---

Lord Jopling: My Lords, while the Minister may not like to use the word "overstretch", is he aware that almost everyone else uses it and that almost everyone else believes that the Army is currently seriously overstretched?

The Minister kindly gave noble Lords various figures about Army strength and recruitment. Has he heard reports—I heard one only this morning—stating that the Government's current intention is to cut the size of the Army to below 100,000 in future defence reviews? Bearing in mind the level of overstretch, the continuing terrorist threat, the demands of the new European ESDP and the need to catch up with training—my noble friend on the Front Bench referred to that—it would be absolute lunacy at the moment to reduce the size of the Army to below 100,000. Will he tell us that those reports are totally unfounded?

Lord Bach: Yes, my Lords, I can indeed. I am happy to tell the noble Lord and the House that those reports are totally unfounded. The figure that I gave—106,978—is the considered figure after reviewing the Army's future manpower requirement. I know that

20 Jun 2002 : Column 905

articles in the press have made the suggestion that the noble Lord kindly put to me. Those articles—not for the first time in the defence field—are wrong.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, we are rightly paying tribute to our Armed Forces for their remarkable role in achieving security, especially in Kabul. Does the Minister also recognise the contribution of British non-governmental organisations, which deploy considerable forces, not least in the field of security? I refer, for example, to the mine-clearance agencies.

The Minister mentioned engineers. Is it true that the ISAF forces are now moving outside Kabul into civil engineering? Have they a role in, for example, the reconstruction of roads from the Iranian border, with which the Government of Iran are involved?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am more than happy to acknowledge the very important role that NGOs have played right from the start in Afghanistan. They went there when it was extremely dangerous to do so. I am grateful to the noble Earl for having raised that.

On ISAF, the United Nations resolution that set it up and which continues it relates to Kabul and the area immediately surrounding it. So far, that is precisely the area on which those working in ISAF have concentrated. Moving to a wider area in Afghanistan would be a big step, which has not yet been taken.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the importance that the Afghan Government attach to the elimination of the opium poppy is confirmed by the fact that the Minister of Defence, when an assassination attempt was made on him a few months ago, was engaged in precisely that role with other army officers? Did I correctly understand the Minister to say that some of the British troops who remain will continue to train the Afghan army, which at present consists of only two battalions? If so, that is an immensely important role, not least to this country because historically, as the Minister no doubt knows, 90 per cent of the heroin in this country has come from Afghanistan. Over the past year, the growth of the poppy in Afghanistan has increased dramatically following a ban imposed by the Taliban.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. There is no doubt that the administration in Afghanistan has taken a brave stance on opium and heroin. It is one with which we shall assist them as best we can for exactly the reason given by the noble Lord. Many people in this country are victims of that terrible trade, and it has gone on for many years.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, are our forces being brought back from Afghanistan and possibly from Kosovo with a view to their future deployment in assisting the United States in a possible engagement with Iraq?

Lord Bach: My Lords, they are not being brought back for that reason. No decision has been taken to

20 Jun 2002 : Column 906

launch military action and such action is not imminent. As we have made clear on a number of occasions, we are proceeding patiently and prudently in consultation with our allies and we are giving Iraq every chance to comply with United Nations resolutions. Therefore, the answer to the noble Lady is: no.

Mobile Telephones (Re-programming) Bill [HL]

4.31 p.m.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Elton) in the Chair.]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 1:

After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

"Possession of anything for mobile telephone re-programming purposes
(1) A person commits an offence if he has in his custody or under his control anything which he may use for the purpose of changing or interfering with the operation of a unique device identifier.
(2) A unique device identifier is an electronic equipment identifier which is unique to a mobile wireless communication device.
(3) It shall be a defence against a crime committed under section 2(1)(a) if the person is able to demonstrate that he is required to have in his custody or under his control that thing for legitimate purposes.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or to a fine or to both."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by saying that I am grateful to the Minister for sending me a letter in which he set out in detail how he expected the Bill to work. But it remains a concern of myself and my colleagues that the Bill, as currently drafted, is not sufficiently clear and not sufficiently strong. Perhaps I should reiterate the purpose of the Bill, which is to make it a criminal offence to tamper with the unique identification number of a mobile telephone. The intention is to prevent the second-hand market, as one might say, in stolen mobile telephones.

The Bill is wholly laudable in intention and, indeed, we support it entirely in principle. But our concern is that it is not sufficiently precise to catch people and, indeed, we believe that more could have been done to prevent the crime. The offence that we seek to stop is not the crime of tampering with mobile telephones and the marginal loss of revenue to mobile telephone

20 Jun 2002 : Column 907

companies; we are seeking to stop muggings on the street in which people are robbed of mobile telephones. Therefore, it is street crime and street violence and part of that general campaign which is far more significant. We believe that, in other circumstances, the Bill could have been rather more fortunately drafted with a definition of the offence. My amendment seeks to bring that about.

I am bound to tell the Committee that I tried to table another amendment which I believe would have been even more effective. When I questioned how one measures a person's intent to commit a crime, the Minister's letter to me explained that if someone is found with the equipment to alter a unique identification number and if he is found with 50 stolen mobile telephones, one might reasonably infer that he had the intent to commit the crime. That is so. But people in that category would quickly learn to keep their stock of stolen mobile telephones separate from the equipment which they would need to use. Therefore, I asked myself: why not make it an offence for an ordinary individual to own or have in his possession four or more mobile telephones? I tried very hard to come up with a reasonable number. I could not think why anyone would want three mobile telephones. Therefore, it seemed to me that four was probably a safe number to choose.

When I tried to table an amendment to that effect, I regret that the Clerks, to whom we have to turn for guidance, considered the matter and said that such an amendment was not permissible because the terms under which the Bill is drafted are so tight and so specific that such wording would not be acceptable. I must defer to their expertise. However, that leads me to the conclusion that perhaps the driving motive for the drafting was to get the Bill passed quickly rather than necessarily to consider keenly ways of preventing such offences taking place and to do something to improve the environment on our streets.

However, we should be clear that in order to amend an identification number for a mobile telephone one simply needs a computer and a particular type of computer program. One cannot very well start to restrict the sale of computers if, as the Bill says, one believes that someone might commit an offence with them. As to the program, I have here a print-out of some 75 pages to which I was referred when I researched this matter. It tells me very precisely how, to use a vernacular phrase, to "clock" a mobile telephone. That information is freely available. I dare say that the suppliers of that information might have been slightly amused to see it being downloaded in so august a place as this House.

But the fact is that, if my amendment is approved—if the Minister is gracious enough to accept it—it will knock me down because I shall quickly have to take that mass of paper to the shredder or I shall become a criminal through having the means of doing the job.

---