§ 11.21 a.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the senior judge to be invited to review the powers of official interception of telephone conversations will have access to Post Office installations and equipment in considering the system of warrants issued by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made it clear in another place on 1st April that the person appointed will have the right of access to papers and the right to request additional information from the departments and organisations concerned (including the Post Office), who I am sure will be ready to give him every facility he requires.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply, especially because the tasks of tapping and recording are carried out by the Post Office who, the judge must surely satisfy himself, should not exceed their directives through zeal, or for any other reason. Will the judge be expected to report on any private eavesdropping that comes to his notice, such as the activation of telephones by detective agencies, or for commercial espionage? While deliberate intrusion into privacy is naturally resented, none the less would it not be foolish for anyone to regard the telephone system as secure for confidential information, in view of the number of crossed lines which many of us encounter almost daily?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising a point which I do not think arose during the exchanges on this subject two days ago in another place. My noble friend asked me whether the judge will be expected to report on any telephone tapping that he comes across undertaken by commercial organisations or private agencies. As the senior judge to be appointed will 1466 have terms of reference covering only the arrangements for interception under the warrant procedure, I do not envisage that such occasions as my noble friend has mentioned will arise. Naturally, if the person appointed became aware of illegal activities, it would be his duty to reveal these to the police.
§ Lord HOOSONMy Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the original Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was directed towards access to equipment and installations? The noble Lord's reply seemed to say that the learned judge, whoever he will be, will have the right of access to papers. Does that mean that he will not have access to installations and equipment?
§ Lord BELSTEADNo, my Lords. I thought that I made it clear in my original reply that, in addition to the right of access to papers, there would be the right to request additional information from the departments and organisations concerned (including the Post Office), who I am sure will be ready to give the person appointed every facility he requires.
§ Lord BYERSMy Lords, will the noble Lord answer the question my noble friend has put? What about access to equipment and installations? Is the answer, yes, or, no?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I have nothing to add to what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson.
§ Lord ELWYN-JONESMy Lords, is there not a case for extending an inquiry, though not necessarily by the senior judge, into unofficial access to, and unofficial interception of, communications carried out by commercial, inquiry or other agencies?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I would not in any way disagree with what the noble and learned Lord has just said. May I add to the noble Lord who previously asked a question, that I think it is right to bear in mind that the function of the senior member of the judiciary will be to monitor the general system. However, in case that sounds vague, do not let us forget that each individual interception requires the personal authorisation of my right honourable friend the Home Sec- 1467 retary, or the Secretary of State for Scotland.
§ Lord DAVIES of LEEKMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the paralysing, frustrating thing that happened to a punter who had the winner of the Grand National but could not get through because of a crossed line? Is he entitled to compensation?
§ Lord BELSTEADNo, my Lords.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that I regard his answer as meaning that, if the senior judge is not given the facilities for which he asks, he will make this clear in his first report, which is to be published?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I cannot forecast what will be in the first report of the senior judge which, as my noble friend has said, will be published. May I add that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it quite clear in another place that after that the Home Secretary will of course keep Parliament informed, as he has always done in the past.
Lord BRUCE of DON INGTONMy Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that there are possibilities, technically, for carrying out remote interception, which can be prevented only by substantial screening under proper supervision? Will he look into that aspect of the matter which, if it exists on any scale, may completely frustrate any monitoring procedures which Her Majesty's Government might think fit to set up?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord has said; but what is at issue here is not the actual or potential capacity of technology, but the effectiveness of the warrants procedure, which requires individual authorisation by my right honourable friend for each individual interception.
§ Lord LEATHERLANDMy Lords, will the Government consider keeping secret the name of the senior judge who is to conduct the inquiry?—because if his name is disclosed, we might find that someone will tap his telephone.
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I shall certainly take note of what the noble Lord has said.
§ Lord RENTONMy Lords, in view of the use of the word "monitor" in relation to the senior judge, will my noble friend make it clear whether this is to be a once-and-for-all inquiry, to be followed by a report, or is it to be what could otherwise be called an ongoing exercise?
§ Lord BELSTEADIt is to be on a continuous basis, my Lords.
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, in view of confirmation given in the other place about Members of another place, will the noble Lord confirm that no Member of this House is having his telephone tapped in this way?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I have nothing to add to the Statement which was made in 1966 by the right honourable gentleman Sir Harold Wilson, when he was Prime Minister. I think that it would be best, in order to get it straight from the horse's mouth, if the noble Lord would care to glance at that parliamentary Statement made some years ago; and the practice which was set out then has never subsequently been changed.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, is the Minister aware that the Statement by Sir Harold Wilson in another place couples my name with a responsibility, and that although my knowledge may be out-of-date, I personally have every confidence that what takes place takes place properly and is wholly concerned with the security of the State?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
§ Lord ELWYN-JONESMy Lords, bearing in mind the demands upon judicial manpower, is not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to be thanked for making a senior judge available for this purpose?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, we are always indebted to my noble and learned friend.