This article is from the source 'guardian' 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.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/14/gchq-monitor-communications-mps-peers-tribunal-wilson-doctrine

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
GCHQ can monitor communications of MPs and peers, tribunal rules GCHQ can monitor communications of MPs and peers, tribunal rules
(35 minutes later)
MPs’ and peers’ private communications are not protected from spying by the so-called Wilson doctrine that was widely thought to provide special privileges for parliamentarians, according to court ruling. MPs’ and peers’ private communications are not protected from interception by the so-called Wilson doctrine that was widely thought to provide special privileges for parliamentarians, according to a court ruling.
A surprise decision by the investigatory powers tribunal (IPT) has found that guarantees – which even the home secretary, Theresa May, reasserted this week – do not apply.A surprise decision by the investigatory powers tribunal (IPT) has found that guarantees – which even the home secretary, Theresa May, reasserted this week – do not apply.
The investigatory powers tribunal judgment is in response to a claim brought by two Green party parliamentarians – Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton Pavilion, and Jenny Jones. The investigatory powers tribunal judgment is in response to a claim brought by two Green party parliamentarians – Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton Pavilion, and Baroness Jenny Jones.
They had complained that disclosures by the whistleblower Edward Snowden made it clear that GCHQ was capturing their communications in breach of the so-called Wilson Doctrine.They had complained that disclosures by the whistleblower Edward Snowden made it clear that GCHQ was capturing their communications in breach of the so-called Wilson Doctrine.
The convention is named after former prime minister Harold Wilson, who pledged in 1966 that MPs’ and peers’ phones would not be tapped. In December 1997, the then prime minister Tony Blair said the doctrine extended to electronic communication, including emails. The convention is named after former prime minister Harold Wilson, who pledged in 1966 that MPs’ and peers’ phones would not be tapped.
The tribunal said it was “satisfied that the Wilson doctrine is not enforceable in English law”, and that it was merely “a political statement in a political context, encompassing the ambiguity that is sometimes to be found in political statements”. He told the Commons: “that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of members of parliament... [but] that, if there was any development which required a change in the general policy, [he] would at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on [his] own initiative, make a statement in the House about it.”
In its judgment, the investigatory powers tribunal said: “The Wilson doctrine does not operate so as to create a substantive legitimate expectation. In December 1997, the then prime minister Tony Blair said the doctrine extended to electronic communication, including emails.
“The Wilson doctrine has no legal effect but in practice the [intelligence] agencies must comply with the draft code and with their own guidance. The regime for the interception of parliamentarians’ communications is in accordance with the law under article 8(2) and prescribed by law under article 10(2), in particular by reference to s5(3) of Ripa [Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000]. As recently as this Monday, Theresa May told MPs: “The Wilson doctrine applies, but of course it is subject to proceedings that are taking place at the moment.”
In its decision, however, the tribunal said it was “satisfied that the Wilson doctrine is not enforceable in English law”, and that it was merely “a political statement in a political context, encompassing the ambiguity that is sometimes to be found in political statements”.
The investigatory powers tribunal judgment said: “The Wilson doctrine does not operate so as to create a substantive legitimate expectation.
“The Wilson doctrine has no legal effect but in practice the [intelligence] agencies must comply with the draft code and with their own guidance. The regime for the interception of parliamentarians’ communications is in accordance with the law...
“MPs’ communications with their constituents and others are protected, like those of every other person, by the statutory regime established by part 1 of Ripa 2000.”“MPs’ communications with their constituents and others are protected, like those of every other person, by the statutory regime established by part 1 of Ripa 2000.”
“Unlike journalists’ and lawyers’ communications, there is no [European Court of Human Rights] authority for enhanced protection for parliamentarians....
“The Wilson Doctrine, as now enunciated and put into effect, highlights a need for caution and circumspection in respect of parliamentarians’ communications. But such caution and circumspection will be called for in respect of many other types of confidential and sensitive private communications, which come to be considered under the interception regimes.”
The finding is also surprising in the way it brushes aside assumed parliamentary privileges. Had the European Court of Human Rights reached such a conclusion, Conservative MPs would have lined up to denounce Strasbourg’s interference in domestic affairs.
The judgment did not deal with the issue of whether MPs’ or peers’ email or phones had actually been monitored but dealt solely with whether the Wilson doctrine granted them special immunity from surveillance.
The case was also brought by the former MP George Galloway. The Labour MP Sadiq Khan, who had his conversations with a prisoner in a jail bugged in 2005, was deemed by the then surveillance commissioner not to have been protected by the Wilson doctrine.
Responding to the judgment, 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.Responding to the judgment, 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.
“Parliamentarians must be a trusted source for whistleblowers and those wishing to challenge that 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 that 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.”
Lady Jones said: “As parliamentarians who often speak to whistleblowers – from campaigners whose groups have been infiltrated by the police to those exposing corruption in government departments – this judgment is deeply worrying.Lady Jones said: “As parliamentarians who often speak to whistleblowers – from campaigners whose groups have been infiltrated by the police to those exposing corruption in government departments – this judgment is deeply worrying.
“Our job is to hold the executive to account, and to do that effectively it’s crucial that people feel they can contact us without their communications being monitored.“Our job is to hold the executive to account, and to do that effectively it’s crucial that people feel they can contact us without their communications being monitored.
“In a democracy there is absolute no excuse for people who contact parliamentarians to be subject to blanket surveillance by the security services.”“In a democracy there is absolute no excuse for people who contact parliamentarians to be subject to blanket surveillance by the security services.”
Lucas and Jones are now are calling on the government to include specific protections for MPs and peers in upcoming legislation on surveillance.Lucas and Jones are now are calling on the government to include specific protections for MPs and peers in upcoming legislation on surveillance.