Fraud Bill [HL]

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could assist me. The Government’s policy on the reform of criminal law on fraud is largely based on the Law Commission’s report; I think he would agree with that. The commission says on page 2 of the report that the proposals,"““should make the law more comprehensible to juries, especially in serious fraud trials. The charges which are currently employed in such trials are numerous and none of them adequately describe or encapsulate the meaning of ‘fraud’. The statutory offences are too specific to offer a general description of fraud; while the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud is so wide that it offers little guidance on the difference between fraudulent and lawful conduct. Thus, at present, juries are not given a straightforward definition of fraud. If they were, and if that were the key to the indictment, it should enable them to focus more closely on whether the facts of the case fit the crime as charged””." I take it that the noble and learned Lord agrees with those sentiments. Does not that provide, in addition to other matters raised yesterday, yet another example of the wisdom of a ““wait and see”” policy, rather than taking the robust measure he proposes and, without waiting to see how this works out in practice, allowing trial by judge alone in the cases to which he referred? Finally, on conspiracy to defraud, the Law Commission referred to the,"““anomaly represented by the continuing survival of conspiracy to defraud, under which it may be a crime for two people to agree to   do something which, in the absence of an agreement, either of them could lawfully do””." How does the noble and learned Lord get over that comment?