---

Lord Campbell-Savours: Will the noble Lord give way? When I was faced with that dilemma this morning, I used my own personal computer so that I

20 Jun 2002 : Column 908

did not have to use the parliamentary intranet computer, with which we are provided, for fear that I might find myself equally in difficulty.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I suppose that there is a remote possibility that, in downloading the material on to my computer, I have managed to download it on to everyone else's computer on the intranet. That would have most amusing consequences.

On a more serious note, in my submission, the amendment that we propose makes the position of the crime more clear in the Bill. The amendment states that possession of anything for mobile telephone reprogramming purposes will be an offence. It then goes on to provide a defence because there are legitimate uses for such programs, or so I am told—I defer to other people's expertise. Therefore, subsection (3) of the amendment states:

"It shall be a defence against a crime committed under [this] section ... 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".

It may be argued that in tabling such an amendment we are making a presumption of guilt. In British law a presumption of guilt is already accepted if one happens to have on one's computer a load of paedophiliac photographs. I do not believe that we can argue that that creates an unreasonable precedent. It is not unreasonable to work in this way and provide a defence.

That is the substance of the amendment. We believe that it provides a clearer position than that in the Bill where a person commits an offence if he has under his custody or control anything that may be used in that way and he intends to use it. I believe that there are difficulties in relation to judging intent, although circumstantial evidence can create a reasonable supposition of intent. The same applies to the second clause of the Bill on the supply of equipment. It deals with whether a supplier,

"knows or believes that the person to whom the thing is supplied intends to use it unlawfully".

This is an interesting Bill which has been designed to be passed quickly and almost without thought. I believe that we can improve it and I hope that my amendment, which is designed to improve it, may be acceptable to the Minister. Amendment No. 2 is consequential upon Amendment No. 1 and if we get nowhere with the first amendment, Amendment No. 2 will sink without trace. I beg to move.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton): If this amendment is agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 2 on the ground of inconsistency.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I ask my noble friend's forgiveness as I have some friends waiting for me outside the Chamber. I did not expect the Statement to take place over the past hour.

I want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and point to some specific equipment that may be one of the things—"things" being the key word in his amendment. There is an early reference to "anything"

20 Jun 2002 : Column 909

and then "thing". That "thing" could be a cable that links the PC to the phone; that could be the interface between the two. Perhaps in reply my noble friend could make specific reference to that because in a conversation that I had a couple of hours ago with someone in this area of business—it seemed an interesting Bill on which to carry out some work—reference was made to problems that may arise with the possession of a cable as an interface.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Dholakia: We also support the broad principle of this Bill, as we said at Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is absolutely right to talk about the extent to which crimes in relation to mobile phones have caused a serious blip in car crime figures, particularly when violence is used.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I well remember him making the same point at Second Reading. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the Minister's letter. It would have given me an explanation, but that does not matter. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was good enough to let me have a copy of his amendment. I am interested in the Minister's observation about the amendment.

At first sight, I do not see anything wrong with what is proposed. Clause 1 sets out circumstances under which a person does not commit an offence, such as being the "manufacturer of the device" or because the action of re-programming has been authorised by the manufacturer of the device. The amendment broadens that provision in that it provides an individual with a defence,

"that he is required to have in his custody or under his control"—

a mobile device—

"for legitimate purposes".

In terms of the defence provided there is a difference of emphasis. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain whether the amendment would be more productive than the Home Office provision.

Lord Filkin: I thank both Front Benches for their expressions of broad support for the intent of the Bill, if we have not yet reached unanimity on the exact mechanisms. I shall resist the invitation to respond to the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, did not move and try to focus on the one that he did. He raised some interesting, almost Second Reading type questions, about the context of the amendment. I shall speak briefly as we are in Committee.

In essence, the Bill is the product of some effective work between the police and the mobile phone industry. There has been clear and strong pressure from them both that it is necessary and desirable to move forward as rapidly as possible and to introduce this legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, also raised questions about the wider context. The Government have been extremely active in the past

20 Jun 2002 : Column 910

year or so in terms of considering mobile phone theft and its relationship to street crime in general and to the street crimes initiative.

A range of actions are under way in terms of crime prevention and detection: closer and more vigorous targeting by the police; working with the police on identifying hot spots; high visibility policing and robbery teams; video ID parades; fast-track street crime cases; street crime courts proposals; enhancement of victim support schemes; the Crown Prosecution Service premium service; electronic tagging of juveniles and so on. There is a wider context. He is quite right to say, and we do not pretend this to be the case, that one Bill, with only three clauses, will provide the total solution to the problem. We believe that it is a necessary part of that picture and we are emboldened by the strong desire from the industry and the police to move forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, invited me to make a judgment about whether he was guilty of creating an offence. We have not yet passed the Bill, but had we done so, I would say that he was not guilty. Although he may have downloaded the software, I have known him long enough to believe that there was no intent to go with it. Is my judgment wrong?

Lord Dixon-Smith: I thought I had made it plain that the offence would have been mine if the Minister accepted my amendment.

Lord Filkin: I rest my case. The central point is that the Bill states that one has to have the means to change it and the prosecution has to prove the intent at the same time. In that context, my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours ingeniously suggested that he, in possession of a table on which his PC sat, may potentially be in danger. One cannot use a table for the purpose of,

"changing or interfering with the operation of a unique device identifier".

Lord Campbell-Savours: I said "cable" not "table"!

Lord Filkin: Despite my hearing, I believe that the point still stands. A cable by itself is not capable of reprogramming a mobile phone in that way. Only software has that capacity. Therefore, I believe that he is safe with his cable, or even his table!

Let me say that, while we are appreciative of the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—it is right and necessary to ensure that we get it right—we do not believe his amendment to be necessary. It reflects his clearly expressed concerns at Second Reading that the offences proposed in Clause 2 of the Bill may criminalise legitimate retailers and people who own computers and software programmes which are capable of changing mobile telephone numbers.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My noble friend says that a cable could not be so used. In fact the Bill says,

"A person commits an offence if . . . he offers to supply anything which may be used for the purpose of changing or interfering with the operation of a unique device identifier and . . . he knows or

20 Jun 2002 : Column 911

believes that the person to whom the thing is offered intends if it is supplied to him to use it unlawfully for that purpose or to allow it to be used unlawfully for that purpose".

He could use a cable as an interface. It would form part of the equipment that is required. All I am asking is whether, if the dealer sells a cable and it can be shown that he may have known it was going to be used for this purpose, he is committing an offence.

Lord Filkin: That is a slightly remote set of circumstances. I cannot see how a dealer could be aware that a cable by itself was to be used for the purposes that we are focusing on in terms of mobile phone theft.

---