The limits of the Wilson doctrine
Pete Wishart asked an interesting question yesterday in the Commons debate about the bugging of Sadiq Khan at HMP Woodhill.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): Can the Lord Chancellor confirm that Members of the Scottish Parliament and all the other devolved institutions are not covered by the Wilson doctrine? If that is the case, does he not believe that MSPs should be given the same protection as MPs when it comes to having their conversations bugged?
Mr. Straw: What the hon. Gentleman says is correct, and it is spelt out by Sir Swinton Thomas’s report for 2005-06, in which he raises the question of whether the Wilson doctrine should be abandoned. Decisions about interception warrants in respect of police operations in Scotland are a matter not for any UK Secretary of State, but for the Scottish Executive.
You can read the full exchange at TheyWorkForYou.com.
As with other areas, the constitution must evolve to deal with the devolution. It is not immediately obvious why, if members of the Parliament at Westminster are entitled to confidential dealings with constituents, members of the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly should be excluded. The same principle would, logically, extend to Stormont. That might mean, though, that surveillance of people attached to paramilitary organisations could be verboten. It’s not clear, equally, whether the Wilson doctrine would apply to Gerry Adams, Martin McGuiness, Michelle Gildernew, Conor Murphy and Pat Doherty (the Sinn Féin MPs who have not taken an oath of allegiance and so are barred from sitting at Westminster).
No protection whatsoever is offered by a very large qualification within the doctrine - it can be cancelled at any time and the Prime Minister can delay telling people until they consider it safe to tell people about the cancellation. In other words, MPs might think they are covered by a doctrine that does not exist and, indeed, may not have existed since the day after Wilson announced it.
Quite apart from this, it does not prevent unnamed individuals acting alone and without the knowledge or permission of their superiors or ministers. In other words, it is no defence against plausible deniability. I am not entirely sure why an MP’s conversations should be privileged against those of, say, a doctor or lawyer or ordinary person going about their business. Rather better to have an effective system in place if we must have one at all.
xD.
February 10th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
[...] wrote here about the limits of the Wilson Doctrine and said It’s not clear, equally, whether the Wilson doctrine would apply to Gerry Adams, Martin [...]