Clause 3
Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill
12:15 pm
Simon Hughes (Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs & Shadow Attorney General, Constitutional Affairs; North Southwark and Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)
It would be helpful if the Under-Secretary could tell the Committee why the proposal is being dealt with in this Bill rather than in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill. Will she also tell us what the effect of that legislation will be? It has not come to the House of Commons yet, so we have not considered it. I have glanced briefly at it, but not given it detailed attention. I understand that it may well be debated this week in the House of Lords. It is directly relevant to the clause because I understand that it will make changes to jury trial in Northern Ireland.
As the Minister and colleagues well know, Northern Ireland is the one part of the United Kingdom where for a long period, going back to the 1970s, and for particular reasons—namely terrorism concerns—trial without jury has existed in what are called the Diplock courts. Particular criteria must be met, but that is considered. What is now happening is the welcome normalisation of life in Northern Ireland, including the normalisation of the criminal justice process, which is going back to jury trial in many more cases. It would therefore seem sensible that we should debate these matters in the context of Northern Ireland, where Northern Ireland Members of both Houses could see that this is a matter that directly affects them, not one that is tagged on to a debate about English and Welsh jury trial, which is clearly a different legal system and one where relevant Members of our House and the House of Lords would have expertise and interest.
My question is first, what justification do the Government have for this proposal? It is a parallel point to that made a moment ago by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. Secondly, can the Government explain how this is consistent with the general picture of Government policy towards Northern Ireland, which is to extend jury trial, not reduce it? It seems to me that if they are trying to get the message across in Northern Ireland that we want jury trial to be the norm again, this will be entirely inconsistent with that approach because with one piece of legislation they will be saying that jury trial can disappear while with the other they will be saying that jury trial can appear.
Finally, my other, linked, concern is that Northern Ireland may well in the past have been a place where the threats to the judge and the jury were considerable—far more than in any other part of the United Kingdom. The Government in the 1970s took the view that the threats were such that they needed to get rid of juries in particular cases, and Parliament agreed to that in exceptional circumstances. Some of us oppose this legislation because we do not believe that there are exceptional circumstances. Fraud is, sadly, normal; it is not abnormal. Large-scale fraud happens, and it has happened over recent years just as much as it happens at the moment. This is not a response to a particular trend. We are therefore keen to ensure that Northern Ireland is treated similarly to the rest of the UK and that it does not have legislation going in two different and inconsistent directions.
Will the Minister reflect on whether it might be better if the Government accepted a view that is going to be expressed and voted on by Members on these Benches? That is that this clause should come out of the Bill and, if the Government want to make the case for this proposal for Northern Ireland, they should make it in the context of the wider debate—the wider legislative opportunity that will arise when Northern Ireland criminal justice is debated, which we happen to know will be in this Session.