PMOS on the "Wilson Doctrine"
The Number 10 Downing Street afternoon press briefing from 25 January 2006 has revealed a few crumbs for the kremlinologists regarding the "Wilson Doctrine" administrative exemption for Members of Parliament, which used to shield them from telephone intercepts, but perhaps for not much longer.
"PMOS" is NuSpeak for the Prime Minister's Offical Spokesman, presumbaly usually David Hill, the Director of Communications, who replaced the notorious Alastair Campbell.
Wilson DoctrineAsked if there was a timetable for the report, the PMOS said no. It would be whenever the Interception Commissioner, Sir Swinton Thomas, had actually had a chance to talk to people. It would go at his pace. Asked if the Prime Minister was open minded and waiting to be persuaded, the PMOS said that first and foremost, there had been erroneous reports that the Prime Minister, following 7/7, had initiated this. That was not the case. This was a result of an initiative taken by Sir Swinton Thomas and therefore it was important that we went at the pace set by Sir Swinton.
Put to him that it was for the PM to make recommendations and to consult colleagues, the PMOS said that was correct but an important part of that was for Sir Swinton to set out his case. We were still in the middle of that process.
We have a few comments:
The statements by the "PMOS" do not rule out our suspicion that Sir Swinton Thomas is acting because there have been requests by one or more intelligence or police agencies to intercept the phone calls of one or more Members of Parliament for some reason or other, which, presumably have been refused due to the "Wilson Doctrine".
Will any of the Lobby Correspondents actually ask the "PMOS" if this is true or not ?
Who are these "people" with whom Sir Swinton Thomas has been talking ? This is a matter of public interest, so there is no excuse for secrecy, as it is not a matter of revealing secret technological intereception techniques, or the details of current investigations, but a question of public policy and fundamenatal human rights, both of MPs and also of their constituents and members of the public.
Will any of the media actually manage to get an interview with the Rt Hon Sir Swinton Thomas ?
Will any of the media actually manage to get an interview with the Rt Hon Michael Martin, the Speaker of the House of Commons on this matter ?
Comments
The reasoning behind this can only be that MP's, who make the laws and have sworn a loyal oath to HM the Queen, cannot be trusted to act in the interests of the nation.
It's easy to see where this path leads as it's short, narrow and very well trodden in the last century.
"What's that sign say?"
"Ah, yes, 'Total..', as in Totalitarian."
Posted by: sam_m | January 28, 2006 10:07 AM
Oaths are quite important to the "Wilson Doctrine":
Obviously the Sinn Fein elected MPs Gerry Adams etc. have not sworn or affirmed this Oath, and so have not taken up their seats as Members of Parliament.
Their party offices and vehicles have, in the past been electronically bugged or tracked (they even put the devices up for auction on eBbay). It would not be hard to imagine that their phones have been intercepted.
This also raises questions about the applicability of the "Wilson Doctrine" to elected Memebers of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Some of the Members of Parliament are also Privy Counsellors, including members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition e.g. The Right Honourable David Cameron MP, and they have sworn an extra Oath (the current version is quite "modern", dating back to Tudor times !):
Should trusted Privy Counsellors be exempt from phone interecption, even if the rest of the MPs are not, if the "Wilson Doctrine" is revised or abandoned ?
N.B. The Interception of Communications Commissioner, the Right Honourable Sir Swinton Thomas is also a Privy Counsellor.
Posted by: wtwu | January 28, 2006 2:06 PM