Letter to the Chairman of the Committee
from Ben Wallace MP
I welcome the Committee's current Inquiry on
the issue of Parliamentary Privilege and I wanted to highlight
to the Committee a few issues which I think need clarifying if
Honourable Members are to be afforded effective protection.
The Committee will know that the Wilson Doctrine
was instigated in 1966 to cover all forms of interception which
were subject to authorisation by Secretary of State Warrant. At
that time telephone and postal intercept were one of only a very
few legal means of monitoring suspects open to the Authorities.
However over the last 40 years, as technology has developed, surveillance
methods have rapidly over taken the basic intercept and these
now enable Authorities to have a significant capability. Listening
devices, directional microphones, software, covert searches and
concealed cameras mean that should an agency wish to do so it
would be able intrude quite heavily into an MP's business without
breaching the Wilson Doctrine. In addition where the surveillance
is "directed" as defined by the Regulation of Investigative
Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 Sections 26, 27 and 28 (eg not a private
residence such as a public building or a prison visiting area)
the level of authorisation required for a warrant is considerably
low and so potentially without safeguards.
If it is accepted that Parliament is a public
place then not only does it give some concern that a significant
amount of surveillance (such as the bugging of Members' offices)
could take place, but it also raises the disturbing spectre that
in accordance with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Prescription
of Offices, Ranks and Positions) Order 2000 a superintendent,
or indeed a district inspector of sea fisheries, could authorise
such an operation without reference to any Minister or other authority.
I would ask that should it be decided that Honourable
Members and Peers be awarded some privilege the Committee examine
this using updated definitions of intercept and surveillance and
perhaps seek an amendment of RIPA 2000 to ensure that Parliament's
status as a public place is reviewed within the meanings of the
Act. I attach copies of the relevant sections of the Regulation
of Investigative Powers Act 2000, the amending Order, a press
cutting relating to the surveillance of Sadiq Khan MP and the
report published by Sir Christopher Rose in relation to that case.[51]
3 November 2009
51 Enclosures not printed here: Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act 2000 c 23 Part II, sections 26 to 28; Regulation of
Investigatory Powers (Prescription of Offices, Ranks and Positions)
Order 2000 (S.I., 2000, No 2417); Sunday Times "Insight"
article of 10 February 2008 by Michael Gillard and Jonathan Celvert
"Police bugged Muslim MP"; and Two visits by Sadiq Khan
MP to Babar Ahmad at HM Prison Woodhill-Report of Investigation
by Rt Hon Sir Christopher Rose, Chief Surveillance Commissioner,
Cm 7336, February 2008. Back
|
