Secretly recordings MPs' surgeries

The thing that immediately struck me about the Telegraph's latest scoops is that the recordings taken by its journalists were taken at a meeting at a Constituency surgery - and I am worried about this development.

Surgeries are used by MPs to allow constituents to discuss issues with them.  In many cases, constituents will come with private information and be entitled to expect their information, even that they have been to see their MP, in confidence.  It is true that privilege does not attach to such meetings, but a court will be very reluctant to require an MP or constituent to disclose details of what has gone on in such a meeting.

Here, the journalists appear to have posed as constituents and gone to the surgery and then flattered to MPs into saying things that do not appear to have been strictly relevant to the issues being raised by them as alleged constituents - recording the discussion secretly.

How that fits with the entitlement to privacy protected by the Editors' Code of Conduct, I am uncertain, but as Jonathan Isaby notes, it does raise questions about other aspects of the Code - and in particular the use of clandestine devices and subterfuge. 

As an MP's links with his constituents is of significant and, in the modern world, constitutional importance; a further thought arises.  What effect will this intrusion have upon the ability of MPs more generally to conduct their private discussions with constituents?  If there is such an impact, could this amount to a contempt of Parliament itself?  I don't believe that this is merely a question of Editorial propriety or political indiscretion; the manner in which the Telegraph and its journalists have behaved could have a profound impact on the manner in which MPs and their constituents communicate - and not in a positive way!