§ 6.39 p.m.
§ Lord RookerMy Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a short and technical Bill, but it seeks to tackle a fast-growing problem; the theft of mobile phones.
Tackling mobile phone theft is a key to driving down street crime. There is no doubt that the theft of mobile phones is a significant and genuine problem. The Home Office research report, Mobile Phone Theft, published in January 2002 showed that mobile phone theft is fuelling the rise in street robbery. For example, in 2000–01. mobile phones were stolen in 28 per cent of all robberies, compared with 8 per cent three years previously.
In the Metropolitan Police area alone, the percentage of offences where a mobile phone is among the items stolen has risen from 25 per cent in 1999–2000 to 50 per cent in 2001–02. The Home Office has been working with the mobile phone network providers to address the problem of mobile phone theft. We set up a steering group with the police and the industry in January last year to develop an action plan of practical measures.
Significant progress has been made. The Mobile Industry Crime Action Forum, two members of which I met today, agreed earlier this year to share information about stolen handsets. We have encouraged mobile phone operators and retailers to promote security information on their websites and manufacturers to give greater prominence to security advice in their manuals. And we have now issued more than 2 million of the crime prevention leaflets advising on measures to take to avoid mobile phone theft.
I now turn to the specific issue that is addressed by the Bill. We announced in February that by the end of the summer all of the five main network providers will have in place the technology to disable a phone across all networks once it has been reported as stolen.
Mobile phones can be disabled through a serial number on each handset, known as the International Mobile Equipment Identity number—the MEI number. That is a 15-digit number which is programmed into the handset and is also visible on the body of the handset. The number appears on the records of network providers each time the phone is used. Phones reported as stolen will be barred from further use by reference to that number.
Barring the handsets in that way should act as a strong deterrent to the thieves, preventing them from being able to use the phones that they steal. And if they cannot be used, they cannot be sold on—there is no market.
However, barring a handset is not effective if the IMEI number is changed. Changing the number makes it impossible for the operators to track and disable it. At present, it is relatively cheap and easy to change the IMEI number of a mobile phone by using software to reprogramme the handset. Such software 478 is freely available. Indeed, it may he bought or downloaded from the Internet. The police, for example, have seen a promotional leaflet offering for sale a kit which will change an IMEI number in five seconds. The kit costs £145. If the number is changed, a stolen phone reprogrammed in that way can then be sold on the black market.
Existing international security standards state that the IMEI number should not be changed and that it should be resistant to change. We are encouraging the manufacturers to do more to achieve this, but the present position is that numbers cart be changed.
Perhaps I may give a further example to indicate the extent of the problem. BT Cellnet, which is now 0–2, estimated in July 20011 that there were potentially 1–5 million phones on that particular network whose IMEI number had been changed from their manufactured number. The Metropolitan Police and the mobile phone industry found that of a sample of 300 stolen phones only 10 per cent were being re-used with their original IMEI numbers. They concluded that the remaining 90 per cent were either disposed of or, as seems more likely, being reprogrammed. Furthermore—and this is the nub of the reason for the Bill—it is not currently illegal to reprogramme a phone in this way. That is the situation which this narrow and technical Bill seeks to address.
In February, the Government indicated their intention to outlaw the activity at the earliest opportunity as part of the wider package of measures and actions we are developing to help tackle the problem of mobile phone robbery. In the meantime, we are continuing to press manufacturers to stop the problem at source by making it more difficult to change the identity of a handset.
Perhaps I may give the House a further example. Apparently, the most duplicated IMEI number on the BT Cellnet records had been copied no fewer than 9,495 times at the time the information was provided to me. Two days later when it was checked again, a further 18 versions of that number were on the system. There is therefore no question that there is a big industry out there.
I turn to what the Bill will do. It will create a new criminal offence of unauthorised reprogramming of mobile phone handsets. Specifically, it will be an offence to change or interfere with the operation of a phone's unique identifier; that is, the IMEI number. It will also create linked offences of possessing, supplying or offering to supply equipment for that purpose. It will be an offence to be in possession of equipment with the intention of unauthorised reprogramming.
There will be occasions when the manufacturers of a mobile phone will need to change the IMEI number. No offence will be committed if the change is made by manufacturers or with their written consent.
The new either-way offences of changing or interfering with the equipment identifier of the mobile phones without authorisation and possessing or supplying the equipment for that purpose will carry a maximum penalty on indictment of five years' 479 imprisonment, or an unlimited fine, or both. In the magistrates' court, 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.
I accept that the penalties, in particular for what appears to be a non-violent offence, look severe and we make no bones about that. The courts are cracking down on street robbers and those who fuel their activity, and they must expect to be dealt with harshly. Street crime is a problem and we are determined to deal with it.
The creation of the new offences will close the existing loophole and send out a strong signal that Parliament is not prepared to tolerate the activities of those who seek to derive financial benefit from preying on their fellow citizens and abusing the lawful and profitable trade of mobile phones in this way. The mobile phone industry, the police and, I understand, all political parties are behind the initiative.
I fully accept—although I make no promises—that there may not be a large number of prosecutions for the new offences. The legislation will help the police target and catch those involved in the reprogramming of mobile phones. With a telephone number being copied so many times, as in the example I gave, there is obviously an industry out there—one might say a cottage industry but a very big one. We do not believe that any legitimate business will be affected by the Bill. We have established with the industry that there is no legitimate reason for any individual to be involved in reprogramming a mobile phone.
We are determined to do everything we can to stop the theft of mobile phones, which is doing much to fuel robbery and the general fear of crime on our streets. The Bill will close a gap in the law. It does not deal with everything but it is highly targeted. I fully admit that in introducing a Bill beyond the middle of May and hoping that it will become law before the Summer Recess we must be very modest in our intentions; otherwise, Parliament rightly would not stand for it. We have a serious problem on our hands and this is a narrow Bill to deal with a narrow issue—I accept that it does not deal with all the issues relating to the mobile phone industry. In any event, the Bill is not being introduced in isolation because many other issues relating to street crime are being taken forward in a number of other wider initiatives.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Rooker.)
§ 6.48 p.m.
§ Lord DholakiaMy Lords, I thank the Minister for offering that explanation of why the Bill is necessary. He was right to point out some of the Home Office research into this matter.
No one can be in doubt that we need legislation to curb such criminal activities. However, we need to distinguish between those who steal phones because 480 they are somebody's possession and they do not have one, as against the organised criminals who find that mobile phones are easy to dispose of because there is a market here and abroad and such equipment can easily be converted into currency.
There is an ugly side to such criminal activities which no civilised society can tolerate. In January, we saw headlines in our paper about a mobile phone thief who was jailed for four years with a dire warning that such a sentence would act as a deterrent.
The judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, goes beyond the theft of mobile phones. It is about mugging, violent attacks and the bullying of victims. Of course it is questionable whether prison sentences for young people are effective in preventing such crime. We know that imprisonment does little to provide a deterrent. However, we cannot ignore the fact that according to the British Crime Survey about 470,000 mobile phones were stolen in incidents involving householders in 2000. The figure is an underestimation since the research does not cover commercial targets or incidents involving those under 16.
This must be a worrying trend. It causes a large blip in our crime figures. The fear of crime must never be underestimated. We must add to that factor violence against victims. We know little as to how much of the activity is geared towards converting phone thefts into currency to satisfy a drug culture.
It is for all those reasons that we need legislation to ensure public safety, reduction of this high level of crime and punishment for those who perpetrate such crime. The Bill, therefore, has our broad support.
There are, of course, areas of concern. Children aged between 11 and 15 years account for over half the annual 1 million victims estimated by the police. The Bill does little to address that issue because we are dealing only with legislation which creates a number of offences relating to the electronic identifiers of mobile wireless communication devices and those young people of 11 to 15 years will hardly feature in that category.
It would be impossible to identify how many young people between 11 and 15 years are involved in the process that leads to re-programming of the equipment. I suspect that, like most street crimes, it is more for personal benefit rather than through organised criminal activity that phones are stolen from and by that age group. It would be wrong, therefore, to build up expectations that the legislation would have any effect in that regard but that does not mean that it is not necessary.
We are dealing with the two ugly sides of phone thefts. In the youth offending pattern we need to ensure that there are adequate sentencing guidelines which will deal with the matter in the context of street crimes taking into account the aggravating factor if violence is involved.
Equally, the mobile telephone industry needs to develop a role of public education. I met with the representatives of the Mobile Industry Crime Action Forum and was impressed with the action it is taking. 481 It has created an industry group to address the problems. I understand that there is an agreed equipment identity register. It has undertaken member activity to bring increased awareness of safety issues. It also has a close liaison with the Government and the police on measures to combat this type of crime.
The forum supports the Government's Bill. It will curb the activities of individuals and organised gangs on reprogramming stolen devices, which criminals do with impunity. But there should be a warning for the mobile phone industry as well. In the present days of technological advancement it must invest enough resources to ensure that technology is available to demobilise any stolen property. That cannot be beyond the means of science today. It would be nice to hear what the industry is doing about it.
I do not believe that we should delay this legislation unnecessarily. However, it would be helpful to know the following. Is there any legislation in European Union countries on similar lines to ensure that overseas bases are not used for reprogramming? I take it that we have no jurisdiction over what happens in other European Union countries. Is there any estimate of how widespread the activity of reprogramming is? The Minister was good enough to give some examples. Is this activity limited to some big crooks; or do we take it that almost anyone with know-how can manage to manipulate mobile phones? What consultations are taking place with the mobile phone industry to ensure that there is a programme of public education about the seriousness of using phones which have been tampered with?
Will the Minister explain the rationale underlying the five years' imprisonment? How was that period arrived at? The penalty is severe but I suspect that the maximum would apply only in exceptional cases where widespread recycling of stolen sets was involved. In that case I have no doubt that the custodial option may be appropriate.
We support the Bill. At present no offence directly covers tampering with the unique identification device on a mobile phone. I suspect that there would he a handling offence under Section 22(1) of the Theft Act—for example, dishonest assistance in the retention, removal, disposal or realisation of stolen goods knowing or believing the same to be stolen. I wish the Bill a speedy passage so that we are able to ensure that the level of this crime diminishes in this country.
§ 6.55 p.m.
§ Lord Dixon-SmithMy Lords, it is a pleasure to add my voice in support of the Bill. We shall do what we can to speed through the procedures in this House and send the Bill winging on its way to another place as soon as reasonably possible.
It is a highly technical subject but it is intimately involved with a deep social problem at present: the disastrous increase in street crime. Whether that involves the young stealing for status, the slightly older young stealing to fund a drug habit, or organised crime is neither here nor there. It is a dreadful fact that the 482 advent of the mobile phone, which has been such a blessing in so many ways to so many people., has also become a curse.
The Bill is particularly welcome because it is a keystone in a tide of action over the summer by the industry—manufacturers and service providers—to try to make these wonderful gadgets useless as soon as possible after they are stolen. That is what it is all about. The manufacturers and the service providers have done a remarkably good job. We have heard about the organisation that they have established. I am grateful for the briefing I have received from that body and others. It has helped me to understand the issues.
As the Minister said, the remaining key problem—this little Bill is a keystone in the arch—is that it is possible to reprogramme a mobile phone's unique identification number and the service providers cannot crack that problem.
It is a simple Bill. One could almost say that one has no problems with it. Clause 1 makes the reprogramming of mobile telephones an offence and provides a severe penalty, which I believe is justified. If such reprogramming is an unofficial criminal industry it needs to be stopped. Therefore, the penalties should be severe. Like the Minister, I hope that the number of prosecutions under the legislation will be small. It would be gratifying to find that not everyone was "doing it", as is said. But if people are going to get involved in the activity, they should be aware that the penalties are severe, and rightly so. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I have some doubts about the five year penal penalty because the prisons are already overcrowded. It seems to me that heavy financial penalties may well be more appropriate, particularly if the activity is a commercial enterprise.
We have difficulties with the wording rather than the principle of Clause 2. In order to modify a mobile phone's unique identification number, the object in the clause which one has to have under one's control is a computer. But we all of us have computers. I quote from the Bill:
A person commits an offence if he has in his custody … anything which may be used for the purpose of changing or interfering with the operation of a unique device identifier".The Bill continues,and he intends to use the thing unlawfully for that purpose".The other part of the "thing" that is necessary in order to undertake this criminal activity is a particular type of program on the computer. I do not believe that it is a specific type of program. Regrettably, that can be downloaded from the Internet so that when, under Clause 2(2),A person commits an offence if he supplies anything which may be used for the purpose of changing or interfering with the operation of a unique device identifieror he offers to supply, that could apply to both the computer and the program. But, as we have heard., the computer can be sold perfectly innocently and properly. It is used almost universally throughout the country. The program is available. Although we can make it an offence in this country to supply, if it is available on the Internet then it will be available. It seems to me that we have a little difficulty here.483 It comes back to the addition in the Bill of the words "intent" and "belie". I do not know how it is possible to find someone guilty of selling something to a person who intends to use it in an improper way. The purchaser is most unlikely to have confessed to the vendor that that was the intent. For the life of me, I do not see how the vendor could judge such an intent. I think of PC World and Dell which sell computers by the dozen every week. Even though they may make it very plain that the improper use of a computer is an offence, it would be impossible to prevent them selling the computers. Equally, it would be impossible to restrict the availability of the program. As the Explanatory Notes to the Bill state, there are perfectly proper uses for the programs which have nothing to do with criminal activity.
We shall have to look at Clause 2 of the Bill with a view to trying to tighten up the wording. At the moment I do not believe that it would be effective. Clause 1 is fine and the offence is quite clear. If someone is caught in the act of altering a mobile phone's unique identification number, there is no problem. But if one tries to restrict the availability of equipment we should try to tighten up what is on the face of the Bill in order to make it better before we send it to another place. I do not believe that that will be a great task. I am sure that if we put our heads together before Committee stage we should be able to work out something fairly quickly.
As I said, this is an important and welcome Bill. In a sense it is a keystone in the arch of measures setting out to reduce what has turned a blessing to society, as I said earlier in my remarks, into a curse for too many people. Therefore, it is a wholly welcome piece of legislation. I shall be very glad to do all I can both to improve it and to get it through the processes as quickly as possible.
§ 7.3 p.m.
§ Lord RookerMy Lords, I am most grateful for the tone and the content of the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Dixon-Smith, on this Bill. Quite clearly, there will be a Committee stage when we shall deal with some of the issues which have been raised.
Perhaps initially I may deal broadly with some of the points which have been raised. We are not aware of any legislation overseas, but the officials I met this morning from the Department of Trade and Industry stated that they have a plan of action to discuss these matters with overseas governments. Other than our European partners, the key government is the United States of America. If we can get them on board we could be very effective.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised a point about severity of sentences. There is a problem with that. In the Bill it is an either-way offence and therefore a distinction can be drawn between individual theft and the activity of organised criminals. It is the latter who receive the tougher sentences or the unlimited fines. It may be that that is the way to hit such people.
484 As regards intent, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service have been fully consulted on the development of the new offences. They are confident that they will be able to mount successful investigations and prosecutions. I can say more about that at Committee stage. The police are fully behind the legislation.
The Bill covers only one aspect of the matter. From August the mobile service providers will be able to make the IMEI number ineffective on all lost or stolen phones. From September it is anticipated that there will be a database shared by the service providers and accessible to the police, which will contain details of all stolen mobile phones. In a way those are extras, but they will provide good armoury. It is hoped that the way the Bill is drafted will take account of the changes in technology. I am not au fait with the technology, but I understand that the new technology is called "blue tooth" technology. I have never heard of the phrase before. I have had it explained to me. It is quite incredible as regards mobile phones. Quite clearly, the future is blue rather than orange but not of a political hue. I am grateful for the remarks of noble Lords and I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.