---

Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I can have a discussion after the vote, when we have had the outcome. I do not think that I will have to withdraw anything that I have said. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) pointed out in his contribution that he was not a lawyer, and I am sure that I do not need to point out—I think that all Members know—that I am not a lawyer either. Like him, however, I was interested to hear the many contributions from Members who have legal experience; indeed, many of them are hon. and learned Friends and Members. The hon. Gentleman said that today he had been proud to listen to the lawyers. I just want to say that it is not lawyers to whom I thought I was listening—they may well bring experience to the debate, but we speak in this House as Members of Parliament on behalf of our constituents whom we represent, and that needs to be borne in mind. The law does not exist for lawyers or to occupy lawyers; it exists to deliver justice, and that is our aim here today. A number of Members commented on how many speeches had been made today on each side of the debate, and we are getting quite exercised about the mathematics of the issue. Of course, what really matters is the strength of argument—quality as opposed to quantity. I think that quality rested very firmly on this side of the House. We wish the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), my neighbour, well in his role as a juror. Knowing him, I have no doubt that he will undertake that role with commitment and integrity. However, he talked about a price worth paying in these long trials that are so burdensome for juries. Knowing that he is a dedicated family man who puts time into doing his job locally, I would be very surprised if he was willing to serve a year or more on such a trial. A number of Members asked why fraud cases are so different from lengthy drugs and terrorism cases. That seemed to be the crux of the argument for many Members. The first thing that makes them different is the combination of great length and a failure to bring defendants to justice on the full range of allegations. There are also the recommendations of judges who have produced serious reports, such as Roskill and Auld, to whom I have referred. They have identified serious and complex fraud cases as a particular problem. [Interruption.]