I beg to move amendment No. 174, in clause 65, page 36, line 34, leave out paragraph (e).

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 175, in clause 65, page 36, line 36, leave out

'or a person designated by him under subsection (4)(e).'.

No. 176, in clause 65, page 36, line 39, leave out

'or a person designated by him under subsection (4)(e)'.

No. 178, in clause 66, page 37, line 19, leave out

'or a person designated by him under section 65(4)(e)'.  

No. 179, in clause 66, page 37, line 22, leave out

'or a person designated by him under section 65(4)(e)'.

We are now dealing with the new arrangements for providing immunity from prosecution. There are sound arguments for what is not quite plea bargaining but is of that ilk, in order to ensure co-operation in providing evidence.

However, in respect of immunity from prosecution it is a substantial step, a significant undertaking, to say that someone will not be prosecuted for offences that they have, or appear to have, committed, to encourage them to provide evidence. Given that those offences may be against persons who might properly expect that their assailant will be brought before a court in due course, it is something that should be undertaken only in exceptional circumstances.

The clause makes it clear that it is matter of exception, and I have no problem with that; the theory and purpose of the amendments is simply to provide that the authority for that decision—immunity from prosecution which, as I said, is a significant immunity—should be taken only at the highest level of the prosecution service, by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions, the Director of the Serious Fraud Office or the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, and not by a person designated by them for the purpose.

It could be argued that the DPP is terribly busy and cannot deal with everything, but the statute places a lot of responsibilities directly on the DPP in person, and the proposal should be one of them. The decision should require his signature before immunity from prosecution is granted. I cannot understand why the Bill permits the designation of other prosecutors in the Departments. The Minister will need to assure me about the level of seniority at which those decisions will be taken and why it should not be expressly given to the DPP or his equivalent in the other investigating bodies.

The hon. Gentleman reflects a valid concern that decisions about the granting of immunity, undertakings and the use of Queen's evidence agreements should be taken at senior level within the relevant prosecuting bodies. However, it is not practicable or appropriate for the individual directors to take all those decisions themselves. They need the ability to designate them to appropriately senior and experienced colleagues, but within a framework of guidance. We do not intend the powers to be made widely available to all prosecutors; the directors are best placed to ensure that those decisions are taken at the appropriate level and the clause provides for that.

Given my assurances about how seriously we take the issues and about the framework of guidance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there are adequate safeguards in the clause and will not press his amendment to a Division.

The Minister is asking us to take a lot on trust in respect of the guidance that will be issued and the information that will be given later. Had she said that the level of seniority would go no lower than   the deputy I would have said, ''Fair enough; I can see circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the deputy DPP and deputies to the other senior prosecutors to take appropriate action.'' However, I still have concerns. I do not suggest that the DPP himself or his equivalent would negotiate the terms of an immunity, but simply that the responsibility for issuing that certificate should lie with the senior prosecutor at the end of the day, because it is a very significant step to take and it should be exercised only at the highest level. I do not intend to press the amendment at this stage, but I hope that the Minister can give further thought to the matter and indicate before Report the level of seniority that she expects to be specified in the guidance to which she referred. Then, I will be able to consider whether we need to explore the matter further. It is, as I think the Minister understands, a matter of some gravity. If it were not for the fact that we often give specific and personal responsibilities to the DPP, I might not be pressing it in this form. However, we do, so I think it not unreasonable that a prepared certificate and the grounds under which it will be issued should be put before the DPP for imprimatur before it is issued.

That seems to be the appropriate way forward, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment No. 177, in clause 65, page 37, line 2, at end add—

'(8) If evidence on the basis of information of any description given by a person to whom an immunity notice has been given is admitted to court proceedings, the court must be advised of the circumstances.'.

The amendment deals with the consequences of evidence produced by a person who has been given an immunity notice. It builds on an assurance I was given on Second Reading that this is a matter of which the courts would, of necessity, be advised. I suspect that is so and simply need reassurance that when evidence has been derived from a person who has been given an immunity notice, the court will be aware of those circumstances before coming to a decision on trial.

It is obvious that evidence from a person in such a circumstance has to be considered carefully regarding its probity and evidential value, given the considerable advantage that person has been granted by the state in return for giving the evidence. If someone liable to be convicted of serious offences has been given immunity from that potential conviction, a jury is entitled to be aware of that fact and to weigh the probability that such evidence may have been tainted by the expectation of immunity which has been granted. That is not to say the evidence will have no weight. It will be taken in the context of the trial of a whole, as a matter which should be properly taken into account by the court in reaching its decision.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, not least because this intervention enables me to avoid detaining the Committee by making a speech. We support his argument. Does he not agree that the situation he describes could lead to score-settling and so forth, and to evidence being tainted? It is important to hear from the Minister why   the concerns set out in this amendment should not be detaining the Committee.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I think the point is clear and needs no greater illumination. It is simply a matter of whether it is already covered by court procedure and rules of evidence, and whether we should be satisfied by that.

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman should not go further and say that it ought be a requirement that the immunity notice of any prosecution witness must be served on the defence. These notices will have conditions on them. A condition may be that he gives evidence against Vera Baird, and on trial I would want to know that—and want my counsel to be able to make full use of that.

I am glad that I gave way to the hon. and learned Lady. When she reinforces my case on such matters I feel that I am probably onto something even more worthy of careful consideration by the Minister.

Will the Minister indicate the extent to which she believes my concerns are covered by the provision? Assurances were given that there would not be circumstances in which a court was not made aware. I agree with the hon. and learned Lady that that disclosure should extend to the defence team in those circumstances. If it is not to be covered, how is the assurance that was given on Second Reading to be put into effect?

I hope that what I have to say will reassure the hon. Gentleman and. Having heard the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar, I think that we will meet her requirements as well.

If the subject of an immunity notice provides evidence that is potentially relevant to a case, the immunity notice will be disclosed to the defence in the usual way. That applies whether or not the prosecution are likely to seek to admit the evidence. Therefore, it is open to the defence or the prosecution to bring that to the attention of the court. We think that the provision is sufficient and, therefore, that it is for the trial lawyers to decide whether the existence of the immunity should be brought to the attention of the court.

The Minister is being helpful. She says that it will happen. Why will it happen? Under what regulation or rule of court will it happen?

I am pleased to be able to inform the hon. Gentleman that it is a requirement to disclose the immunity to the defence under the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act 1996. That provision would apply in the circumstances that we are discussing. I shall be happy to write to him with the detail of the relevant section if that will be helpful. For a number of reasons that have already been mentioned, it is appropriate that there be provision for both the defence and the prosecution to make the court aware of an immunity.

My hon. Friend is being unequivocal. The basis on which it would be within the legislative provision to which she refers would be if the   immunity undermined the prosecution or assisted the defence. In fact, it is likely to assist the defence, so she is probably right, but it is important to get her to say it. When she says that the information will be made available in the usual way, I hope that she does not mean it literally, since at the moment one has the devil's own job getting such information out of the Crown, and I hope that we will not have to struggle like that in the future.

I shall not say that I am totally right. I am not a lawyer, so my hon. and learned Friend will know better than I what is meant by ''in the usual way''. I shall write to colleagues to reassure them.

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I am also grateful for the interventions of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar, who has the benefit of her court experience, which many of us do not have. I had thought that the statute to which Minister referred showed extraordinary prescience in anticipating that we would produce in this Bill a new species of immunity notice, so that no express reference is required. I now understand from what the hon. and learned Lady said that the information is merely subsumed within the general class of matters that might be of assistance to the defence. I am not entirely satisfied that that is adequate. However, the Minister has said that she will consider the matter.

I would be helpful if reference to an immunity were given to the defence as a matter of course, rather than the Crown having to assess whether that might be appropriate. It will be helpful if the Minister addresses that in the course of writing to me and other Committee members. I am sure that there is no difference of intention across the Committee. However, there is a slight question as to how the measure will work in practice, and whether the provisions to which she has drawn our attention are sufficient. We will be able to consider that in more detail once she has had the opportunity to write to us. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.