Clause
4Commencement,
extent and short
title
Simon
Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 4, page
2, line 9, leave out ‘months’ and insert
‘years’. It
is an exciting development—the amendment is actually on the
Order Paper, as opposed to having snuck up on us unawares. It is a
short amendment arguing that if the legislation is passed, it should
come into effect not immediately, or after two months, but after two
years. Obviously, amendments such as this always contain some mischief.
I own up to that. Who knows—there might be a general election
within the next two years. I could have made certain that an election
took place before the Act came into effect by tabling an amendment that
said “four years”, but there is plenty of opportunity for
such an amendment at a later stage in proceedings. That will no doubt
happen.
Mr.
Hogg: In any event, as the other place is not going to
pass the Bill, and, therefore, the Parliament Act will have to be
invoked, we are well
covered.
Simon
Hughes: Indeed, we are well covered. However, I want to
put the case that I and others summarised on Second Reading on the
Floor of the House: at the moment, it is nonsense to be legislating.
Since the idea was conceived, circumstances have changed in a way that
moves the balance of the argument away from legislating. A further
delay would give us more information on the justification for the
case. In summary, the
Government started down this road during the Prime Minister’s
first Administration. They came back to it in the 2003 Act and again in
the previous Session. After the general election they sought to pass an
order in the Commons to bring this provision into force, but it was
dropped in the Lords. However, in the meantime, various other things
have happened. First, Parliament spent a lot of time on the Fraud Act
2006, which has just come into force. We have had no time to evaluate
it because it has not been on the statute book for long. Will the
Solicitor-General tell us whether any of it has come into force and, if
so, how much of it? Parliament needs to know how important legislation
on the subject before us is working, before it makes a judgment on what
further legislation is
required. Secondly,
two other procedural changes have been made recently. On 22 March last
year, a new protocol for the control and management of heavy fraud and
complex criminal cases was handed down in court by the then Lord Chief
Justice, Lord Woolf. As Law Officers have accepted, it was intended to
deal with that largest
complaint—that the organisation of fraud cases was not as good as
it should have been. It was meant to reduce the length of fraud cases
by implementing measures relating to paperwork and bundling, to ensure
the opportunity for summaries and to allow juries to be presented with
the material in a more manageable way. That was done in the light of
experience gained when such cases were heard in the courts and
considered at the highest level of the judiciary. That protocol was announced in
March last year. It is now 18 months later. Will the Minister give us
an evaluation of the changes so far? We know that they have been
implemented, but have they been successful and, if so, can we see an
evaluation? Have the judges carried one out? Have Law Officers been
given one, or have they carried one out
themselves? It
being One o’clock, The Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing
Order. Adjourned
till this day at half-past Four
o’clock.
| 
