Clause 9
Fraud Bill [Lords]
4:30 pm
David Heath (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons & Shadow Cabinet Office Minister, Cabinet Office; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
Predictably, it does not. I have always found that consistency in error bedevils our debates; it seems a pointless view that just because a thing was done once before, it needs to be done again, even if it is self-evidently unnecessary or otiose. I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which
“intent to defraud creditors of any person”
would not be encompassed in the phrase “for any fraudulent purpose”. It is a tautology, and plainly so. The only part of the Solicitor-General’s argument that commends itself to me is the need to apply consistency between the two company offences. If we introduce no error in law by removing a tautology, it is worth doing. That is my personal opinion, but I give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, who may tell me why I am wrong.