HC Deb 11 July 1957 vol 573 cc541-3
44 and 48. Mr. Lewis

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions during the past six years he or his predecessors have given permission for telephone conversations to be tapped; for what purposes these conversations were intercepted; and what was the last date when such action was taken; and

(2) on how many occasions during the past six years he has given his permission for telephone calls of shop stewards and trade unionists connected with industrial disputes to be intercepted; and whether he will give the dates of such interceptions.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler)

As I have made clear in previous replies, it has always been the practice, in the public interest, not to disclose the extent to which the power to issue warrants authorising the recording of telephone conversations has been used, or to divulge information as to its exercise in particular cases or classes of cases. I am not prepared to depart from that practice.

Mr. Lewis

But can the Home Secretary give any logical reason why the details in these Questions cannot be given, and, further, can he say why he will not make a statement as to the last date on which such action was taken and on how many occasions trade union officials and executives have had their phones tapped? Surely, that does not interfere with the security of the State. Will he not answer those questions?

Mr. Butler

No, Sir. I am following precedents set by my predecessors in this matter, and I am not prepared to go further than my Answer.

Mr. Gaitskell

Would the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless confirm that his statement does not in any way debar the Committee of Privy Councillors now considering this matter from publishing what they think to be necessary in this matter?

Mr. Butler

The Privy Councillors have very wide terms of reference, of which, I understand, they are taking full advantage. I would expect them to publish what they think is right.

Mr. Silverman

On a point of order. Might I ask for your guidance in this matter, Mr. Speaker? I understand that the Government claim that their power to give these warrants and permissions and exercise this power is derived from a prerogative, and one assumes that that is a Royal prerogative, now exercised according to our constitutional practice on the advice of Ministers. The Ministers are responsible Ministers, responsible to this House for the advice which they give to the Crown. Is it, therefore, proper for a Minister exercising a prerogative power, when he is asked by a Member of the House what he has done, to refuse to say what he has done?

Mr. Speaker

The rule with regard to Questions, laid down, I think, in Erskine May, is that matters in themselves secret cannot be the subject of Parliamentary Questions. If a matter is of itself secret, as this appears to be, it seems to be debarred as a subject for questioning.

Mr. Silverman

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, that does not quite cover the point I raised. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) has not asked for any secret information about the details of persons or occasions. He has asked for numbers, and only for numbers.

Mr. Speaker

I think that hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, if he has a constitutional point of that complexity to raise, had better give me notice about it and I will try to do what I can with it. At the moment, it is not a point of order. If the hon. Member thinks that the Home Secretary is acting unjustifiably, he has his normal Parliamentary remedy.