Fraud Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 1:"Page 1, line 7, leave out paragraph (b)." The noble Lord said: Grouped with this amendment is the Question on whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill. The amendments test the purpose of Clause 3 in the scheme of the Bill. Clause 3 seems to add little to it. What, in the view of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, is covered by Clause 3 that is not already covered by Clause 2? Only one case comes to mind, the facts of which are as follows. A consultant refers his private patients to a hospital but does not inform the hospital of their private status. The patients receive treatment without paying and the hospital suffers a loss. In this case, it was held that the consultant’s silence and the act of sending the patients to the hospital is the representation. So I can see that the way in which the Government have cast Clause   3 might appropriately cover those particular circumstances. But I am very hard-pressed, outside that single example, to see what Clause 3 adds. I beg to move.