---

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

My Lords, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has signed Amendment No. 101; so to some degree he is profoundly implicated in what my noble friend Lord Onslow has said to your Lordships’ House. I know that my noble friend will be deeply grateful for what the noble Lord has said. There is an important debate about Article 6 in relation to VOOs, and it is a live and crucial issue, but it is not germane to Amendment No. 101. That amendment raises the issue of cross-examination, which is fundamental to any trial, whether criminal or civil. Cross-examination is vital to any legal proceeding, because it tests the probative value of the evidence. It is perfectly true that in a civil hearing there is wider scope for hearsay evidence; but hearsay evidence can be subject to cross-examination. So with great respect to the Minister, the issue of hearsay evidence is beside the point. We all accept that if we proceed with VOO hearings on the basis that they are civil proceedings, hearsay evidence will play a bigger part than it would otherwise. But that should not in any way be a constraint to cross-examination for the individual who is likely to be subject to a VOO, in so far as it is capable of being exercised within the limits of hearsay evidence. I do not understand the logic of the Government’s position here. Surely if we accept that hearsay evidence will play a part in VOOs, I see absolutely no problem for the Government in accepting the principle of cross-examination.