Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill

My Lords, I rise to speak in this debate in sorrow and in anger. I speak in sorrow because for more than 700 years the historic institution of trial by jury has been seen as the embodiment of justice of the people, by the people, for the people. I speak in anger because I had to hear the speech of the noble and learned Lord, which rewrote history. It was as though the events of 19 and 20 November 2003 never took place. I was involved in the discussions on the Criminal Justice Bill. I sat down in good faith with other noble Lords and representatives of the Government and, after some to-ing and fro-ing between the Houses, we reached a solemn agreement. I have no need to refer to the private words, which were much stronger than those used on the Floor of this House and in another place, because David Blunkett explained it all to the House of Commons. There was not one word of that in the noble and learned Lord’s speech. Mr Blunkett said that if this House dropped its objection toClause 43—it was then Clause 42, but it became Clause 43—he would ensure that there would be full and proper consultation involving not only the main parties but also the Attorney-General, the Serious Fraud Office and the senior judiciary to look at the various alternatives to restricting trial by jury. He said: "““I will not press for implementation of the clause. I am prepared to offer an affirmative resolution, should that be required””." He was pressed by Mr Simon Hughes about whether that consultation would consider an alternative to the conventional jury that keeps the principle of jury trial. Mr Hughes asked: "““Is the implication of his remarks that, as a result of the Bill passing into law tonight, there will not be any serious fraud trial by a single judge in England and Wales?””." Mr Blunkett replied: "““I am prepared to give that undertaking. It is part of the agreement that we will retain the clause, but move forward towards looking at the alternative solutions … I give a binding undertaking that we will follow that agreement””.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/11/03; cols. 1027-28.]" What has happened? How dare the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General tell us that the consultation was a seminar?