Police and Justice Bill

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 178ZA: Page 33, line 24, leave out ““likely”” and insert ““primarily”” The noble Earl said: I have listened to the Minister with great interest. He has clarified for me a confusing point about the production and the supply of these tools. One is trying to criminalise people who advertise on the internet saying, ““Great hacker tool available, derived from such and such, best thing ever, why don’t you buy it for X?””. I have no problem with criminalising the sale or the supply of a tool because one knows that that is likely to be used by hackers. Separating out the development and, therefore, the supply of legally developed tools to educational establishments or authorised computer users might well solve part of the problem. The second point that occurred to me while listening to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, is that we need a definition for ““likely””. Perhaps we should put in an entire legal definition of what we think ““likely”” is likely to mean when it gets to the courts. That would be another way around the matter. With those caveats and knowing that we shall definitely returnto this subject on Report, I shall not move my amendment. [Amendment No. 178ZA not moved.] Clause 41 agreed to. Clause 42 [Transitional and saving provision]: