To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to introduce regulations restricting the supply and sale of electronic surveillance listening devices.

No, Sir, for the reasons given in response to the debate on electronic surveillance devices initiated by my hon. Friend on 13 March 1989.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is outrageous that anyone, especially criminals, can buy such pieces of equipment, which can be used to snoop into other people's affairs, at a number of retail outlets in Oxford street and in high streets around the country? Does he further agree that that could constitute an invasion of privacy? Although it is not well known outside the House, companies around the country are increasingly aware of that problem because they have to buy countersurveillance equipment to deal with it. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that is outrageous and will he do something about it?

My hon. Friend has raised an important question, which has been looked into and explored in the House on several occasions. It would be difficult to define those devices to be made illegal without the definition being overtaken by technological advance. It is highly unlikely that there is any device that could not be represented by somebody as having some legitimate use. Therefore, it is probably very much better to go down the path recommended by Mr. Calcutt's report and to identify where a serious mischief is done by the placing of a surveillance device on private property to obtain, in the case recommended by Calcutt, personal information for publication.

Is the Home Secretary aware that there is a wider problem? Many instruments are being used for the furtherance of crime and the Home Office must do more to stop the sale of such things by direct mail. I refer, for example, to the direct mailing of skeleton keys to members of the public, which can easily be used for opening car doors. That is an obnoxious and dangerous activity, which should be brought under review of the Home Secretary—[Interruption.]

Order.

Clearly, the main question has nothing whatever to do with the sale of keys; has a lot to do with the sale of surveillance devices. The hon. Gentleman has not addressed his mind or his question to the two difficulties that I identified in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran)—[Interruption.]

Order. I ask hon. Members to listen to Home Office questions.

Hon. Members:

Hear, hear.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that during the passage of my Computer Misuse Bill, which is now, happily, enacted, the House seriously considered the possibility of making electronic eavesdropping a criminal offence, but rightly concluded that it was almost impossible to do so? On the basis that prevention is better than cure, will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) because this is a growing problem, which the Government must address?

Obviously, in deference to my hon. Friend, I shall reconsider that matter. However, I cannot do more than repeat the difficulties that I identified when replying to the original question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on all his work to get his private Member's Bill on the statute book.

The Home Secretary has accepted that it will be possible to legislate to control the use of listening devices by the press. Surely, therefore, it is also possible to address the problems, which are now becoming quite common, of the sale and supply of those electronic surveillance devices and their uses? If the Home Secretary wanted to do something about that problem, surely all the resources that are available to him tend to suggest that something could be done about it, not only in the simple case of the invasion of privacy by certain members of the press.

The hon. Gentleman has not addressed his mind to the very real difficulties that I identify. It would be easy to define devices that would attract the sanctions of the criminal law, but I find it difficult to believe that within a few months other mischevious devices that would not be covered by the prohibition would not be on the market. New devices are developed as a result of technological advance. In any event, I repeat what I said earlier: it is unlikely that we could point to any single device for which somebody could not allege a perfectly legitimate use. The most obvious example is that any hearing device can be dressed up as some form of hearing aid. One could produce a whole list, including surveillance devices in shops that are there to identify shoplifters. Time and again, such devices would attract the criminal law because of the wide definition.