---

Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill

I think that it is, because we have to draw the line on threats somewhere. Public policy perhaps should not distinguish between something that is listed in the Bill and something that is not. For example, financial loss, intimidation and serious damage to property are not listed, but unless there is an exhaustive list, public policy will have to draw a line somewhere. The overall impact on the person—the coercive nature of what is happening—is the critical factor, and that should be borne in mind. I have made my point about my view and I started from the position of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough on subsection (6) being objective. We await the Minister's view on that. The issue of real harm to the public interest was introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, and the question was whether subsection (3)(b) is too broad. My understanding is that it is intended to cover the ability of undercover agents to be safe and to continue their work. It may also have something to do with national security issues. I have been unable to identify other matters that the provision is designed to cover. The understanding of the issue of real harm to the public interest might be broader—as the other words are in parentheses—in the sense that it is used with respect to public interest immunity. It is much broader than national security and the ability of undercover agents to do their work. I am supported in that view by representations from Justice, which reminded us of the citing by Lord Mance in his opinion of the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It stated:"““Anonymity should only be granted when the competent judicial authority, after hearing the parties, finds that…the life or freedom of the person involved is seriously threatened or, in the case of an undercover agent, his/her potential to work in the future is seriously threatened.””" That is an alternative wording. Liberty is also concerned that the provision is rather wide. The Bar Council, in its representations on this point, felt that the public interest category should be narrow and limited to serious concerns such as threats to national security or prejudice to a serious criminal investigation. It suggests that the wording should reflect a real risk of serious harm to the public interest, such as a threat to national security or prejudice to an ongoing investigation into serious crime. I put it to the Minister that a combination of those wordings might be reassuring to policy makers who fear that the provision might be read rather too widely. The more I examined clause 4—I started from a sceptical position—the more I was pleased with how strict it is, with the exceptions that I have mentioned, especially backed by the Government's amendment to clause 5. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister about the points that I have raised.