---

Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill

On amendment No. 35, we have heard that clause 3(2) is not fit for purpose. It tries to deal with too many different sorts of cases. It tries to deal with cases in which the witness does not want information to be passed to the police; cases where the same person is effectively witness for the prosecution and witness for the defence; and cases where the witness is afraid of the other defendants. That confirms my view that the obligation in the clause goes too far. The Government could well think about the clause again and redraft it, but at the moment it seems to be entirely badly drafted. I accept the offer from the official Opposition to vote for our amendment on the grounds that, if it were carried, the only plausible way out of the situation—and I think that it is the only plausible way anyway—is to adopt the independent counsel system. It is on that issue that most of the debate has concentrated. Having heard the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) and other contributors, I believe that there is an overwhelming case for using that institution. The Lord Chancellor said that it was no guarantee that cases would be able to proceed that would otherwise not be able to proceed. Because of the Davis case, at a late stage, there was an attempt to use special counsel, but it was not the perfect use of an institution that did not have any statutory basis. There was a lack of clarity about how it would be used, which makes it all the more important that it should be given a statutory basis. Nevertheless, the argument is not that independent counsel would guarantee better results, but that it would simply make it more likely that cases that would not otherwise go ahead would disappear from the list. All the arguments effectively come down to time. There is not enough time to get this right, but if we do not do anything, it is quite possible that we will make the situation worse. The Lord Chancellor's argument came down to saying that doing nothing can have no consequences, whereas doing something always has bad consequences. With that in mind, we should vote on amendment No. 35. Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 162, Noes 256.