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/uk-news/2015/jul/24/wilson-doctrine-unworkable-bulk-interception-intelligence-agencies
The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| MPs can no longer remain exempt from surveillance, lawyers concede | MPs can no longer remain exempt from surveillance, lawyers concede |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The 50-year-old political convention that the UK’s intelligence agencies will not intercept the communications of MPs and members of the Lords cannot survive in an age of bulk interception, government lawyers have conceded. | The 50-year-old political convention that the UK’s intelligence agencies will not intercept the communications of MPs and members of the Lords cannot survive in an age of bulk interception, government lawyers have conceded. |
| The so-called Wilson doctrine “simply cannot work sensibly” when bulk interception is taking place, James Eadie QC told the investigatory powers tribunal, the court that hears complaints about the intelligence agencies. | The so-called Wilson doctrine “simply cannot work sensibly” when bulk interception is taking place, James Eadie QC told the investigatory powers tribunal, the court that hears complaints about the intelligence agencies. |
| Moreover, Eadie said on Friday, the doctrine does not have force in law and cannot impose legal restraints on the agencies. | Moreover, Eadie said on Friday, the doctrine does not have force in law and cannot impose legal restraints on the agencies. |
| The convention is named after the former Labour prime minister Harold Wilson, who told MPs in November 1966 that their phones would not be tapped. Tony Blair subsequently extended it to all forms of electronic communications. | The convention is named after the former Labour prime minister Harold Wilson, who told MPs in November 1966 that their phones would not be tapped. Tony Blair subsequently extended it to all forms of electronic communications. |
| The tribunal, which is being asked to rule that the doctrine is legally enforceable, has already heard that GCHQ changed its guidelines in March, when it decided not to apply the convention to members of the devolved parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and members of the European parliament. | |
| That revelation has caused fury among members of those institutions: on Friday, the first minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, wrote to David Cameron asking for urgent clarification. Sturgeon said she accepted spying on MSPs could take place but only in “truly exceptional circumstances involving national security”. In the vast majority of cases “the confidentiality of communications between parliamentarians and their constituents is of the utmost importance”, she told the prime minister. | |
| Labour’s Ian Murray, the shadow Scottish secretary, tabled a series of questions in the Commons asking the prime minister to confirm or deny whether Scottish MSPs, MEPs or Welsh parliamentarians had ever been spied on, and to confirm that GCHQ’s rules had changed. | |
| Related: What is the Wilson doctrine? The story behind MPs' protection from snooping | Related: What is the Wilson doctrine? The story behind MPs' protection from snooping |
| The complaint at the IPT is being brought by the Green party parliamentarians Caroline Lucas and Lady Jones, and the former Respect MP George Galloway, who argue that their communications must have been intercepted by the sort of programmes exposed by the CIA whistleblower Edward Snowden. | |
| Eadie conceded that this may have happened under bulk interception operations authorised under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa), but said “there is so much data flowing along the pipe” that it is not examined at the point of interception. | Eadie conceded that this may have happened under bulk interception operations authorised under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa), but said “there is so much data flowing along the pipe” that it is not examined at the point of interception. |
| He said: “The interception at that stage isn’t in any event objectionable, if one stands back and takes a broad view of the Wilson doctrine: it isn’t intelligible at the point of interception.” | He said: “The interception at that stage isn’t in any event objectionable, if one stands back and takes a broad view of the Wilson doctrine: it isn’t intelligible at the point of interception.” |
| While ministers have repeatedly reassured MPs and peers that the doctrine remains intact, their statements have been characterised by “ambiguities, at best, whether deliberate or otherwise”, Eadie said. And while the agencies consider the doctrine when drawing up policies governing interception practices, they also require great flexibility. Without this, “national security-critical” practices would become impermissible. | While ministers have repeatedly reassured MPs and peers that the doctrine remains intact, their statements have been characterised by “ambiguities, at best, whether deliberate or otherwise”, Eadie said. And while the agencies consider the doctrine when drawing up policies governing interception practices, they also require great flexibility. Without this, “national security-critical” practices would become impermissible. |
| It was also the government’s position that targeted interception operations, in which parliamentarians’ communications were captured, were not unlawful as a consequence of the doctrine. Eadie said: “This doctrine hasn’t any legal as opposed to political effect.” | It was also the government’s position that targeted interception operations, in which parliamentarians’ communications were captured, were not unlawful as a consequence of the doctrine. Eadie said: “This doctrine hasn’t any legal as opposed to political effect.” |
| Related: Intelligence agency policies 'failed to protect MPs' from spying | Related: Intelligence agency policies 'failed to protect MPs' from spying |
| The IPT is being asked to rule on whether the doctrine does have force in law. Wilson had said that if the ban he promised were to be lifted, the prime minister would inform MPs – at some point. | The IPT is being asked to rule on whether the doctrine does have force in law. Wilson had said that if the ban he promised were to be lifted, the prime minister would inform MPs – at some point. |
| However, the IPT has heard that MI5, MI6 and GCHQ were all operating their own internal policies that did not require them to inform the prime minister when parliamentarians’ communications were captured. Those polices were said to have been rewritten after Lucas and Jones launched their legal challenge last year. | However, the IPT has heard that MI5, MI6 and GCHQ were all operating their own internal policies that did not require them to inform the prime minister when parliamentarians’ communications were captured. Those polices were said to have been rewritten after Lucas and Jones launched their legal challenge last year. |
| At this point, GCHQ – which had interpreted the doctrine as applying to the devolved assemblies and parliaments of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales – concluded that it applied only to Westminster. | At this point, GCHQ – which had interpreted the doctrine as applying to the devolved assemblies and parliaments of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales – concluded that it applied only to Westminster. |
| Lawyers for Lucas and Jones argue that MPs need to have private conversations with constituents and whistleblowers, and must be protected from intrusion by the intelligence agencies. | Lawyers for Lucas and Jones argue that MPs need to have private conversations with constituents and whistleblowers, and must be protected from intrusion by the intelligence agencies. |