Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 20 March 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill.


Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill

My Lords, that is not my understanding of the Government’s position at all. Before this Bill was introduced, we had the right under Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to receive in the form of a draft affirmative order and to vote on it. The noble and learned Lord knew full well, two or three months before the tabling of the order was envisaged, that the House was likely to vote against it. He therefore changed tack and decided to introduce primary legislation, knowing that one consequence of doing so—if the House did not agree with the contents of that legislation—would be Parliament Act procedures. His decision to do that had nothing whatever to do with any expressed desire by the Opposition of preferring primary legislation because, unlike an order, they could amend it.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c1199 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Criminal proceedings Administration of justice Fraud Juries Evidence Judges Prosecutions Magistrates Trials
Legislation
Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk