Wilson Doctrine

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

That was a helpful intervention. In the official guidance, due consideration is given to lawyers in regard to privileged material. Due regard, as provided for in the European convention on human rights, is given to journalists and the protection of their sources. The guidance includes doctors, but it also refers to ministers of religion, and I have some anxiety about the direction we may be taking. There is a perfectly legitimate debate to be had about what separate categories there might be. I am glad that the Committee will look at precisely how MPs—and, I presume, other parliamentarians —will be treated in the draft Bill, which we will need plenty of time to consider. Last year, we had one day in the House to consider some of the most important matters of personal freedom and liberty, which was wholly inappropriate. The clock is ticking on the High Court ruling, which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden won earlier this year, so I hope that the Government will move speedily with their draft Bill.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

The shadow Leader of the House is telegraphing that the Opposition will support an amendment to the upcoming legislation to provide that protection of privilege. He should be aware that the revelations on the Wilson doctrine were preceded by serious breaches of the legal privilege protection, and—this has changed in the past decade, because I spoke to the previous Home Secretary about the matter—that intercepted communications between the legal representative and the suspect, as it were, are now recorded and given to lawyers who may prosecute that suspect. That is a serious breach of what is known as equality of arms in natural justice.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct. He does not need to intercept this communication; I am not only telegraphing, but semaphoring and using every other means of communicating to the House, that there should be a proper debate about the several categories of people that might benefit, in the interests of national security and a wider democratic interest, from a specific provision in law.

There is a separate debate to be had about whether all warrants, as Anderson suggests, should go through a judicial process anyway. In particular, the right hon. Gentleman is right that the European convention on human rights makes specific provision for legal privilege so that lawyers are able to guarantee a fair and proper hearing for a defendant, but that has been breached in the past. Moreover, if we want to guarantee a free press, there must be provisions for journalists.

We cannot have a proper debate, however, unless draft legislation is produced in sufficient time for the House to be able to consider all the issues in the round before the process of tabling amendments begins. I very much hope that the Home Secretary will come forward early and not leave things to the very last minute, as she did last year.

Secondly, it is time that we abandoned our reliance on the doctrine in favour of statute law. Apparent ambiguities in the Wilson doctrine need to be clarified. A sensible course needs to be drawn that guarantees the independence of Parliament, but ensures our national security. We argue that this can be done only through legislation and we stand ready to work with the Home Secretary on this. As I said, she has to come back by the end of March with a new Bill to replace the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, given the High Court ruling, but I earnestly hope that she will introduce new draft legislation in the forthcoming weeks.

Thirdly, it is our contention that the new legislation should apply to all parliamentarians: Members of the House of Commons; Members of the House of Lords, although not necessarily all peers; Members of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly; and UK Members of the European Parliament, although obviously not all Members of the European Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Before I start on the substantive argument, which is fairly simple, I will say one thing to the House. Those who are interested in this matter should look not just at the judgment that was handed down by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, but at the transcript of the hearing.

I attended part of the public session. It was an illuminating process and did not necessarily give one much confidence. As the House will know, I have been involved in this subject for many years and am loth to criticise courts, but I was not impressed by the IPT’s understanding of the technology that is available to the agencies to enable them to sift and limit the damage that is done by their intrusion of privacy. To me, that seemed rather important.

Secondly, it is apparent that the ruling means something very specific. It means that the inquiry that was brought by Baroness Jones, George Galloway and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) is very unlikely to receive an answer because if something is not illegal, they will not be told about it. That is the rule. The hon. Lady will not be told whether something has happened. She will be told only if something illegal has been done. One of the outcomes of this situation is that it will prevent her or any of the complainants getting an answer.

James Eadie, the very skilful lawyer who argued on behalf of the Government, made the point that the Wilson doctrine has no legal basis whatever, is not practical—that is why the tribunal’s lack of understanding was very important—and, therefore, is not binding on the agencies. That is a really serious finding. He spent the best part of two days in incredibly convoluted argument. The only inference that I can draw from the incredible effort he put into getting this outcome is that they had something to hide and that what was happening in secret was a statement that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion or one of the other two complainants had been intercepted.

In the course of the exchanges with the judges, James Eadie was very illuminating on the attitude to this matter. He said, in effect, that if the Prime Minister had come to the House and explained the truth of the matter, post-RIPA, he would have been committing an

“act of political hara-kiri, or something quite close to it.”

That was the attitude of the tribunal to the Wilson doctrine.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I accept what my right hon. Friend has said, but is not one concern that the Wilson doctrine is 50 years old? It was written in a very different world, before the internet. He has drawn various conclusions from what was said, such as that the Government had something to hide. It might simply have been that the Government recognised that the legislative process, which we are updating, was not fit for the purpose of a modern-day Wilson doctrine.

[Mr Davis]

I take my right hon. Friend’s point, but that is why I urged Members to read the transcript. What I said is very apparent from the transcript. He is, of course, right that there has been a huge transformation. Metadata, which I will come back to later, simply did not exist in their current form in Wilson’s day. Many of the things that are now available, including email, did not exist in his day. A whole series of things that we all assumed had been swept up in the Wilson doctrine have not been swept up in the Wilson doctrine. That is why the Home Secretary’s case that it is the same as what was enunciated by Harold Wilson all those years ago is simply not tenable. I will come back to that point, too.

Members will notice that the Press Gallery is nearly empty. Over the past week or so, the newspapers have been very derogatory about this case and the argument that we are putting. They say, “Why should MPs be treated any differently from anybody else?” Those, by the way, are the very same newspapers that were in an uproar of anger about the fact that somebody had checked out the metadata of one of their journalist’s telephones. Perhaps they were right in that, but it is an odd dichotomy.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

What does my right hon. Friend think the deputy leader of the Labour party will think about the stance that has been taken by the shadow Leader of the House, given that the deputy leader of the Labour party is making a career out of exposing the alleged wrongdoings of Members of this House and the other place? Presumably that would be made much more difficult were we exempted from the investigatory instruments that are available to the agencies.

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend tempts me, but the inwardness of the Labour party is far above my pay grade. I will stick to the substance of the issue before us.

[Chris Bryant]

I can confirm that the deputy leader of the Labour party is perfectly content with the policy that we are arguing for. Indeed, he is the person who got the Home Secretary to confirm for the first time that she had changed the Wilson doctrine.

[Mr Davis]

I will return to the subject of the debate.

The answer to those journalists, commentators and editors who think that this is about the House getting above itself, or that in some sense it is not important, is simple: we should not tolerate the Government intercepting or interfering in any way with any of our communications—there is one tiny exception that I shall return to—because MPs are the people who are charged with holding the Government to account. We forget this line from time to time in the sort of schoolboy antics that pass for the reporting of Parliament in this day and age, but we are the ones who hold the Government to account. In doing so, we deal with campaigners, journalists, whistleblowers, other MPs and, of course, our constituents. The text of the judgment states that the only protected component is our constituents, and although they are incredibly important, in some ways they are the least salient of the components that we deal with.

The Home Secretary, quite properly, reminds the House of the demands of national security. She is right to do that because 58 people have died owing to terrorism within the United Kingdom since 2000, and the figure is about 90 if we include those in Tunisia and elsewhere. Security is a serious issue, but so are matters that are brought to our attention by whistleblowers. Mid Staffs occurred because whistleblowers were supressed or ignored—the same effect that we get by diluting the Wilson doctrine. How many people died unnecessarily at Mid Staffs? It was 1,200. We must not forget that whistleblowers are incredibly important and they would, or will, be supressed by what is seen as the demise of the Wilson doctrine.

Let us consider the possible cases. A police officer calls an MP about corruption, but he might be intercepted by other police officers. A prisoner calls his MP about ill treatment in prison, but he might be intercepted and recorded by other prison officers. A tax official calls the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee about sweetheart deals on tax with big companies and Parliament being lied to—hon. Members might begin to realise that these are real cases—but that person might have his life destroyed because of activities under RIPA. Imagine an official from the Ministry of Defence telling an MP about the mistreatment of a prisoner by the British Army, or an immigration officer telling a shadow Home Secretary about Government deceiving Parliament—that case led to the arrest of one of our colleagues, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), some time ago. The absence, failure or demise of the Wilson doctrine would undermine or deter all those cases.

The Home Secretary has a difficult task, because technology is changing under our feet and has been doing so for decades. The difficulty today is that the Wilson doctrine that most people believed was in place is not. The idea that all our communications are protected is untrue for a number of reasons. I cannot find the first reference—I think it was Gordon Brown, but it might have been earlier—but one Prime Minister limited such protection to cases with a warrant from a Secretary of State. Before then it was not limited in such terms. Let us understand what a limitation that is. The report on surveillance by David Anderson, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, points out that there are more than 65 different statutory mechanisms for initiating intercepts and other sorts of communication surveillance. Very few of those require a warrant from the Secretary of State. It is a very narrow protection.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I have reviewed 27 written parliamentary answers on this subject from the last few years. Most tell us absolutely nothing, but those that do have added the words “Secretary of State’s warrant” to give the impression that something is happening when it is not.

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is exactly right and that leads me to a case that the previous Justice Secretary brought before the House when it was plain that there had been interception and recording of telephone communications between prisoners and their Members of Parliament as a matter of course. As I have said, that could lead to serious outcomes for those prisoners. The Justice Secretary was able to tell the House that the matter was not subject to the Wilson doctrine because it was not subject to a Secretary of State’s warrant.

Many of those parliamentary questions were also about the wider ramifications of the doctrine, particularly with respect to metadata. It took the Government approximately nine months to answer my question about whether metadata were involved. They told another colleague who is no longer with us—Nick de Bois—that metadata were not included, but when I challenged them it took them nine months to come to a conclusion. The collection of metadata cripples whistleblowers, because it tells us precisely who has talked to whom, when and where. Metadata tracking led to the arrest of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. That area is material to the operation of our holding the Government to account.

The House should be unsurprised that agencies use their powers to the limit. If I were working for MI5, MI6 or GCHQ, I would use every power that I was given to the limit, just as I would if I were a policeman. If I am charged with the security of the state, of individuals and of safety, that will be what I am concerned about, but that is precisely why we must be careful about controlling what people do. The tendency is to stretch the limits or for those limits gradually to move.

The IPT judgment is not the first to have shown agencies moving the goalposts. The most obvious example of breaches by police and agencies concerns journalists, but because journalists are a sensitive group the Government moved very rapidly to provide protection for them—they moved so fast it was rather undignified. Breaches also involve innocent non-governmental organisations—not long ago Amnesty International was intercepted, although the Government did not move on that—and, of course, lawyers.

Intercepting lawyers is serious. Indeed, it is arguably more serious than House of Commons intercepts. In the past when some criminal—by that I mean a terrorist, paedophile or whatever category we are looking at—had their telephone calls intercepted, that intercept would stop when their lawyer came on the line. I went through that in some detail with our erstwhile colleague, Jack Straw, as that was the case when he was Home Secretary although it is no longer true. Now, not only is the intercept not stopped, but it can continue and be recorded. The intercept used to be put in a protected file and was specifically not shown to prosecution lawyers who might be bringing that criminal to justice, but now that is not true. That serious breach will, at some point, lead to a killer being put back on the streets of Britain because they can claim in the European Court, or somewhere like that, that they have not received natural justice because of a breach in equality of arms. That serious and stupid change of policy was made clear by the IPT a little while ago.

The shadow Leader of the House listed MPs who have been affected by intercept. Looking at my list of 10, all I say is that I think they are pretty harmless—that is probably the biggest insult I could give them. Look at who they are. It demonstrates the mindset that leads people to misuse intercept. What on earth were people doing? Of course Jack Straw and Peter Hain had colourful early lives, but what about when they were in Parliament and became Cabinet Ministers? It is extraordinary how this matter is being pushed.

I side with the Home Secretary in one respect: the Wilson doctrine was always a bit slippery. Harold Wilson was a very clever man, but he was not, shall we say, known for his linear thinking. It has always been to some extent deceitful and misleading, but the truth now is that the doctrine is dead. Whether or not it is legally dead, it is in practice dead. It is dead in the eyes of the people—whistleblowers, campaigners and so on—who might come to us, and we have to do something to replace it.

I am glad to hear a commonality of view from those on all Front Benches that we need to put this in statute. That is the only way forward. When the next Bill on this subject goes through the House, I hope it brings together all 65 statutory mechanisms for allowing intercepts and surveillance. Let us understand what it should do. We all know there will be times when the police and the agencies are properly allowed to intercept or put Members of Parliament under surveillance when there is a strong suspicion of a known crime. Frankly, however, that should not be on the Prime Minister’s say-so. It should not be, with respect to her, on the Home Secretary’s say-so. I mean no insult to either of them, but if ever these powers are misused it will almost certainly be by a politician, because they are the people subject to most temptation. It should be on the say-so of a senior judge, or even a court, after presentation of compelling evidence, subject to challenge.

The Government have in place the process they use for terrorism prevention and investigation measures, where the individual cannot know what the evidence is and so will have a special advocate. Those are the measures that should be in any Act. I give notice now that if they are put in the Bill by the Home Secretary, I will support it. If they are put in the Bill by the Opposition, I will support it. If neither put it in, I will propose it myself, because that is the only way to put right what is now in effect a major breach of our democratic traditions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

Yes, indeed, Mr Speaker. Of course, I was asking if the Home Secretary wanted to leap to her feet. It was probably because she misunderstood me that she did not leap to her feet, so let me give her the opportunity again. If she has not authorised any such telephone intercepts, will she tell the House now? Okay, I think that that answers the question.

We now need to move on. I agree that we need to put the Wilson doctrine—

[Mr Davis]

Had my hon. Friend not confined the question to telephone calls, it might have been that the Home Secretary did not know the answer. For example, the Tempora programme, widely reported in The Guardian and other newspapers, involves the harvesting of vast quantities of data travelling out through Bude. These data are kept for 30 days and made accessible to the United States, among others. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) ran for several years a campaign on rendition that might have made him of interest to the United States. Liberal party Members ran campaigns on the Iraq war that would have made them of interest to the US. It might well be that the Wilson doctrine is being broken by proxy, as it were, simply by the behaviour of our agencies, without explicit approval being granted in each case.

[Mr Bone]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, but that was why I was limiting my questions to telephone conversations, which the Home Secretary would have known about and clearly does know about, but which she does not want to tell the House about.