§ 3.24 p.m.
§ Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ Whether GCHQ is maintaining surveillance of Amnesty International under the Mayfly procedure; and if not, when it stopped so doing.
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, the Government do not comment on matters of this kind. GCHQ is fully answerable to Ministers and subject to the Interception of Communications Act.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is about time that the Government did start commenting on matters of this kind? Is she aware that 90 charitable organisations have protested against the practice of GCHQ putting them under surveillance? This concerns not only Amnesty International but also Christian Aid, and 90 other organisations have protested. It seems that GCHQ is totally out of control. It is known that even on those occasions on which official permission has been given, thereafter that has been ignored and the matter has been put on a basis of permanent 1019 surveillance. Is it not high time that something should he done to bring the spying organisations under more effective government control?
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, I listened with great interest to the speculations of the noble Lord. Your Lordships will have an opportunity to discuss that and other matters when the SIS/GCHQ Bill is introduced, which the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech on this subject on 6th May.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that that procedure has serious implications for charities and for the recipients of aid? Will she confirm that Amnesty International has written on the subject to her right honourable friend the Prime Minister? Will she tell the House his response?
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, the Government do not comment on alleged activities by the security and intelligence agencies. Amnesty International or any other organisations which thinks it has a case can complain to the tribunal set up under the Interception of Communications Act. I understand that that was the Prime Minister's reply.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, will the noble Baroness say how many cases have been heard under that Act?
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, no, I cannot say. I cannot comment on individual cases but the IOCA commissioner reported in March that there is not the slightest truth in the suggestion that the law is being bent by GCHQ.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, is not the noble Baroness aware that that assurance would gain much greater acceptance if it were made by a Minister who is able to say that the Government are in a position to discuss this matter, rather than hiding behind a total veil of silence? Does not the noble Baroness agree that it is high time that the protections which she says have been created were more effectively verified, if not by the House as a whole, then by the Privy Council?
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, the Government, including past Labour Governments of which the noble Lord was a member, have always refused to confirm or deny that interception has been authorised in any particular case.