Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill

My Lords, before the noble Lord continues in this way, which is a little uncharacteristic in this House and a little uncharacteristic of the noble Lord, perhaps he would reflect on what Mr Blunkett said: "““On Second Reading and again on Report, I said that I was not against looking at such measures,””—" that is a reference to the previous sentence about measures drawing on a specialist range of expertise for a jury— "““so I find no difficulty tonight in offering the opportunity to the two main Opposition parties working with the Attorney-General, the Serious Fraud Office and the senior judiciary to take a further look at how that might be taken forward””.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/11/03; col. 1027.]" Is the noble Lord aware that, despite our attempts to take that forward, no single suggestion has been put forward from the opposition parties other than that we should simply do away with Section 43?