§ The Prime MinisterWith permission, I would like to reply to Question No. Q3.
I told the House on 11th May that allegations made that morning in an article in the Guardian were being investigated. So far as these allegations relate to possible criminal offences, police inquiries are still continuing, and I cannot comment upon them. But the Board of Inland Revenue has now established that in one case a tax afficial gave confidential information over the telephone to a person claiming, falsely, to be from another tax office. He failed to observe the strict Departmental instructions and has therefore been formally reprimanded.
Rules to combat dishonest telephone inquiries were already in force in the three Departments most at risk. They provide that, wherever an inquirer cannot be satisfactorily identified, he must be asked for a telephone number at which he can be rung back. This number is then checked before any information is given. In particular, the rules provide safeguards against the bogus inquirer from a telephone callbox. After reviewing these rules I immediately gave instructions that they should be introduced into all other Government Departments.
I have considered whether former civil servants should be forbidden to work for private inquiry firms. I have concluded that such a rule would be impossible to enforce. But someone employed in this way would be committing an offence under the Official Secrets Acts if he disclosed 642 confidential information acquired while in the Civil Service.
I have also reviewed the arrangements for safeguarding confidential commercial information. As a result fresh instructions are being issued to all Government Departments. This will lead to some tightening-up of existing arrangements, particularly for the most sensitive types of information.
If, after the police inquiries are completed, further action appears necessary it will of course be taken. But I believe that these measures provide the most immediate and practical means of safeguarding more effectively confidential information entrusted to Government Departments.
§ Mr. William HamiltonI am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the fact that he would deal with the Question in this way. Can he say when he expects the full inquiry to be completed, as to both the police and the other departmental matters? Meanwhile, is he completely satisfied that all possible steps have been taken in all Departments to tighten up security consistent with the public interest?
§ The Prime MinisterI cannot yet say when the police inquiries will be completed. The departmental inquiries have not been carried further than the one case I mentioned in which disciplinary action has been taken. With the extension of these instructions to every Government Department, a more effective safeguard will be provided everywhere. We must recognise that confidential information rests primarily in three Government Departments, but I thought it right that all Departments should now pursue this procedure. I believe that that is the best step we can take. What we cannot, of course, guard against is the occasional failure of the human element. In the particular case I have mentioned the very strict instructions were not carried out to the full, and that resulted in this breach of confidence.
§ Mr. OnslowIs my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House will be grateful to him for making that statement? Since the gravest threat of exploitation of the loopholes that have been revealed must come from enemies of the State as 643 a whole, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is yet in a position to say what progress has been made by the Foreign Secretary in his efforts to reduce the number of foreign spies operating from the sanctuary of Communist embassies in London?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will make a statement on this matter in due course.
§ Mr. PardoeDoes the right hon. Gentleman not think that in view of the virtual impossibility of stopping all instant replies by Government Departments to other Government Departments by telephone, to requests for individual information, the only safeguard for individual privacy is for all Government Departments to be conducted in such a way as to gather the least possible amount of information about individuals?
§ The Prime MinisterThat may well be a principle upon which government should be based, but it would not avoid the accumulation of a vast amount of personal and confidential information about tax affairs, individual health, employment and so on. We have to deal with the problem of this information which is in these Departments. One could say that the main possible cause is failure of the human element. Deliberate misrepresentation on a telephone could be coped with 100 per cent. only if no business were carried on by telephone and if everything were done by correspondence. I have carefully considered that, but I believe that because it would so interfere with the contacts between the private citizen and Government Departments in what are very often, for the citizen, personally urgent matters, and because it would put such a burden on the Government machine, carrying on everything by correspondence, it is not practicable to adopt that attitude.