§ Mr. Leeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on telephone tapping, in the light of the recent judgment by Sir Robert Megarry.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesI understand that in his judgment in Malone v. Commissioner of Police the Vice-Chancellor found that the interception of a telephone at the request of the police under warrant of a Secretary of State was not illegal under English law. He made it clear that it was not for the English courts to rule on the question whether such interception, as carried out in this country, did or did not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights: only the European Commission and Court of Human 751W Rights could pronounce on that. The Vice-Chancellor drew attention, however, to the fact that the restrictions and safeguards under which interception is conducted are in this country matters of administrative practice only, and not, as in some other countries, of statute; and he expressed the view that this was a matter which cried out for legislation.
As regards the European Convention, I am in the same position as the Vice-Chancellor: it is not for me to say what does or does not comply with it. All I can say is that neither the Commission nor the Court has had occasion to consider our practice in this matter. I understand that the plaintiff in the recent action may be considering taking a case to the European Commission: if he decides to do so, we shall see what it says.
Legislation is not required to legalise telephone interception. If it is required at all, it would be for the purpose of entrenching in statute the appropriate restrictions and safeguards under which interception is practised. The restrictions and safeguards applicable in this country were scrutinised and commended in 1957 by the Birkett Committee. Its report (Cmnd. 283) has ever since then provided the basis on which interception is carried out, and I can assure the House that it continues to do so today.
I recognise the importance of adequate and effective safeguards for the liberty of the subject. I believe that our safeguards are adequate and effective for this purpose. The Vice-Chancellor clearly thought that safeguards should be entrenched in legislation. When the full text of his judgment is available, I shall study it with the greatest care and respect. In carrying out the study and arriving at conclusions of which I will in due course inform the House, I shall have regard not only to the need for safeguards which protect the liberty of the subject but also to the need not to damage the efficacy of a tool of investigation which can be invaluable to the police and the other agencies concerned, when other methods have been tried and have failed, or are unlikely to succeed. As the Birkett Committee said, such damage, so far from strengthening the liberty of the ordinary citizen, might very well have the opposite effect.