FLASH: Clarke says PSI Bill will NOT cover IT security consultants

[Caspar Bowden]

>Nigel Hickson
>Sent: 28 March 2001 21:27
...
>How very odd; why would DTI want to consult industry if the HO
>are saying
>that Bill does NOT cover IT consultants.  If it had never
>intended to then
>why would DTI need to consult?  But if it had..........

An excellent question. I replayed the tape, and the line-to-take nuance of
Clarke's briefing seemed to be not to deny that the ("broadly drafted")
wording ("designed for a flexible approach") would catch IT people, but that
the government "CURRENTLY had no intention to bring them within the scope"
of THE LICENSING REGIME.

(Nick?) Hawkins (Con) followed that up, and asked if he would consider
revising the Sched.2 wording to give a clear exemption. Clarke equivocated
(no change there then), saying on the one hand they wanted the wording vague
enough to cope with the future (making reference to twenty years in the
past), but he finally mumbled an agreement to "look".

So there is all to play for. Clarke made explicit reference to the IT sector
being unregulated, and reading the runes it seems clear that somebody wants
to keep secondary powers to bring in licensing if they get uppity (poking
fun at the RIP Act perhaps ?).

We shall see if there is a government amendment early at Committee stage
which alters the necessary definitions and provides IT with the same kind of
blanket exemptions given to the other professions - if not, that spells doom
because only the Lords can make a difference on seomething like this, and
this Bill has already been through the Lords.

--
Caspar Bowden               Tel: +44(0)20 7354 2333
Director, Foundation for Information Policy Research
RIP Information Centre at:    www.fipr.org/rip#media