Andrew MacKinlay (Thurrock, Labour) has asked the Secretary of State for Justice whether the discussions held between the hon. Member for Thurrock and his constituent Michael John Smith at Full Sutton Prison, York on 1 September 1999 and 30July 2001 were covertly (a) recorded, (b) transmitted and (c) monitored in some other way by or on behalf of any Government Department or agency; and if he will make a statement.
Jack Straw, Lord Chancellor, responded that it is not our policy to confirm or deny surveillance operations in prisons. Since the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000) came into force, all forms of covert surveillance are subject to a strict and rigorous statutory regime for authorisations, and are conducted in accordance with the guidance set out in the statutory Codes of Practice. Independent oversight is provided, and is overseen by the Office of Surveillance Commissioner. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal was established to investigate and rule on any complaints.
He further pointed out that as the Home Secretary made clear in her statement on 21 February 2008, Official Report, column 536, Sir Christopher Rose's inquiry into the surveillance of visits at Woodhill prison found "no trace in recent years in prison records or anywhere else of any person known to be a Member of Parliament having been monitored during a prison visit".
Should an MP's confidential discussions with constituents be privileged, whether in prison or elsewhere? Are you reassured by independent oversight overseen by the Office of Surveillance Commissioner, or does this all smack of a Kafka-esque administrative machine shoring up a paranoid state using 'security' as a catch-all excuse playing upon public anxieties over terrorism and crime in order to develop a state security apparatus unmatched in any state claiming to be a democracy.
What do you think?
1 comment:
Whether this type of covert surveillance is legitimate or not depends on who is ordering it and for what purpose. If there are reasons to believe that an MP is acting illegally then I guess most people would say that it makes sense to monitor their activities, but that is a very rare occurrence I would say.
In the case of my meetings with Andrew Mackinlay, the main issue would be that the authorities wanted to know how much I knew about the evidence used at my trial, because it now transpires that the key exhibit at my trial was misrepresented. Probably the CPS perverted the course of Justice. How can a document that became obsolete in 1984 be considered sensitive in 1993, or even 2008 (which is still the official position)?
In the case of Mr Mackinlay's question here: he was asking about a meeting in 1999, before the RIPA (2000) even came into force. However, jack Straw does not want to answer the question, because that would expose what is really happening in this covert murky UK we all live in.
Post a Comment