I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 7, leave out from "offence" to end of line 15 and insert "and"

The amendments implement an undertaking that I gave in Committee to narrow the exception to the new offence which dealt with giving consent to an interception. The amendments make a drafting change to the exception for interception for purposes connected with the provision of postal or telecommunications services. We are making it clear that the exception covers Post Office powers to open letters believed to contain inflammable material or to monitor obscene telephone calls, which is an offence under the Telecommunications Act.

Finally, the amendents incorporate a further but limited exception for those acting under Wireless Telegraphy Act powers who monitor radio transmissions for purposes connected with the issuing of licences or for the protection or prevention of radio interference. Certain forms of telecommunications on the public system are nowadays conveyed by radio for part of their journey. In certain circumstances, those acting to prevent interference might have to monitor across a band that is used by such a system and this exception is introduced against that possibility.

I hope that I shall be excused for mentioning one other matter and setting the scene for our consideration of the eight groups of amendments that we shall be discussing. This group of amendments, and Lords amendment No. 5, fulfil undertakings. The others respond to submissions made in another place, which in some instances followed on from what was said in this place a few months ago. In the course of the earlier proceedings in this place the Government demonstrated their readiness to meet submissions made to them by making a number of significant changes. The nature of the amendments now before us is further evidence of the Government's willingness throughout to accept constructive suggestions from whichever side of the House they have come and to deal with these important issues in the non-partisan spirit which I am sure the House would wish.

I speak for the union which sponsors me, the Union of Communication Workers (Engineering Group). There is still some disappointment that unofficial telephone tapping has not been tackled further. All the amendments made in another place have improved what we consider to be a fundamentally unsatisfactory position. I welcome the slightly greater protection that will be given to employees by Lords amendment No. 3 in subsection (2A)(a). It widens the definition to cover

"the enforcement of any enactment relating to the use of"

public telecommunication services.

We shall have to consider the operation of this measure extremely carefully. It will be important for the Government to give thorough consideration to the detailed working of the measure within a few months, or perhaps within a year, to ensure that it is operating satisfactorily and fairly.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

The amendment clarifies "necessary" in clause 2, obliging the Secretary of State, as he always does in practice, to consider whether the information in question

"could reasonably be acquired by other means."

Thus the Bill expressly mentions one of the main elements of the existing non-statutory procedures set out in the White Paper in a way which I hope will commend itself to the House. The change places beyond any doubt that there must be a consideration of alternatives and that it is one of the factors which the tribunal will consider in reviewing the Secretary of State's decisions. By qualifying "necessary", the amendment applies also to the Secretary of State's power to renew warrants and his duty to cancel them.

The Minister moved towards us at a number of stages in the Bill's passage through this House. It is sad that he did not so move at an earlier stage on this issue. The argument was advanced clearly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on Second Reading.

In Committee, the. Opposition moved amendments which were supported by some Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), for example, supported the Opposition in a Division that we forced in an effort to get an amendment made to the Bill. If we had been successful, their Lordships in another place would have been saved some trouble.

I am rather puzzled why the amendment has taken the form in which it appears before us. The 1980 White Paper stated:

"normal methods of investigation must have been tried and failed, or must, from the nature of things, be unlikely to succeed if tried."

Their Lordships have included a rather weaker test. The test is that

"The matters to be taken into account … could reasonably be acquired by other means."

That is a looser test than that which appeared in the White Paper. On balance, we would have preferred the White Paper's wording. However, that is a minor matter. The inclusion of the amendment strengthens the Bill and for that reason we welcome it.

I echo the remarks of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). The acceptance of the amendment will improve the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for notifying the Government's acceptance. I am much in favour of defining the circumstances in which a warrant can be issued and defining them as exactly as possible in the circumstances. The amendment is a step in the right direction. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me when I say that it is a small step and that I wish he had gone further.

I take on board the remarks of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). White Paper language is seldom suitable for direct incorporation into statute. For example, that criterion rests on "normal" methods having failed, but normality does not have a sufficiently precise meaning to serve here at the heart of the statutory definition of the Secretary of State's powers. The alternative test of impracticability, which was proposed in an amendment which was tabled in another place, does not allow the Secretary of State to take proper account of the need for speed or the adverse consequences of the discovery of alternatives. I believe that the formulation before us follows existing practices and gives proper effect to the approach set out in the White Paper. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hammersmith and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham for their comments, but even by their lights the amendment offers an improvement.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

The amendment fulfils an undertaking that was given in Committee that the Government would incorporate in an appropriate way in the Bill the arrangements for the duration of warrants as set out in paragraph 11 of the White Paper. The amendment secures the same practical effect as those arrangements. The original undertakings met with the support of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I hope that its implementation in this way will be found equally acceptable.

I asked for this amendment on Second Reading and requested it from the Home Secretary in the discussions that I had with him. The Home Secretary was good enough to tell me that he would meet that request. The amendment fulfils that undertaking and I thank the Government for making an important improvement in the Bill.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for being helpful. He suggested this amendment at an earlier stage. It concerned another of those cases where one could not incorporate in the Bill the precise wording of the White Paper, but we knew what we wanted to attain and we have attained it.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 17, at end insert "and"

These amendments incorporate in the clause 6 safeguards an express reference to the destruction of material the retention of which is no longer necessary. They fulfil an undertaking given following discussions in the other place of an amendment identical to the one moved by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) in Committee on 2 April. The change makes explicit the requirement that material must be destroyed as soon as it no longer meets the purposes for which warrants can be issued, and it can be welcomed by both sides of the House.

The amendment is welcome, but where are alliance Members? We hear a great deal about the concern of the Liberal and SDP Members for civil liberties, but not one of those hon. Members is present in the Chamber for this extremely important debate. They have a great deal to say outside the Chamber about their claims to work hard here, but when we are debating matters of fundamental importance to civil liberties, heaven alone knows where they are. It is important to have that on record.

There is a trip to Windsor races this evening.

If alliance Members are on that trip, they are doing something more constructive than they are normally doing. Nevertheless, it is offensive to the House that, when a Minister says that he is adding something to a Bill in response to a point made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), neither the hon. Gentleman nor any of his colleagues is here.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This amendment complements the reference to judical review added to the Bill in Committee on 2 April, which was accepted on both sides of the House as placing beyond any doubt that it was the task of the tribunal to consider whether the Secretary of State's decision was proper. This further change meets concern expressed in the other place about whether the principles of judical review were sufficiently clear and states expressly that they are the principles that would he applied by the court. Therefore, the amendment does not change the substance of the clause or alter the effect that, in the Government's view, was secured by the earlier change. Hon. Members may see this amendment as a clarification, and in that sense I invite them to agree to it.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 12, in page 8, line 18, at end insert

"or

(b) where the evidence is adduced or the question in cross-examination is asked for the purpose of establishing the fairness or unfairness of a dismissal on grounds of an offence under section 1 above or of conduct from which such an offence might be inferred:

and paragraph (a) of that subsection does not apply where a person has been convicted of the offence under that section."

These amendments meet a point originally identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) in Committee. He pointed out that if the Post Office or a public telecommunications operator were challenged in an industrial tribunal with dismissing an employee on grounds of conduct that amounted to improper interception, they might not be able to adduce evidence in support of their case. The same matter was pursued by an Opposition spokesman in the other place. The Government found the point persuasive, and these amendments meet it.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for having responded to my point. The amendment takes account of the point that I was making, and there should be no further problems.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 14, in page 9, line 7. leave out from "warrant" to end of line 9.

These are drafting amendments, which secure the better expression of two of the terms used in the Bill. They make no change of substance.