Skip to main content

1-20 of 382 results for subject:Misrepresentation

Session X
2005-06

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) rightly recognised, we had a very constructive and full discussion in Committee on 20 June. I have not changed my mind since then, but I hear the points that he makes. We hope in due course to be in a...

Member
Mike O'Brien (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1697-8
House
House of Commons

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...

Member
David Heath (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1702-3
House
House of Commons

One of the criteria recommended by the Law Commission for the application of clause 4 was whether a person"““occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person.””" Amendment No. 1 would alter the wording of clause 4 to...

Member
Mike O'Brien (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1700-2
House
House of Commons

I am grateful to the Solicitor-General. I have listened with great care, in Committee and today, to what he has said about fiduciary duty. I entirely understand his wish not to have a provision that is capable of exploitation by an unscrupulous defence. However, I do not understand, because he...

Member
David Heath (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1702
House
House of Commons

We can probably dispose of these amendments, which continue a useful discussion that we had in Committee, in an equally brief period. Amendment No. 1 is new and picks up on a point made in Committee by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). We were considering the following phrase...

Member
David Heath (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1699-700
House
House of Commons

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is entirely right—there was a full discussion in Committee on this clause and these concepts, and I commend to him and to the Solicitor-General the remarks of not only my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) but of my...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1700
House
House of Commons

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. The Fraud Bill is a small Bill but it is intended to do a big job. It aims to deliver an effective legal structure for tackling the growing threat posed by fraud. Fraud affects us all. It...

Member
Mike O'Brien (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1703-4
House
House of Commons

Another controversy led to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General giving an assurance that there would be no resiling from the undertaking not to remove jury trials from fraud cases except through a separate, stand-alone measure, and telling us that a review and consultation was taking place about that. Will the...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1704
House
House of Commons

The Government appreciate that we need to consider introducing a stand-alone Bill to tackle the way in which some fraud trials have been conducted. We believe that it is important to have the ability to deal with the few non-jury trials in serious fraud cases. We intend to revert to...

Member
Mike O'Brien (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1704-5
House
House of Commons

On Second Reading in the other place, Lord Lloyd of Berwick said:"““My Lords, it seems to me that this is one of the best Bills to have come out of the Home Office for many a long year.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2005; Vol. 672, c. 1664.]" I...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1705
House
House of Commons

I shall start where the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) finished by supporting his commendation of the Law Commission and all those who have worked on the Bill. I include in that not only the Solicitor-General and his team, but those in another place who did the...

Member
David Heath (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1706-7
House
House of Commons

For a moment, I allowed myself to be fooled into thinking that people were coming into the Chamber to hear my speech. I have a horrible suspicion that it has more to do with what the Minister for Europe and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1705-6
House
House of Commons

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Texas juries, the system is different in Texas for all sorts of reasons. One of those reasons is the element of plea bargaining in fraud cases, which is not carried out in the same way in our jurisdiction. I close...

Member
Mike O'Brien (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1707
House
House of Commons

It is a pleasure to return to the discussions on the Bill, which seem to have taken place some time ago in Committee. I hope everyone’s recollections of the Committee stage are as clear as mine. I shall not delay the House long on either group of amendments, as we...

Member
David Heath (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1695-7
House
House of Commons

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) clearly set out his objections to the retention of the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud. His new clause addresses that in detail. As he said, there is no difference between us in respect of having this particular offence in...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1697
House
House of Commons

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Member
David Heath (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1695
House
House of Commons

I beg to move amendment No. 1, page 2, line 22, leave out"‘occupies a position in which he’" and insert ‘by reason of position,’.

Member
David Heath (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1699
House
House of Commons

I am grateful to the Solicitor-General and I entirely accept all the reasons that he offered, which are all grounds for having the review period before proceeding. I am sorry, but I do not think that there is a difference between us on this issue. We accept that if this...

Member
David Heath (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1698-9
House
House of Commons

Fraud Bill (HL). Report stage on Bill, unamended in Committee. New clause 1 debated and withdrawn. Further amendment debated and withdrawn. Third reading debate. Agreed to on question. Bill passed without amendment.

Lead member
David Heath
Answering member
Mike O'Brien
Department
Solicitor General
Type
Debates on bills
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1695-1707
House
House of Commons

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases of pension mis-selling there have been in each of the last 20 years; and what percentage of the total workforce each figure represents.

Asked by
Chris Ruane (Labour)
Answering body
Department for Work and Pensions
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
19 October 2006
Reference
93509; 450 c1406W;450 c1412W
House
House of Commons