Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill

Let me deal with the intervention and then I will give way. The report on Jubilee line case gives us evidence of the burden on juries. If the hon. Member for Beaconsfield looks at page 7 and the interviews with jurors in that case, he will see that the report says:"““Some jurors had serious difficulties with their employers, including attempts to dismiss them, and would have liked more concrete help." There are several quotes from jurors. One said:"““They told me to sign or I would have no job to go back to.””" Another said:"““He sent me a P45””" The report adds:"““Unco-operative employers could also cause problems over claims for allowances.””" It quotes a juror as saying:"““As a juror it is your responsibility to get the stuff off your work, so if your work is being funny about it, if they don’t want to fill in the form…it’s a bit of a joke.””" There is a whole series of such quotes. The report goes further on page 13. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield mentioned the report, so let me draw his attention to some of the points on the other side of the argument. The report deals with the jurors return to work and says:"““Return to work for seven of the 11 interviewed presented continuing problems nearly five months on. These include one who has been made redundant, one in an employment dispute, one required to undertake extensive re-training who has missed a definite and much desired promotion, and one signed off by his doctor as suffering from stress as a result of the work situation.””" It goes on. My point is about the burden being imposed on juries as a result of very lengthy and complex fraud trials, and the House should take cognisance of that. Given those points, we need to ensure that we have legislation that allows the full culpability of a defendant in a complex and serious fraud trial to be exposed before the court without placing such undue burdens on jurors. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, problems can arise in a range of other lengthy trials. That is certainly the case, but no other area of law or type of criminal case has the history of serious and complex fraud cases. That has been made clear by Roskill and Auld; I do not need to go into the history of this. The House has debated the issues on many occasions. I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that we do not have plans to go further. There is no wedge. This is about a particular area of criminal law that has a long history.