Fraud Bill [HL]

My Lords, in a sense the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell of Markyate, is right. I shall come in a moment to what the Government are going to do. Having told the Opposition, who have brought the question of jury trial into the Fraud Bill, that I want to separate the two issues and that the Government intend to bring forward a stand-alone Bill to deal with those issues, I had not anticipated that we would have a debate this afternoon. But, entirely properly, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, tabled an amendment and spoke to it in spirited terms, and other noble Lords contributed to the debate. Therefore, it is only right that I should say what the Government’s position is, particularly as the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, have asked me to reconsider. Parliament has already recognised that in certain cases the right to jury trial can be overridden by other considerations. Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contains—in addition to Section 43—provision for trial by judge alone in jury tampering cases. That is an exceptional case, but Parliament believed that it was right to take that step. We believe that it is very important that the criminal justice system is able properly to deal with white-collar crime as it can deal with blue-collar crime. We still believe that Section 43 is an important step in that direction. It would bring to an end the problem that in a handful of very complex fraud trials much of the evidence cannot even be put before the jury, and it would spare citizens the intolerable burden of sitting as jurors in such cases. It was not proposed lightly. This debate has been going on for 20 years. The fraud trials committee presided over by Lord Roskill argued as long ago as 1986 that trial by jury was unsatisfactory in serious fraud cases. There was a public consultation in 1998 which supported by two to one replacing jury trial in serious fraud cases. The same line was taken by Lord Justice Auld in his independent review in 2001. We demonstrated our willingness to consider modifications to the scheme provided for in Section 43 by entering with good faith into discussions with opposition parties. It is clear that there is no immediate prospect of those discussions bearing fruit and leading to a compromise position which delivers the necessary improvements to the efficacy of fraud trials. In those circumstances, it cannot be right to delay this modest but desirable Bill any longer. The Government, while remaining committed to the policy contained in Section 43, have taken the view that we need to separate this issue from the passage of the Fraud Bill. We therefore propose to bring forward fresh primary legislation to give effect to that policy as soon as parliamentary time allows rather than bringing forward an order giving effect to Section 43. No doubt when that Bill comes before the House, all the points that have been raised today and all the other points will be argued and debated. I have only responded a little in kind to the points that have been made. As it stands, the only amendment before the House is that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, which I believe in any event he will not press to a Division. I invite him to withdraw it.