Fraud Bill [HL]

The point is that if they use a description which is understood by people to mean ““It might be; provenance uncertain””, then they will not have been dishonest in making that statement. If, on the other hand, the provenance is uncertain and they use the expression ““Auguste Renoir”” knowing that people would take that to mean it was in fact by Renoir, that is fraud if they are dishonest. We come back time and again to the same point. I have two answers for the noble Lord. If what is said might be untrue there are two constraining elements—two safeguards for a defendant. These are, first, that his conduct must be dishonest; and, secondly, that by making the representation he must intend to make a gain or cause a loss to another. Those two requirements have to be there. My second objection is that the amendment as drafted does not meet the point in any event. In the example we have been talking about, which some noble Lords might have preferred to see in terms of recklessness, it is not that the person intends the representation to be false—he rather hopes that it is true—but that he has not got a basis on which he can properly put the painting forward and say, ““This is a painting by Renoir. Please give me £10,000 for it””, or whatever it may be. For those two reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.