§ Mr. Freesonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take regarding the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on 3 August concerning the practice of telephone tapping in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. BrittanThe European Court delivered its judgment on 2 August in the case referred to it by the European Commission of Human Rights concerning the interception of telephone conversations on behalf of the police—the Malone case.
The Court acknowledged that detailed procedures existed to govern the interception of communications on behalf of the police in England and Wales, as set out in the White Paper "The Interception of Communications in Great Britain", (Cmnd. 7873); that interception carried out under those procedures was lawful under the law of England and Wales; and that the published statistics showed the effectiveness of those procedures in keeping the number of warrants relatively low, especially when compared with the rising number of indictable crimes committed and telephones installed. The Court found, however, that the law of England and Wales did not indicate with sufficient clarity and precision the scope and manner in which the power to authorise interception was to be exercised, and that it therefore did not satisfy article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
The Government had already given an undertaking that legislation on the interception of communications would be introduced in the forthcoming Session of Parliament. In giving that undertaking in another place on 19 March 1984, at column 1034 my noble Friend the Viscount 590W Whitelaw made it clear that the European Court's findings would be taken into account in determining the scope and content of the legislation.