Spy Blog - SpyBlog.org.uk

The Procedure Committee of the House of Commons has now published their Report about the possibility of introducing an e-petitions to the House of Commons, perhaps by 2010, based mostly on the on the experience of the No. 10 Downing Street e-petitions to the Prime Minister and the Scottish Parliament e-petitions systems.

See: Select Committee on Procedure First Report on e-petitions printed 19 March 2008.

Continue reading "e-petitions for the House of Commons by 2010 ?" »

Posted by at 4:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The Labour Government's latest terrorism legislation got an unopposed Second Reading in the House of Commons on Tuesday 1st April 2008. The Opposition parties and the media, as we predicted when the Bill was announced, have been distracted by the extremely controversial 42 days internment without charge provisions and have, so far, ignored all the other sneaky and repressive bits of the Bill.

The text of the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008 and th (not very) Explanatory Notes is available on the Parliament website.

Where is the Business Case and the Regulatory impact Assessment setting out why such further legislation is actually necessary, why the existing vast legal powers available under the large amount of existing Primary and Secondary legislation is somehow inadequate, how much extra this is all going tocost to enforrced, and what the expected result will be in terms of the number of terrorists who will be caught, convicted or even slightly deterred. Neither the Explanatory Notes, nor any of the media spin and manipulation so far presented to the public have made any of this clear.

There appears to be a carte blanche for legally covering up any of DNA or fingerprint sample abuses "that are not held subject to existing statutory restrictions."

The Bill also provides for the use of DNA samples and for fingerprinting to be used not just for terrorism cases , not just for serious crime, not just for petty crime, bute for general "identification" purposes, whether you are dead or alive.

There also seems to be another statutory attempt to destroy the Common Law Duty of Confidentiality, and probably also to circumvent the "Wilson Doctrine".

Any legislation which claims that "Nothing in that section shall be read as casting doubt on the legality of anything done by any of the intelligence services before that section came into force." only succeeds in raising precisely those sort of doubts in the mind of anyone reading it.

Continue reading "Counter-Terrorism Bill - DNA and Data Sharing by MI5, MI6 and GCHQ - no more Duty of Confidentiality or the Wilson Doctrine ?" »

Posted by at 4:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith made a statement about the report of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner Sir Christopher Rose on the bugging scandal in HMP Woodhill, involving Sadiq Khan MP, Babar Ahmad (see the previous blog article) and also on the Wilson Doctrine and Legally Privileged conversations etc.

Without extending the Wilson Doctrine, she did make a promise to amend the existing Statutory Codes of Practice regarding Covert Surveillance, extending these to cover Members of the European Parliament and the Welsh Assembly (not Northern Ireland or Scotland where these are Devolved Matters). The policy regarding unelected Members of the House of Lords is now unclear.

See Commons Hansard 21 Feb 2008 : Column 536

The House will be aware that the 2000 Act also covers the interception of communications. That is a power that can only ever be used for limited purposes, and requires in each case the explicit prior authorisation of a Secretary of State. It is to interception, and to other surveillance requiring the approval of a Secretary of State, that the Wilson doctrine applies. Sir Christopher makes it clear that

“the surveillance which I am investigating does not appear to me to be within the Wilson Doctrine, because it does not give rise to interception as defined by the legislation, nor would it require authorisation by the Secretary of State.”

This is in line with the Government’s stated position on the doctrine. As the facts set out in Sir Christopher’s report make clear, it is not relevant in this case.

However she went on to say

I referred earlier to the Wilson doctrine. Although that does not apply in this case, Sir Christopher does suggest that there is some scope for confusion as to the correct interrelationship between the Wilson doctrine and the legislation. The Government do not propose to amend the Wilson doctrine, but accept that current codes of practice do not fully clarify the extent to which reviewing officers and authorising officers should pay special attention to conversations involving or potentially involving a Member of Parliament. I am therefore announcing today that the Government will review the statutory codes of practice, and in particular that we intend to clarify that, as regards covert surveillance, conversations between Members of Parliament doing their constituency business and their constituents should be considered as “confidential information”, and treated in the same way as other confidential information, such as conversations between a person and their lawyer or minister of religion. That will more clearly give such conversations additional protection.

We think that this "confidential information" also applies to medical conversations between a doctor and patient, and if it does not, then it should.

What about confidential journalistic information and sources, of which there is some mention in the Codes of Practice ? That must also be clarified in any review.

Presumably the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith intends to amend this Statutory Code of Practice: Covert Surveillance - Code of Practice, Pursuant to section 71 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (.pdf 58 pages), particularly "Chapter 3 Special rules on authorisations" and "Annex A Authorisation levels when knowledge of confidential information is likely to be acquired". This Code of Practice also applies to the Police Act 1997 Part III

What about the Codes of Practice for Communications Traffic Data (RIPA Part I Chapter II) and for access to Encryption Keys and Data (RIPA Part III) ? These can also impinge on confidential constituency business.

A few annotations on the debate about this Statement, during which Jacqui Smith made further promises:

Continue reading "Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's statement on the Wilson Doctrine" »

Posted by at 6:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Today saw the publication of :

Report on two visits by Sadiq Khan MP to Babar Ahmad at HM Prison Woodhill - Report of Investigation by the Rt. Hon. Sir Christopher Rose, Chief Surveillance Commissioner (.pdf - 15 pages)

See the Office of the Surveillance Commissioners website for more details about role and powers of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and also under the Police Act 1997.

The Home Secretary Rt. Hon. Jacqui Smith MP, also made a statement in the House of Commons about this Report, and the Wilson Doctrine (no changes, no proper clarification). She did promise to make changes the already complicated and bureaucratic Statutory Codes of Practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) - see more about this in a future blog article.

Rt. Hon. Sir Christopher Rose's Report essentially finds nothing wrong at all with the paperwork which properly and legally authorised both intrusive surveillance and directed surveillance against Babar Ahmad at HMP Woodhill. This is hardly surprising, as it is his own Office of Surveillance Commissioners, albeit under his predecessor Rt. Hon. Sir Andrew Leggatt, during the relevant time period, during which Sir Christopher himself was an ordinary Surveillance Commissioner.

He mentions the unsurprising ignorance of the Wilson Doctrine by junior police officers, and the astonishing ignorance of the senior ones, such as the controversial retired Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Andy Hayman.

Sir Christopher also points out the obvious need for clarification of the inter-action between the Wilson Doctrine and the RIPA and Police Act surveillance legislation.

Some quotes and notes:

Continue reading ""Report on two visits by Sadiq Khan MP to Babar Ahmad at HM Prison Woodhill" - Rt. Hon. Sir Christopher Rose finds no illegality" »

Posted by at 12:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

We will comment more fully on the statement by the Home SecretaryJacqui Smith regarding the report by the Rt. Ho. Sir Christopher Rose into the Sadiq Khan Mp / babar Ahmad prison bugging affair, when the transcript becomes available in a few hours.

As anticipated, no illegality or wrongdoing has been discovered by the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, but he did not actually speak with the ex-Police Officer who did the actual bugging. No lawyers priviliged conversations apear to have been bugged, something which is patently at odds with several media reports.

The Home Secretary Jacqui Smith seems to be willing to clarify and extend the Statutory Code of Practice covering Police Intrusice and Directed surveillance, to treat MP's constituency conversations on the same basis as other legally priviliged conversations, i.e. like those involving a solicitor or other legal advisor or a ministers of religion

She also said that this would apply to Members of the European Parliament and the Welshj Assembly, but that Northern Ireland and Scotland would need to be handled by their devolved administrations.

This is< strong> not an extension of the Wilson Doctrine, which was mentioned, as not applying , technically, to the Woodhill Prison bugging affair.

Meanwhile, you can enjoy the rubber stamping of the Order to renewe the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, i.e. the controversial Control Order legislation.

It looks as if there are even fewer MPs "debating" the Order than there were last year.

Posted by at 2:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Jack Straw made a statement in the House of Commons regarding the apparent breach of the Wilson Doctrine, involving the electronic eavesdropping on conversations which should have been protected by Constituent / Member of Parliament privilege and, perhaps also of client / lawyer privilege which seems to have occurred at Woodhill prison near Milton Keynes.

It announced Yet Another Inquiry, this time by Rt. Hon. Sir Christopher Rose, the current Chief Surveillance Commissioner, but with very limited terms of reference, and no power to compel testimony from the key witnesses.

Jack Straw did not clarify the details of the Wilson Doctrine, and ruled out an investigation of the bugging or interception of supposedly privileged client / lawyer conversations.

4 Feb 2008 : Column 660

HMP Woodhill (Inquiry)

3.34 pm

The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement. As the House will be aware, there appeared in The Sunday Times yesterday allegations that conversations between my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) and a constituent of his, Mr. Babar Ahmad, detained in prison on an extradition warrant, had been subject to covert recording when my hon. Friend visited Mr. Ahmad on two occasions in 2005 and 2006 at Her Majesty’s prison Woodhill.

I was made aware of the burden of these allegations on Saturday afternoon. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I discussed the matter and we agreed that an immediate inquiry should be established. In a statement to The Sunday Times issued on my behalf early on Saturday evening I announced this, and expressed my concerns about the allegations, if true.

Somehow, as a former Home Secretary and former Foreign Secretary and now Minister of Justice / Lord Chancellor in charge of Prisons, Jack Straw has managed to elbow Home Secretary Jacqui Smith out of the limelight - she is supposed to be the Cabinet Minister who is politically accountable for the Police and the the counter-terrorism agencies, but she obviously is not up to the task, and she does not seem to have uttered a word in public about the scandal.

Continue reading "Jack Straw's Wilson Doctrine statement -Sir Christopher Rose to inquire into the Sadiq Khan MP / Babar Ahmad eavesdropping affair" »

Posted by at 6:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Some of the reaction in the UK political blogosphere and by extremist media pundits, to the electronic bugging of a Member of Parliament's privileged conversations with one of his constituents, rather misses the point about the Wilson Doctrine.

The "MPs are sleazy, so they should all be under surveillance, like the rest of us" attitude is predictable, but wrong.

The BBC's Security Correspondent Gordon Correra, for example, is mentioning on BBC News 24, the line that somehow the Wilson Doctrine should only apply to the targeting of MPs for surveillance for political purposes, and then only by secret government agencies. This narrow interpretation is not how we understand the Wilson Doctrine, after having read almost every very carefully worded Government statement about it over the years.

MPs are not exempt from investigations into any criminal activities which they may be engaged in their private lives, or in breach of election laws.

Some people are calling for the abolition of the Privilege of Members of Parliament to be outside the reach of some of the laws which apply to the rest of us, but they are wrong.

If you destroy the confidentiality of MP's communications with their Constituents, especially those whose lives are being made hell by the Government bureaucracy, then you will suppress the activities of legitimate whistleblowers who expose corruption. incompetence or illegality in the Government machine, to the detriment of society as a whole.

Such whistleblowers need all the protection they can get,, given the powerful technologies and bureaucracies ranged against them - see our updated Hints and Tips for Whistleblowers article.

Here are some thoughts to help stimulate debate on this important issue:

Continue reading "The Wilson Doctrine should not be abolished, it should be clarified and extended" »

Posted by at 12:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The Sunday Times leads with an interesting scoop, involving two topics about which we have written about here on Spy Blog, namely the Wilson Doctrine executive administrative prohibition on tapping or bugging the communications of Members of Parliament, and the controversial attempt by the US government to extradite British Muslim IT technician Babar Ahmad to the USA, without presenting any prima facie evidence to a British Court.

From The Sunday Times February 3, 2008 Police bugged Muslim MP Sadiq Khan

Insight: Michael Gillard and Jonathan Calvert

SCOTLAND YARD’S anti-terrorist squad secretly bugged a high-profile Labour Muslim MP during private meetings with one of his constituents.

Sadiq Khan, now a government whip, was recorded by an electronic listening device hidden in a table during visits to the constituent in prison.

Continue reading "Sunday Times: illegal bugging of Muslim MP - Wilson Doctrine breached ?" »

Posted by at 12:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

The missing, illegally delayed RIPA Commissioner's Annual Reports for 2006 have now been published in 2008

28 Jan 2008 : Column 3WS

Prime Minister
Intelligence Services Commissioner/Interception of Communications Commissioner (Annual Report)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Gordon Brown): I have today laid before both Houses the annual reports for 2006 of the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Peter Gibson (HC 253), and the Interception of Communications Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Paul Kennedy (HC 252). Some sensitive information has been excluded from both reports in accordance with Sections 58(7) and 60(5) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

I am grateful to the commissioners for their reports and the work that has gone into preparing them.

We will link to the censored online copies once these are available in the next week or so. If you spot them online before us, please publish the URL in the comments below.

UPDATE both reports are now online (thanks to Doctor_Wibble for the pointer in the comments below).

They were both submitted to the Prime Minister Gordon Brown on 24th October 2007, so why could he not lay them before Parliament, as he is required to by law, before the end of the calendar year i.e. before the Christmas holiday ?

• Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner for 2006 (.pdf) - 13 pages - published 28th January 2008
• Report of the Intelligence Services Commissioner for 2006 (.pdf ) - 8 pages - published 28th January 2008

Neither report says very much different from the previous ones.

Continue reading "RIPA Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioner Annual Reports for 2006 laid before Parliament - delayed yet again" »

Posted by at 8:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Another Parliamentary Written Question and Non-Answer regarding the "Wilson Doctrine", which may be interest to fellow kremlinologists who are trying to understand what the secretive United Kingdom bureaucracy and politicians are up to (see our "Wilson Doctrine" category archive for more history and background)

Written answers Wednesday, 12 September 2007

Prime Minister
Members: Surveillance

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

To ask the Prime Minister whether the Wilson Doctrine extends to a ban on UK Government departments and agencies instructing/requesting or handling intercept material from a foreign power that relates to (a) hon. Members and (b) members of the House of Lords.

Gordon Brown (Prime Minister)

The Wilson Doctrine applies to all forms of interception that are subject to authorisation by Secretary of State warrant.

These masterfully imprecise weasel words in Gordon Brown's "answer" could be be interpreted in many ways:

Continue reading "Gordon Brown on the "Wilson Doctrine" again" »

Posted by at 9:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

[via Tom Griffin]:

This Scotland on Sunday article, reports that the Scottish Nationalist Party was subjected to infiltration and monitoring by MI5 the Security Service back in the 1950s, and to telephone tapping in the 1970s (following bizarre claims by the evil Ugandan dictator Idi Amin). This raises the Question of the applicability of the "Wilson Doctrine" to the elected Members of the Scottish Parliament. (see our "Wilson Doctrine" category archive)

Files prove that MI5 spied on SNP

MARC HORNE

THE SNP was spied on by British secret service agents, previously classified Government files seen by Scotland on Sunday have finally proved.

Claims of surveillance of nationalist politicians by intelligence officers have circulated for years, but the new papers provide the first incontrovertible evidence that the state spied on the SNP in the 1950s.

[...]

"

Fellow SNP member Christine Grahame, convener of Holyrood's Health and Sport Committee, is disappointed that Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill has so far rejected her calls to outlaw the monitoring of MSPs' phone calls.

MacAskill said: "The Scottish Government has no plans to seek to extend the Wilson Doctrine to cover MSPs, nor to introduce a convention to prevent police Special Branches carrying out covert surveillance in circumstances that meet the strict tests of necessity required by law."

[...]

Continue reading "MI5 spied on the Scottish Nationalist Party - will the "Wilson Doctrine" now be extended to the Scottish Parliament ?" »

Posted by at 5:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As all Prime Ministers have done since 1966, Gordon Brown has obliquely reiterated the "Wilson Doctrine" through the mechanism of a cryptic Parliamentary Written Answer to Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes.

House of Commons Hansard, Written Answers for 17th July 2007, (pt 0037)

17 July 2007 : Column 351W

[...]

Members: Surveillance

Norman Baker: To ask the Prime Minister whether it is his policy that no authorisation will be given for the interception of communications in respect of (a) hon. Members and (b) Members of the House of Lords; and if he will make a statement. [150253]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my predecessor (Mr. Blair) on 27 November 2006, Official Report, column 330W.

Posted by at 3:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Information Tribunal has heard an Appeal against a Decision by the Information Commissioner regarding the "Wilson Doctrine":

Appeal Number EA/2006/0045 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) (.pdf - 30 pages)

Heard on papers at Procession House, London
Date 12th February 2007

Decision Promulgated 28 February 2007

BEFORE
INFORMATION TRIBUNAL
CHAIRMAN John Angel And
LAY MEMBERS John Randall and Marion Saunders

Between

NORMAN BAKER MP Appellant
And
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Respondent
And
THE CABINET OFFICE
And
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CIVIL LIBERTIES Additional Parties

Decision The Tribunal upholds the decision notice dated 11th July 2006 and dismisses the appeal.

[...]

Continue reading "Information Tribunal appeal decision on the "Wilson Doctrine"" »

Posted by at 12:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Another "Wilson Doctrine" Parliamentary Question and non-Answer from the Prime Minister:

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers

26 Feb 2007 : Column 1042W:

Prime Minister

Members Staff: Surveillance

Mr. Heald: To ask the Prime Minister whether the Wilson doctrine applies to staff of hon. Members. [123771]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statement I made to the House on 30 March 2006, Official Report, column 95WS.

Oliver Heald MP is the Conservative Opposition front bench spokesman on Constitutional Affairs.

The 30th March 2006 Ministerial Statement did not really clarify anything at all, but Tony Blair did say

[...]

I have decided that the Wilson Doctrine should be maintained.

So are the Parliamentary Staff like researchers and secretaries protected, according to the "Wilson Doctrine", from having their communications intercepted, or not ?

They are usually the people who actually deal with the phone calls, faxes, emails and written correspondence between the general public and an MP or Peer.

It would be wrong if the "Wilson Doctrine" privilege extends to any other staff employed by MPs or Peers, i.e. ones who do not handle their communications.

How do the authorities distinguish between the private lives of MPs (which appear to fall under the "Wilson Doctrine") and the private lives of their staff ?

Is this deliberately vague answer due to the current ongoing "cash for honours" scandal involving members of Prime Minister Tony Blair's own inner circle of staff and advisers at Number 10 Downing Street and in the Labour Party ?

Posted by at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Rt. Hon. Sir Swinton Thomas, the now retired Interception of Communications Commissioner has a large section in his delayed report: Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner for 2005-2006 (.pdf 19 pages), which discusses the constitutional issues resulting from the "Wilson Doctrine".

Spy Blog seems to have written as much about this topic as anyone else (see our Wilson Doctrine category archive) so here are some more of our notes and opinions, some of which disagree with Rt. Hon. Sir Swinton Thomas :

Continue reading "Sir Swinton Thomas on the "Wilson Doctrine"" »

Posted by at 3:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Prime Minister Tony Blair has yet again evasively failed to clarify the current scope and applicability to new technology, of the Wilson Doctrine:

Commons Hansard 1 Feb 2007 : Column 464W:

Wilson Doctrine

Mr. Heald: To ask the Prime Minister whether the Wilson Doctrine applies to hon. Members use of (a) Blackberry-devices, (b) mobile phone text messaging, (c) Voice over Internet Protocol systems, (d) internet browsers and (e) email. [112159]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 21 January 2002, Official Report, column 589W.

Mr. Heald: To ask the Prime Minister whether the Wilson Doctrine applies to members of the (a) Scottish Parliament, (b) National Assembly for Wales and (c) Northern Ireland Assembly. [112161]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 8 February 2006, Official Report, column 1186W, and to my written ministerial statement on 30 March 2006, Official Report, columns 95-96WS.

1 Feb 2007 : Column 465W

See the Spy Blog Wilson Doctrine category archive for details of these previous Questions and non-Answers

Is this reluctance to answer simple questions, which have no bearing on national security methods or on individual investigations, due to some political embarrassment e.g. the current Cash or Loans for Honours scandal ?

Posted by at 12:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

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 ?

Continue reading ""Wilson Doctrine" does apply to Members of the House of Lords" »

Posted by at 4:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Since we admit to being slightly obsessed with the "Wilson Doctrine" and phone tapping surveillance of politicians and of the rest of us, we have tracked down a paper copy of Hansard, for 17th November 1966.

The current Prime Minister Tony Blair, like all his predecessors from both ruling parties since 1966, has vaguely re-affirmed that the "Wilson Doctrine" is still current Government policy, in a Ministerial Statement on 30th March 2006.

This still does not really answer the questions about all the new technologies like mobile phones, faxes, email, internet etc.which the word "telephone" implies today. Neither does it clarify the status of the "Wilson Doctrine" vis a vis the members of democratically elected devolved and supra national Parliaments and Assemblies which have come into existence since 1966, like the Scottish Parliament or the European Parliament etc.

This 1966 Oral Answers session is not available in the online version of Hansard, so, in the interests of setting the background for the forthcoming political row which is likely to ensue in the New Year, when there could be amendments to the Regulation of investigatory Powers Act, or at least to the Code of Practice, we will try to transcribe the relevant text here, for the benefit of search engine queries, from political researchers and journalists.

It is interesting how they style of Hansard, and of Parliamentary jargon, has changed in the last 40 years, e.g. the use of "my right hon. Friend", which is not quite the way they do it now:

People mentioned in the debate who were consulted by the Prime Minister Harold Wilson in formulating his "Wilson Doctrine":

• Home Secretary: Roy Jenkins in November 1966, previously this was Sir Frank Soskice when Harold Wilson's Labour Government first came into power in 1964.

• Paymaster-General: George Wigg - seen as a political fixer for Harold Wilson and his liaison with the secret intelligence agencies.

• Postmaster-General - the UK telephone system was, in 1966 run by the state monopoly the General Post Office.
  This position was held by Anthony Wedgewood Benn (Tony Benn) between 1964 and July 1966. At the time of this debate the position was held by Edward Short, who clamped down on "pirate radio stations" in 1967.

  Remember that, 40 years ago MPs were not using the internet, email, mobile phones SMS text messages, or even facsimile machines. They were mostly not even using touch tone land line phones or direct dialing for long distance or overseas calls, like they do now. There was no computerised "itemised phone bill" Communications Traffic Data available either.
  

Other people in the debate:

Mr. Speaker: The Speaker of the House of Commons at this time, was Dr. Horace King

The MPs who tabled the Questions which Harold Wilson was answering:

• Russell Kerr - Labour MP for Feltham, Middlesex

• Desmond Donnelly - Labour MP for Pembrokeshire.

• Peter M. Jackson - Labour MP for The High Peak, Derbyshire

• Sir Tufton Beamish - Conservative MP for Lewes in Sussex - an archetypical "Tory Knight of the Shire" - hence the form of address "the hon. and gallant Member". Private Eye magazine seem to have been inspired to call one of their satirical stereotypes "Sir Bufton Tufton".
  

Other significant contributions:

• Tom Driberg - Labour MP for Barking in London - with a scandalous private life, and later allegations that he was a Soviet Spy, asked the question to which Harold Wilson responded with a promise that any change to the "Wilson Doctrine" policy would require a statement by the Prime Minister to the House of Commons.

• Gordon Walker Labour MP for Leyton in Essex - his question brought the clarification from Harold Wilson that not just MP's "official Parliamentary business" telephone conversations but their private ones were also covered by the "Wilson Doctrine".

• Gerry Fitt Republican Labour Party MP for Belfast West (later founder of the Social Democratic and Labour Party) - asked about Northern Ireland - Harold Wilson seemed to assure him that tapping authorised by the Home Secretary against Northern Ireland Parliament MPs was also included in the "Wilson Doctrine", but not necessarily that authorised by the then local Northern Ireland Government. What about the other Parliaments and Assemblies which have been created since 1966, each with a democratically elected mandate from the UK electorate - surely the "Wilson Doctrine" should also apply to their Members as well ?
  

Commons Hansard

Official Report
Ffith Series
Tenth Volume of Session 1966 -67
Parliamentary Debates
Commons
19666-67
VOL.736
NOV.14.TO.NOV.25

National Archives reference: ZHC 2 1244

Continue reading ""Wilson Doctrine" - Prime Minister Harold Wilson answers Oral Questions in the House of Commons 17th November 1966 - transcript" »

Posted by at 2:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (1)

The Times report about the possible investigation into a cover-up and "perversion of the course of justice" in the "loans for peerages" scandal, mentions possible "missing" emails and faxes.

The Times December 18, 2006

No 10 investigated for perversion of justice

Rajeev Syal

[...]

Downing Street aides and Labour officials involved in the cash-for-honours inquiry are being investigated on suspicion of perverting the course of justice, The Times has learnt.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has advised detectives to look into suspected attempts to hamper the nine-month investigation. Some e-mails and documents have yet to be handed over to the police while others have apparently “disappeared”. Some individuals are suspected of colluding over evidence.

[...]

Our blog posting on 9th December Where are the missing RIPA Commissioners' annual reports for 2005 ? speculated

If, for example, T/Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, John Yates , who is investigating the "cash / loans for peerages" scandal, had requested some Communications Traffic Data for the phones and emails, of Members of Parliament, would that or would that not come under the "Wilson Doctrine", which was raised by the then Interception of Communications Commissioner Rt. Hon. Sir Swinton Thomas, just over a year ago ?

Continue reading ""loans for peerages" scandal, non-publication of RIPA Commissioners' Annual Reports and the "Wilson Doctrine"" »

Posted by at 1:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

We managed to miss, until now, this Freedom of Information Act Decision Notice, regarding a request to the Cabinet Office about the "Wilson Doctrine", published in July.

Since we seem to have published more about the "Wilson Doctrine" on the world wide web, than anybody else this year, it would be remiss of us not to comment on this.

See the Information Commissioner's Office FOIA Decision Notice search

Continue reading "FOIA Decision Notice about the "Wilson Doctrine"" »

Posted by at 12:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Guardian reports on the Royal voicemail interception scandal.

This case is one of the very rare prosecutions under the Regulation of investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Do any of the UK Mobile Phone Networks still allow your voicemailbox to be accessed, from an arbitrary landline or mobile phone, without forcing you to first change the default Personal Information Number (PIN) ?

Goodman pleads guilty Jemima Kiss

The Guardian
Wednesday November 29, 2006

[...]

Clive Goodman, the royal editor of the News of the World, has pleaded guilty and could face jail for plotting to intercept private phone messages involving the royal family.

Goodman, 48, from Putney, south-west London, was arrested on August 8 after a police investigation into allegations of phone tapping at Clarence House. Members of the Prince of Wales's household claimed there had been security breaches in its telephone network.

In the dock at the Old Bailey with Goodman was former AFC Wimbledon footballer Glenn Mulcaire, 35, also from south-west London, who admitted the same charge.

Mr Mulcaire further admitted five charges of unlawfully intercepting voicemail messages left by a number of people, including publicist Max Clifford and Elle Macpherson.

The charges, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, date to interceptions between February 16 2006 and June 16.

The conspiracy charge, under the Criminal Law Act, relates to conspiring to intercept voicemail messages between November 1 2005 and August 9 2006.:

[...]

Continue reading "NOTW "Royal Editor" pleads guilty to mobile phone voicemail interception" »

Posted by at 12:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

On Monday, Spy Blog attended the Scrambling for Safety 8 conference, held at University College London, during which the public consultation on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) Part III on Government Access to Encryption Keys and the RIPA Part 1 Chapter II public consultation on Communications Traffic Data, were discussed by eminent experts, before an extremely well informed audience.

In the pub afterwards, Spy Blog managed to chat with Members of the House of Lords, academics, internet and telecomms experts, cryptographers, technical journalists, privacy and human rights campaigners, and Home Office civil servants and some fellow political bloggers. We missed out on talking with other interesting people such as members of the Police who deal with child porn investigations, and a RIPA Commissioner (?), and someone from the Financial Services Authority, all of whom will be affected by this proposed legislation.

Given the potential multi-billion pound impact of this legislation on the United Kingdom economy, on law and order, and on individual human rights, it is worth examinining in detail, exactly what is being proposed, since the consquences of getting the checks and balances wrong, will be immense.

The agenda and the slides from some of the talks are now online at the Foundation for Information Policy Research website

Continue reading "Scrambling for Safety 8 - meeting some interesting and influential people" »

Posted by at 8:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

"Phone interception" is back in the attention span of the mainstream news media, thanks to an official complaint from Clarence House i.e. from Prince Charles' staff.

The BBC reports that three men, including the News of the World's Royal correspondent, have all been arrested this morning under Section 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Despite the reporting on both the BBC and on Sky News (part of the same group who own the News of the World tabloid), this is not a serious crime, according to the current law:

(7) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) shall be liable- (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both;

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

According to Sky News, the complaints came back last December 2005, when 3 members of staff from complained about breaches of security of the Clarence House telephone system, "over a significant period of time", something which obviously has possible security implications for the safety of the Royal Family.

Sky News are now reporting that mobile phones are thought to be involved, and that other possible breaches of telephone privacy "at the homes of other public figures" are being investigated.

"An MP may have had their phone intercepted as well."

If true, this is far more serious than just a small scandal involving tape recordings or bugs or voice mail systems, physically located just within, say, Clarence House.

There are obvious comparisons to be made with the ongoing Vofafone mobile phone interception scandal in Greece.

The mention that a Member of Parliament may also have had his or her mobile phone intercepted means that the "Wilson Doctrine", must also be discussed.

Continue reading "Royal Household "phone interception" - 3 arrests, including the News of the World 's "Royal correspondent"" »

Posted by at 9:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

The annual Intelligence and Security Committee Report, does its usual job of providing only the vaguest details about the running of the United Kingdom's intelligence agencies and security services. Neither the public, nor the intelligence agencies themselves are best served by so much secrecy and failure to get the answers to probing questions.

They give the impression that important questions of policy, which would not compromise tactical or operational secrets are not even asked, let alone answered.

Combined with the dubious media spins and leaks, is it any wonder that conspiracy theories thrive, and that few members of the public , especially those in, say the Islamic or Irish or the online communities, have any confidence that the intelligence services are doing a competent job, for the public good.

Annual Report 2005–06 [PDF 445KB, 47 pages]

A few points which caught our attention:

Continue reading "Intelligence and Security Committee Report 2006" »

Posted by at 12:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (4)

The Prime Minster Tony Blair is holding an online version of Prime Minister's Question Time this afternoon from about 5pm.

We submitted a neutral, non-partisan Question about the "Wilson Doctrine", which only the Prime Minister can answer.

We will be surprised if this Question is picked, and astonished if it is answered fully online, but, the Answer must be divulged, sooner, or later.

Our Question:

Does the "Wilson Doctrine", the prohibition on the interception of
the telephone conversations of Members of Parliament (and by
implication, their constituents who may be communicating with them), also apply to Mobile Phones and the Internet, and to Members of the Scottish Parliament, Members of the Euroopean Parliament, Members of the the Welsh Assembly or Members or the Northern Ireland Assembly, none of which existed 40 years ago, when the "Wilson Doctrine" was first proclaimed ?

Posted by at 11:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The BBC reports

Call for ban over MSP phone taps

The Scottish National Party is calling for MSPs to be given immunity from phone tapping by MI5 security officers.

Under rules introduced by Harold Wilson in the 60s, MPs are immune from surveillance by MI5.

[...]

South of Scotland MSP Christine Grahame said she had received confirmation from BT that her phone had been tapped by someone.

The Wilson Doctrine was introduced in 1966 amid fears that security service surveillance of MPs could undermine democracy.

We have asked questions about whether or not Members of the Scottish Parliament, Members of the Welsh Assembly, Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, UK members of the European Parliament, or foreign Members of the European Parliament, are or are not covered by the "Wilson Doctrine", which pre-dates all of these institutions

Our questions and the Parliamentary Questions tabled by Liberal Democrat MP Dr. Vincent Cable have, so far, been stonewalled by Tony Blair and the bureaucracy, but they do still need to be answered.

What about the parliament of the Isle of Man, the Tynwald ?

What about the Channel Islands i.e. the States Assembly of Jersey ?
and the States of Deliberation in Guernsey ?

What about the House of Lords in Westminster ?

What is so difficult about a general statement of principle, which would not reveal any interception technology techniques, or say anything about any current criminal or intelligence investigations ?

Posted by at 8:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

This morning's Cabinet re-shuffle has seen John Reid replace Charles Clarke as Home Secretary. Charles Clarke returns to the back benches - hooray !

Hazel Blears appears to have been moved to be Labour Party chairwoman. Who will replace her as Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety) ?

What this means for the other Home Office Ministers or for the Permanent Secretary Sir David Normington, is still unclear.

John Reid is now on his 7th. (?) Ministerial position. He has only exhibited slavish loyalty to Tony Blair, without any notable achievements in any of the Departments where he has served.

As an MP for a Scottish constituency, (Airdrie and Shotts) , the "West Lothian Question" applies i.e. John Reid will be presumably making some laws which only affect England & Wales, whilst not being electorally accountable to English or Welsh voters.

He does not appear to have any grasp of complicated technical issues, as can be seen from his legacies of the complicated, insecure and hugely expensive National Health Service IT "data spine" scheme and the tradional complexities of Ministry of Defence weapons and IT systems.

We still remember his stupid utterances about ID Cards and terrorism during the General Election campaign.

John Reid is alleged to have had some role in the debate within Cabinet over the "Wilson Doctrine"

Is John Reid's self proclaimed "political tough guy" image justified, will he be the strong leader needed to effectively reform the Home Office, or, like David Blunkett and Charles Clarke before him, prove to be a combination of bullying and ineptitude ?

Posted by at 12:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The Prime Minister Tony Blair has, apparently, made a Wriiten Statement on the "Wilson Doctrine", from the safe distance of Jakarta in Indonesia.

We await the official text to be The text of the statement has now published online (see below), but the "PMOS" the Prime Minister's Official Spokeperson was questioned about it during today's morning press briefing.

Our original questions, and the various Parliamentary Questions tabled by MPs, do not appear to have been answered. e.g. who exactly does the "Wilson Doctrine" now appliy to, given that there are several more Parliaments and Assemblies which are directly elected by the British people, than there were back in 1966, when the then Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson made his promise to the House of Coomons that Member's of Parliament would never have their telephones tapped.

The PMOS statement and the media reports do not make it clear if mobile phones or the internet, neither of which existed in 1966, are, or are not, covered by the renewed "Wilson Doctrine".

The statement only talks of "consultations" about the advice from the outgoing Intercepttom of Communications Commissioner Rt. Hon. Sir Swinton Thomas, who is succeeded by Rt. Hon. Sir Paul Kennedy in April.

UPDATE: Here is the text of the Prime Minister's statementt which fails to answer any of the questions about the current scope and applicability of the 40 year old "Wilson Doctrine"., which could have been answered without putting any national security investigations or methods and procedures at risk.

This statement does rather give the impression that Tony Blair must have something to hidee, along the the lines of the Francois Mitterand or Richard Nixon bugging of political allies and opponents scandals.

House of Commons Hansard Written Ministerial Statements for 30 Mar 2006 (pt 7)

PRIME MINISTER
Wilson Doctrine

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): In answer to questions in the House of Commons on 17 November 1966, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Harold Wilson MP, said that he had given instructions that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament and that if there were a development which required a change of policy he would at such a

30 Mar 2006 : Column 96WS

moment as was compatible with the security of the country make a statement in the House about it. This approach, known as the Wilson Doctrine, has been maintained under successive administrations.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 updated existing laws and set in place new legal procedures governing the interception of communications carried on both public and private telecommunications systems. I advised the House in a Written Ministerial Statement on 15 December 2005, Official Report, column 173WS, that I had received advice from the Interception of Communications Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Swinton Thomas, on his view of the implications for the Wilson Doctrine of the regulatory framework established under that Act.

It was Sir Swinton's advice, taking into account the new and robust regulatory framework governing interception and the changed circumstances since 1966, that the Wilson Doctrine should not be sustained.

I have considered Sir Swinton's advice very seriously, together with concerns expressed in this House in response to my written ministerial statement on 15 December. I have decided that the Wilson Doctrine should be maintained.

Continue reading "The "Wilson Doctrine" retained - but what exactly is its scope today ? What political bugging scandal is Tony Blair hiding ?" »

Posted by at 6:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Parliament and the general public have been given another non-answer by the Prime Minister, regarding the "Wilson Doctrine" which has failed to clarify the supposed immunity from telephone interecption historically enjoyed by Members of Parliament.

The many unanswered questions about this issue will not simply be forgotten.

What is so difficult about being open and transparent about whom the current policy applies to and which modern communications technologies are included ? What have the Government got to hide ?

When will the outgoing Interception of Communications Commissioner Sir Swinton Thomas publish his report for last year ? WIll it mention the "Wilson Doctrine" ? It is a scandal that the 2004 annual report was not made public until November 2005.

Will the newly appointed Sir Paul Kennedy be more open and accountable to the public ?

21 Mar 2006 : Column 250W

[...]

PRIME MINISTER

Wilson Doctrine

Norman Baker: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his written statement of 15 December 2005, Official Report, column 173WS, on the Wilson Doctrine, when he expects to make a further statement. [60533]

The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to my written ministerial statement, 15 December 2005, Official Report, column 173WS and my answers at Prime Minister's Questions on 18 and 25 January.

Posted by at 9:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Prime Minister appears to have appointed two new Commissioners under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000:

• The Right Honourable Sir Peter Gibson as the Intelligence Services Commissioner.

• The Right Honourable Sir Paul Kennedy as the Interception of Communications Commissioner.

Continue reading "Two new RIPA Commissioners appointed" »

Posted by at 3:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sir Ian Blair , the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is reported by The Scotsman as having secretly recorded phone conversations with The Independent Police Complaints Commission over the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting, and with Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General

Ironically this "confidential" conversation with the Attorney General:

"concerned the admissibility of wire tap evidence in court, but did not involve any particular case."

Given the spin and media leaks which the disgraced Home Secretary David Blunkett inflicted on Sir John Stevens, the predecessor of Sir Ian Blair, it is quite understandable that this most politically correct of NuLabour apparatchiki would, in classic police state style, feel the need to have an independent record of exactly what was, or was not said to his NuLabour political contacts.

Obviously there are several questions which spring to mind, but which we doubt that the journalists reporting the story will bother to ask:

Continue reading "Sir Ian Blair has secretly recorded a phone conversation with the Attorney General, about the admissability of phone intercept evidence in court" »

Posted by at 10:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

Following on from our questions to the Interception of Communications Commissioner, about the "Wilson Doctrine",we were surprised that his office claimed that he was technically exempt from the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

We therefore emailed the Department for Constitutional Affairs, so as to have the various Commissioners who were established by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and who are appointed by the Prime Minister, added to the List of Organisations in Schdeule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as they all meet both of the conditions set down for inclusion under the Act.

We have now had a reply from the DCA:

Continue reading "Adding the RIPA Commissioners to Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act" »

Posted by at 2:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There really is no excuse, in a democracy, for the Government not to answer general questions about the strategy and democratic safeguards, about any aspect of "security" policy, whilst obviously protecting current operations and methods, or the details of individual cases.

Yesterday, Dr. Vincent Cable, the Liberal Democrat MP for Twickenham, was again stonewalled by the Prime Minister regarding his series of perfectly reasonable questions regarding the "Wilson Doctrine."

All he got was an unsatisfactory "nothing further to add " Answer.

What is the Prime Minister hiding from us ?

Did the Home Secretary indirectly admit to the phone tapping of MPs in the latter half of 2005 ?

Remember that it is the constituents of Members of Parliament who are being potentially illegaly snooped on, not just the MPs themselves, under the murky limits of the "Wilson Doctrine".

Dr. Cable's Parliamentary Written Answer:

Continue reading "Prime Minister Tony Blair still refuses to answer questions about the "Wilson Doctrine"" »

Posted by at 7:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Does this Parliamentary Answer to a Question, along the lines which we have been asking, put by the Liberal Democrat MP for Twickenham, Dr. Vincent Cable, constitute a "no smoke without fire" admission about the "Wilson Doctrine" ?

6 Feb 2006 : Column 944W

Interception of Communications

Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many requests have been received by his Department for the electronic interception of (a) telephones, (b) emails and (c) other electronic communications between July and December 2005; and how many requests his Department has received for details of the communications traffic data of hon. Members in this period. [47558]

Mr. Charles Clarke: The available information is published annually in the report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner. Figures for 2005 will be included in the Commissioner's next report.

Has the Home Office / Charles Clarke deliberately or incompetently missed that this question relates, not to the general public, but specifically to Members of Parliament, under the "Wilson Doctrine" ?

Or is this a tacit confirmation that MPs phones have been tapped, or at least that there have been requests for phone taps and/or email interceptions or for Communications Traffic Data requests etc., since last July ?

N.B. The last report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner Sir Swinton Thomas, last July 2005 , made no mention of the issue whatsoever, yet by December, Sir Swinton was writing to the Prime Minister regarding the need to review the "Wilson Doctrine".

What assurance is there that there has not been a "Vodafone Greece" type compromise of MP's or the general public's phones ? After all, identical Ericsson telecommunications hardware and software is installed in the UK mobile phone network.

Posted by at 9:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

The Government is still dithering and stalling over the "Wilson Doctrine".

Several Members of Parliament have tabled Questions,
the first if which has been "answered":

Written answers Tuesday, 31 January 2006

Prime Minister

Wilson Doctrine

Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme, Lab):

To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish those sections of the report from the Interception of Communications Commissioner which are relevant to the Wilson Doctrine; if he will put any proposed changes to the doctrine to a vote on the floor of the House; and if he will make a statement.

Tony Blair (Prime Minister):

I have nothing further to add to my written ministerial statement, 15 December 2005, Official Report, column 173WS, and my answers at Prime Minister's questions on 18 and 25 January.

Continue reading ""Wilson Doctrine" Parliamentary Questions and Early Day Motions" »

Posted by at 4:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The scandal unfolding in Greece, reported by the Independent over the revelations that politicians mobile phones, including those of the Greek prime minister etc. had been intercepted by Vodafone, before and after the 2004 Olympic Games.

Is the Vodafone mobile phone network similarly vulnerable here in the United Kingdom ?

Some more details in this AFP report via Alan Mather e-government@large

Continue reading "Vodafone Greece "hacked" - is Vodafone UK safe ?" »

Posted by at 1:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (1)

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 Doctrine

Asked 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:

Continue reading "PMOS on the "Wilson Doctrine"" »

Posted by at 11:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The resignation of Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman Mark Oaten, due to revelations published in the News of the World tabloid should give people who are thinking about amending the "Wilson Doctrine" administrative ban on the interception of the phone calls of Members of Parliament , plenty to consider.

"I advertise on a website and Oaten called out of the blue."

[...]

"Over the next few months he kept ringing "

[...]

"Before one session he rang several times"

[...]

"He was such a secretive man, but I knew it WAS Oaten. Whenever he rang he never withheld his number and I have it to this day."

[...]

How can the public be sure that if Members of Parliament (and therefore also their Constituents) are put under electronic surveillance for "security" purposes, that information on scandalous, though not illegal activities such as this, which would have been gleaned in the this case, could not have been used for political purposes by those in power ?

Will the Liberal Democrats still be united in their opposition to the Identity Cards Bill and the Terrorism Bill etc. after the resignations of Charles Kennedy and Mark Oaten ?

Posted by at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

We have had a reply from The Assistant Private Secretary to the Interception of Communications Commissioner regarding our Freedom of Information Act request regarding the "Wilson Doctrine" administrative exemption of Members of Parliament to telephone interception.

The letter claims that "your request cannot be acted on" since the Interception of Communications Commissioner is not a "public authority" under the Freedom of Information Act.

If not, then why not ?

According to the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the conditions for a Public Body to be added to the Schedule 1 list under the Freedom of Information Act are:

a. That the body or office was established by any enactment, the Crown prerogative, a government department or a Minister acting in any other way; and

b. That all or any appointments to the body or office are made by the Crown, a Minister or a government department.

There can be no question that both of the criteria for the addition of a Public Body are clearly fulfilled by Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 section 57 Interception of Communications Commissioner

57. - (1) The Prime Minister shall appoint a Commissioner to be known as the Interception of Communications Commissioner.

We will be writing to the Department for Constitutional Affairs to have all the Commissioners established by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act added to the Schedule 1 list of Public Bodies.

Posted by at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Today's Prime Minister's Questions saw several Questions on topics which this blog has commented on - at last !

There was quite a long exchange with subsidiary questions, between David Cameron and Tony Blair on ID Cards.

The LSE Identity Project report came up again. The work of dozens of academic and industry experts was, yet again misleadingly characterised, by Tony Blair himself this time, as the work of a single man "the leading civil rights campaigner against ID Cards". Yes Simon Davies is involved, but not on his own !

Tony Blair fell back on the fallacious NuLabour "identity fraud" justification and on the alleged inevitability of the international biometric passport schemes, which are vastly different from what this Government is actually proposing,

Tony Blair managed to tar the Chancellor Gordon Brown with the brush of collective Cabinet responsibility for his ID Card scheme, by claiming that Gordon had "supplied the figures" for the still secret detailed cost estimates.

The political TV commentators / kremlinologists noted that, unusually, Gordon Brown was actually smiling during the ID Card and other questions.

Another Tory MP also asked about ID Cards and failed Government computer projects and Tony Blair claimed that fears about "civil liberties are completely misplaced".

The interim leader of the Liberal Democrats asked, as we commented on back in November, why the Information Management, Prioritisation, Analysis, Co-ordination and Tasking (IMPACT) computer system, recommended 18 months ago by the Bichard Inquiry for the sharing of "intelligence on sex offender" (actually far more than just this) amongst Police Forces, is now scheduled to be at least 3 years late.The Prime Minister did not have an answer, "off the cuff", and which he had to promise to write to Sir Menzies Campbell about it.

Labour MP David Winnick asked about the "leaked report" (?) about the tapping of MPs phones i.e. the review of "Wilson Doctrine" and very reasonably asked that there should be a debate about it.

Tony Blair claimed that it was not his idea, and seemed to deny that it was a direct result of the July bombings, and claimed that it was due to the representation made to him by the "Intercept Commissioner", which he is "obliged to consider" and vaguely promised to do so some time in the future.

Does this mean that our concerns over these technological "magic fix" policies are starting to be noticed by the major political parties ?

Posted by at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

If all goes well with the editing, some time later tonight, Spy Blog will have joined the ranks of British Bloggers like Tim Worstall and and Guido Fawkes, by appearing on a segment of BBC Radio 5 Live's late night blogs and podcast show

The interview was prompted by our postings and discussions on the current "Wilson Doctrine" immunity of Members of Parliament from having their telephones tapped, and Sir Swinton Thomas, the Interception of Communications Commissioner and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Our Freedom of Information Act request regarding the "Wilson Doctrine" might eventually clarify things.

.

Posted by at 9:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

The Independent, in a companion article to their frontpage story about bugging MPs phones and emails, mentioned an obscure Ministerial Statement published on 15th December 2005:

Wilson Doctrine

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): The Government have received advice from the Interception of Communications Commissioner, Sir. Swinton Thomas, on the possible implications for the Wilson Doctrine of the regulatory framework for the interception of communications, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

The Government are considering that advice. I shall inform Parliament of the outcome at the earliest opportunity.

If you want to write to the equally obscure SIr Swinton Thomas, the Interception Commissioner, to see if your phone conversations or emails or faxes with your Member of Parliament in Westminster, or your Member of the Scottish Parliament, are currently being illegally intercepted his address is:

The Right Honourable Sir Swinton Thomas,
The Interception of Communications Commissioner,
c/o The Home Office,
2 Marsham Street,
London,
SW1P 4DF

(no phone,no fax, no email, no website)

Continue reading "Sir Swinton Thomas, the Interception Commissioner and the Wilson Doctrine statement in Parliament" »

Posted by at 1:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Independent on Sunday's front page story is:

"MI5 will get new powers to bug MPs"

Furious cabinet revolt as Blair gives green light for security services to spy on elected representatives

By Francis Elliott, Whitehall Editor
Published: 15 January 2006

Tony Blair is preparing to scrap a 40-year ban on tapping MPs' telephones, despite fierce Cabinet opposition, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

He is expected to formally announce to the Commons within weeks that MPs can no longer be sure that the security services and others will not intercept their communications.

Until now, successive administrations have pledged that there should be no tapping "whatsoever" of MPs' phones, and that they would be told if it was necessary to breach the ban.

But that convention - known as the Wilson Doctrine, after Harold Wilson, the prime minister who introduced it - is to be abandoned in an expansion of MI5 powers following the London bombings.

MPs should be treated in the same way as other citizens and will be given the same safeguards against wrongful tapping, the Prime Minister will say.

Is this an outrage against democracy and further evidence of the slide towards an authoritarian NuLabour police state ?

Or is it an attempt to regulate or stop an existing illegal political bugging operation ?

Continue reading "The Independent on Sunday: "MI5 will get new powers to bug MPs" - why ?" »

Posted by at 12:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

The Report of the Interception Commissioner for 2004 (.pdf)
produced by the Rt. Hon. Sir Swinton Thomas is now available online.

Why it has taken until November for the Government to publish this latest annual report , submitted on 12th July 2005, is a mystery, especially since the previous annual report was published in the July of the year to which it refers.

How can this be as "as soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year" as the Act requires ?

This report touches on some of the issues we have been worried about in the Terrorism Bill 2005 which seeks to amend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

As with all such reports, there is a secret annex which has not been made public.

Continue reading "Report of the Interception Commissioner for 2004 by the Rt.Hon. Sir Swinton Thomas is now available online" »

Posted by at 2:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)