor in the fairness of the judicial system—the intimidation of witnesses. We have heard from the Government that they intend to introduce specific legislation during this Session to deal with that. Many of us look forward to that legislation affording witnesses the greatest possible protection in order to prevent intimidation. Witnesses often do not make themselves known to the police in the first instance or they do not come forward to give evidence at trial because they are not convinced that the authorities can offer them the appropriate protection. Therefore, they have a real fear.

The amendment is not intended to deny the recourse that the Bill gives to allow for witnesses to give evidence when that is the only option. We are at pains to express, however, that that should not be seen as an easy way out. It should not be a matter of course that the police and the judicial authorities do not have to have proper regard for the reasons behind that fear. They should try to mitigate that fear where possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and I have made it clear that we consider the intimidation of witnesses and perversion of the course of justice to be one of the most serious of offences, because it strikes at the heart of the judicial system. If that is allowed to be the climate in which our judicial system works, we cannot have fair trials and the whole system of policing and justice will be much more difficult to maintain.

We want an assurance that, in the first instance, effective measures will be taken to protect witnesses. That will undoubtedly be part of the substance of the legislation that we shall be considering later. However, the courts will always favour oral evidence, and the presumption is that the authorities will have taken appropriate measures to provide effective protection for witnesses. Anything suggesting that that was a

second priority would put the cart before the horse, because it would reverse those assumptions.

I do not think that the proposal would reduce the opportunity for evidence to be given as written statements if there was a genuine cause for concern. However, the police, when collecting statements, might be prevented from saying to witnesses, ''You will not have to go to court on this. We can do it as a written statement, because we know perfectly well that you run the risk of having a brick through the window, or worse, from the chap up the road. Don't worry about going to court to give evidence. All you have to do is to give us a written statement and we shall make sure that it is used in court proceedings. We guarantee that you will not be called to give evidence in court.''

That is not the best procedure; it is only second-best. It will always be in the interests of justice that witnesses should be able to be questioned on their evidence, but that procedure certainly gives the defence rather less opportunity to challenge accusations or evidence.