---

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I speak in particular to Amendment No. 37, which states:

"Nothing in this section shall apply unless it is confirmed that the witness has received independent legal advice".

The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has just asked us to imagine a Greek court examining a Greek witness. Such a situation, if not a frequent occurrence in our courts, is an extreme problem that might be met in our courts. It is interesting to think about. It seems to me that it will be quite unnerving for a witness from another country to give evidence in this country over a video link if they have never done a video broadcast or given evidence before. It is quite important that they should be adequately protected. I am sure that they will need legal advice before they give their evidence.

Subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 30 provide that witnesses have to understand what constitutes contempt of court and a statement on oath. Part 1 of Schedule 2 provides, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, set out, that they will understand the meaning of privilege. All those matters will have to be explained to them. It would be unfair and very unsuitable if the arrangements that we made in this country did not provide them with legal advice. I therefore hope that the Government will at least accept Amendment No. 37.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I suppose that I have to declare an interest in relation to Amendment No. 37. I am a source of excellent legal advice. However, I do not think that legal advice is necessarily required in this case. I think that the amendment goes much too far, and I would oppose it. I think that government Amendment No. 40 goes a long way. In it, the Government have heeded the idea that any element of discretion should be swept away. I think that they should be applauded for that. I am not always in favour of applauding my Government, but I am on this occasion.

There is no provision in the law at the moment that is at all comparable with Amendment No. 41. I think that a provision stating that,

25 Feb 2003 : Column 185

"Rules of court under section 49 must provide for the witness",

is rather exaggerated. However, I understand that there is provision, and rightly so, for rules of court to be obliged to make provision for the use of interpreters under paragraph 8 of Part 1 of Schedule 2. I believe that that is as far as the Government should go. I believe that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness fail to understand the way in which judges come to the assistance of witnesses and defendants. That is right and should be underlined.

7 p.m.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, how does the noble Lord expect a judge to be able to come to the assistance of a witness who is being asked an improper question if he does not know what the question is that is being asked?

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord fails to give any recognition whatsoever to paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 which states:

"Rules of court under section 49 must make provision for the use of interpreters".

I believe that that is a complete answer to the point that the noble Lord seeks to make.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made clear, Amendment No. 37 would require all witnesses participating in overseas proceedings via television link from the United Kingdom to have been provided with independent legal advice. We cannot accept this amendment. A witness taking part in such a hearing is participating in the proceedings of a court that is not a United Kingdom court. The role of the United Kingdom court is to facilitate the hearing and to conduct certain functions: it must ensure the identification of the person to be heard and ensure that the fundamental principles of law of the United Kingdom are respected.

A requirement that a witness has received independent legal advice before giving evidence in criminal proceedings is not a fundamental principle of our law. There is no such requirement in relation to domestic proceedings. The amendment would introduce a wholly new process into our courts. It is worth reflecting that a witness may not wish to have legal advice. A witness may be summoned purely as an expert witness to provide technical information.

The Government have listened to the concerns that the responsibility of the court to intervene to safeguard the rights of the witness should be absolutely clear. As has been said, paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 places this responsibility on the domestic court, and we are sure that a court would exercise its discretion wisely in this respect. But, after further consideration, we propose amending the wording, by tabling Amendment No. 40, to make it absolutely clear that the court is to intervene when it considers it necessary.

I do not wish to start a lengthy debate about the merits of the words "may", "is to", "must" and "shall". I believe that we have made our intentions clear. The phrases "is to" and "shall" are mandatory—I do not believe that there is any doubt about that—whereas "may" is

25 Feb 2003 : Column 186

discretionary. Parliamentary counsel consider that the phrase "is to" is better than "must". That is the simple explanation for that. No doubt if we debated the matter on another day, someone would suggest that the opposite was the case and perhaps on that occasion parliamentary counsel would prefer "must" to "is to". We believe that the measure works perfectly well and I have not heard any noble Lord this afternoon suggest otherwise. I sensed that there was approval for it.

If there is any risk of self-incrimination—I believe that that concern underlines the amendments—the court must intervene to inform the witness that under domestic law he or she is not obliged to testify. That is an important point. We consider that to be an adequate safeguard and that it addresses the key concern behind this group of amendments. Article 10(5)(a) provides that the domestic judicial authority must, if necessary, be assisted by an interpreter, in order to understand the proceedings and be able to intervene if the rights of the witness risk being infringed. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, that answers the point that has been raised.

I cannot accept the other amendment tabled to Schedule 2 (Amendment No. 41). This seeks to impose a requirement that rules of court must provide for the witness to be given written advice as to his rights when participating in a television link hearing. In line with the government amendment, the court will already be required to intervene to protect the witness's rights. We believe that to provide written advice is to go too far. The witness's rights under this paragraph relate to his privilege not to be compelled to give evidence in certain situations. We should acknowledge that important privilege. If a witness comes to the hearing with legal representation, that person will be responsible for advising the witness of his or her rights in this respect. If the witness does not have representation, then, as happens when evidence is taken under Section 4 of the 1990 Act for example, the court (usually the court clerk) will advise the witness verbally if there is a risk of self-incrimination. I do not accept that such advice needs to be given in writing. Television hearings will have translation if required so the translator can interpret the court's advice if the witness does not understand English.

We believe that we have the balance right and that we have moved towards meeting some of the concerns that were understandably raised in Committee. I hope that noble Lords opposite will see the sense of our approach and feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am not at all disturbed by the Government dismissing my amendment as unnecessary. I made it clear from the very beginning that it was merely a tool to clear up any remaining uncertainties. It has achieved that purpose. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for his explanation.

My noble friend Lady Carnegy said—she was absolutely right to do so—that it was important that we considered the matter of safeguards for witnesses carefully. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that he sensed there was approval for the Government's amendment. I hope that I made it clear that I welcomed

25 Feb 2003 : Column 187

that amendment rather than just approved it. I have no amour propre with regard to the fact that the Government have decided to use the phrase "is to" rather than "shall". I look forward to using the words "is to" in the future and seeing whether I obtain a favourable response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31 [Hearing witnesses in the UK by telephone]:

[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]

Schedule 2 [Evidence given by television link or telephone]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 40:

Page 63, line 34, leave out "may" and insert "is to"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]

Clause 32 [Customer information]:

Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 42:

Page 19, line 8, leave out "appears to him to be" and insert "he has reasonable grounds to believe is"

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 42, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 45, both of which stand in the names of my noble friend Lady Anelay and myself.

I gave notice that we intended to return to this matter at Report stage. In Grand Committee we were told that although the Minister understood that we were concerned about fishing expeditions, he did not feel that the legislative changes that we proposed were necessary. However, we are still concerned that the Bill as currently drafted leaves customer information orders open to frivolous applications.

The reasons given by the Minister in order to assure us that the changes are not necessary are that under Article 1 of the 2001 protocol to the MLAC, the authority making the request shall explain why the information is likely to be of substantial value to its investigation, and that the Secretary of State has a discretion not to allow the order. He also stated that Clauses 32 and 33 achieve the right balance, as they state that a judge must be satisfied that the conditions are to be met.

We are still concerned that the criteria are too wide. Will the Minister clarify to what criteria the Secretary of State and the judge will be working? I beg to move.

---