Fraud Bill [HL]

I am not sure I understand why the noble and learned Lord says that the Law Commission was following the views of the majority. The Law Commission, as it should, formed its view in the light of the consultations it received, but it may well have rejected arguments that were put forward. We know who responded to the Government’s consultation and what the response was. That is surely better than trying to draw some inference from the Law Commission report when we do not know what individual people said. A wide range of persons, not only the prosecuting authorities, put to the Government the strong view that the common law offence should be retained. Let me say something about the views of the prosecutors. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and I crossed swords about this last time, but in a very good-natured way. They are in the front line; it is their responsibility to deal with these offences. It is important to have regard to the views of the front-line prosecutors who, in the public interest, have to deal with these offences for the benefit of us all. But it was not only those prosecutors, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office who opposed repeal. The Association of Chief Police Officers, representing 44 forces, and the Rose committee—which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, will be well aware, consists of senior Appeal Court judges presided over, as its name indicates, by Lord Justice Rose, one of the most experienced criminal judges in the whole of the judiciary—strongly opposed the repeal of the common law offence of conspiracy. That fact in itself ought to give one considerable pause for thought before saying that we can sweep aside the objections of those who thought it was not appropriate to retain the offence. The repeal was opposed by the Fraud Advisory Panel, the membership of which extends to law enforcement, financial institutions, law and accountancy professions, industry associations, government agencies, regulatory authorities, government and academia. I have here extracts from a number of the responses which were submitted. I am happy to make it available to noble Lords who would find it helpful. The Fraud Advisory Panel, with a large and widely experienced membership, stated:"““The offence of conspiracy to defraud is a vital weapon in the armoury of the prosecuting authorities, and the Panel urges the government to retain it””." It went on to give many examples. It stated:"““One classic case occurs where doorstep salesmen target householders in particular neighbourhoods. The nature of the goods they peddle is diverse, ranging from repaving house driveways to selling bogus lottery tickets. It is true that doorstep salesmen could be prosecuted under the new fraud offence . . .  but the shape of the prosecution would be unwieldy and very problematic. Typically, in this case, there will be thousands of victims. The prospect of an indictment alleging 20 counts with the balance of 980 counts to be held over for trial by a Judge under the new multiple offending provisions is an unhappy one””—" for a number of reasons. Those reasons are then set out.