This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34527242

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
MPs' communications 'not protected', tribunal rules MPs' communications 'not protected', tribunal rules
(35 minutes later)
MPs have no protection from having their communications read by UK security agencies, a tribunal has said.MPs have no protection from having their communications read by UK security agencies, a tribunal has said.
Green Party politicians Caroline Lucas MP and Baroness Jenny Jones argued a long-standing doctrine protecting MPs' communications was being breached.Green Party politicians Caroline Lucas MP and Baroness Jenny Jones argued a long-standing doctrine protecting MPs' communications was being breached.
But in a landmark decision the Investigatory Powers Tribunal said the so-called "Wilson Doctrine" was no bar to the incidental collection of data.But in a landmark decision the Investigatory Powers Tribunal said the so-called "Wilson Doctrine" was no bar to the incidental collection of data.
Ms Lucas said the decision was a "body blow" for democracy.Ms Lucas said the decision was a "body blow" for democracy.
The Wilson Doctrine came into being in 1966 when the then Labour prime minister, Harold Wilson, gave assurances to MPs that their phone calls would not be intercepted without him knowing - and that he would tell Parliament of any change in that policy.The Wilson Doctrine came into being in 1966 when the then Labour prime minister, Harold Wilson, gave assurances to MPs that their phone calls would not be intercepted without him knowing - and that he would tell Parliament of any change in that policy.
'Political statement'
The doctrine has been repeatedly reaffirmed, including by Prime Minister David Cameron.The doctrine has been repeatedly reaffirmed, including by Prime Minister David Cameron.
However, Ms Lucas, Baroness Jones and former MP George Galloway argued that GCHQ was acting outside the long-standing doctrine by bulk collecting communications data from the internet, which would inevitably include correspondence between parliamentarians and their constituents.However, Ms Lucas, Baroness Jones and former MP George Galloway argued that GCHQ was acting outside the long-standing doctrine by bulk collecting communications data from the internet, which would inevitably include correspondence between parliamentarians and their constituents.
The landmark challenge largely focused on the so-called Tempora programme - the harvesting of communication data from the internet first revealed by American security contractor Edward Snowden.The landmark challenge largely focused on the so-called Tempora programme - the harvesting of communication data from the internet first revealed by American security contractor Edward Snowden.
The IPT does not mention Tempora by name but says that "incidental" collection of MPs' data would not constitute a breach of the Wilson Doctrine, which was largely a political statement that could not be relied upon in expectation of special treatment.The IPT does not mention Tempora by name but says that "incidental" collection of MPs' data would not constitute a breach of the Wilson Doctrine, which was largely a political statement that could not be relied upon in expectation of special treatment.
"We are satisfied that the Wilson Doctrine is not enforceable in English law by the claimants or other MPs or peers by way of legitimate expectation," said the IPT."We are satisfied that the Wilson Doctrine is not enforceable in English law by the claimants or other MPs or peers by way of legitimate expectation," said the IPT.
"The Wilson Doctrine has no legal effect, but in practice the agencies must comply with... their own guidance."The Wilson Doctrine has no legal effect, but in practice the agencies must comply with... their own guidance.
"The regime for the interception of parliamentarians' communications is in accordance with the law.""The regime for the interception of parliamentarians' communications is in accordance with the law."
Reacting to the judgement, Ms Lucas said: "This judgment is a body blow for parliamentary democracy. My constituents have a right to know that their communications with me aren't subject to blanket surveillance - yet this ruling suggests that they have no such protection. Conservative MP Dominic Grieve, chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, said: "This is exactly what I expected. Nothing in this surprises me. It seems to me to be a reasoned and sensible judgement."
'Blanket surveillance'
But Ms Lucas said she was disappointed with the decision and called for new legislation to protect constituents' communications.
"This judgement is a body blow for parliamentary democracy," she said.
"My constituents have a right to know that their communications with me aren't subject to blanket surveillance - yet this ruling suggests that they have no such protection.
"Parliamentarians must be a trusted source for whistleblowers and those wishing to challenge the actions of the government. That's why upcoming legislation on surveillance must include a provision to protect the communications of MPs, peers, MSPs, AMs and MEPs from extra-judicial spying."Parliamentarians must be a trusted source for whistleblowers and those wishing to challenge the actions of the government. That's why upcoming legislation on surveillance must include a provision to protect the communications of MPs, peers, MSPs, AMs and MEPs from extra-judicial spying.
"The prime minister has been deliberately ambiguous on this issue - showing utter disregard for the privacy of those wanting to contact parliamentarians.""The prime minister has been deliberately ambiguous on this issue - showing utter disregard for the privacy of those wanting to contact parliamentarians."
The IPT panel, headed by two senior High Court judges, said parliamentarians had the same legal protections as anyone else against unwarranted and unjustified interception of their communications - and only journalists and lawyers had greater protections under human rights law.The IPT panel, headed by two senior High Court judges, said parliamentarians had the same legal protections as anyone else against unwarranted and unjustified interception of their communications - and only journalists and lawyers had greater protections under human rights law.