Simon Hughes (Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs & Shadow Attorney General, Constitutional Affairs; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 4, page 2, line 9, leave out ‘months’ and insert ‘years’.

It is an exciting development—the amendment is actually on the Order Paper, as opposed to having snuck up on us unawares. It is a short amendment arguing that if the legislation is passed, it should come into effect not immediately, or after two months, but after two years. Obviously, amendments such as this always contain some mischief. I own up to that. Who knows—there might be a general election within the next two years. I could have made certain that an election took place before the Act came into effect by tabling an amendment that said “four years”, but there is plenty of opportunity for such an amendment at a later stage in proceedings. That will no doubt happen.

Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

In any event, as the other place is not going to pass the Bill, and, therefore, the Parliament Act will have to be invoked, we are well covered.

Simon Hughes (Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs & Shadow Attorney General, Constitutional Affairs; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

Indeed, we are well covered. However, I want to put the case that I and others summarised on Second Reading on the Floor of the House: at the moment, it is nonsense to be legislating. Since the idea was conceived, circumstances have changed in a way that moves the balance of the argument away from legislating. A further delay would give us more information on the justification for the case.

In summary, the Government started down this road during the Prime Minister’s first Administration. They came back to it in the 2003 Act and again in the previous Session. After the general election they sought to pass an order in the Commons to bring this provision into force, but it was dropped in the Lords. However, in the meantime, various other things have happened. First, Parliament spent a lot of time on the Fraud Act 2006, which has just come into force. We have had no time to evaluate it because it has not been on the statute book for long. Will the Solicitor-General tell us whether any of it has come into force and, if so, how much of it? Parliament needs to know how important legislation on the subject before us is working, before it makes a judgment on what further legislation is required.

Secondly, two other procedural changes have been made recently. On 22 March last year, a new protocol for the control and management of heavy fraud and complex criminal cases was handed down in court by the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf. As Law Officers have accepted, it was intended to deal with that largest  complaint—that the organisation of fraud cases was not as good as it should have been. It was meant to reduce the length of fraud cases by implementing measures relating to paperwork and bundling, to ensure the opportunity for summaries and to allow juries to be presented with the material in a more manageable way. That was done in the light of experience gained when such cases were heard in the courts and considered at the highest level of the judiciary.

That protocol was announced in March last year. It is now 18 months later. Will the Minister give us an evaluation of the changes so far? We know that they have been implemented, but have they been successful and, if so, can we see an evaluation? Have the judges carried one out? Have Law Officers been given one, or have they carried one out themselves?