| Britain's No.1 quality newspaper website | Make us your homepage

Sunday 10 February 2008

What's wrong with bugging MPs and priests?

Andrew Pierce

Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 09/02/2008

Have your say Read comments

Notebook

Should MPs be bugged? It seems more than reasonable to me that, if an MP engages in discussion with a terrorist suspect, especially one he has known since childhood, the conversation may throw up some interesting intelligence for the security services.

News: MP expenses 'would rise if they knew secret limit

Church members call on Archbishop to resign

Charles Moore: Archbishop, with sharia it's all or nothing

Your View: Is Sharia law in Britain unavoidable?

But what about applying the same logic to the privacy of the confessional box? I ask the question because the idea was raised in my weekly joust on Telegraph TV with Ann Widdecombe. In our programme, Right On, the saintly Widders objected vociferously to the idea that MPs should be subjected to the same listening devices as the rest of us. But she was mortally offended by the idea that the sanctity of the confessional could also be invaded by the security services.

I can't think why. I can hardly imagine that it would be a first for Britain. Do we really think that MI5 never slipped a listening device into any of the confessionals in the churches of some of the IRA bombers in Northern Ireland in the 1970s and 1980s? The security services were not noted for their political correctness in those days at the height of the IRA's bombing campaign. Do we really think that they never listened into the deathbed confessions of the IRA hunger strikers in the first Thatcher government?

Given that Harold Wilson thought he was being bugged, I hope at the very least we were listening in, no matter how sacred the environs, to men and women dedicated to bringing death and destruction to their own communities in the name of a so-called war.

We know that some priests sympathised with the republican movement but not, we assume, the murderous bombing campaign. I am not making these points lightly. As a Roman Catholic and a senior altar boy, I dutifully went to confession. But it was hardly riveting listening for the priest (let alone Big Brother). He was nearly always reading a church newspaper to stifle his boredom as I struggled to come clean. I will now make a confession. I always doubled the number of prayers that I was required to say as my penance because I was never fully truthful when I unburdened myself to the priest.

The consciences of Roman Catholic priests, who like doctors, are under a Hippocratic Oath to preserve the confidences of their flock, would not have been troubled by my outpourings. But they would be in breach of their duty if they passed on to the authorities significant information learnt in the act of confession.

Any evidence would be inadmissible in a court of law. But they might detect information that could prevent a forthcoming atrocity. Or pick up information that might solve one.

Times have changed, of course, and I doubt they would dare go into a church today or intrude on a prisoner's death-bed confessional. I am also pretty certain the security services wouldn't go into a mosque to bug an extremist imman, even if he was preaching an unlawful message of hate.

Edward Perkins is the new press secretary to the Duke of York. I feel sorry for him. This week he flew to the US with the Duke, whose trip to bang the drum for British business was overshadowed by his idiotic criticism of the White House over Iraq. Even though I agree with him, he should have said nothing. He embarrassed his mother. He could have caused a diplomatic incident as his remarks, on the eve of the Super Tuesday primaries, could have been exploited by opponents of the war.

The Duke is not a politician - we have enough of those - and he has no expertise to call on. He is only interesting because of his birthright. Mr Perkins should explain that to the Duke the next time he is on the golf course.

Have your say

News: MP expenses 'would rise if they knew secret limit'

Comments

if you have nothing to hide why fear bugging?
Posted by paul corrigan on February 9, 2008 6:40 PM
Report this comment

Bugging and related intelligence gathering (by MI5, the CIA, re-formed KGB, et al) is going to occur no matter what we say or what the law is, so let's not go thinking that "against the law" really matters... powdered wigs are simply headgear. "Necessary according to the doers" is what matters: full stop, no exceptions, get reality.

Bugging of meetings with attorneys/solicitors is a clear violation but the guideline will end up being that what is gained cannot be used in evidence but can be used to provide information for futher investigations and evidence gathering/production: very gray area.

I draw a line at discussions in the confessional (and equivalents), between husband and wife (including committed partners), doctor and patient (including psychiatrists), and within the walls of AA/NA. There are probably a few I am forgetting here but my point should be adequately covered.

MP's should be held accountable for every breath they take as should government employees, consultants and advisors (ex the intelligence services, military, the PM and his/her immediate staff). These people are the employees of the taxpayer either directly or indirectly; they have a generally spotty if not even poor record. What they do and/or say is part of the public domain and owned by us unless it is specifically excluded as a matter of national security; and there is relatively little that falls into that category no matter what some deceptive, power-hungry MPs will say.

So that's my read be it right or wrong.
Posted by Henry Cave Devine on February 9, 2008 5:02 PM
Report this comment

Politicians are known liars, priests and their like are just fools, so yes it is right that they are 'bugged' why would you think them any different?
Posted by John Korn on February 9, 2008 3:36 PM
Report this comment

All Mps and especially the archbishop of Canterbury should be routinely bugged
Posted by Peter Devonshire on February 9, 2008 2:55 PM
Report this comment

There is a vast difference between the relationship between an MP and suspected terrorist to that of priest and confessor.

The priest can do little but an MP can interfer with the course of justice as well as use their position to influence police, courts, public opinion, the media, government, the civil authorities, other politicians and the law itself.

Frankly if an MP is a friend of an accused terrorist then it would be criminal NOT to bug their conversations.

Posted by Geoff Miller on February 9, 2008 2:25 PM
Report this comment

The thing about intercept and bugging evidence is that it comes from the below-the-table range of tactics to be used by the largely covert Security Services - organisations which do not exactly work in a manner entirely compatible with the principles of above-the-table policing and law.

What the Service gathers is intelligence to prevent terrorism - data which comes in many shades of grey and from any source they can find - to be sifted, weighted and used sparingly in the public, overt domain.

This is not crime solving above-the-line, after-the-fact - but a special type of crime prevention. All is fair when you are fighting fire with fire.
Posted by simon coulter on February 9, 2008 1:35 PM
Report this comment

The problem with the logic that surveillance is all in the name of catching criminals and terrorists, is that so long as you maintain the traditional view of a crime, all seems well. However with so many new laws being made today it surely is only a matter of time before anybody slips up.

You may consider yourself innocent, but we are repeatedly told that New Labour has introduced, on average, one law a day since it came to power. Can you describe just one percent of them? If not, how do you know you’ve done nothing wrong and that you’ve got nothing to hide?

Posted by Martin on February 9, 2008 11:18 AM
Report this comment

The bugging of MPs should be compulsory !
Posted by andrew cramb on February 9, 2008 10:05 AM
Report this comment

Since 9-11, we now know we can,t wait until after the crime,those days are gone for ever.
If the security services want to bug,then so be it,they are the experts, and the people who would be blamed in the event of another attack on Britain..so,leave it to the experts.

Posted by Derek McDonald on February 9, 2008 9:36 AM
Report this comment

Dt Opinion