Clause 31 - Tampering with the Register etc.
Identity Cards Bill
4:30 pm
Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock and Loudoun, Labour)
I am content to give Committee members the reassurances that they seek, and I shall do that quickly.
In many ways, this is a belt-and-braces provision; I shall explain why in a couple of minutes. It is similar but not identical to the jurisdiction under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. That similarity should show Committee members that the menace of activities abroad affecting information held in this country has exercised the mind of Parliament for some time, and that there is a formula for dealing with it, which is designed to do exactly what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam described.
Subsection (4) provides for extra-territorial effect in relation to the offence of tampering with the register and has the effect that where unauthorised modifications take place abroad it is ''immaterial'' whether
''it is conduct of a British citizen.''
I will explain why that is important in a few minutes.
It is clear that if the register is to be protected from unauthorised modification, it is axiomatic that we have to provide for an offence that will apply to modifications effected from abroad, whatever the nationality of the computer cracker. The register will, however, be located in the UK, so even when the location of a computer from which an unauthorised modification is effected is outside the UK, an offence under clause 31 would be completed in this country. That is why I described this as a belt-and-braces provision.
There is a strong case for arguing that the UK courts would have jurisdiction over such extra-territorial behaviour, regardless of any express statutory reference. Moreover, Parliament could be understood to intend that the UK courts should have jurisdiction over all unauthorised modifications of a register of the people who are resident in the UK. However, it is appropriate in this provision to make that clear and put it beyond doubt.
Being mindful of the general principle of the common law of England—that the exercise of criminal jurisdiction does not extend to cover acts that are committed on land abroad—I took the view that the matter should be put beyond any doubt in the Bill. A statute that expressly provides for extra-territorial jurisdiction will, in the absence of further clear provision, only be regarded as covering such acts when they are committed by British subjects, therefore provision had to be made in subsection (4), in any event, for the offence to apply, regardless of nationality.
For all those reasons, which are consistent with the protections that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam would expect of this register, it is appropriate to have such specific provisions in this legislation. I trust that hon. Members will recognise the need for the provision of extra-territorial jurisdiction.