However, I am not prepared to argue about it any longer, because it is not getting us anywhere. The provision is not inadequate, merely loosely worded.
On the other matter, the Solicitor-General has taken us further forward by saying in terms that the provision does not apply to someone who had left the position in which they were expected to provide a safeguard. In other words, it deals with somebody who is in position at the time of the offence and does not apply to someone who is no longer holding that position. That is clear enough, although I do not necessarily support it, because I can envisage examples involving a person who has held a position of trust and then abuses it having left that position. Such a person is as guilty of a fraud as they would have been had they retained it. Having said that, I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Order for Third Reading read.
Fraud Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
David Heath
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 26 October 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Fraud Bill (HL).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
450 c1702-3 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 21:18:15 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_355539
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_355539
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_355539