§ Q4. Mr. Onslowasked the Prime Minister whether the immunity from telephone tapping and letter interception which has been extended to Members of Parliament since October, 1964 also applies to all other forms of security surveillance.
§ The Prime MinisterI would like to remind the House that, in replying to Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr), Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) and High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) and the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) on 17th November last, I made it clear that the fact that I was exceptionally answering Questions about the official interception of communications in no way detracted from the long-established practice whereby Ministers normally
are unable to answer Questions relating to these matters".Since then a number of further Questions have been put to me—including the present one by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow)—on points arising from my original Answer, and I have done my best within the strict limits imposed by national security to be helpful. However, in fairness to hon. Members, I should make it plain that I have no further information to give on this subject additional to that which I have already made available to the House.—[Vol. 736, c. 635.]
§ Mr. OnslowIs the Prime Minister aware that he opened up this subject and owes the House a full explanation? Will he now say whether the position is that if a security suspect is identified as being in clandestine contact with a Member of Parliament, who may be a member of the Government, there can be no surveillance of that Member until the Prime Minister has made a statement in the House that the immunity of Parliament has been withdrawn?
§ The Prime MinisterI explained the position last November. I did so because there was a considerable public outcry about some completely wrong facts, and because a number of questions were down on the Order Paper. I thought 966 it right, exceptionally, to give that Answer and said then that I would not answer further Questions on the subject, in accordance with the practice of my predecessors.
§ Mr. HeathIs the Prime Minister aware that he would not find himself in this difficulty if he had announced in the House right at the beginning a change in procedure which he made entirely on his own responsibility? Will he recognise that we on this side of the House believe that the extension of the privileges of Members of Parliament which he has made in these matters of national security is completely unjustified?
§ The Prime MinisterI did not feel it right, when the change was made, to pillory the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends for their practice in the matter of intercepting hon. Members' communications. The right hon. Gentleman seems determined, however, to draw attention to those practices, which we changed. If he now feels—and he did not say so at the time—the change is wrong, no doubt he will move a Motion of censure or give the House facilities for debating the matter.
§ Mr. HeathIs the Prime Minister saying—and I have asked him before to make himself explicit on this—that the procedure announced by Mr. Macmillan was not followed? If he is saying that, he should produce the evidence to the House.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. As I said in November, these are very difficult matters to decide and, since Mr. Macmillan had made it clear, following the Birkett Report, that hon. Members were being treated the same as other people, we decided, on balance, that this was wrong and made the change.
§ Mr. Michael FootSince the Leader of the Opposition has told the House that he is in favour of Secret Service surveillance over the affairs of hon. Members, will my right hon. Friend investigate through the usual channels and with unusual channels whether we cannot have a proper survey of all the interference with the affairs of hon. Members by the Secret Service under the last Government?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. I do not think that that would be appropriate 967 When we took office, I naturally found out what the practice had been. I explained last November how I concluded that the system under which hon. Members of both major parties were having their telephones tapped by the last Government was one that should be changed.
§ Mr. HeathIs the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Macmillan accepted the recommendations of the Birkett Committee, in which the then Leader of the Labour Party, the late Hugh Gaitskell, acquiesced in this House, and that this is the procedure that we believe should be followed?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. I am aware that Mr. Macmillan accepted the Report. As I said, when we came to office and took over responsibility for these things, and when I found out what was involved, I thought it right to decide the other way. But, of course, these are hairbreadth decisions. I am surprised that now, six months later, the right hon. Gentleman is making an important policy declaration in favour of the tapping of telephones of hon. Members.