New Clause 1
Fraud Bill [Lords]
9:00 am
David Heath (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons & Shadow Cabinet Office Minister, Cabinet Office; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
I welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Jones. I hope that our proceedings will be relatively short, but we shall see.
New clause 1 would repeal section 43 of Criminal Justice Act 2003, whose purport is to allow non-jury trials in fraud cases, so it is entirely relevant to our discussions. Let me say from the outset, however, that I do not intend to press it to a Division, and my purpose in putting it on the amendment paper is simply to set out clearly our position on section 43 and allow the Solicitor-General to repeat the assurances that were given in another place about the Government’s intentions. That is a sensible thing to do and simply makes the position clear.
There has been a lot of discussion about section 43 since the passing of the 2003 Act and there have been what we might describe as misunderstandings along the way about various party’s intentions and the degree of consultation inherent in taking such issues forward. I shall not rehearse those arguments again today, but simply say that the Liberal Democrats are utterly unpersuaded of the need to proceed with implementation of the section 43.
If the Bill is enacted, the measures in it will go a long way towards simplifying and clarifying the laws on fraud, and that is indeed the intention. In so doing, the Bill will, I hope, assist with the presentation and management of fraud cases and at least partially remove whatever pressure there is on trial juries. Juries are an important part of the justice system, and although we accept that some trials take place without them, we are unpersuaded that cases involving the serious crime of fraud should be included. In a perfect world, therefore, section 43 would be repealed.
Of course we accept the assurances given by the Attorney-General in another place, where he made it plain that the Government intended not to use section 43, but that if they did proceed with changes to the arrangements for jury trials in fraud cases, they would do so through primary legislation. Of course, I accept those assurances and I am grateful for them. Given that they are in place, however, it could be argued that there is no need for section 43 and that repealing it would make no difference. Equally, if section 43 is not to be used, there is no mischief in it, which is why I do not intend to proceed to a Division. I simply ask the Solicitor-General to repeat the assurance about the Government’s intentions.
If the Government have formed the view that there may be a need to proceed through primary legislation, I invite the Solicitor-General to consider that there should be time for the Bill, if enacted, to take effect and for some assessment to be made of its impact on the duration of trials and the prevalence or otherwise of failed trials under the new offences. It would be absurd to discard a basic building block of English justice without that objective assessment or evidence to suggest that the changes would have a beneficial effect. That is the position of Liberal Democrat Members, and it may well be the position elsewhere on the Opposition Benches. I invite the Solicitor-General to make any comments that he feels appropriate about the new clause.