Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 94, in schedule 13, page 123, line 25, at end insert—

‘Superannuation Act 1972 (c. 11)

(1)In Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972 (employments etc to which section 1 can apply), at the appropriate place in the list of “Offices” there is inserted—

“The office of inspector or assistant inspector of constabulary, where held by a person to whom paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 11(7) of the Police Pensions Act 1976 apply (inspectors etc not eligible for police pensions).”

(2)The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) shall be deemed always to have had effect.

Police Pensions Act 1976 (c. 35)

(1)In section 11 of the Police Pensions Act 1976 (interpretation), after subsection (6) there is inserted—

“(7)References in this Act to an inspector or assistant inspector of constabulary, and to service as such, do not have effect in relation to cases in which the person in question—

(a)was appointed on or after 1st January 1999, and

(b)did not serve as a member of a police force at any time before his appointment took effect.”

(2)The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) shall be deemed always to have had effect.’.

This is again a technical amendment to regularise the pension status of members of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary who are from non-police backgrounds. It will confirm them as members of the principal civil service pension scheme. There are now a number of members of the inspectorate who are from non-police backgrounds. That adds to the variety and diversity of inspectors and brings new skills and analysis to the important work of our professional experts in that sector. We want to make sure that their pension provision is safeguarded.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 149, in schedule 13, page 127, line 34, at end insert—

‘In this subsection “act” includes a series of acts.’”.

The amendment takes us back to the computer misuse provisions. It makes it clear that acts of attack on computers will include a series of acts. There has been some legal difficulty about the interpretation. For example, if somebody consents to receive one e-mail, that is one matter, but to be bombarded by a series of hundreds of thousands of similar e-mails can dramatically disrupt the operation of a computer. There was a recent case known as the Wimbledon youth case in which an abuser repeatedly sent an e-mail message to a particular address at a specific site—   it has been called a case of mail bombing. People were inundated with the e-mails. The amendment makes it clear that a series of acts as well as a single act can be included in the offence. That is a helpful clarification of the legal position.