Clause 1
Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill
11:00 am
Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
I want to propose that clause 1 does not stand part of the Bill. As I said, my familiarity with Committees is rusty in the extreme but I think that it is in order for me to advance the arguments why the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
The effect of clause 1 not standing part of the Bill is that we would go back to the affirmative resolution procedure, which is provided for in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Mr. Bercow, you and I, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield were very interested in the passage of that Bill, as, no doubt, was the Solicitor-General, who will remember the considerable disagreement that arose between the Houses on what was then clause 42, which became clause 43; namely, whether complicated fraud cases should be held without a jury.
The House reached deadlock. At that stage, there was a bargaining process, to which I was not party, but it was reflected in the speeches made by the then Home Secretary and the Government spokesman in the other place, Lady Scotland, when they laid the affirmative resolution procedure. That procedure was part ofa bargain, which comprised something like the Government not trying to force their proposals forward; they would have very serious discussions with all the interested parties to see whether it was possible to formulate a lay assessor or special jury. It was plain that undertakings were being given to both Houses that very serious attempts would be made to agree a special procedure that did not involve judge-alone trials. That was the basis on which the other place accepted the Bill, and the basis on which it was enacted.