§ 132 Leave out Clause 107
§
The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—
§ 132A Page 68, line 15, leave out from "that" to second "the" in line 16 and insert "it is in"
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 132 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 132A to the words so restored to the Bill.
The issue of hearsay evidence has been the subject of constructive discussion in the past few weeks, so I shall deal directly with the government amendment to Clause 107(l)(d), which has been agreed in the Commons as I believe that that will address concerns about the extent to which the courts should have a discretion to admit reliable statements.
The Government remain firmly of the view that this discretion is an important aspect of the scheme. Certainly it was considered necessary by the Law Commission. But we have listened very carefully to the concerns that have been expressed that subsection (l)(d) was insufficiently focused. The proposed amendment would tighten the language used in the discretion to ensure that this evidence can be given only where it is in the interests of justice to do so. That would allow out of court cogent and reliable statements to be used, where the hearsay rule is obscuring or shielding the truth.
Clause 107 represents a key part of the new coherent statutory scheme. It provides a clear context for the operation of the other provisions in this part of the Bill. We have responded to concerns about the exercise of discretion to ensure that it is operated only in appropriate circumstances. I beg to move.
§ Moved, that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 132 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 132A to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
§ On Question, motion agreed to.