Clause 4
Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill
5:00 pm
David Heath (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons & Shadow Cabinet Office Minister, Cabinet Office; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
On the basis of that response, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey will not withdraw his amendment. It seemed to me that in setting out the Government’s strategy, the Minister made it abundantly clear that it is based on an ex cathedra statement that they will proceed irrespective of the evidence and the effect of the other measures that are being taken.
It has always been suggested that the Bill is needed because of the complexity of the cases in question and the strain that they put on juries. However, the Minister said clearly that the fourth element of the Government’s strategy—to proceed with the removal of trial by jury—will be unaffected by the other measures being taken. She said that even if the existing legislation, the changes to procedural rules and the redefinition of the offence of fraud were proved substantially to reduce the complexity of cases and the time that they take, they would have no effect on the Government’s intention to remove the jury from trials in complex fraud cases.
I am left to conclude that the Government’s intention lies in a vacuum and is not based on any evidence of a requirement. It is certainly not based on the view, which is held on these Benches and was displayed by some Labour Members on Second Reading, although possibly not those in the Committee, that jury trial is a good in itself. It is part of the judicial system of England and Wales and should not be dispensed with unless there are very strong arguments for doing so. Such arguments have not been adduced by the Minister, who is impervious to any rational explanation involving other measures that have been taken. I hope that my hon. Friend will not withdraw his amendment and that we shall have the opportunity to divide on it.