HC Deb 09 March 1967 vol 742 cc1746-8
Q2. Mr. Onslow

asked the Prime Minister what fresh instructions he has given, since October, 1964, with regard to the interception of correspondence addressed to Members of Parliament on the authority of a warrant issued by a Secretary of State.

The Prime Minister

The principles which underlay my statement to the House in reply to Questions on 17th November, 1966, are applied equally to correspondence addressed to Members of Parliament.

Mr. Onslow

Why has the Prime Minister left it until now to tell the House this? Is he too thick to understand that the reputation of Parliament is in no way enhanced if Members who may be a risk to national security are given automatic immunity? Why will he not stop playing Sir Oracle on this matter and refer it to the Committee of the Privy Council?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Gentleman can speak for himself. I have answered this Question when it was on the Order Paper. The Questions which I answered on 17th November were also on the Order Paper. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am thick not to have given the answer before, perhaps he should have put down the Question before.

Mr. Heath

Is there not a serious point here in that the Radcliffe Report made certain recommendations which were accepted at the time by Mr. Harold Macmillan, who announced his acceptance to the House, and the then Leader of the Opposition, the late Hugh Gaitskell, took no exception to them? The Prime Minister himself made changes on his own authority. As far as I know, there were no discussions with the then Leader of the Opposition, and certainly no statement was made to the House. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he had the responsibility to tell the House of a change in procedure which had already been announced to the House?

The Prime Minister

No. I made clear on 17th November—and I am not aware that the present Leader of the Opposition objected to the statement I then made—that this was a very difficult question of balance between the rights of Members and national security. I said then that the practice previously followed had been altered. I have now been asked whether this applied to correspondence, and I have given the answer.

Mr. Heath

The procedure followed until the right hon. Gentleman changed it when he became Prime Minister had been announced to the House by Mr. Macmillan. It was an acceptance of the Radcliffe Committee's recommendations. The Prime Minister, on his own authority, changed that procedure directly he took office. He did not tell the House that a change was being made. Why not, and should not he have done so?

The Prime Minister

I think that it is certainly an arguable proposition that the House should have been told. But if the right hon. Gentleman really wants to go into the whole issue of action taken before 1964 on telephone tapping—[Interruption.] This cannot be isolated. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to go into the practice of the previous Government in all these matters—because Mr. Macmillan did not make a full statement to the House; he merely said that he accepted the Radcliffe Report—and if he would like to debate this issue, I should be very happy to join him in doing so.

Mr. Heath

The Prime Minister has still not answered my question. It is very simple and straightforward. Mr. Macmillan announced that the recommendations of the Radcliffe Report would be followed. If the Prime Minister is trying to insinuate that those recommendations were not followed, he should openly give the details. What I am asking him is: when he changed the procedure, which he did last November, why did he not inform the House that he was changing it, and changing it on his own authority?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman is on his favourite wicket of a procedural point. I decided, with the authority which must be exercised in these matters, that it would be wrong to go on with the practice that had been used in the past. I agree that this practice had not been committed on a very large scale but I felt that it was right to change it. When hon. Members opposite and in other parts of the House wanted to make a great political issue of this, with suggestions in the Conservative Press that we were tapping all these messages and activities of hon. Members, I thought it right to tell it to the House.

Mr. Heath

Is the Prime Minister aware that he is on his favourite wicket of failing to give information to the House and treating it with contempt?