I beg to move Amendment No. 418, in

Clause 105, page 63, line 9, leave out from 'deceased)''' to end of line 9 and insert

'only a statement by a person to whom the original statement was made is capable of admission in criminal proceedings as evidence of a matter stated in the original statement (so that a statement by B, but not A, may be admitted as evidence of the fact that C shot the deceased).'.

This is a probing amendment, although it would be a wrecking amendment if it was accepted, because it would completely remove the thrust of the clause. The clause is important, because it regulates the admissibility of multiple hearsay. The Minister will not be surprised to learn that the amendment was tabled in order to have some debate about whether multiple hearsay should be admitted at all. The clause makes it impossible to admit multiple hearsay for the purpose of proving what was stated in the original statement. The Minister made the point that the longer from an event a person is asked to recollect it, the less reliable their evidence is likely to be. In the same way, I think that he would probably have no difficultly in accepting the general premise that the more hands, mouths or brains an account has been passed through, the more likely it is that account will be distorted.

In ''Goodbye to All That'', Robert Graves wrote about a series of newspaper articles relating to the German invasion of Belgium at the start of the first world war. He tells of a German newspaper that said that when the news of the fall of Liège was heard, the church bells were rung in Germany and elsewhere. By the time the story had passed through four different newspapers, it was being reported as the priests being tied as living clappers to the bells of the cathedral, which were then being rung by the German troops. Even by the standards of Germany's bad behaviour in that campaign, that was somewhat exaggerated.

We should be careful about this. Multiple hearsay leads to situations that can become dangerous. I need some assurance from the Minister about how it will be handled in practice. It seems from the clause that multiple hearsay will be dealt with by relying on the judge's discretion to try to sort it out. I have some anxieties about the principle of allowing multiple hearsay in to prove something.

Despite the Minister's strictures about the difficulties of recollecting something after a period of time, I am sure that the Committee will remember that we touched on that point briefly this morning when debating Amendment No. 377. Although I cannot subscribe to the hon. Gentleman's amendment—as he said, it would undo the entire purpose of the Clause—I tried to make it plain that we have serious concerns about its application. The Minister suggested this morning that he understood

and perhaps shared some of those concerns. The propensity for distortion or inaccuracy in multiple hearsay is clearly much greater than it would otherwise be. The courts will, I think, have to take care in interpreting the clause. The Minister's guidance will assist us in understanding exactly how that care is to be exercised.

I am happy to give what reassurance I can. As I said this morning, we accept that multiple hearsay is inherently more dangerous and more unreliable than first-hand hearsay. That is common ground. We cannot accept the Amendment, for reasons that are clear to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. It would prevent many business documents from being admitted as evidence simply because the information would have passed through several people in the course of the business. That is currently permitted under section 24(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and the Law Commission found that it was working perfectly adequately and without any difficulty. The amendment would be a retrograde step. However, I accept that it is a probing amendment, and with that in mind, I shall try to and reassure the Committee and set out what we intended to achieve.

The Clause sets out the circumstances in which an out of court statement will be admissible when it is considered to be multiple hearsay—in other words, as part of a chain of hearsay statements. We have to be extremely careful in approaching the subject. If Mr. Smith has died, it will clearly be impossible to challenge the accuracy of any statement made by him. The risk is that if such a statement passes through too many people it becomes unreliable or manufactured. For that reason, clause 100 generally prevents multiple hearsay from being admitted when the Speaker does not have personal knowledge of the matter stated. That is consistent with the Law Commission's recommendations.

In certain circumstances, however, multiple hearsay in a chain of statements is considered reliable enough to be admissible in criminal trials; and clause 105 regulates those circumstances. It provides that where the original hearsay statement is admissible—by virtue of the unavailability of the witness under clause 100, or the common-law rules preserved by clause 102—the original statement cannot be proved by means of another hearsay statement merely because the maker of that other statement is unavailable to testify. It might help if I give an example, because those general propositions are complex.

If I am unavailable to testify because I am ill, my written statement cannot be used to prove Mr. Smith's hearsay statement, which itself would be admissible only because Mr. Smith was unavailable, or because of a common-law rule such as res gestae applied. If I wanted to tell the court that Mr. Smith had given me a description of an assailant but that he died immediately afterwards, I would be able to do so only by relying on the unavailability provision under clause 100 and appearing in court personally. However, if I, too, was unavailable, and the only evidence of Mr. Smith's statement was my witness statement, or the statement of another witness whom I had told about Mr. Smith's statement, that evidence

would not be admissible. That is because it would require the cumulative use of the unavailability exception—my unavailability as well as Mr. Smith's. The potential dangers of such evidence, such as faulty perception or memory, would be exacerbated.

However, clause 105 allows some hearsay exceptions to operate in a chain when the hearsay dangers can be effectively countered. If Mr. Smith's original statement was admissible as a business statement, an inconsistent statement or another previous statement, it would be allowed under the clause.

Let us consider another example to clarify the point. If both Mr. Smith and I were unavailable to give evidence in court, but I had recorded Mr. Smith's statement in the course of my business, in a business document, that document would be admissible as proof of Mr. Smith's statement. As earlier attempts to legislate on the issue, such as section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, have recognised, a business document is an inherently reliable form of evidence.

The formulation of the rule in clause 105 follows the approach that the Law Commission took in its report and draft Bill. We accept that the clause is more complex than many of the others in the Bill, but such a safeguard against multiple hearsay is necessary, for the reasons that hon. Members gave. The clause serves to distinguish the type of circumstances in which it may be appropriate to admit multiple hearsay from those in which the risks would simply be too great.

Multiple hearsay is more unreliable than first-hand hearsay, so it will normally be inadmissible. However, it may be admitted as evidence in the case of business documents, which are already admissible even if they contain multiple hearsay, or if it is a previous statement or previous inconsistent statement. I hope that that clarifies the situation.

The Minister was most persuasive about Clause 104 when he referred to the practice in common-law jurisdictions, including Scotland. Can he name other jurisdictions where multiple hearsay, as defined in clause 105, is acceptable as evidence?

I am afraid that I cannot be so persuasive off the top of my head. I shall conduct some research and write to the hon. Lady and other Committee members on that point.

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanations on a subject on which, even after he has explained it, I still have difficulty at times in following how the court will apply the rules. I might say that that is not his fault but that of my addled brain at 4 pm on a Tuesday afternoon. Alternatively, it may be a problem that every lawyer will have to face as they confront this labyrinth.

However, the Minister has reassured me that the worst excesses will not happen, although I had already ascertained that to my satisfaction. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clauses 106 to 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.