Fraud Bill [HL]

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was certainly not flippant on the last occasion. She has raised what I think everyone would agree is an important point. On the historical basis for this situation, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, may be closer to the mark than the noble Baroness. It goes back to the days when man and wife were regarded as a unity, and unities could not conspire with themselves. Although in my researches today I was not able to prove this to my own satisfaction, I suspect that it may well be connected with the rules that the noble Lord also refers to, about the availability, compellability and competence of one spouse to give evidence against the other. Having said all that, as the noble Baroness detected from Second Reading, I have much sympathy with what she said. The problem is that this is not really the vehicle by which to do it. There are two reasons for that. The first is that her amendment deals only with conspiracy to defraud, the common law offence, therefore not dealing even with statutory conspiracies to commit fraud. I suppose that one might deal with that. Secondly, as she rightly said, one could not deal with the other areas of conspiracy because they are outside the scope of the Act. Although she may regard the present position as anomalous, she might regard it as equally unsatisfactory and anomalous to abolish the rule for some conspiracies but not others. So she understandably asked what are the prospects for the matter to be considered. Following Second Reading, it has been suggested to the Law Commission that it consider the matter as part of its review of the law of conspiracy. My information tells me that its consultation paper should be published early next year. That is for it to decide, not the Government. If, after today, I can give any greater precision on that, I will. I undertake to write to her and hope that I may be able to obtain for her some greater assurance—although, again, it is a matter for the commission—that it will consider the matter then. I was certainly not referring to that matter within the three-year timescale, which is more appropriate to the overall review of the Act that we have undertaken to hold. That may take the matter a little further for the noble Baroness, and at least enough for tonight.