Wilson Doctrine — House of Commons, 2015-10-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): I beg to move, That this House has considered the operation of the Wilson Doctrine Let me start by paying tribute to all those who have kept up sustained questioning on this topic: my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and, most importantly, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), whose court case has brought so much new information to light. They have done the whole House and the country an invaluable service Until last Wednesday, it was thought that the Wilson doctrine was still in force. MPs and Members of the Lords—[Interruption.] I hear the Home Secretary saying that the doctrine is still in force. Well, we look forward to hearing her argument on that later on MPs and Members of the Lords, as well as those who communicated with them as whistleblowers, constituents and members of the wider public, thought that parliamentarians’ communications were not, would not and could not be tampered with or intercepted, and that they could rely on a guarantee from the Government that that was so. That is because the doctrine was originally laid out in unambiguous terms on 17 November 1966 when Harold Wilson, the then Prime Minister, told the House that there was to be "no tapping of the telephones of hon. Members."—[Official Report, 17 November 1966; Vol. 736, c. 634.] That was our decision and that was our policy. Five days later, the Lord Privy Seal, Lord Longford, announced that the policy also applied to their lordships’ House Despite changes of Government and advances in technology, the policy has enjoyed remarkably consistent declarations of support from Harold Wilson’s successors. It was reasserted by Mrs Thatcher, who said in a written answer on 6 February 1980 that "the policy remains as stated by the right hon. Gentleman."—[Official Report, 6 February 1980; Vol. 978, c. 245W.] The right hon. Gentleman to whom she referred was Harold Wilson The policy was reasserted by Tony Blair in the same terms on 30 October 1997. On 4 December that year, he said that the policy "applies in relation to telephone interception and to the use of electronic surveillance by any of the three security and intelligence agencies."—[Official Report, 4 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 321.] On 21 January 2002, he clarified: "The policy extends to all forms of warranted interception of communications."—[Official Report, 21 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 589W.] Like Wilson, Blair made it clear that he was acting on consideration. When Sir Swinton Thomas, the then interception of communications commissioner, advised him against maintaining the Wilson doctrine in 2006, Mr Blair told the House in a written ministerial statement, after consultation in Cabinet: "I have considered Sir Swinton’s advice very seriously…I have decided that the Wilson Doctrine should be maintained."—[Official Report, 30 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 96WS.] The doctrine was also reasserted by Gordon Brown on 12 September 2007. As late as 15 July 2014, the Home Secretary stated that "obviously the Wilson doctrine applies to parliamentarians", as if nothing had changed—exactly as she has done just now I give this history merely to point to the absolute nature of the Wilson doctrine, the categorical nature in which it has been stated to this House, and the consistency with which it has been supported, at least in public, by successive Governments, despite changing security threats and changing technology. Even after the introduction of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Governments repeatedly made it clear that the Wilson doctrine remained in place—until last Wednesday, when the Investigatory Powers Tribunal revealed that a completely different regime is now in operation under this Home Secretary. From the evidence given to the tribunal, it is clear that the Wilson doctrine has been altered beyond recognition without Parliament being told and that the Wilson doctrine is, to all intents and purposes, defunct Harold Wilson joked that his postbag suggested that "a very high proportion of the electorate generally are under the delusion that their telephones are being tapped. This delusion spreads to hon. Members and I should say that I used to suffer from it myself at one time."—[Official Report, 17 November 1966; Vol. 736, c. 636.] He, of course, was joking, but as one who knows for certain that his phone was tapped by The News of the World, I say to the Government, "Do not take us for fools. We in this House are not naive. Be open and honest with the House and with the public." Last year, the former police officer Peter Francis said that he had seen old security files on Jack Straw, Peter Hain, Joan Ruddock, Ken Livingstone and my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). The Government tried to silence Peter Francis then, but it now seems that his revelations were probably just the tip of the iceberg Most worryingly, last week’s IPT ruling included the partial disclosure of the Government’s official guidance to the three security agencies, which includes a lengthy piece on the Wilson doctrine. The official guidance states categorically: first, that "it is not, and has never been, Government policy that Parliamentarians’ communications may not be the subject of interception"; secondly, that the Wilson doctrine does not apply to requests for communications data relating to parliamentarians, nor to the communications of a Member of the European Parliament or of a devolved Administration; thirdly, that parliamentarians are not exempt from bulk interceptions of communications under section 8(4) of RIPA and that any such material that relates to parliamentarians can be interrogated within MI5 and can be disclosed to an outside body; fourthly, that the Wilson doctrine protects only "the communications of Parliamentarians in the performance of their Parliamentary and constituency duties without fear that their communications are being targeted other than exceptionally where there is a compelling reason for doing so"; and, fifthly, that the Home Secretary can, having consulted the agencies and the Prime Minister, via the Cabinet Secretary, issue a warrant for the deliberate targeting and interception of parliamentarians’ communications That blatantly flies in the face of successive Prime Ministers’ statements to this House. Why would the Government need a separate warrant process for the interception of MPs’ communications if they were still abiding by the Wilson doctrine that MPs’ communications should not, could not and would not be intercepted? How can it be right that the process depends on three highly subjective judgments: first, about what constitute parliamentary and constituency duties, which is a notoriously difficult matter in determining parliamentary privilege; secondly, about what constitutes a sufficiently significant exception; and, thirdly, about what would count as a sufficiently compelling reason? How can it be right that under the Home Secretary’s new dispensation all those judgments are made solely by the Home Secretary, with one politician deciding on the targeting of another politician One other element of the Wilson doctrine was that the Prime Minister, "on his own initiative"—those were the then Prime Minister’s words—would notify Parliament of any change to the doctrine. No such statement has been volunteered by this Prime Minister, yet the tribunal makes it very clear that the doctrine has been changed. It states that "changes in the Doctrine…have resulted in its operation as now described by Mrs May" Those words are "changes in the doctrine". It adds: "It is clear to us that the Wilson Doctrine as now constituted is as explained by Mrs May" and goes on to point out that the Wilson doctrine is not in operation.