Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 160, in clause 42, page 39, line 16, leave out from ‘“(c)’ to end of line 17.

This is in line with other amendments today. As far as I can ascertain, there have been only four successful prosecutions under the Mobile Telephones   (Re-programming) Act 2002. This crime is widespread. I want to be reassured that it is not simply that the first Act is a failure. What difference will this new measure make? If there were four prosecutions in the last three years, how many prosecutions are there likely to be in the next three years?

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

I am surprised about the amendment, because the Bill would create a new offence of offering or agreeing to reprogramme a mobile phone. The hon. Lady is right; there have not been as many prosecutions under the existing legislation as we would have wanted. That is because offences are quite difficult to prove. The Bill will make it easier to bring prosecutions to deal with a problem that is significant. If mobile phones can be reprogrammed, that is an incentive for people to steal them. We want to make sure that that cannot happen.

Reprogramming creates a market for stolen mobile phones. It is an offence, but usually reprogramming occurs behind closed doors and out of sight. The only way, currently, to establish whether an offence has been committed is by test purchasing—asking for a mobile phone to be reprogrammed. Often the person concerned will offer to reprogramme it, or agree to have it reprogrammed, and will ask the undercover police officer to come back later and collect it. The police can thus obtain proof that the phone has been reprogrammed, but cannot prove who did it. If offering to reprogramme a phone is made an offence, it will be possible to prosecute many more people. That is how the offences are carried out. If the police are to tackle reprogramming effectively that approach will be crucial.

Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

As my right hon. Friend knows, that was the subject of my private Member’s Bill in the previous Parliament, which ran out of time. Does she agree that the industry as well as the police will welcome the measure, because it wants to make it harder for mobile phones to be used as currency in drug deals?

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

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. His welcome Bill could not proceed because the session ended, but it was an excellent one, and I know that he has campaigned on the issues.

About 50 per cent. of robberies involve a mobile phone and in almost a third only a mobile phone is taken. Much of the trouble consists of young people stealing each other’s mobile phones. If it is possible to get them reprogrammed, that is the market for them. Therefore, as my hon. Friend said, the industry is right behind us. In fact, we are working in partnership with the mobile phone industry. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment, because the clause will make prosecution more effective.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

I am glad that the Minister has elucidated the matter. My knowledge of criminal matters was not sufficient to enable me to understand   that the clause is a clever move that will increase the chances of prosecution. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.