Police decision
Ministers, I learn, were not consulted about the bugging of a conversation involving the Labour MP, Sadiq Khan. The decision was taken by Thames Valley Police and Mr Khan was not the target of the bugging. A police officer who is facing disciplinary action was involved and, although his case does not centre on the bugging, he will claim that he had the approval of his chief constable.
The Justice Secretary Jack Straw will not confirm this detail in his Commons statement this afternoon but he will announce who is heading up an enquiry into the incident. In addition, he'll outline the government's approach to the so-called "Wilson doctrine" which bans the tapping of the phones of MPs and peers. MPs are likely to demand reassurances that the doctrine is not being interpreted in a narrow way so as to allow other forms of surveillances of MP beyond phone tapping.
The Wilson doctrine originates with the announcement in 1966 by the then prime minister that "there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament" following allegations that the security services were targeting political activists (included the then student leader and now Justice Secretary - Jack Straw). A number of you (see Richard M and Nick L) responded to my earlier post to say that this is why MPs are rightly a special case.
I'm 
Comments
The authority to place a listening device (bugging) in premises or a vehicle, does not require the authority of the Home Secretary or government minister.
These devices are authorised by senior police officers before deployment. This is not interception of communications (telephone tapping) which requires the Home Secretaries authority.
In this case the government are not at fault. The Tories are barking up the wrong tree once again!
A A Jones
Retired Intelligence Officer
Just because someone is an MP does not mean they do not pose a possible threat to national security.
The police should be allowed to bug anyone who they reasonably consider a danger to England.
I'm not saying Khan was or is a threat to national security but what I am saying is no-one should be exempt if there is a serious suspcicion worhty of investigation.
The question in ´óÏó´«Ã½ Online's poll is wrong. The choice is not between Should MPs be bugged or not. It is about who authorises it. Only the PM should be able to authorise it.
If this was authorised by any police officer, regardless of rank, and it wasn't an emergency, it should be a sacking (with loss of pension) offence for all involved.
The question is then who asked for it ? If this originated in the USA, are we then to believe that an elected member of parliament can be bugged at the behest of a foreign state employee ? Can the reputation of UK MPs fall any further in 2008 ? Are they anybody's plaything now ?
Wilson himself had quite a lot to hide, so it's no wonder he formulated his "doctrine". It is just possible that, 42 years on, we might want to look again at this!
This issue goes to the heart of why we cannot have ID cards. Although in theory perhaps supportable, in practice we (the public) can have no confidence that the police do not abuse the power vested in them. Worse still, when caught abusing their powers, the offending get little more than a slap on the wrist and a very fat index linked pension. If an MP isn't safe the rest of us dont stand a chance.
In view of the fact that the U.S. seems to have a close interest in the prisoner, with whom Sadiq Khan was meeting, can we be sure that the bugging was not done effectively at the behest of the CIA, or some other agency of the U.S. government? To whom was the recording distributed and did a copy get sent outside the U.K?
It seems nobody has understood that in 1966 this country was not under threat from terrorists as we are today. This country is now on high alert and I commend the police and whoever else was concerned who gave the OK for the interview to be bugged.
I am very surprised that David Davis took the trouble to dig up a 40 year old doctrine which should have been thrown out immediately after 9/11.
The police have done a good job up to now - let them continue.
No MP should be above the law. The public do not want MP's to exempt themselves from the law's every body else puts up with. Time and time again they get caught manipulating the system only to exempt themselves from it and therefore making the public even more annoyed at there actions.
We all wish we could have the perks of bubble Westminster but with the internet on their backs 24 7 it’s harder and harder for them to reap the rewards of our flawed democracy?
I don't support the idea that MP's are a special case. If an MP is abusing their position there's sound enough reason to monitor them. If there is sound reason to monitor a constituent then the side effect of monitoring an MP in that specific instance is fine. Whether it is routine or what it is used for are issues but I can't see that's a problem in this case.
What does bug me is how people of higher and lower status are treated differently. The psychology of learned helplessness and ghettos which causes many problems is very simple, yet, the arrogance of power and favouritism continues to blight Britain. It's an infection that runs from the top to bottom of society and costs tens of billions each year.
If MP's want special treatment then, perhaps, they should balance this with special treatment for the unemployed and poor communities in Britain. Treating people badly in jobcentres and not caring about nuisance neighbours creates a mountain of deeply embedded trouble. If the "Wilson Doctrine" is to stand how about a "" for the people?
Rightly or wrongly, I am totally opposed to MP's being excluded from phone tapping enquiries. Thames Valley Police more than likely had a valid reason for tapping that phone, just because an MP used that phone should not be enough to prevent the use of phone tapping.
There was an article in a national newspaper about 1 week ago which listed all of the government agencies (around 45 of them), which had a legal right to phone tap absolutely anyone within the UK. Why should an MP be classed as anything different from any of the rest of us?
If MP's want to create laws for phone tapping that affect every UK citizen, there should be no exceptions. If they didnt want to be tapped themselves, why would they think any of the rest of the pulic who voted them in, do want to be tapped?
Straw targeted ? Maybe. But did it stop him rising to the top ? No. So by definition, no special treatment is required
The people who do need protection are the general public and in particular those who want to demonstarte for free speech and against sleaze. Try to protest outside parliament or No 10 and see what happens