Clause 1
Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill
11:30 am
Mike O'Brien (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; North Warwickshire, Labour)
I do not accept that a formal consultation, giving yet another opportunity for public discussion, was either necessary or promised. I am not sure what on earth the hon. Gentleman expected the seminar to be—it was billed clearly as a discussion on serious fraud trials. Its substance dealt with the options available, such as a single judge, a judge with assessors and various other alternatives in order to resolve what everyone accepts, I think, is an issue—the length and manageability of serious and complex fraud cases.
The seminar was held and views were expressed, not only by Front Benchers from the two main Opposition parties—they were representatives from the Lords—but by others who were present. Those were fed into the Government’s consideration of how to proceed. We took the view that it was unlikely that the other place would pass an order in relation to section 43. Following further thought, we decided that it would be better to amend the 2003 Act.
I listened to the rather agitated hyperbole—if I may call it that—from the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham about how we have proceeded. I think that for the Government to bring forward new primary legislation, which will be considered fully in this House and another place, is a perfectly honourable and proper way to proceed. Hon. Members will have the opportunity to express their views, as they have done and will continue to do, in the course of our discussions.
I shall move from process to substance.