POLITICAL COMMENTARY

A Royal Commission on Sin

HUGH MA-CPHERSON

In fact there are occasions when the British public presents an even more ridiculous spectacle than during its periodical fits of morality: for example when it takes a nasty turn of liberality. We have just been through such an episode in the case of Rudi Dutschke. Let me give the immediate assur- ance that I have no intention of dilating on the troubles of that retired young revolution- ary who is in grave danger of becoming as great a public bore as the subject of environ- mental pollution or the condition of Mr Malcolm Muggeridge's soul.

It would be churlish, however, not to compliment the Labour Front Bench on how robust they look now that a period of

opposition allows them to reinsert their liberal consciences. Apparently everyone has now forgotten Humberto Delgardo who tried to bring a breath of civil liberties in Portugal. He sought political asylum in Britain in January 1965 and a Labour government refused to have him. He was murdered in Spain a few months later.

Further, in the concern over the fact that Mr Dutschke apparently was only a potential

threat, and that some evidence was not avail- able to his counsel, no one remembered the 'Fearless' proposals. (Surely the most inaptly .named public encounter since the Diet of

Worms.) Mr Wilson offered Rhodesia, in Section iv of the October 1968 White Paper,

the right to keep people in detention or

restriction if they seemed likely to be con- spirators. The appeals tribunal also had the

right to hear evidence, with the defendant and his counsel excluded, for 'security con- siderations'. The people concerned were not seeking the right to study at a university. They were imprisoned. The above is not intended to justify Mr Maudling's view of the Dutschke case. For what it is worth I believe that, in all the circumstances, he should have been allowed to stay. What is ridiculous about the entire episode is that although former Labour cabinet ministers spoke out bravely like latter-day Voltaires they were party to the most dangerous erosion of civil liberties While in office by their handling of the invasion of privacy issue. Their judgment, or lack thereof, has subsequently been con- firmed by Mr Maudling.

From the spring of 1969 until January of last year Nips from all three parties raised private member's Bills or motions on various aspects Qf what Lord Ritchie-Calder de- scribed as the construction of the apparatus of the police state. For example Lord Boyle raised the question of industrial spying, Tony Gardner sought some means of controlling Private detectives, and Emlyn Hooson tried to present a Bill of Rights.

Concern steadily grew at the way vast Personal files were being placed on com- Puters by the state,-as well as by private and nationalised organisations, and at the growth in the use of sophisticated electronic 'bugging' devices. In short there was the un- comfortable realisation that the kind of state machinery of surveillance described by George Orwell in 1984 was being con- structed. There was no suggestion that this was intentional but this did not make the threat seem any less dangerous. By the beginning of 1970 more than a hundred imps had agreed that if they were

successful in the ballot for private members' Bills they would try to introduce a Rights of Privacy Bill. The man who drew top place was Brian Walden, the labour member for Birmingham, All Saints. He duly brought the Bill to the House for a second reading on 23 January 1970 supported by an all-party group of Ntes which included Gilbert Long- den, Douglas Houghton and John Biffen.

But a deal had been concluded between Mr Callaghan and Mr Walden. The Bill was to be dropped in exchange for a promise to set up a committee, under Mr Kenneth Younger, to see if legislation was necessary. Also the government and its agencies were to be excluded from any of the considera- tions of the committee. The decision fol- lowed a long discussion of the Bill in the Cabinet. If Mr Walden had not been pre- pared to cooperate then the Whips would have been put on. Sponsors such as Eric Lubbock, then a Liberal MP, and Tony Smythe of the NCCL were informed about the deal just fifteen minutes before the debate in the Central Lobby of the Commons.

To the credit of the Younger Committee they quickly realised the inadequacy of their terms of reference. Perhaps this was brought on by a rash of reports last summer that some local councils—and the GLc—were keeping personal files, including newspaper cuttings of court appearances, on tenants. An approach to Mr Maudling, now resident at the Home Office, was made asking that the committee could have its writ extended to cover local authorities and nationalised industries. He refused the request.

If the squalid Dutschke affair serves any useful purpose it will be to make politicians and public alike uneasy at the extent of the power of the state to investigate their lives. Both parties are wholly culpable because they have allowed the vast state machine to run on unchecked despite all warnings. To raise such a question is, of course, to be accused of scaremongering but the facts are there for anyone who cares to look at them.

For example Mr Enoch Powell recently put down a series of queitions on the mor-

bidity survey being carried out among patients of fifty-five GPS in England and Wales. They were merrily supplying intimate

details of patients, and their occupations, without consulting them. Mr Powell drew an assurance from Sir Keith Joseph that a code system would be used to protect the name of the patient and the notes returned to the practitioner. Just how effective these safe- guards prove to be will never be known for the Younger Committee cannot examine them. That is only the tip of the iceberg.

Another survey called the Hospitals, Activities Analysis is already in operation throughout the country. It is only partly operational because of administration difficulties and some resistance from medical staff in releasing confidential information. When a patient leaves hospital a form con- taining all his personal information, coded for computer, is sent off to the statistical division of the DHSS at Fleetwood. The kind of information collected includes addresses, telephone numbers, country of origin, clinical details of diseases and, in the case of women, previous abortions. There is a special psychiatric form which states whether the patient was referred by police or social welfare authorities. Also whether the patient suffers from epilepsy, drug addiction or alcoholism and details of where they have been sent. It is the intention to use the international index of disease so that by putting a number in a box the exact illness will be known.

Some doctors, who have been asked to work the scheme, want to know why the name and personal details of the patient are so essential and why the complicated - infra-structure is being completed before the medical committee on safeguards reports. It takes little imagination to sec that when the computer is ticking over nicely there will be a strong case for the police having access to it the next time a sex murder is committed. Where then does it end? If there is a case for tracing sex murderers why not stop middle-aged kleptomania in suburbia by consulting the computer about those who have undergone psychiatric treatment?

The extent of the invasion of privacy in the medical field alone is staggering. The Royal College of Nursing is at this moment concerned about a questionnaire issued by the research unit of the General Nursing Council to nurses sitting their final examina- tions which asks them to tick off which political party they 'favour'. Among the list supplied are the usual parties and for good measure 'pacifist' and 'anarchist'. They were also asked about church attendance and religious beliefs. When the Royal College protested they were told that their views were 'noted'.

On Tuesday next Leslie Huckfield, the Labour member for Nuneaton, will try to introduce a ten-minute-rule Bill on Control of Personal Information. Among its pro- visions would be the licensing of data banks and safeguards for individuals such as the right to know what is recorded about them and where it is going. It has no chance of success. For the Government will no doubt point to the Younger Committee as an excuse for ignoring it.

One remembers the late bin Macleod describing one of Mr Wilson's gritty examin- ations of the economy as being like Satan setting up a Royal Commission on Sin. That is more or less what Mr Maudling and Mr Callaghan have done with the Younger Committee. They, however, have taken the extra precaution of excluding Hell from the

area under investigation. .fs