The Police and Justice Bill 2006 looks set to be heavily amended by the House of Lords, during the Committee stage today.
Firstly it there could well be the removal of the independent
Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons from the proposed "let's merge five independent inspectorates into one" plan by the Home Office. in an amendment proposed by the formidable Lord Ramsbotham
Then there are some further Government amendments to the controversial sections which amend the Computer Misuse Act, hopefully giving a bit more emphasis on criminal intent with respect to Denial of Service attacks (see below).
Following the publicity for the NatWest 3 bankers, Gary McKinnon, Babar Ahmad and others facing unfair extradition to the USA, the Lords look set to vote to accept the amendments which would, if the Commons agree in October, suspend the US-UK Extradition Treaty, until the US Congress ratifies it on a fully reciprocal basis.
This may or may not be enough of a signal for the Government to halt the current Extraditions to the USA, which they could do, by simply charging these people with their alleged crimes here in the UK, under UK law, which would automatically take precedence over the US extradition requests.
The major part of this Bill is the "Police" part of the proposed legislation, which introduces the powers to merge Police Forces and Police Authorities, and which has already been debated and accepted by the Lords.
However it now appears that there is no money to fund the merger of even the Police Forces which voluntarily want to amalgamate e.g. Cumbria and Lancashire, let alone those which are opposed to the Home Office's plans, so the whole Part 1 of the Police and Justice Bill seems to be a waste of time !
Surely the plan should have been properly costed and budget approval obtained from the Treasury before the legislation was rushed through Parliament ?
Surely both the Treasury and the Home Office knew that there was no available money to fund these mergers before the Commons and the Lords debated these Police Force amalgamation powers ?
if there is no money (estimated to be a billion pounds or so) until next year or the year after, then why try to rush through the legislation right now ?
The Computer Misuse Act Amendments have changed, yet again:
Clause 39 THE BARONESS SCOTLAND OF ASTHAL 171B Page 32, line 10, leave out from beginning to "subsection" in line 11 and insert— "(1) In the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (c. 18) ("the 1990 Act"), section 1 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)— (a) in paragraph (a), after "any computer" there is inserted ", or to enable any such access to be secured"; (b) in paragraph (b), after "secure" there is inserted ", or to enable to be secured,". (3) For"THE EARL OF NORTHESK
172 Page 32, line 10, leave out from beginning to "subsection" in line 11 and insert—
"(1) In the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (c. 18) ("the 1990 Act"), section 1 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (a), after "computer" insert "or to enable any such access to be secured",
(b) in paragraph (b), after "secure" insert "or to enable to be secured".
(3) For"
Presumably the Earl of Northesk is simply correcting the typographical errors of the extraneous full stops in the Government's Amendment in the name of Baroness Scotland.
Does this amendment, even as corrected, make any real difference to the Computer Misuse Act Section 1 ?
THE BARONESS ANELAY OF ST JOHNS
THE VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN
173 Page 32, line 13, after "person" insert "aged 18 years or over"
Clause 40
THE BARONESS SCOTLAND OF ASTHAL
173A Page 32, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 33 and insert—
"3 Unauthorised acts with intent to impair, or with recklessness as to impairing, operation of computer, etc.
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he does any unauthorised act in relation to a computer;
(b) at the time when he does the act he knows that it is unauthorised; and
(c) either subsection (2) or subsection (3) below applies.
(2) This subsection applies if the person intends by doing the act—
(a) to impair the operation of any computer;
(b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer;
(c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data; or
(d) to enable any of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) above to be done.
(3) This subsection applies if the person is reckless as to whether the act will do any of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) above.
(4) The intention referred to in subsection (2) above, or the recklessness referred to in subsection (3) above, need not relate to—
(a) any particular computer;
(b) any particular program or data; or
(c) a program or data of any particular kind."
THE EARL OF NORTHESK
174 Page 32, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 33 and insert—"3 Unauthorised acts with intent to impair, or with recklessness as to impairing, operation of computer, etc
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he does any unauthorised act in relation to a computer;
(b) at the time when he does the act he knows that it is unauthorised; and
(c) either subsection (2) or subsection (3) below applies.
(2) This subsection applies if the person intends by doing the act—
(a) to impair the operation of any computer;
(b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer;
(c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data; or
(d) to enable any of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) above to be done.
(3) This subsection applies if the person is reckless as to whether the act will do any of the things mentioned in subsection (2) above.
(4) The intention referred to in subsection (2) above, or the recklessness referred to in section (3) above, need not relate to—
(a) any particular computer;
(b) any particular program or data; or
(c) a program or data of any particular kind."
The Earl of Northesk's amendment slightly simplifies the wording of
" (3) This subsection applies if the person is reckless as to whether the act will do any of the things mentioned in subsection (2) above."
Does this Amendment (even as slightly simplified) clarify sufficiently the issues about intent for Denial of Service attacks ?THE BARONESS ANELAY OF ST JOHNS
THE VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN
175 Page 32, line 26, after "person" insert "aged 18 years or over"
THE EARL OF NORTHESK
THE BARONESS SCOTLAND OF ASTHAL
176 Page 33, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) a reference to impairing, preventing or hindering something includes a reference to doing so temporarily"
i.e. A joint Government and Opposition amendment.THE BARONESS ANELAY OF ST JOHNS THE VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN 177 Page 33, line 7, after "person" insert "aged 18 years or over"Clause 41
THE EARL OF NORTHESK
178 Page 33, leave out line 24
THE EARL OF ERROLL
178ZA Page 33, line 24, leave out "likely" and insert "primarily"This is the still very necessary clarification to prevent normal systems administrators, operating system utility programmers and security experts from being criminalised in the "hacking tools" section of the amendments. If neither of these amendments get passed, there will be will lots of damage to the UK economy, as IT operations and software development are forced overseas.
Clause 42 THE BARONESS SCOTLAND OF ASTHAL 178A Page 33, line 39, at end insert— "( ) The amendments made by subsection (2) of section 39 apply only where every act or other event proof of which is required for conviction of an offence under section 1 of the 1990 Act takes place after that subsection comes into force." 178B Page 33, line 41, at beginning insert "subsection (3) of" 178C Page 33, line 43, leave out "section" and insert "subsection"We will be following the debate this evening with interest.