CO537-4320 — Page 96

си

14349/13/48

Dear Grantham,

Colonial Office,

The Church House,

Great Smith Street,

S.W.1.

Your Ref: Top Secret Despatch No. 21.

Ag July, 1948.

'

Ans. at

(6)

There are some points about your Top Secret Despatch No.21 of the 9th June on the subject of legislation to authorise the interception of telephone messages and inspection of the Hong Kong Telephone Company's recards which I should like to raise semi officially in the first plács.

Our enquiries here indicate that no provision exists in the United Kingdom on the lines of your draft Bill. We wondered whether any special difficulty arises in this connection in Hong Kong from the fact that the telephone service is run by a private company. The Singapore legislation to which you allude is similar to that of Section 4 of the Hong Kong Telecommunication Ordinance 1936 in that the definition of "Telegraph" includes "telephone communication”. We have not been able to find any legislation, similar to your draft Bill, in force in any of the other Colonies, except in the case of the Bahamas where the Telecommunications Act 1947 cavers both the Telephone and the Telegraph systems. In this also the power of control is in general terms and to be used only in an emergency.

In the United Kingdom the Postmaster-General may, when in his opinion any national or local contingency renders such a course expedient for the public services, give notice that English only may be used when speaking on the telephone and may cut off any conversation in which this limitation is infringed. Similar legislation is in force in some of the Colonies but this in itself does not provide any authority for the monitoring of conversations although the use of English is presumably to enable a check to be kept on conversations.

Webster who was Postmaster-General in Palestine and is now the representative of the Colonies on the Commonwealth Communications Council says that it was not unusual for telephone conversations in Palestine to be' intercepted and recorded and the C.I.D. used special apparatus for this purpose which enabled selections to be made from a number of lines and which was housed in the C.I.D. office itself. The "power" to do this was Section 49 of the Palestine Post Ordinance 1930 and this again was similar to Section 4 of the Hong Kong Telecommunication Ordinance 1936 the definition of "telegraph" covering "telephoric communication".

-

It is usual for Postal, telegraph or telephone regulations to include penalties for the improper disclosure of messages etc. (c.f. Sections 18 to 20 of the Hong Kong Telecommunications Ordinance). We notice that the Hong Kong Telephone Ordinance does not include any such section so presumably it is not an offence for any of the employees to disclose such information? If this is correct is any further legislation necessary to enable messages to be intercepted on the lines you suggest?

You will see that there is no legislation in the United Kingdom or in the Colonies similar to that which you propose. We are not clear why it should be introduced in Hong Kong except perhaps to cover the Company in any legal proceedings but as the Telephone Ordinance does not prohibit the disclosure of information is any amendment required? If some legislation is necessary it would appear to be simpläer to amend Section 42(1) of No. 18 of 1936 to dele te any reference to "the concession granted by Ordinance to the Hong Kong Telephone Company Ltd." and then take action under Section 4(1) though such action would have to be "in the interest of the public safety". Finally if you still consider an amendment to the Telephone Ordinance is necessary, would it not be possible to disguise the real intention by inserting a section to prevent

SIR ALEXANDER GRANTHAM, K.C.M.G.

the/