A ruling that there is no legal basis to the 50-year-old convention that is meant to stop MPs’ phones from being tapped by the security services has been branded a “body-blow for parliamentary democracy”.

MPs were outraged by the decision of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) and look set to raise the matter in an emergency debate in the House of Commons today.

Green Party MP Caroline Lucas who, with Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and former MP George Galloway took a complaint to the IPT, attacked its findings on the "status, meaning and effect" of the so-called Wilson doctrine.

Implemented by Prime Minister Harold Wilson in 1966, it set out the convention that there should be no tapping of the phones of MPs or peers unless there was a major national emergency and that any changes to the policy would be reported by the Prime Minister to the UK Parliament.

Lawyers have alleged that the politicians' communications are being intercepted by GCHQ as part of the Tempora programme, which monitors and collates on a blanket basis the full range of electronic communications data produced in, or transiting through, the UK and other countries.


The IPT ruled that the doctrine applied only to targeted, and not incidental, interception of parliamentary communications but that it had no legal effect other than the security and intelligence agencies must in practice comply with their own guidance. 

Its president, Mr Justice Burton, said the IPT was satisfied that the doctrine was not enforceable in English law by the claimants or other MPs or peers by way of legitimate expectation. 
The hearing followed revelations by the American security contractor, Edward Snowden.

Ms Lucas said: "This judgement 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 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."

Over summer there was consternation at Holyrood after security chiefs decided the long-standing doctrine, should no longer apply to the devolved parliaments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast as well as the European Parliament.

Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister, and Tricia Marwick, the Scottish Parliament’s Presiding Officer, sought assurances from David Cameron that the convention had not been changed to allow Britain's top surveillance agency, GCHQ to spy on MSPs.

A Downing Street confirmed that the doctrine “applies to devolved members in the same way as MPs”.
However, many believe the tribunal’s ruling now means the doctrine offers no protection at all to any parliamentarian and that the intelligence agencies could tap any politician’s phones and hack their emails.

Yet the Prime Minister's spokeswoman rejected this and claimed the doctrine remained in place.
"It may be that the intelligence agencies are targeting communications from a specific individual, who is then in touch with an MP. The intelligence agencies are focusing on the individual; it does not mean they are targeting the MP," she said.

But the concerns among MPs remain. 

Alex Salmond, the former First Minister, said: “It is totally unacceptable to me that elected representatives should have their communications monitored. Removing this protection from members of the Westminster Parliament and of devolved legislators is dangerous and threatens the very basis of our civil liberties.” 

The MP for Gordon called for an urgent ministerial statement, particularly given the UK Government’s own lawyer had said previous ones on the issue had been characterised by “ambiguity”.

“That is not good enough on an issue that strikes at the heart of the citizen’s right to contact their elected representatives without fear of being spied upon,” insisted Mr Salmond.