Speaker's statement on possible intercepts of MP e-mails and the pointless EU Council debate

I blogged on possible e-mail intercepts yesterday, the Speaker's statement from Hansard is as follows:

3.31 pm

Mr. Speaker: I undertook to look into the matter of the Wilson doctrine and access to the House of Commons server, which was raised by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) on 4 December. The Parliamentary Information and Communications Technology service takes the security of its systems very seriously, and is grateful for the support that the Joint Committee on Security, the Administration Committee and the Commission give in that respect. PICT would not allow any third party to access the parliamentary network without proper authority. In the Commons, such access previously required the approval of the Serjeant at Arms. Following my statement on 3 December, if PICT receives any requests to allow access in future, it will also seek confirmation that a warrant exists and that I have approved such access under the procedure laid down and the protocol issued yesterday.

With regard to the incident involving the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), no access was given to data held on the server, as PICT was not instructed to do so by the Serjeant at Arms. No access will be given unless a warrant exists and I approve such access.

An update on Mr Benyon's blog following this statement was as follows:

UPDATE - 15:51 pm

The Speaker has reassured us that the server was not acessed and would not be without an appropriate warrant. This is obviously good news and contradicts the rumours that have been flying around here in recent days. One colleague was given the clear understanding by a Met Officer that the server had been accessed.

Personally, were I a member of the public who had been in contact with an MP about a perceived abuse of authority, this statement would comfort me not one jot. Of course as I consider the vast majority of MP to be a bunch of worthless maggots solely serving their own self-interests the last step I would take when concerned about abuse of power would be to refer the matter to them!

Highlighting this sidelining and trashing of Britain's Parliament there followed a supposed debate on European Affairs ahead of the EU Council Meeting later in the week. Read the following point of order and fret at the hopelessness for Britain's democracy: Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are about to debate European matters preparatory to the European Council meeting, which is to be held at the end of the week. Draft conclusions of that Council meeting are already in existence; I obtained a copy from the website of the Danish Parliament. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will undoubtedly refer to issues itemised in those conclusions, which have not been made available to the House, although they have been made available to other member states, where the same culture of secrecy does not prevail. Is it in order for us to proceed with a debate on those terms, given that I have the draft conclusions? I could easily circulate them, under your authority, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: I would not want the right hon. Gentleman to draw me into any arguments; I think that I have had enough for this week.