Fraud Bill [Lords]

The hon. and learned Gentleman gives a better example, albeit along the same lines as mine. I shall come back to this point in due course, and I do not want to labour it this evening. It was important to mention it in passing. There is a mental element in clause 7(1)(a), which states that a person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article—"““knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud””." I believe that that approach is preferable. I am not sure why there is a distinction between clauses 6 and 7, in that there is a mental element in the latter but not the former. The provision in clause 4 on fraud by abuse of position is overdue. A typical example that we have all come across is the situation in which a carer is less than honest and takes money or goods from the person in his or her charge. Unfortunately, we have all seen cases of that. The old Theft Acts would have covered such circumstances, but this provision creates a specific offence that may well be simpler to prosecute. I have some difficulty with the wording of clause 4, particularly with the words"““position in which he is expected to””." Those words are vague, and I hope that we can debate them in Committee. The present definition also raises the question of who is expecting the defendant to safeguard another person’s financial interests or to avoid acting against them. Is it the person whose interests are concerned? Is it a third party? Or is it a ““reasonable person””? If a person unreasonably expects another to safeguard their financial interests, that should not give rise to liability under the clause. Further, if there was no legal duty to do so, and the defendant was not aware that he was expected to do so, he or she should not be liable for this offence. We need clarification and it is the whole point of our proceedings in Committee to discuss such matters in detail. The organisation Justice is of the opinion that"““the offence should only give rise to liability for the intention to cause loss or risk of loss where the person suffering the loss is the same person to whom the duty is owed. It is, in our view, illogical that the mere existence of a duty towards party A may result in liability for an intention to cause loss to party B, who may be completely unrelated to A.””" I do not expect the Minister to respond to these points today, but no doubt we shall be able to engage in a debate on them in due course. The Bill is vague about gain or loss, and that also needs to be looked at. I would like to give the Solicitor-General an example. Let us say that A’s mother, M, is a kind-hearted old lady, and that A fears that people occasionally take advantage of her kindness. A’s friend, B, asks A whether M has any money, as he needs a loan of £5,000. A knows that M has more than that amount in a savings account, but he lies to B, saying that his mother does not have any money at the moment. The morality of A’s actions might be open to question, but would there be any criminality involved? [Hon. Members: ““ Discuss.””] Yes, it does sound like a university question, but it is none the less fascinating.