Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I have one question for the Minister. My understanding is that the clause, which has to do with an application by the defence for further disclosure from the prosecution, has a precondition

that the defence statement must be served first. It has been put to me that if the defence have concerns that the initial case has not been fully disclosed, they are obliged to serve their statement before the prosecution have revealed their hand. Is there a way of resolving the question whether the prosecution have to reveal their hand to the full? What sanction can be applied if the prosecution have not, either advertently or inadvertently, made full disclosure? I give one practical example. It is often the case that the defence are aware that someone has been interviewed yet they do not see a statement in the bundle. They might ask the police or the CPS, ''What about it?'' The answer might be, ''We know nothing about it''. As far as such bodies are concerned, the witness might be significant. In those cases, how can the defence's interests be properly looked after, and what sanction can they employ to ensure that they see everything before they have to serve their statement?

I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, but I undertake to consider it, and to write to him if that is helpful.

I am grateful.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.