I can reveal the identity of the former police officer who says that he carried out the bugging of a prison conversation between the Labour MP Sadiq Khan and a terror suspect.
A document seen by the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú reveals that Mark Kearney, the former police intelligence officer at Woodhill high security prison, says that he came under "significant pressure from the Metropolitan police requesting that we covertly record a social visit between a terrorist detainee and a member of Parliament....The MP concerned was Sadiq Khan, the member for Tooting, and indeed the constituent MP for the suspected terrorist... I did record the visit but have never felt it was justified in these circumstances. The government has already ordered an inquiry into the affair."
Kearney's involvement emerged in a statement he drew up as part of his defence against criminal charges that he leaked stories to a local newspaper journalist. Sources have told the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú that Khan, though not the formal target of the bugging, was of "significant interest" to the police, some of whom regarded him as "subversive". Mr Khan has chosen not to comment on the reports since his interview with Andrew Marr on Sunday. He won't be surprised that some in the Met are not fans of his given his role as a high profile lawyer and campaigner for civil liberties.
The Wilson doctrine, which was supposed to protect MPs from bugging, was drawn up after Harold Wilson was faced with revelations that the security service had bugged political activists including the young John Prescott, one of the leaders of the seaman's union.
The debate now will focus on whether political surveillance is returning, or whether MPs - like us all - should be liable to be bugged if there is a perceived threat to national security.
The government will not be helped by another revelation tonight. I've just been told that officials at the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office were told weeks ago - in December of last year - about the bugging, even though ministers were not told until two days ago. Questions are sure to follow about why ministers - and therefore Parliament and the public - were not told.
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.
Bring back Parkie. That's the cry from David Cameron today. No, he's not mounting a campaign to bring back the father of all chat show (although given you can see why he might). The Parkie in question is the park keeper who keeps the playground safe for your kids.
Today the which is designed to tell the story behind the stats contained in the UNICEF study which showed Britain bottom of the league for children's wellbeing.
The Tory Review is long on narrative and very short on policy but makes no secret of that. It says:
"We are wary or producing too many policy responses. As the Government discovered with its Children’s Plan, the temptation is to fire out regulations and initiatives that may even harm the very causes they are trying to help."
The Review argues that the key problem is loss of trust - both in public spaces and in other adults. Hence the need for Parkie and others to protect public spaces such as playgrounds and the need to give him and other adults the power to care for and control children without the fear of being sued.
Ministers can and will insist that none of this is new. Gordon Brown is the first prime minister to publish a and to appoint a who, significantly, is his closest political ally. They will suggest that the Tories are guilty of substance-free, uncosted political positioning.
Whether you believe that's true or think the Conservatives are taking a first step on an important journey, it matters that Labour and the Tories are now competing over who will best look after your kids.
Amidst the outrage in Westminster at the alleged of an MP, no-one has really explained why MPs should be treated differently to, say, lawyers or doctors who have relationships based on confidentiality.
Interestingly not everyone is in favour of maintaining the so-called Wilson doctrine which bars the tapping of MPs’ phones. The bugging tsar (sorry, I mean, interception communications commissioner) Sir Swinton Thomas argued that .
The former Home Secretary John Reid said in the past that the idea of dropping the ban was "worthy of deep reflection and more consideration".
Westminster should be on standby for voters incensed by the Conway affair to demand to know why MPs should be protected when they are not.
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
