"Wilson Doctrine" does apply to Members of the House of Lords
Yet Another Blog Posting about the "Wilson Doctrine", which may be of some relevance to the "loans for peerages" scandal, where according to the The Independent, the Police are now investigating a "Downing Street email trail".
One of the questions we have asked about the "Wilson Doctrine" is whether or not it applies to extends to the House of Lords as well as to the House of Commons.
After a bit of research, is does appear that the Members of the House of Lords are also encompassed by the "Wilson Doctrine".
One of Prime Minister Tony Blair's Written Answers seems to imply that in 2001 the "Wilson Doctrine" applied also to Postal Interecption, but later ones seem to deny this. Has there been a change in policy ?
It appears that in 1966, a few days after Harold Wilson's declaration of the "Wilson Doctrine" on 17th November, there was an Answer given in the House of Lords, on the 22nd November 2000:
Written answers Wednesday, 27 September 2000Members of Parliament: Telephone Tapping Prohibition
Lord Roper (Liberal Democrat)
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the prohibitions by Mr Harold Wilson, when Prime Minister, of tapping the telephones of Members of Parliament remains in force; and whether such a prohibition also applies to the telephones of members of the House of Lords; and
Whether they will extend the prohibition on tapping the telephones of Members of Parliament to the interception of any form of electronic communication.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office)
With permission, the reply covers both questions. As stated in the Prime Minister's answer to the honourable Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) on 30 October 1997 (Official Report, col. 861) the Government's policy on interception of telephones of Members of Parliament remains as stated in 1966 by the then Prime Minister, and as applied by successive governments since. In answer to questions on 17 November 1966, the Prime Minister said that he had given instructions that there was to be no tapping of telephones of Members of Parliament and that, if there was a development which required such a change of policy, he would at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on his own initiative, make a statement in the House about it.
Further, pursuant to the answers given to the Lord Balfour of Inchrye by The Lord Privy Seal on 22 November 1966 (Official Report, col. 122) stating that, exceptionally, the statement made by the Prime Minister extends to the House of Lords, the Government can confirm that the policy described in previous answers applies in relation to the use of electronic surveillance as well as to telephone interception.
So it appears that in the year 2000 Members of the House of Lords were also covered by the "Wilson Doctrine"
The term "electronic surveillance" is very vague.
Does it mean
- Electronic bugging devices, tracking devices, CCTV cameras, backscatter X-Ray or passive millimetre wave "see through your clothes" imaging systems, or email or other internet surveillance ?
- Automatic Number Plate Recognition
- Communications Traffic Data from mobile phones or internet connections ?
- Passenger Data Records from airline booking systems ?
- Financial transaction tracking data as snooped on in the SWIFT scandal or under the Treasury's financial sanctions regulations ?
All of these unquestionably come under the heading of "electronic surveillance"
The wording of Lord Bassam's Answer in 2000 implies that the restriction on "electronic surveillance" must also apply to Members of the House of Commons as well as to Members of the House of Lords.
Prime Minister Tony Blair confirmed that the House ofLords was still covered by the "Wilson Doctrine" in his Answer in 2001:
Written answers Wednesday, 19 December 2001Prime Minister
Interception of Communications
Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)
To ask the Prime Minister
(1) in respect of the allegations made by Lord Ahmed of telephone tapping, for what reason his spokesman departed from the normal policy of neither confirming nor denying; and if he will make a statement;
(2) if it is his policy that in respect of Members of the House of (a) Commons and (b) Lords, no authorisation will be given for the interception of communications; and if he will make a statement.
Tony Blair (Prime Minister)
As I informed the House on 30 October 1997, Official Report, column 861, Government policy remains as stated in 1966 by the then Prime Minister, the Lord Wilson of Rievaulx. In answer to questions on 17 November 1966, Lord Wilson said that he had given instructions that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of the House of Commons and that if there were a development which required a change of policy, he would at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on his own initiative, make a statement in the House about it. The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord Bassam, confirmed on 27 September 2000 that this policy extended to Members of the House of Lords.
With this long-standing exception in relation to Members of Parliament, it remains the normal policy of the Government neither to confirm nor deny allegations in respect of interception matters.
Prime Minister Tony Blair again referred to Lord Bassam's Answer in 2000, in his own Answer in 2003, whilst evading the actual Question put to him about the Sinn Fein MPs who have been elected but who have not taken the oath of allegiance, who therefore do not sit as Members of Parliament.
Written answers Wednesday, 7 May 2003Prime Minister
Telephone Tapping
Andrew MacKinlay (Thurrock, Labour)
To ask the Prime Minister whether the Wilson doctrine applying to tapping the telephones of hon. Members includes Members who have not taken the Oath.
Tony Blair (Prime Minister)
The position is as I informed the House on 19 December 2001, Official Report, column 367W, and confirmed last Wednesday, 30 April 2003 in an oral reply. The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, Lord Bassam, confirmed on 27 September 2000, Official Report, column 137W, that this policy extended to Members of the House of Lords. It applies to all Members of Parliament.
With this long-standing exception in relation to Members of Parliament, it remains the normal policy of the Government neither to confirm nor deny allegations in respect of interception matters.
In 2006:
Written answers Thursday, 16 February 2006House of Lords
Interception of Communications: Parliament
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay (Liberal Democrat)
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Wilson Doctrine on tapping telephones of Members of the House of Commons also applies to Members of the House of Lords.
Baroness Amos (President of the Council, Privy Council Office)
I refer the noble Lord to the reply given by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord Bassam, to Lord Roper on 27 September 2000 (Official Report, col. WA138). Lord Bassam notes in his Answer to Lord Roper that the Wilson doctrine applies equally to both Houses of Parliament.
So the policy of including the Members of the House of Lords under the "Wilson Doctrine" still stood in 2006.
Of course things are not that simple !
Written answers Monday, 21 January 2002Prime Minister
Interception of Communications
Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)
To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Lewes, of 19 December 2001, Official Report, column 367W, whether his policy in respect of telephone tapping of hon. Members extends to (a) other methods of interception of communications and (b) bugging.
Tony Blair (Prime Minister)
The policy extends to all forms of warranted interception of communications.
As to bugging, the position remains as I informed the House on 4 December 1997, Official Report, column 321, the policy applies in relation to the use of electronic surveillance by any of the three security and intelligence agencies as well as to telephone interception.
Does "all forms of warranted interception of communications." include the bulk certificates used by GCHQ for long term mass surveillance, of, say, transatlantic phone lines or satellite links, as well as individual warrants ? There is distinction under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) Section 10 Modification of warrants and certificates.
Presumably, since RIPA Section 5 Interception with a warrant.
applies to either a postal or telecommunications systems, this statement by Tony Blair means that the interception of letters, postcards and parcels to and from MPs or Lords is also forbidden under the "Wilson Doctrine".
(a) the interception in the course of their transmission by means of a postal service or telecommunication system of the communications described in the warrant;
Does "all forms of warranted interception of communications." also include Communications Traffic Data e.g. itemised phone bills, mobile phone location based services, internet web browsing or email logfiles etc., under RIPA Section 22 Obtaining and disclosing communications data which uses the terms "authorisations" and "notifications" rather than "warrants" ?
We have to assume that the very short Written Answers given by Prime Minister Tony Blair on the subject of the "Wilson Doctrine" are designed to weasel out of giving out any more than the minimum amount of information on this politically sensitive issue.
Therefore, when the Questions about the "Wilson Doctrine" and Postal Interception, and Communications Traffic Data, was asked again on 8th February 2006, by Dr. Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat MP for Twickenham, and no answer was given to these and other questions, we do have to wonder if there has been an unannounced policy change since 2002.
Changing the secret policy , without yet informing Parliament or the public, might still fall under the "Wilson Doctrine", if it was not yet "such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country".
What is so difficult in publishing a general policy, without revealing specific tactical techniques or current investigations ?
Until Prime Minister Tony Blair does this, answering all the reasonable questions about exactly to whom the policy applies and to which modern communications technologies, then the suspicion must remain, that there is some sneaky Francois Mitterand style bugging interception of political opponents (both within the Labour party and the official Opposition), under the pretence of "national security".