§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang)I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 24, line 5, leave out subsection (5).
When I introduced the Bill on Second Reading, I gave the House an undertaking that I would bring forward on Report an amendment that would remove subsection (5) from the new section which is to be inserted by clause 32 into the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. I recognise the importance that many hon. Members attach to the matter, and the need to ensure that there is an opportunity for all who wish to do so to take part in the debate. I am glad to be able to discharge that undertaking this evening, and I am grateful to those hon. Members who served on the First Scottish Standing Committee for their self-restraint in allowing the matter to stand over until this stage.
As the House knows, the provisions of clause 32 will enable the evidence of witnesses outside the United Kingdom to be given to a Scottish court by way of a live television link. The new provisions will bring the law of Scotland in that respect into line with the law of England and Wales, where such a facility has been available to both the prosecution and the defence for over two years—that is, since the coming into force of section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in November 1990 in respect of certain prescribed crimes.
Were subsection (5) to remain in the Bill, its effect would be to disallow the use of modern technology in respect of one class of serious crime only, and purely on the basis that such crimes would be prosecuted under the War Crimes Act 1991. As my noble and learned Friend the Lord-Advocate pointed out when this matter was debated in another place, it would be wrong in principle to set up a special and different system for trying persons accused of war crimes. The procedures which this clause will introduce will be available to protect the rights of an 493 accused person, just as they will enable the prosecution to bring evidence which might not otherwise come before the court.
Concerns were expressed in another place that the television link would be used to enable witnesses to identify accused persons in circumstances that would be unfair to the accused. I stress that the provisions are framed in such a way that the principle of fairness to the accused is paramount. The court must be satisfied, before granting an application by the prosecution to have evidence given by television link, not only that the interests of justice will be served but also that the granting of such an application would not be unfair to the accused.
I have every confidence that the Scottish courts, in applying the principle of fairness to the accused which is so important to our system of criminal justice in Scotland, will ensure that, in every case in which an application for the giving of evidence by television link is granted, the right of the accused to a fair trial will not be imperilled. Given the safeguards built into the provisions, we consider it to be unnecessary and inappropriate that there should be any exclusions.
§ Mr. Menzies CampbellI believe that I am the only Member present to have voted consistently against the War Crimes Act 1991. I voted against the initial motion, when the temperature of the House was taken, and at every stage of the Bill. Notwithstanding that, I believe that the amendment, which the Secretary of State introduced so reasonably, ought to be supported. It seems to fly in the face of principle to exclude the use of modern technology for evidential purposes for one crime or set of crimes.
I have taken the opportunity to read the debate in another place which was the progenitor of subsection (5), to which the amendment is directed. I mean no disrespect to their Lordships, but after reading the debate carefully, it is clear to me that in large measure their interest in the matter was influenced by their antagonism to the notion of war crimes legislation—an antagonism that is widespread in the House. That is understandable, but one must accept that the Bill has become law. The Houses of Parliament have passed a measure that I would have preferred not to be passed and to which I am still opposed. However, to seek to exclude the application of modern technology to one part of the criminal system because people feel that it is repugnant for it to be a part of the system cannot be justified on principle.
While I wish that the War Crimes Act had never been passed, I am certain that we should be embarking upon a most dangerous precedent if we were to say that the nature of evidence will depend on the nature of the crime. That seems to open up a range of opportunities. In due course a system would emerge in which principle had disappeared and all crimes would be determined on a virtually ad hoc basis. For that reason, I am more than content that the amendment should be passed. It is right in principle.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)I hope that my colleagues who represent Scottish constituencies will forgive me for intervening briefly in the debate.
The subsection passed in another place is very unfortunate. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) fairly spoke of his opposition to the War Crimes Act and gave his reasons for supporting —as I do—the Government amendment to overturn what 494 was done in another place. Unlike the hon. and learned Gentleman, who speaks from the Liberal Democrat Benches, I supported the War Crimes Act. I gave my reasons at the time and it would be inappropriate, and no doubt out of order, for me to attempt to so again today.
Although I supported the Act, I always did so on the basis that justice must be done. I was not concerned with revenge, as some critics argued. If I had been of the view that so many years have elapsed since the crimes took place during the last war that it would be impossible to get justice, I would not have supported the legislation. I am concerned with justice. Nevertheless, just because they happened half a century ago, it does not mean that the people who are alleged to have been responsible for some of the most monstrous crimes that have ever been committed should not be brought to justice, if that is possible. I believe that people living in the United Kingdom and in Scotland may well have to face justice for such crimes. Should those people be brought to court, under our system the courts will decide whether they are guilty.
Earlier today, I read the debate in another place. As several of their Lordships made clear, when the subsection was debated on 4 June it was almost a replay of the War Crimes Act. Perhaps the word "almost" is not necessary —it was as if their Lordships had decided that, as they had lost the first time round, they would use the Bill to put forward their arguments against the Act. The measure was being used by people who were totally opposed to the Act, which seems unfortunate.
I am pleased that the Government have decided to invite the House to overturn what their Lordships have done, and I am sure that the House will gladly take up the invitation.
§ Mr. Bill WalkerI shall be brief. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the way in which he moved the amendment.
The stand taken by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) deserves comment. He is a credit to the House and to his profession, because at least he is consistent on matters of principle. That is important, especially in legislation and law. As he said, it would be wrong for the use of modern technology to be excluded for one crime.
As everyone knows, war crimes will not be restricted to what happened during the ghastly period between 1939 and 1945. One could argue that many war crimes are being perpetrated at this moment. Who knows whether, at some future date, a resident of Scotland will be charged with a war crime? It is proper and right that the amendment should be supported by the House.
§ Mr. LangI am grateful to hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I could not help noticing how different the tone of the debate has been compared with the tone and content of the debate in the other place. Their Lordships were wrong to use the measure to reopen the war crimes issue. By so doing, they have injected anomalies into the relationship between the laws of Scotland and England and between war crimes and other serious crimes.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) for his comments. I too voted against the original motion. I was persuaded otherwise as 495 matters proceeded, but I feel the same way as he does about the amendment, for precisely the reasons that he eloquently and effectively put before the House.
I also note and am grateful for the comments made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I hope that the unanimity of those taking part in this short but important debate will not be lost on their Lordships in another place and that they will recognise the view of this House on an important matter.
§ Amendment agreed to.