Fraud Bill [Lords]

I think that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. A period of three years has been mentioned and that is ample time in which to ascertain whether to get rid of the offence. I stress that I do not violently disagree with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, who supports a sunset clause. We all want the same thing—it is a question of how we get there. I shall be relatively succinct because others wish to speak and we are holding a Second Reading debate, which does not call for going into the minutiae. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield referred to the definition of ““gain”” and ““loss””. Some people believe that it is too broad. We shall have to revert to the matter in Committee and I am sure that we will hold an interesting discourse on it. I am worried about clause 6. I intervened on the Solicitor-General to point out that it requires no mens rea element and that it should do so. A few moments ago, he responded to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who made the same point, by saying that intention will be necessary for a successful prosecution. That poses the question of why ““knowing”” or ““intending”” is not included in the provision. If it were, I would not have raised the matter and I am sure that many other learned commentators would not have raised it. Is the Solicitor-General open to an amendment along those lines in Committee? He was adamant that intention was required. In opening the debate, he said that there was some sort of tie-up between the old offence of ““going equipped”” and the clause. I tried to make the point that they are different because, if a person, late at night, is carrying bolt cutters, jemmies and all the typical gear of a housebreaker, that is one thing, but there is also the high-tech stuff—PINs, cards and so on—that is not perceived as being there specifically for a dishonest or nefarious purpose. There is therefore a distinction, which bolsters the case for including some sort of mens rea element—either ““knowing”” or ““intending””—in the provision. It is necessary to have a serious debate about that.