MP bugging 'did not breach doctrine'

The bugging of MP Sadiq Khan while he visited a constituent in prison did not breach the Wilson doctrine, the home secretary has said.

Jacqui Smith made a statement to the Commons on Thursday afternoon, setting out the findings of the two-week investigation by chief surveillance commissioner Sir Christopher Rose.

It emerged in newspaper reports earlier this month that Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist squad bugged Khan, now a government whip, while he visited childhood friend and constituent Babar Ahmad at HMP Woodhill.

Ahmad is facing deportation to the US, which has accused him of running a website that raised funds for Taliban and Chechen terrorists.

It was suggested that the police operation contravened the Wilson doctrine, a government edict barring eavesdropping on MPs developed after the bugging scandal of Harold Wilson's government.

Smith told the Commons that surveillance falls into two categories - intrusive and directed.

Intrusive surveillance involves bugging a home or private vehicle, and requires the permission of a secretary of state or a chief constable.

The interception of communications such as phone calls also requires the approval by a secretary of state.

Directed surveillance is any other kinds of surveillance, and can be approved by senior police officers.

Smith said that it is only to interception "and other surveillance requiring approval of a secretary of state" that the Wilson doctrine applies.

She quoted Sir Christopher, who said: "The surveillance which I am investigating does not appear to me to be within the Wilson doctrine."

Ahmad was arrested on an extradition warrant on 5 August 2004, Smith said, and sent to Woodhill.

Sir Christopher found that correct procedures were followed in setting up and renewing surveillance orders, Smith went on.

Khan, a prominent Muslim MP, visited in October 2004, May 2005, and in June 2006.

On the first occasion, before he was elected to Westminster, he visited as Ahmad's solicitor, and was not monitored.

His later two visits were as an approved visitor - and when he applied for approval he had not been elected.

"These two visits which occurred after my honourable friend had become an MP were monitored by surveillance," Smith said.

"It is absolutely clear from Sir Christopher's report that my honourable friend was not the target of this surveillance.

"Sir Christopher finds that none of the senior officers responsible for authorising this surveillance knew at the time that the Sadiq Khan listed as a friend was a member of Parliament."

Junior officers who renewed the authorisation and were directly involved in the monitoring knew he was an MP, she said, but "had no reason to regard this as significant".

Sir Christopher concluded that the monitoring of the two conversations was properly authorised and documented, she said.

Referring to concerns that legally privileged conversations between solicitors and their clients, Smith said Sir Christopher understood that since 2005 "at least" there had been "no authorities for directed surveillance of legal visits in prisons in England and Wales to prisoners in custody in relation to terrorist or other criminal matters".

Smith agreed with Sir Christopher that there was "scope for confusion" on the present rules.

And she announced a review of the codes of practice to make it clear that conversations between MPs and constituents should be considered "confidential", as between an individual and a solicitor or minister.