Proceeding contribution from Michael Mates (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 21 February 2008. It occurred during Ministerial statement on HMP Woodhill.
HMP Woodhill
While the Home Secretary is undoubtedly right that the Wilson doctrine was not violated in the case that we are discussing, has it not shown that there is an illogicality in the fact that such an event is not covered by the Wilson doctrine, probably quite inadvertently? As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) just said, it is quite clear that MPs should not and must not be immune from any form of surveillance if they are suspected of serious crime and such surveillance is properly warranted. In making the changes to procedure that she has announced, will the Home Secretary make it the case that the Wilson doctrine will apply to surveillance on Members of Parliament by the police rather than the security services, so that eventually, at a time when national security allows, it can be reported to the House?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 472 c544-5
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Electronic surveillance Police Prisons Members Surveillance HMP Woodhill Khan of Tooting, Lord Ahmad, Babar
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 23:48:03 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_447179
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_447179
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_447179