Fraud Bill [HL]

Once again I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his response. As he quite rightly said, the two amendments go in opposite directions. Amendment No. 11, by seeking to leave out ““legal””, greatly broadens the offence. Amendment No. 12, by defining ““legal duty””, in some small degree narrows it. The reason for this is that the amendments sought to extract an explanation from the Government about the basis upon which they cast their own text. I respectfully agree with the Government on retaining the expression ““legal””. It seems to me that to go beyond that would, as the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said, make the law too uncertain. I entirely endorse the approach that the noble and learned Lord has taken. I also accept that,"““duty under any enactment, instrument or rule of law””," does not include an oral contract. Therefore, to that extent my definition and, indeed, the definition of the Law Commission, is deficient. In those circumstances what is an important category of legal duties, which might well prove the basis of a number of prosecutions, would be excluded, and that would be undesirable. I am most grateful for those explanations and in that case I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 12 not moved.]