I beg to move amendment No. 432, in

clause 123, page 72, line 25, after 'been', insert

'substantially reliable at that time and'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 433, in

clause 123, page 72, line 32, leave out from 'been' to 'than' in line 33 and insert

'substantially reliable at the time of the previous account, and significantly better at that time.'.

I have already identified my general concerns about refreshing one's memory from notes, but the amendment relates to the narrower issue of the test for when a witness should be allowed to refresh his memory from notes while in the witness box. The test set out in the Bill is that

''he states in his oral evidence that the document records his recollection of the matter at that earlier time, and his recollection of the matter is likely to have been significantly better at that time than it is at the time of his oral evidence.''

This is a probing amendment in respect of the phrase ''significantly better.'' It suggests an improved formulation. I want to explore what questions will be asked of the witness in the witness box to ground his right to look at the statement. I suspect that it will turn out to be a ritualistic and formalistic phraseology, such as, ''Is that your witness statement?'' ''Yes it is.'' ''On what date did you make it?'' ''Three days after the incident.'' ''Was your recollection at that time significantly better than it is now?'' ''Yes.'' ''Can he please read from his statement?'' ''Yes.''

Should that process examine whether the evidence that the witness gave at the time can be relied on, because I suspect that that will be explored at some stage in the process? That ties in with my earlier comment. I am worried not about the intention of the provision, with which I wholly agree, but because I think that it will turn out to be an enormously fertile field of cross-examination, which, far from simplifying proceedings, could make them more complicated. Defence barristers, who will be the principal people involved, would be constantly probing the circumstances in which the original statement was made. They would try to suggest that the original statement was made as a result of leading questions or at a time when the reliability of the witness might be called into doubt. At present, those things do not normally happen in that way. I wanted to flag that up, because I am trying to help the Minister. I would like the system to work, but it is not without problems.

It would be helpful to know whether there is currently a code of practice or conduct that governs the writing of statements, particularly by those in authority. Again, this is such familiar ground to anybody who has ever been to a court at which police officers are being cross-examined as to when they made their statements, which are traditionally in notebooks. The issue that arises most frequently—the hon. Gentleman hinted at it—is whether the person making the note did so before they had the opportunity to discuss the events with other people. Discussing events can result, as if by magic, in two notes made by two people appearing to be almost identical. That ground is covered regularly in the courts. One can understand why such statements do not have a ring of truth about them, because no two people would write about the same events in exactly the same way.

The amendment is about substantial reliability. Is the technological state of advancement not such that, in the interests of saving the time of the police, Customs and Excise and people who carry out investigations, the job could be done using hand-held dictaphones? Police officers could have their own, and as soon as they finished the job, they could spend about a minute recording what they had seen, rather than spending an hour back at the police station writing it all out. If that happened, it would be much more likely to be the officers saying it for real. In addition, the procedure could be tracked much more quickly: the machines and tapes could belong to the person in question so that they could be put in a place

and marked. Of course, there are eyewitnesses, but that could be streamlined.

In the modern world, if we are trying to get police officers on the street and out of the station, the two things that would make the biggest difference relate to their making their own statements and their taking statements from witnesses. I think that 95 per cent. of the time civilians should take such statements. If they did, police officers could come back and decide whether they had any other questions. Leaving big, serious cases aside, most of the key questions relate to what time of day it was, where the person was coming from and going to, who was there and so on. One does not need a police officer's training to be able to elicit that information from somebody. It is a serious proposition if we are really trying to save time.

I have spent too many hours of my life in police stations watching police officers type on typewriters and computers at about an eighth of the speed that I could manage—and I am by no means the world's quickest typist. Clearly they are not the most competent people to be doing what a secretary, who does that sort of thing all day, could do very quickly. I have also seen officers writing laboriously into notebooks. There might be a dubious background in that the officer could have checked with the other two officers at the scene so that they all have similar things in their notebooks, which means that there will be much discussion about the evidence at the trial. Will the Minister give us any steer as to whether what I propose is the practice anywhere? Has it been piloted? Could it be piloted? For the investment undertaken, it would save hours and hours of police time and it would also save a lot of time in court.

I entirely understand why the amendments have been tabled and I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I was surprised by the way in which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield developed his case, which seemed to undercut his amendment. He is worried about the proliferation of the legal industry, which his amendment would encourage.

I said that it was a probing amendment, designed to focus on that issue. I accept the Minister's argument that if we embarked on an exercise to look into the state of mind of those making statements, the investigation would be lengthy. Lengthy investigations are, however, likely to happen when statements are being used in that way, which is why I was trying to highlight the issue.

In that case, we are on common ground in agreeing that the amendment should not be pursued. The clause is intended to create a presumption that a witness may refresh their memory from an earlier statement, which seems to us to be a reasonable proposition. The hon. Gentleman's concerns are not new, and we want to clarify the position and the circumstances in which witnesses may refresh their memories. A witness can do so if they indicate that the document represents their recollection of a particular matter at the time at which they made the statement. Their recollection is likely to have been significantly better at the time at

which the document was made. That provision is sensible and important, and we agree that the amendment will clearly not work.

I do not accept that the hon. Gentleman's worries will necessarily come to pass. We do not believe that they will, and the interests of justice are better served by allowing the clause to stand.

Turning briefly to the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, I remind him that the circumstances in which a statement is made can be scrutinised and tested in court. In his disquisition on the subject, he adduced evidence of such scrutiny in court, which is a key safeguard. He concluded by making an extremely valuable point about the gains from new technology, which is precisely why the Government are investing £1 billion in new technology for the criminal justice system. I assure him that we are doing our level best to ensure that we get all the benefits that we can possibly derive both in the areas that he has suggested and in a vast range of other areas. The potential gains are enormous.

I conclude on that happy note, and invite the hon. Member for Beaconsfield to withdraw the amendment.

I hope that the Minister will take away my idea, look at it and let me know whether it is already in use. If it is not in use, would he be willing to pilot it?

The guidelines for the police will require examination if the problems that I have tried to highlight are to be avoided. Having said that, I hope that I have made it clear that I support the principle, which I set out earlier today, of being able to refresh one's memory from one's statement. Such a system should work well provided that it does not lead to time being taken up by an examination of the circumstances in which a statement was produced. We need to lay down some rules, which the police should follow when they help people to make statements. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 123 ordered to stand part of the Bill.