§ 7. Mr. Cookasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now name the senior member of the judiciary who will review the interception of communications; and when he expects to publish his first report.
§ Mr. BrittanMy right hon. Friend hopes to be able to do so shortly.
§ Mr. CookWill the Minister's right hon. Friend reconsider the proposal in the White Paper that only the initial report to the senior judge will be published and that, thereafter, there will be no annual statement? What is the merit in having an independent check on the system if the independent assessor cannot communicate to Parliament or to the public his concern for, or confidence in, the system that he is checking?
§ Mr. BrittanNo, Sir. My right hon. Friend indicated in his statement to the 1601 House that the initial report would indeed be published but that subsequent reports would not be published. That does not mean that Parliament would not have any knowledge of the nature of those subsequent reports. My right hon. Friend added that Parliament would be informed of any findings of a general nature and of any changes that are made in the arrangements as a result of subsequent reports. That seems to be a reasonable balance in what must, inevitably, be an extremely sensitive area.
§ Mr. RaceWhy is the Minister's Department refusing to say whether the criteria set out in the White Paper cover the interception of communications for those engaged in trade disputes?
§ Mr. BrittanI do not believe that the question of the appointment of a member of the judiciary to review the interception of communications is an appropriate vehicle for ventilating further the general issues of policy which were put before the House and explored in some depth when my right hon. Friend made his statement.