Wilson Doctrine — House of Commons, 2015-10-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): I seek leave to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely the operation of the Wilson doctrine The right of Members of this House to be able to represent their constituents without fear or favour is intrinsic to our democracy. It is the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights and one of the most ancient freedoms of this country. In another era, before the existence of telephones and emails, it meant that MPs and peers, even in times of war, had the right for their written correspondence not to be intercepted or interfered with Since 17 November 1966, Members have relied on the words of Harold Wilson, the then Prime Minister, who said that he had instructed "that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of the Members of Parliament. That was our decision and that was our policy." He added: "But if there was any development of a kind which required a change in the general policy, I would, at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on my own initiative make a statement in the House about it."—[Official Report, 17 November 1966; Vol. 736, c. 639.] Despite the slightly opaque wording Wilson then used, that rapidly became known as the Wilson doctrine and it was extended five days later by Lord Longford to Members of the House of Lords. It was subsequently—and erroneously, it turns out—thought that it equally applied to Members of the European Parliament, to Members of the other three legislatures in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and to all other forms of digital communication Yesterday, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal gave its ruling on a case brought by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is in her place, and others. The judgment states that "The Wilson Doctrine has no legal effect" and calls it "a political statement in a political context, encompassing the ambiguity that is sometimes to be found in political statements" That runs contrary to assurances given to Members of both the Commons and the Lords by successive Governments, including the current one, and casts doubt on the protection supposedly afforded by the Wilson doctrine. To all intents and purposes, it means that the Wilson doctrine is dead From your own intervention to the tribunal, Mr Speaker, and from the points of order raised by several Members yesterday, it is clear that Members on both sides of the House believe that this ambiguity needs clearing up as a matter of urgency. I note that the Home Secretary stonewalled on the issue when asked about it by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) on Monday, and this very morning the Leader of the House gave the most opaque comment I have heard yet on the matter. Serious questions remain. First, is the Wilson doctrine still in operation in any meaningful sense whatsoever? Secondly, have parliamentarians’ communications been deliberately targeted? Thirdly, if so, has that been on the authority of a Minister, a Secretary of State or anyone else? This is an urgent matter and it needs consideration.