HC Deb 22 July 2002 vol 389 cc706-28

Order for Second Reading read.

5.48 pm
The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham)

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

The Bill has been debated in another place and I am pleased to say that it has been passed there without amendment. It is a short and perhaps slightly technical Bill but it seeks to tackle a fast-growing and significant problem: the theft of mobile phones. There has been much public, parliamentary and media concern in recent months about mobile phone theft and street crime in general. The Bill will help to deal with some of those concerns.

We are determined to tackle street crime through a comprehensive programme of measures across government, the police service, the courts and the criminal justice system. The Bill should be seen as a part of that wider programme. It is fully supported by the police and the mobile phone industry as part of the fight against street crime.

There is now a broad body of evidence, some of it anecdotal, some statistical, that the theft of mobile phones has contributed significantly to the rise in street robberies. Therefore, tackling mobile phone theft can play an important part in driving down street crime.

A Home Office report on mobile phone theft was published in January 2002. It showed that in 2000–01, mobile phones were stolen in 28 per cent. of all robberies, compared with 8 per cent. only three years previously. Since 1995, there has been a 600 per cent. increase in mobile phone owners. There are about 50 million mobile phone users in the United Kingdom. Clearly, the opportunity for mobile phones to be stolen is significantly greater than a few years ago. None the less, the only conclusion that we can draw is that robberies involving mobile phones are increasing at a much greater rate than robberies in general.

In the Metropolitan police area alone, the percentage of offences in which a mobile phone is among the items stolen has risen from 25 per cent. in 1999–2000 to 50 per cent. in 2001–02. In January this year, the police estimate that 31 per cent. of all robberies and snatch thefts in London targeted mobile phones alone, while 20 per cent. involved a mobile phone as well as other items, so 51 per cent. of all street crime in London in that month involved a mobile phone.

As we all know, the police in London and other major cities, where most street robberies take place, are clamping down on street crime. They are tackling mobile phone theft, with the support of the other criminal justice agencies, local authorities, schools and employment services.

One strand of that work has been to find ways of reducing the number of mobile phones stolen. In January 2001, we set up a steering group with the police and the mobile phone industry to consider the practical measures that needed to be taken. Significant progress has been made, especially with the network providers Vodafone, 02, T-Mobile, Orange and Virgin. Following extensive discussions throughout last year, and prompted by the evidence of the scale of the problem in the report to which I referred, Vodafone and 02, which were previously not able to bar handsets on their own networks, have now invested in the technology needed to do so.

Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)

The Bill has my full support and, I am pretty sure, that of my party. However, its whole effect is to stop the re-programming of the international mobile equipment identity, or IMEI number, and that will be effective only if the companies can disable the handset. How convinced is the Minister that Vodafone and 02 will have not only the hardware but the software in place by September, as set out in the explanatory notes, rather than later, in 2003, which would negate the whole point of the Bill?

Mr. Denham

I have of course been in contact with the operator companies throughout the past year, and my officials work with them through the standing group that we set up to tackle mobile phone theft, and my understanding as of today—it is the best information that I can give the House—is that, by the end of August, each of the five main operators will be able to bar stolen handsets on their own network.

The next stage beyond that is to prevent the stolen phone from being used on one of the other major networks, and the second part of the agreement that we have reached with the operators is that they will create a central equipment identity register, which will enable each of them to bar the use of stolen mobiles across all the networks. That decision was announced in February 2002, and we have the industry's assurance that it is on course for implementation of the shared database in September 2002. I have no reason to doubt that the target date will be met.

Michael Fabricant

I totally accept what the Minister says, and only time will tell whether his confidence is justified. If a phone is stolen and then exported, will there be a similar sharing of databases with other global system for mobiles—GSM—operators elsewhere in the world, because if not, all that will happen is that the phones will be usable everywhere but here?

Mr. Denham

I am anticipating some remarks that I shall make in due course, but in Europe, where the bulk of the other GSM operators are, our initiatives are being recognised as setting best practice standards for the whole region. We are considering how we should follow up in Europe the initiatives taken here. I cannot claim that everything is in place in Europe to mimic what we are doing here, but what we have achieved with the operators here has been noted as best practice. We shall continue to press on the matter. I shall shortly say something about the security of the phones themselves.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the export of phones. He is right to say that wider international action will help to tackle the problem. Although there is undoubtedly some theft for export, that is clearly a more complicated transaction than the simple theft and re-use of a mobile phone. I cannot claim that the Bill totally closes off the export route, but it will have a significant impact on the theft of phones for domestic use.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)

Clearly, if the technology exists to bar a mobile phone, irrespective of its keeping its original IMEI number, it will not be able to be used. The Bill is aimed at criminalising the re-programming of the telephone, but if the technology exists for such re-programming to continue to be done on the black market—if people are willing to risk the penalties—it will be possible to continue to use it with a new number.

Mr. Denham

That is self-evident, I suppose. With the current generation of phones, we cannot make re-programming physically impossible. That is why we continue to press the industry, and especially the manufacturers, with the support of the operators, to make phones themselves more secure and more difficult to re-programme. Given that there is a fairly rapid replacement rate of the stock of mobile phones—fashions and designs change—we can look forward to a new generation of phones that are more secure. I believe that criminalising the act of re-programming, with tough but justified sentences, as proposed in the Bill, will help to make a significant impact on the problem.

We all know that there is no magic bullet that will instantly solve the problem, and we are pursuing other measures, educating mobile phone users and persuading schools to discourage pupils from taking their phones to school. All those measures have a role to play, but the Bill is a significant part of the process.

From September, customers who have their mobile phone stolen will be able to ring their network and get it disabled, just as they can ring their bank and cancel a stolen credit card. We have also worked with the industry and the police on promoting greater awareness of security and personal safety, and there is much more information on phone operators' and retailers' websites. The Government have issued 5 million crime prevention leaflets on avoiding mobile phone theft as part of the safer streets campaign.

In London, for example, the Metropolitan police have marked thousands of mobile phones with a permanent ultra-violet property code, making them instantly identifiable if they are stolen and subsequently recovered. In Birmingham, the police and youth offending teams and Victim Support are focusing on mobile phone security and crime prevention presentations, which they are delivering to all secondary school assemblies.

Hon. Members asked about wider issues. We are working with colleagues in Europe and discussing possible cross-boundary solutions, building on the good practice developed in the UK, because we want to prevent stolen phones from being used in other countries, too, so as to remove incentives for illegal export.

The Bill is specifically designed to complement the handset blocking measures taken by the mobile phone operators. Phones are identified and disabled by reference to a serial number on each handset, known as the international mobile equipment identity, or IMEI number—a 15-digit number both programmed into the handset and visible on its body. The number appears on the records of the network providers each time the phone is used. The operators' handset barring system works by reference to the IMEI number, so barring handsets in that way will prevent thieves from being able to use the phones that they steal, and if they cannot be used, they cannot be sold on. That, in itself, should act as a deterrent to mobile phone theft.

However, barring a handset is not fully effective if the IMEI number itself is changed. Changing the number makes it impossible for the operators to track and disable a handset, and that is what we believe is happening. A tracking exercise that operators have undertaken with the police has shown that the IMEI number of as many as 75 out of 100 stolen phones could not be traced on any of the UK networks' records. We can make a reasonable guess that these phones were not thrown away, but were re-programmed and were therefore untraceable. However, I accept that some were sent overseas to emerging markets.

Another indication of the extent of the re-programming problem was revealed last July when BT Cellnet—now 02—estimated that, potentially, the IMEI number of 1.5 million phones on that network had been changed from the manufactured number. Those who were re-programming mobile phones used duplicate IMEI numbers that they knew would work on the network. The most duplicated number on the BT Cellnet network had been copied more than 9,000 times.

Michael Fabricant

Has the Minister discussed with major telephone operators the introduction of a system through which the IMEI number is matched with the telephone number? Such a system is technically possible, and if it were adopted the duplication of an existing and correct IMEI number would not work, because it would not match up with the recognised phone number on the SIM card that is inserted in a GSM telephone.

Mr. Denham

We have looked at various technical arrangements, and the problem with that solution is that it is not quite as straightforward as the hon. Gentleman suggests. All simple mechanisms that cannot be got round have been examined in detail by the industry, and by the consultants whom we have retained to advise us independently on these matters. The existence of so many duplicate IMEI numbers may well be a by-product of the particular software, often written by hackers, that is used for re-programming phones in the same place. Such software may inadvertently create the same IMEI number.

It is relatively cheap and easy to change the IMEI number of a mobile phone—all that is needed is the relevant software to re-programme the handset, a computer and a cable. The software is freely available; it may be bought, or downloaded from the internet. A kit can be bought for under £150. The Metropolitan police say that stolen and re-programmed phones can be sold for about half their retail price—up to about £100. Given the number of stolen phones and the estimated number of re-programmed ones, it is clear that the re-programming of stolen phones has the potential to produce large-scale criminal profits. At the moment, it is completely legal to re-programme a mobile phone. Re-programming services are lawfully offered and advertised by independent retail outlets, market stalls, car boot sales and internet companies, despite the fact that no legitimate reason exists for changing the number.

On the next stage in the process, to which I have referred, new international security standards that came into force on 1 June state that the IMEI number should not be changed, and should be resistant to change. I am pleased to say that manufacturers are now playing more of their part in the fight against mobile phone crime by hardening the IMEI numbers on their new phones, in compliance with the new standards. That addresses the problem at source. We are also meeting manufacturers to discuss other measures that they can take to enhance the security of their products. However, as I said, at the moment the IMEI numbers of phones already on the market can be changed, and that is the issue that the Bill seeks to address.

In February, we made clear our intention to introduce the Bill at the earliest opportunity. It will create a new criminal offence: the unauthorised re-programming of mobile phone handsets. Specifically, it will be an offence to change, or to interfere with, the operation of a phone's unique identifier—the IMEI number. The Bill will also create linked offences of possessing, supplying or offering to supply equipment for that purpose. It will be an offence to he in possession of equipment with the intention of unauthorised re-programming.

There will be occasions when the manufacturer of a mobile phone will need to change the IMEI number. No offence is committed if the change is made by the manufacturer, or with their written consent. The new "either way" offences of changing, or interfering with, the unique identifier of mobile phones without authorisation, and of possessing or supplying the equipment for that purpose, will carry a maximum penalty on indictment of five years' imprisonment, or an unlimited fine, or both. In the magistrates courts, an offender may be punished with six months' imprisonment, or a fine of up to £5,000, or both. The offence will be an arrestable offence under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The penalty for the new offence is in line with those for the various offences of obtaining telecommunications services dishonestly, as provided for in the recently amended Telecommunications Act 1984.

We accept that these penalties are severe, but I believe that they are fully justified. A strong deterrent is needed for those who, in some cases, are hardened criminals engaged in several other criminal activities. However, such a deterrent is also necessary in the context of the wider street crime problem, which has certainly been fuelled by rise in mobile phone theft.

Norman Baker (Lewes)

My colleagues and I support the Bill and we will support it in the Lobby if there is a vote, but am concerned about the sentences to which the Minister has just referred. I accept that it is important to send out a clear message, but I fear that, if the sentences are too severe, we will simply encourage the exporting to which the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) referred. After all, if the penalties are severe, people are surely more likely to try to avoid them by taking phones across the channel to France to re-programme them, and then bringing them back.

Mr. Denham

I do not think that that is right, and even if such a consequence were to occur, that would be no reason for not adopting the appropriate range of penalties for the crime. It must have crossed the minds of those in this country who are carrying out this currently legal activity that they are playing a role in encouraging the theft and re-sale of mobile phones. Enacting a Bill that sends powerful sentencing messages is the best way to get across to those people that they should not take part in that activity.

The idea that we should confine the issue to home and treat it as a cottage industry by keeping the penalties low, rather than allowing British illegal activity to go abroad, is not one that I have a great deal of time for, and I doubt whether that is what the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) was really suggesting. We should set the appropriate penalty, and in the light of our discussions at European level, we hope that our stand might be replicated elsewhere in time.

The creation of these new offences will close the existing loophole in the law, and send out a strong message from Parliament. They will prevent businesses from advertising a re-programming service, thereby inadvertently fuelling street crime, and they will tackle those who must be aware of the way their activity relates to street crime. As a result, mobile phone theft will be considerably less attractive. Let us be clear: the aim of the legislation is not so much to generate the largest possible number of prosecutions, as to dissuade people from offering this re-programming service in the first place. If we can achieve that, it will be well worth while.

The new offences will make it easier for the police to prosecute cases involving the handling of stolen goods, which attracts a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. At the moment, although the police may have reasonable grounds to suspect someone in possession of re-programmed handsets of being guilty of handling stolen goods, once the act of re-programming is itself a criminal offence, much stronger grounds will exist for prosecuting that person for handling stolen goods.

Michael Fabricant

The Minister is absolutely right to talk of the deterrent factor of stiff penalties, but have the very stiff penalties that exist for hacking into certain websites prevented such hacking from taking place? The evidence suggests not.

Mr. Denham

Several offences for which there are stiff penalties are still carried out by some people somewhere along the line. My guess in respect of the activity to which the hon. Gentleman refers is that those penalties do dissuade some people from carrying it out. I am pleased to say that, in anticipation of the Bill, some forces have already done the necessary preparatory work to bring about a change in attitude. For example, Merseyside police force has identified every second-hand mobile phone dealer across its area, and it is visiting each shop to provide advice and a contact helpline, should there be any future queries. That type of proactive initiative by the police is very welcome.

Legitimate businesses will not be adversely affected by the Bill. We have established with the industry that there is no legitimate reason for an individual to be involved in re-programming a mobile phone. We accept that equipment or software that can be used to re-programme a phone can also be used for other, legitimate purposes, but no offence is committed unless there is intent to use it unlawfully.

The Bill, though short, is an important part of the drive to stop the theft of mobile phones, which has fuelled robbery and underpinned a fear of crime on our streets. It should be viewed as part of a significant package of measures being taken in co-operation with the mobile phone industry and the police, and against the background of the wider initiatives we are taking to make our streets more safe. I commend the Bill to the House.

6.11 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)

We greatly welcome the Bill. We are aware of the background that has brought it about, and the Government could rely on our support if the House were to divide at the end of the debate, although I think that most unlikely.

The Minister rightly highlighted the serious problem of stolen mobile phones. Various statistics have been bandied about, and we must bear in mind the fact that they contain some element of individuals claiming that mobile phones have been stolen as part of an insurance scam. I noted that some 8,210 more Nokia phones have been claimed as stolen than have ever been made. That figure should incline the House to a moment of caution when considering the scale of the problem, although I wholly acknowledge that the number of people who reported the theft of a phone in 1998–99 increased by 377 per cent. However we interpret the statistics, mobile phone theft has clearly been an important component fuelling crime, especially street crime.

I do not wish to take up the House's time, so I hope that the Minister will not take it amiss that—even though this is a Second Reading debate—I intend to consider some of the wider problems. When I intervened in his speech, he said that my comment was self-evident. It may have been so to him, but to the wider public it might not be self-evident that although the step that we are taking tonight is important, it can be only a component part of the total fight against the misuse of mobile phones through theft, because vast areas are still open to exploitation.

The Bill criminalises those who, without the manufacturer's express authority, decide to reprogramme a phone to change its IMEI number. That, taken together with the willingness of mobile phone operators to bar the IMEI number of mobile telephones that have been stolen, should—at least, we hope that it will—go some way to ensuring that it becomes much less useful to steal a mobile phone. After the short period when one may be willing to use a phone on the basis of its current SIM card, which most thieves dispose of quickly, it will be more difficult to have the phone re-programmed.

Let me strike a note of caution—the same point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The Bill's success will depend on its deterrent effect on the large number of individuals who are willing to re-programme telephones. As the Minister pointed out, those people must be carrying out that operation now in the knowledge that they are almost certainly facilitating the commission of crime. They are acting for gain as the facilitators of those who wish to make a profit from the theft or robbery of mobile telephones. I hope that the Minister will understand my reservation, because I fear that those people who are willing to do that in the first place will not necessarily be deterred by the high sentences that will be imposed.

I see nothing wrong with the sentencing regime in the Bill; the problem will be enforcement. Re-programming is carried out at car boot sales and in shacks and garages, and it has been described by the industry as so easy that anyone with the basic technology could do it. We must hope that the Bill will have an impact, but I have slightly greater reservations than the Minister appears to have. This is not the first time that a Government have come forward—this is not a political point—promising to criminalise an activity and therefore to stop it. For example, when the landfill tax was introduced, extra sentences were imposed for fly tipping, but it is still difficult to catch those who do it. I hope that the Minister will take that caveat in good part, because otherwise I entirely welcome the Bill's aim of criminalising re-programming.

The Minister will be aware that when the Bill was considered in the other place, only one amendment was tabled in Committee. The Bill refers to the custody and control of equipment that could be used to facilitate re-programming. It was suggested in the other place that the word "possession" instead of the words "custody" and "control" would make it easier to obtain convictions. I know that we will have a Committee stage on Wednesday, but I hope that it will be short. If the Minister has a view on that point at this stage, it might be useful if he shares it with us when he winds up this debate.

Michael Fabricant

Does my hon. Friend agree that the burden of proof includes the intention to use the thing unlawfully for that purpose"? Those are the words in the Bill, although a better word than "thing" could surely have been used. Does he agree that the inclusion of that necessary mens rea will make it difficult to obtain convictions?

Mr. Grieve

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We do not wish to see the criminal law become so onerous for an individual that it presents a real chance that the innocent will be convicted, but we may wish to consider the issue that my hon. Friend raises on Wednesday to see whether the Bill can be improved. I shall listen with great care to what the Minister has to say, because—given that he has been alerted to the point by the proceedings in the other place—I hope that he and his advisers have had the chance to mull over the matter. If we can improve the Bill, we shall seek to do so. I await the Minister's response.

The issue is clear. It is desirable that re-programming be outlawed, and the Bill will achieve that aim. Whether we can succeed in reaching the happy state in which stealing someone's mobile phone is a valueless activity will depend on the industry, and the Government's ability to co-operate with it in future moves. That may require further legislation or firm action by the industry, but it must be our aim. The Bill is a contribution in the right direction, and it therefore has our support.

6.19 pm
John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland)

I shall try to make my speech as short as possible. The debate has attracted some Members who want to contribute to it—[Interruption.] Then again, perhaps not.

Mobile telephones have become increasingly prevalent in today's society. I had a mobile phone in 1998, and it was about as compact, portable and attractive as a breeze block. Nowadays, however, mobiles are much more elegant and stylish, and people want them. There are people who want to steal them so that they can pass them on to others and make a profit. They know that other people will purchase them because they wish to have the most up-to-date technology. Technological developments are making telephones more and more desirable, so we must make things more and more difficult for thieves. I think that the Bill does that, and the Minister should be commended on it.

More than 700,000 mobile phones are stolen each year, and many of the thefts involve violent attacks. On new year's day, a 19-year-old woman was shot when her phone was stolen. Even worse, a 10-year-old boy was held at gun point, all for a mobile phone. We want to try to stop such crimes. Those under 18 make up nearly half of all victims. School surveys suggest that the number of incidents is far higher than the number reported. More and more young people own mobile phones and the progression of thefts will become worse if nothing is done.

Many people cite the use of a mobile phone as a safety measure: they want the comfort of a phone to use in case they feel threatened. However, people feel threatened when they use a mobile. We must try to stop mobile phone theft. Perhaps the Bill could have done more to achieve that.

Stolen phones can readily be turned into cash. SIM cards alone sell for between £10 and £60, and if a handset goes with a SIM card, the price is higher. I welcome the fact that the Home Office has been working with mobile phone companies. I chair the all-party group on telecommunications, and I have had many meetings with the companies. I have been trying to put them under pressure, because they could have done much more, much earlier, to help try to track down those who steal mobiles. It is a bit late for them to agree to help, but help will be welcome. Vodafone and 02 have done some good work.

I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) that mobile phones will be taken abroad, re-programmed and then brought back into the UK, which will circumvent the Bill's objective of criminalising those who change the codes in this country. The Minister has said that he will be talking to his allies in the European Union. That is important, but we need to go further and ensure that other countries introduce similar legislation.

As things stand, changing the IMEI number makes it impossible for an operator to track and disable a stolen phone. As has been said, it is fairly easy and cheap to change that number. Using software to re-programme handsets makes the back-street selling of mobiles extremely desirable. It is important that the police be involved. I am pleased that the Minister mentioned the Manchester police, and I hope that the Glasgow police have been listening.

I welcome the severity of the proposed punishment, but we should draw a clear distinction between those who seek to derive financial benefit from their crimes and those who steal phones because they seek possession of items that they do not have and cannot afford, and because peer pressure is put on them. I hope that the Crown Prosecution Service will consider the nature of crimes, and likewise the courts when it comes to sentencing. At the same time, we must have a go at the Mr. Bigs: some £4.2 million worth of Samsung phones have been stolen recently, to be re-programmed and sent out of the UK.

I appreciate that the Bill has not been introduced in isolation, but is part of a package of measures to combat crime. Young people experience particular problems with mobile phone thefts which the Bill does not address. Phone accessories, such as cases and covers, are largely targeted at the teenage market. Mobiles are made fashionable and desirable, especially for those aged between 11 and 15, who are targeted as victims more than any other age group. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how we might protect those young people.

How do we deal with stolen phones that are sent abroad for re-programming? Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us what discussions he envisages having in Europe.

Once again, I congratulate the Minister on introducing the Bill, and I commend the other parties in this place for supporting it. The Bill is an important step, but I reiterate that those who are the most vulnerable and the most affected by the stealing of mobile telephones are the young. That should be considered in more detail.

6.27 pm
Norman Baker (Lewes)

It is always pleasant to participate in a debate where there is such conviviality and wide agreement among the parties. That is not always the case with Home Office legislation, but it is today. That makes it less of an interesting story for those outside this place. I suspect that we shall not see headlines in tomorrow's newspapers stating, "Three parties agree on mobile phone Bill." That would not be newsworthy, but I think that there are 45 million mobile phone subscribers in the country.

Michael Fabricant

Fifty million.

Norman Baker

The number has increased since half an hour ago. It is obviously a significant number of phones with which to deal. Therefore, it is an issue that affects almost everyone in the UK.

I caution the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who said that he supported the Bill, and then mentioned one or two caveats. If he is not careful, he may find the Prime Minister declaring at Prime Minister's Question Time that the Conservatives are opposing the Bill and trying to wreck it, as has been the case with other legislation.

Mr. Grieve

I am used to the problem of my words going through some strange sort of misinterpretation as they percolate through the outer offices of Downing street. Anyone reading the entire text of what I had to say this afternoon might be rather hard pressed to imagine that the Opposition were opposing the Bill.

Norman Baker

I am sure that that is true. The problem is that some people might be selective and not choose to read the entire text. Time will tell.

I suppose I should declare an interest of a sort, because I cannot stand mobile phones. I try not to use one unless there is no alternative. I have a hatred of those who sit next to me on trains speaking extremely loudly into these devices. I say "devices" because the explanatory notes refer to mobile phones as "mobile wireless communications devices." I wonder whether we might not be better with "things", to which the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) drew attention, which appears in the Bill.

We are dealing with a serious issue and I think that there will be cross-party support on the wide principles. It is for the Minister to answer points that arise round the edges and to try to ensure—I think that this is the most important aspect—that the Government reach agreement with other EU countries, and agreement more internationally, so that the good work that is reflected in the Bill is not undermined by others circumventing national boundaries within which the legislation will operate.

I was staggered when my researchers produced for me information to suggest that there were 470.000 phone thefts in 2000, and that school surveys suggested that there had been 200,000 to 550,000 thefts from 11 to 15-year-olds in 2000–01. Estimates from the police suggest that 330,000 offences had been committed. Those are staggering numbers by any account, and there have been big increases in such theft.

Incidentally, to digress for a second, that shows the value of having more police officers. They clearly have to deal with crimes that did not take place 10 or 15 years ago, so we have to increase the number of police officers to deal with the wider range of offences that now exist.

The Minister needs to reflect gently on the fact that, sadly, such theft may continue even if the mobile phones cannot be used because of the accessories point made by his colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson). The hon. Gentleman made the valuable point that possessions are being stolen because of their attractiveness, not necessary for their use.

I am sure that the Minister would accept—indeed, he said so in his opening comments—that the Bill does not represent the only way to deal with the matter; there has to be a package of measures, which includes education in schools. Although I understand that parents may want their children to have mobile phones for security purposes when they go to school, I cannot help thinking that some steps could be taken to try to educate children and, indeed, parents themselves that perhaps it is not always essential to carry mobile phones in certain circumstances. If fewer people carried mobile phones, the people who wished to carry out a theft would be less certain that a mobile phone would be found on someone and therefore there would be less crime as a consequence. So the Bill is part of package that we have to develop.

I am concerned that it is apparently quite easy to reprogramme mobile phones. I understand that Home Office research shows that the reprogramming can be done with commercially available equipment that costs about £30. According to the BBC, software packages allowing people to change the IMEI number can be bought via the web. With that software and a cable that connects to a laptop or a personal computer, the IMEI number can be re-chipped within a few minutes.

I should be interested to know, when the Minister responds, whether he thinks that much of the reprogramming that occurs is done on that low-level basis by opportunist criminals—perhaps by young people who are more streetwise on computers than people such as myself—or whether it is predominantly carried out by those involved in large-scale crime. One of the motivations for those involved in large-scale crime might be that reprogramming mobile phones might make it more difficult to track what they are doing, so it may provide them with a defence to prevent the law enforcement agencies from knowing what they are doing. Is that a motivation in such reprogramming? We have to consider how such theft can be tackled and who is being tackled.

I am very happy with the Bill, as I have said, and I do not think that much can be done to improve it. It seems that it will make such reprogramming less attractive for low-level criminals, which may well take out a range of people who are involved in what is currently a legal activity, although it is clearly inextricably linked with illegal activities. However, my great fear is that the Bill will not deter those who view such reprogramming as a big money-making operation, for whom it is perhaps an adjunct to other criminal activities. They may well feel that the necessity to go abroad to reprogramme mobile phones is, frankly, not much of an inconvenience. So the Bill will deal with one element of the activity, but not necessarily the more serious element.

It is good that the Minister has said that he recognises the need to take such proposals to the European Union and beyond. He needs to do that, and we need to reach some sort of international agreement—not simply European Union agreement—on those matters. I wonder what the Government are doing internationally.

I wish to refer to what is perhaps a side issue. Can the Minister say what the situation is in the Republic of Ireland? The legislation will apply to Northern Ireland, but if there is no agreement or co-working with the Republic of Ireland, frankly, it does not take much imagination to realise what will happen. In fact, I suggest that the legislation will become inoperable in many ways in Northern Ireland. So I hope that he has considered that point and has reached an agreement with the Republic of Ireland to take matters forward.

My other concern is to differentiate those who may be caught by the legislation. It is very important that there is strong message and a proportionate and, in some cases, severe penalty for the big boys—those in the organised networks and those who deliberately reprogramme mobile phones professionally—such as those who were subject to one or two criminal actions recently. Multi-million pound profits can be made, so it is absolutely right that those involved should be dealt with very hard. However, it is also important that the sledgehammer that rightly exists for the big boys is not applied to the odd youth who happens to be involved in what will now be more easy to prove as handling stolen goods. That is a low-level crime, and it should be deal with appropriately.

The Government have rightly said that, as part of their youth justice programme, they want to be careful about how youth crime is approached to try to ensure that young people are not unduly criminalised and sent on a road from which there is no return. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the penalties that may be appropriate for the big boys cannot be used inappropriately for the relatively low-level crime of handling stolen goods. The 14-year maximum for a 16 or 18-year-old who happens to have bought a mobile phone—perhaps in a pub or a boot sale—would be disproportionate, and I hope that the Minister can assure me that that is not the intention or the effect of the Bill.

I want to ask the Minister what steps he is taking to deal with insurance fraud. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) mentioned this in passing, but I understand that a significant percentage of the 700,000 mobile handsets reported stolen last year were never really stolen at all, according to the industry. The recent surge in mobile phone thefts is at least partly caused by fraudulent insurance claims, rather than by actual thefts. I wish to make two points about that.

First, we obviously want to stop fraudulent insurance claims, so I assume that the Minister is in discussion about that with the insurance industry, as well as with the mobile phone industry. Secondly, for the accuracy of Government statistics, we need to separate out the fraudulent insurance claims so that we can have as accurate a picture as possible of what is actually happening with thefts. If the Government want to demonstrate—I hope that they will—that the Bill will have a positive effect on reducing mobile phone theft, they need to be able to separate out the false insurance claims to assess accurately how effective the Bill has been.

The industry representatives that the Liberal Democrats saw recently claimed that at least 20 per cent. of reported mobile thefts were faked. That is a serious matter in itself, although it is not as serious as the multi-million frauds that have been going on and, no doubt, are the reason for introducing the Bill.

Finally, I refer the Minister to the amendment—no doubt, he will be familiar with it—tabled in the other place by his colleague. Lord Campbell-Savours, in seeking to ensure that the Bill was not too widely drawn. I ask the Minister not to interpret what I say. Before he or anyone else suggests that I am seeking to create loopholes, may I say that that is not the case? I simply ask—this is a proper question to pose—that he ensure that the terms used in the legislation are such that innocent people cannot be swept up inadvertently. The amendment tabled by his hon. Friend, Lord Campbell-Savours had some merit—I put it no more strongly than that—in clarifying the word "anything".

I wonder whether the Minister has reflected on that issue and whether he has concluded that it might be possible to amend the wording slightly to ensure that no innocent party can be swept up in the legislation, without in any way weakening the Bill, which is supported on both sides of the House. Having said all that, the Bill has our almost unqualified support. Certainly, the principles have our unqualified support, and I look forward to its becoming legislation as soon as possible.

6.39 pm
Ross Cranston (Dudley, North)

This is a little Bill, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) has said, it will work only in association with other measures. I take the point about adequate enforcement made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). I also take the obviously very important point about the European dimension made by him, and by the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who mentioned it in interventions.

The Bill creates a new criminal offence of reprogramming, without authority, a mobile phone's unique identifier, and associated offences such as having or supplying equipment that can be used for reprogramming. As hon. Members have said, it is important to try to stamp out such unauthorised reprogramming, because once it has occurred, the only information showing that a mobile has been stolen is eradicated. If mobiles cannot be reprogrammed, there is less incentive to steal them.

I want to focus on other parts of the story. The first point, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, concerns the common knowledge that the theft of mobiles, often from young people, has become prevalent, especially in urban areas. My right hon. Friend quoted the Home Office report. "Mobile Phone Theft", published earlier this year, which showed a significant increase in the number of phones being stolen. Clearly, it is too simple to adopt a mono-causal opportunity theory of criminal behaviour because complex processes are involved in explaining why people commit crimes, but in this context the opportunity factor has a high explanatory force. Mobiles are easily stolen and, with reprogramming, can be easily reused or resold.

Moreover, given the ownership patterns, it is not surprising that half of mobile phone-related robberies involve victims under 20. The Home Office study found that most of the offenders involved in phone robbery were young, with a peak age of 16 for those being accused of the crime. Over two thirds of the incidents involved offenders working in groups, which is, no doubt, a more frightening experience for the victim. Mostly the crimes were male on male, and very disturbingly, at least 90 per cent. of the offenders were black, with the vast majority of the victims being white.

It is important not to get carried away. I am not trying to down-play the fact that it must be, at the very least, upsetting and, most probably, traumatic for any person to have their mobile stolen on the street or in a public place, even if both victim and offender are young. Indeed, it is a matter of great concern that over the past 10 years, there has, in robbery offences, been a marked increase in the number of young victims and young offenders. However, it is wrong to think that the increase in mobile phone robbery, or in robbery generally, is representative of a plague of violent crime in this country.

The recently published Home Office statistical bulletin reported the British crime survey finding that the number of violent incidents had increased by 2 per cent. compared to 2000, but that increase was not statistically significant. In fact, the estimate for violent crime has fallen by 22 per cent. since 1997 and by 17 per cent. since 1999. The British crime survey is a better indicator of crime patterns than are recorded crime statistics because it does not turn on police recording practices and, of course, it extends to crimes not reported to the police.

By contrast with the British crime survey figures, an increase in violent crime is being recorded by the police, but the authors of the Home Office statistical bulletin say that it appears to be largely due to increased recording by police forces. In the case of robberies, however, which are one category of violent crime, there is an increase of 28 per cent. That does not seem to be caused by increased recording by the police, although the authors of the bulletin say that it may have been affected by increased reporting by the public. Apart from the numbers and the way in which they have to be treated, it is crucial to appreciate that in 50 per cent. of violent incidents there is no injury, with around two thirds of robberies and common assaults involving no injury.

Mr. Grieve

I have been listening carefully to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I apologise for my unavoidable absence from the Chamber for a brief period when he was speaking. Robbery does not involve violence, but it is a serious offence because it involves the threat of violence, as I am sure he will agree. I hope that he will forgive me for saying, therefore, that to suggest that one should not be too troubled by robbery merely because the victim has not been injured is not the best point.

Ross Cranston

Obviously, I appreciate that whether or not one is injured, the threat of violence is traumatic. My point is that the hysteria that we sometimes see in the media does not accurately reflect what is happening in the country.

There is undoubtedly an unacceptably high concentration of robbery in urban areas, and I welcome the street crime initiative, which was launched earlier this year and includes the west midlands. The 10 areas that are part of the initiative account for 83 per cent. of recorded street crimes. Like the youth justice pledge, the initiative will be instrumental in getting criminal justice agencies working together and fast-tracking offenders.

Earlier this year, in the cases of Q, L and S. the Court of Appeal sent out a very strong signal to the effect that custodial sentences would generally be imposed in cases of street robbery involving mobile phones, whatever the age of the offender. I know that the chairman of the youth justice board has expressed concern about that, saying that it has set back his attempts to tackle the causes of crime and boosted the number of young offenders in custody. The court was trying to draw together the principles involved in certain cases without laying down new guidelines, and when the problem of mobile phone theft is brought under control, it may need to reassess the matter. Perhaps guidelines are needed and the advice of the sentencing advisory panel should be sought.

My second point concerns the passage in a judgment in which the Court of Appeal urge the manufacturers and those who supply the means by which mobile telephones are used to make strenuous efforts to make the object of these offences more difficult to achieve. There is now considerable learning about the relationship between design and crime, which can take a variety of forms.

Earlier this year, for example, the metropolitan borough of Dudley and the West Midlands police published a superb community safety supplementary planning guidance, the first such document published in the west midlands. It set out how, with good design and the lay-out of the physical environment, crime, the fear of crime and antisocial behaviour can be reduced. Those measure are often quite simple. To reduce street robbery, for example, lighting is important. and other, longer term measures may be taken to create better connecting networks of streets and public spaces and more mixed use areas in town centres.

The other example of preventing or reducing crime by design concerns car theft. Car manufacturers have dragged their feet in that regard, but the introduction of immobilisation devices can reduce car theft. The same is true of mobile phones. I was somewhat disturbed to find that some of the networks were rather slow on the uptake. Even when mobile phone theft was becoming prevalent a couple of years ago, some of the networks did not take the necessary steps. Until early this year, Vodafone UK and BT Cellnet were still refusing, once a phone had been reported as stolen, to take action to blacklist the IMEI number. They have now come on board, and I congratulate them on doing so, and the industry generally in trying to introduce measures to reduce the incentive for theft.

Mr. Mark Hendrick (Preston)

What does my hon. and learned Friend think of the recent invention of chips for mobiles that will self-destruct on a signal from the network providers? Would not their introduction end, in one fell swoop, the attraction of stealing a phone?

Ross Cranston

Such technological advances can certainly help. I acknowledge that some of the industry finds it more difficult, because it entered the market early, to introduce some of those changes. However, with the new generation of mobile phones, it is possible to introduce devices such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend.

My point is that manufacturers and others should design their products and provide services in a way that minimises opportunities for crime. Sometimes, the Government have a lever to ensure that that happens: in the case of mobile phones, for example, the networks depend on Government for permission to operate.

Coupled with the measures introduced by the industry, the steps taken by the police and education measures such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewes, this little Bill should ensure that many more stolen mobile phones will be useless in the UK. The problem of export remains, however, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will address that. I can assure the House that the penalties under the Bill are consistent with those for comparable offences, such as copying or reprogramming of credit cards. To pick up the point made by the hon. Gentleman for Lewes, judges will of course vary the penalty imposed according to whether a professional is involved or the offence is a casual one. I support the Bill.

6.50 pm
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)

I should declare an interest of sorts, in that back in about 1994, I was in my rather swish open-topped sports car, stopped at traffic lights on the A40 waiting to go on to the M40 to go up to Lichfield, when I was mugged for my analogue mobile phone. I can assure the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) that whether or not the crime is violent, having one's mobile phone stolen is indeed a traumatic event.

I want to make it clear that I, too, welcome the Bill. It is a good move, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, it is no panacea. First, as has been pointed out, even if the IMEI chip is re-programmed, nothing has changed that will make the mobile phone impossible to use. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that there are moves afoot to encourage international mobile phone manufacturers to embed the IMEI number more securely, so that it cannot be changed using equipment that is readily available. Make no mistake about it: the equipment needed to change an IMEI chip is readily available from Tandy's and many other electrical stores.

I have to correct the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who said that the software can be downloaded from the internet for a small charge; in fact, it can be downloaded free of charge. I am concerned about how easy it is to change an IMEI number provided one knows a little about chip programming. The hon. Gentleman mentioned his concern that heavy penalties might fall on younger people, especially those who practise hacking. I am sure that judges will take such matters into account, but I am certain that these things are often done by 15 and 16-year-olds who, far from being in a factory, are in their bedroom while their parents are watching television downstairs.

The Minister made an interesting remark when he said that some investigation had been done into whether the IMEI number could be tagged up—linked to—the telephone number. I understand that the Minister has to go by what manufacturers and telephone companies tell him, but I am not wholly convinced that that cannot be done. Clearly, a much wider database would be required, but if the IMEI number had to be linked to the telephone number, changing the IMEI number would result in the phone being disabled—unless it was being used with the right SIM card; and as others have pointed out, the SIM card is not used for reasons that we already know.

One good thing on the horizon is the introduction of third-generation telephony, which will have such safeguards built in, but that is a long way off. I urge the Minister to visit one of perhaps only two places in the world where 3G telephony is operating. He could spend a great deal of taxpayers' money on visiting Tokyo, where there is a 3G network, or he could stay closer to home and visit the Isle of Man, where 02 is running an experiment. I can see the Minister weighing up the attractions of sushi and the local delicacies of Douglas, Isle of Man. I know that 02 has taken on board the very issues that I have mentioned.

The Minister, answering my intervention, addressed the question of phones being exported. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and others have said, there would be a problem if it were only the UK that enacted this type of legislation—and given the agreement on both sides of the House, I am confident that on Wednesday the Bill will be enacted. If that were so, all we would do is repeat the experience of IR35, whereby people started billing for services abroad. People would start exporting phones overseas. Nor is it simply a question of getting agreement in Europe: the area affected covers anywhere GSM networks can be used, which includes Africa, the far east and Australasia, as well as, if we are talking about tri-band telephones, north, central and south America. Unless worldwide agreement is secured, phones will simply be re-programmed outside the UK—and that is assuming that people will be sufficiently deterred by the legislation not to re-programme them here in the UK.

Mr. Hendrick

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the desirable features of modern telephony that system designers try to include is telephone number portability—the facility that enables people who lose their telephone to continue to use their number on another handset? That facility would not be possible if the number were hardwired to a chip inside the phone.

Michael Fabricant

The hon. Gentleman is right to a certain extent. Yes, it would not be possible to take out the SIM card—although if the phone were stolen, the SIM card would be gone, too—and put it in another phone. Instead, owners would have to register with the company the fact that they now had a new phone. However, that is the only thing that they would have to do; they would still have portability. The trade-off would be having to make a telephone call, set against the advantage of its being less likely that one's phone would be nicked. Personally, I think that people would be happy to accept that.

Andrew Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we might be becoming too enthusiastic about the Bill? Although it might stop people pinching mobile phones for the sake of the phones themselves, most people committing a street mugging are likely to take the phone simply because it is the means by which the person who has been attacked can summon help quickly. The danger is that a lot of mobile phones stolen on the street will end up being simply "whizzed"—thrown away—which could have considerable environmental consequences if they ended up in watercourses and similar places.

Michael Fabricant

The hon. Gentleman has introduced an interesting new element into the debate. It would be interesting to know how many of the 470,000 mobile phone thefts or attempted thefts in 2000 were committed for the intrinsic value of the telephone, and how many for the very reason that he gives—to prevent the person who has been mugged from using their phone to summon help. Perhaps the Minister will be able to answer that question when he winds up the debate.

I am concerned about the burden of proof. Although I endorse the presumption that one is innocent until proven guilty, I sometimes think that too many guilty people get off in this country. The Minister says, rightly, that under clause 2 a person cannot be prosecuted simply for having in his custody or under his control anything which may be used for the purpose of changing or interfering with the operation of a unique device identifier". That is because the same equipment can be used to programme chips in general. Many people who are interested in re-programming software devices own that equipment, which can cost as little as £20 or £30, and, as I said, the re-programming software is available for downloading free of charge. Clause 2 contains the additional burden of having to prove intention—mens rea, or guilty mind. Although that is good, because we do not want people to be prosecuted when they are innocent, I wonder whether that will mean that the burden of proof will be so great that the provision will not be as much of a deterrent as we would like.

I welcome the Bill; it is a useful first step. I praise the Minister for his good work in persuading 02 and Vodafone to introduce the software. I hope that he is right that the software and the hardware will be operational by September, although I am not totally convinced that it will be. Once we pass the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman's next step must be to tour the world to ensure that all parts that have GSM—that is, most countries—have similar legislation. Otherwise, all that we will find is that the stolen equipment will be exported.

7 pm

Mr. Grieve

I had not really intended to say anything at the conclusion of the debate, but the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) prompted me to do so. Properly, he widened the scope of the debate, as one is allowed to do on Second Reading, in order to consider in a more general way some of the problems connected with robbery that we might be experiencing.

I do not share the hon. and learned Gentleman's view that we are considering an inflated figure that does not reflect the reality on the ground, and that we should be guided by the British crime survey rather than the police's own statistics. We have statistics that show a 4.3 per cent. rise in reported violent crime and a 12.9 per cent. increase in the number of robberies in the year to March 2001. Therefore, there is a significant and real problem.

Furthermore, although I fully accept that statistics might be misleading, one has only to look at what I would describe as localised figures, as I know from my constituency. My constituency has had an extremely low robbery rate historically, as one might expect of an area outside London and not encompassing a large urban centre. The rise in robbery in my constituency in the same 12-month period has been of the order of 70 or 80 per cent. I cannot remember the exact figure.

Taken overall, those figures are significant and appear to reflect a worrying trend. There is a willingness—perhaps born of the fact that burglary has become more difficult for those who want easy pickings—to confront an individual in the street and threaten them with violence. I am sure that the Minister would agree that the fact that violence might not be used does not detract one iota from the traumatic nature of the experience suffered.

Ross Cranston

I did not in any way down-play the significance of what is happening. Robbery is a serious offence. The point that I was making was twofold: first, the British crime survey is a better representation of people's experience, and secondly, the crime recorded by the police depends on the extent to which the police record things and to which people report things to them. I am not saying that there is not a problem, but we have to take those factors into account.

Mr. Grieve

I fully appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's point and I understand the way he puts it, but everything that I have seen suggests a growing problem of street crime—be it robbery or theft from the person, but particularly robbery—and that that involving mobile phones, which brings us squarely to the issue addressed in the Bill, has been a contributory factor.

If I have understood correctly what the Prime Minister has had to say at Question Time on a number of occasions over the past few months, he appears to think that there is a serious problem. If he did not think so, he would not apparently have been issuing his commands to the effect that there must be a marked reduction—I am not sure that it is even a marked reduction, but some reduction—in the statistical evidence by September. We shall all await the results with interest. I sincerely believe that there has been a significant increase. The fear of crime that has gone with that has also risen considerably. I judge this legislation on that basis.

As I said to the Minister earlier, I hope that the Bill will make a significant contribution. I also hope, however, that he will feel able to respond to the thoughtful comments made in this short debate about what can be done in practice. I did not raise the question of the exportability of these telephones in my opening speech, but my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) did so, as did other hon. Members, so I very much hope that the Minister will have some words to say on that subject. Given an open market and—let us face it—open transportability between Britain and France, one can imagine how it could be the easiest of things for people to escape the criminal sanctions in the belief that they will be able to import and export telephones or use them abroad as they wish.

I cannot get away from the point that I made that if rep-rogramming has become a cottage industry, the Government might find that the police have a serious enforcement problem. Listening to hon. Members' speeches, I began to see that some who know a little more about what happens on the ground see such re-programming as a cottage industry. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) referred to young people being involved, in which case it is argued that the penalty should not be so high.

I would be much happier if I learned that such crime was the result of the activities of a number of cartels of criminals who had decided to focus on it as a way of making a profit. That would at least raise in me the hope that proper intervention would lead to the breaking up of those cartels. I think that many people have jumped on the bandwagon, and enforceability will be a key component of the Bill's success. If the Minister can provide us with any reassurance on that issue at this stage. I would be happy to hear it.

I await with interest the Minister's response to the debate. I repeat our assurance that we shall give the Bill a fair wind. If it receives Royal Assent on Wednesday as intended, as I have no doubt it will, it will probably have completed all its stages in the shortest possible time. That is a good thing; it is good that the House is able to do that. In that process, I very much hope that we do not lose sight of our objectives, and that if necessary the Minister will respond positively to any amendments that hon. Members may table to try to improve the Bill.

7.7 pm

Mr. Denham

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) for the way in which he has approached this debate. I shall try to touch on most of the issues raised. We have had notice of some of the issues that are likely to be raised in amendments. Although I shall not try to deal with them in full now, we will obviously consider them on their merit. I am grateful to hon. Members for giving us early warning of what we may be discussing on Wednesday afternoon. I am also grateful to hon. Members of other parties for their co-operation in the passage of the Bill. Despite the recognition on both sides of the House of the fact that the Bill does not wholly solve the problem we face, such co-operation shows that it is worth enacting as quickly as possible, rather than leaving things until the autumn.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) raised two questions: one about violent crime and the other about design in crime. We have to take a balanced view. The British crime survey shows pretty conclusively that, when taken as a whole across all categories, violent crime has fallen significantly in recent years.

When we launched the crime statistics a couple of weeks ago, we in government chose to use the recorded crime figure for street robbery as the best proxy for the trend over previous years. We did not attempt to say that overall violent crime was down and that therefore the problem addressed in the Bill did not exist. We have acknowledged head-on that it does exist, and for a variety of reasons. It is a relatively rare type of crime and it features a significant number of under-16s who do not show up in the British crime survey. The British crime survey is not the best measure of street robbery. So the balanced view is that, yes, violent crime overall is down, but there is a particular facet of street robbery with which we must get to grips.

My hon. and learned Friend also talked about design in relation to the reduction of crime, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), who spoke as the chairman of the all-party telecommunications group, referred to the role of manufacturers and operators. We have made it clear to the operating companies on several occasions during the past 12 months that we would if necessary be prepared to legislate to require the establishment of certain standards by the industry, but it has always been our preference not to do so—not least because with a fast-moving issue such as this there is a danger of legislating for the problem that existed two years previously rather than the problem that we might face in two years' time.

I am pleased that, albeit after some significant delays, Vodafone and 02 came on board and recognised the seriousness of the problem in January. They have helped to set in train the measures that we are discussing. In addition to the common database on IMEI numbers, they stressed the importance of legislation that made re-programming illegal.

In the nm-up to the debate, I was toying with the idea of naming those manufacturers who were not yet committed to introducing a hardened IMEI number, but I am pleased to say that following the assurances that we have received during the past few days I could no longer name with confidence any major manufacturer who was not adopting the new GSM number. That is important because the GSM standards are not legally enforceable internationally, so the pressure both of consumer demand and from operating companies and retailers saying that they will market only secure phones is crucial.

We are of course pursuing the matter internationally, not least in global forums. The European Union leads on certain trade issues and I am pleased to say that my officials have been invited to Brussels to discuss the measures that we are taking in this country as well as some of the international issues that we want to pursue. As we are a major market for mobile phones, I hope that if manufacturers implement the high standards demanded by consumers, operators and retailers in this country that will put significant pressure on the global market for mobile phones. That must certainly be our aim.

Questions were put about insurance fraud. The nature of "pure" fraud, when a claim is made but no phone has been lost or stolen, makes it difficult to obtain a real measure. The issue on which we have closely focused with the industry pertains to circumstances where a lost phone has been reported stolen in order to substantiate an insurance claim. We have been able to establish that the insurance policies offered by the mobile phone companies cover loss as well as theft, so there should be no need to require someone to report a phone as stolen in order to claim against a company insurance policy. That does not apply to some household insurance policies, however— nor is the advice always properly or routinely followed by all retail outlets. Further work needs to be done to ensure that recorded crime figures are not artificially inflated by people who think that they have to state that a crime has taken place in order to make a legitimate claim on their insurance policy.

The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) talked about penalties and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield asked about their operation. As I made clear in my opening speech, there is more of a cottage industry than a cartel at present; as there is nothing illegal in offering a re-programming service, it is offered by independent retailers, at market stalls and car boot sales, through Internet companies and so on. Clearly, the aim is to persuade a large number of those people, who may be aware that they are operating in a dubious moral zone but have no desire to put themselves in an illegal position, out of that business. That will hopefully enable the police to concentrate their efforts on what I am confident will be a smaller number of people prepared to offer such a service knowing that it was illegal and what the penalties would be.

There will be flexibility in the penalties; this is an each-way offence and there are different ranges of tariffs in magistrates courts and Crown courts. However, we should not forget that someone who re-programmes a mobile phone is not really in a different category from someone who has gone into the street, hit another person and taken their mobile phone. In effect, people know where such phones come from and must take responsibility for their part in that chain of events.

There was some discussion of two issues raised by my noble Friend Lord Campbell-Savours in another place. The first was whether the Bill's wording would put at risk people who owned equipment for legitimate purposes. The second—perhaps the other side of that argument—was whether the difficulties of proving intent would be so great as to make prosecution ineffective.

The reliance on intent or belief protects the legitimate owner of equipment. I am sure that we shall debate the matter in more detail than is appropriate on this occasion, but my view is that the concepts of intention and belief are already used effectively in the criminal law without major difficulty. The Theft Acts, for example, create the offence of theft where a person dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. The concept is well established.

The Bill is worded so as to protect somebody who legitimately owned a piece of equipment that could be used for those purposes. In practice, it is self-evident that in most cases there is likely to be significant circumstantial evidence, such as a large number of mobile phones, that would be taken into account.

Important points were made about accessories, as opposed to the mobile phone itself. This Bill does not deal directly with that, but the Government are taking other initiatives. For example, we are working with schools to try to discourage students from taking their phones to school. The balance of advantage to students is very much that they should not take their mobile phones to school, despite the so-called security arguments. Local education authorities in areas that suffer from the highest rates of street crime have already taken initiatives whereby police officers visit schools and that helps to address a range of youth crime issues, including mobile phone theft, so I hope that Members will feel that I have not ignored that point.

John Robertson

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in many cases parents ask their child to take their mobile to school and to ring up when they are ready to come home? The parents then come by car to collect their children—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tell them to walk."] Should we not be trying to educate the parents as well?

Mr. Denham

There are such pressures, but I have discussed the point with a significant number of head teachers, all of whom successfully pursue a policy of not allowing mobile phones in their school. They all insist that in the vast majority of cases it is not a major problem to make arrangements that do not rely on mobile phones. After all, as parents, we all seemed to manage without them until a few years ago. Schools can make arrangements for emergency calls and contacts. I am convinced that the balance of advantage for our young people is not to carry mobile phones; there is much evidence that the peak period for mobile phone theft, certainly in London, is during the hour or so after school ends. We need to realise that.

I do not want to detain the House too much longer—

Norman Baker

rose—

Mr. Denham

I shall obviously have to detain the House for a little longer—I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Norman Baker

I rose only because I hoped that the Minister would respond to a point that I made earlier on the situation in Northern Ireland. What discussions has he held with his counterparts in the Irish Republic, given that the legislation is intended to apply to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Denham

The legislation will apply throughout the United Kingdom, but it will not apply to the Republic of Ireland. As I mentioned earlier, we are anxious to encourage states throughout Europe to harmonise their approach, but I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that this measure will deliver such a system outside the boundaries of the United Kingdom.

I hope that we have covered the key points. We have been given fair warning of the amendments that will be discussed later this week and I am grateful to the House for its co-operative and constructive approach to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),

That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Question agreed to.

Committee tomorrow.