Clause 1
Fraud Bill [Lords]
David Heath (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons & Shadow Cabinet Office Minister, Cabinet Office; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
May I echo the closing words of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)? There is common agreement that the Law Commission has done an extremely good job in issuing its report and recommendations. Its argument for simplification and rationalisation of fraud offences is one that is difficult to argue against. As Griew noted about theft,
“No one wanting to construct a rational, efficient law of criminal fraud would choose to start from the present position. The law...is in a very untidy and unsatisfactory condition.”
That is a commonly held view. The conclusions are to be applauded not only because they provide clarity where there was a lack of it and because they provide offences that are comprehensive where there was a lack of comprehensiveness in respect of previous offences, but because there is a higher likelihood of successful prosecution when a simple test can be applied. At the moment, there is every opportunity for the defence to produce technical arguments in favour of acquittal that bear no relationship to the actual acts that took place. They are essentially legal arguments rather than arguments about fact. I support clause 1. It is a sensible measure.
I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield about the danger of having something so broad and encompassing that it covers behaviour that we may consider occasionally falls short of criminality, which nevertheless is not to be encouraged. When framing statute and offences, there is a difficulty whether we make them so comprehensive to ensure that criminal acts are without doubt caught within that compass or make them so particular that they fail to do that. There are arguments on both sides and we must accept that often we must make a compromise between those two positions and that a lot depends on the good sense of the prosecuting authorities in respect of what is put before a court.
When considering such matters, we must be extremely careful to make sure that we are not putting in the hands of prosecuting authorities an overbearing offence that can be applied improperly to those who are, in the judgment of most people, acting in a way that is worthy of opprobrium, but not criminal sanction. However, we shall be debating that matter later in the Bill. I welcome clause 1 and feel no need to amend it or argue against it.