Wednesday, January 10, 2007
MI5 in (Northern) Ireland
The Press Association has Prime Minister Tony Blair’s statement on national security, as noted yesterday - not yet now online elsewhere Adds Statement on No 10 website Updated link
From the PA report
“There has been some concern over the arrangements set out in Annex E, which was published along with the St Andrews Agreement. The Government is therefore issuing a new statement in relation to national security.
“This will help bring Northern Ireland into line with a European approach which would provide a consistent and co-ordinated response to the threat from international terrorism which concerns us all.
“The threat presented by international terrorism to citizens was graphically illustrated by the train bombings in Madrid and on the streets of London in July 2005. The loss of life was horrific and completely unacceptable.
“The handling of national security intelligence throughout the European Union, including Northern Ireland, is designed to provide a consistent and co-ordinated response to the grave threat posed by international terrorist groups such as al Qaida.
“The PSNI and the Security Service will be completely distinct and entirely separate bodies.
“All necessary interaction between the Security Service and the PSNI, for example in response to the threat of international terrorism, will, as directed by the Chief Constable, by way of liaison. No police officers will be seconded to or under the control of the Security Service.
“The small number of police officers who act in a liaison capacity with the Security Service will be PSNI Headquarters staff acting in that role for fixed time-limited periods to the extent that the Chief Constable deems necessary for them to perform their duties.
“Policing is the responsibility solely of the PSNI. The Security Service will have no role whatsoever in civic policing.
“Leadership and direction of all police work is the responsibility of the Chief Constable who will remain accountable to the Policing Board.
“All PSNI officers will be employed by the PSNI and will be accountable solely to the Chief Constable and to the Policing Board and upon transfer to the Ministers for Justice.
“The Patten policing reforms will be maintained and there will be no diminution in police accountability.
“When the Policing Board establishes a special purposes committee under section 28 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003 the Government will make any necessary statutory provision to ensure it will be representative of all political parties on the Board.
“Future Justice Ministers will receive the same level of information as does the Board and the special purposes committee.
“The Ombudsman will have statutory powers to hold to account all police officers. The Ombudsman will also have statutory access to all information held by the police.
“The Ombudsman`s Office and the Security Service will agree arrangements for the Ombudsman`s access to sensitive information held by the Service, where necessary for the discharge of the Ombudsman`s statutory duties.
“Furthermore, I can confirm that the Government will invite Lord Carlile, and any successor, to review annually the operation of the arrangements for handling national security-related matters in Northern Ireland.
“In the course of his review, he will consult the Chief Constable, the Policing Board and the Police Ombudsman, as well as taking into account any views which the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and, in due course, Justice Ministers may put to him.”
Pete Baker @ 09:17 AM
Does this say anything new?
Posted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 10:34 AMThe minister in Parliament live now on TV as just made the point that Dissident Republicans still pose a major threat to British interests in Northern Ireland.
He asked that all parties who sign upto policing join together to defeat Dissident Republicans.
MartinPosted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 10:40 AMIt tells us that the UK’s Security Service remains responsible for er, security services issues throughout the UK. Another tremendous victory for Gerry’s handlers, er, I mean Sinn Fein.
Posted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 10:42 AMmartin,
with respect when the statement says:
No police officers will be seconded to or under the control of the Security Service.
yesterday you were bellowing the opposite.
care to clarify?Posted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 10:44 AMYokel.
No change.
Police = Civic policing.
MI5= Intelligence duties.
SOS Confirms triple lock in place.
Live now.
Ding Ding
Martin
Posted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 10:52 AMParcifal.
yes will clarify once statement finished.
SOS makes clear the IMC will monitor Sinn Fein`s progress and implementation of their co operation in the CRJ? very interesting.
Ding DingPosted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 10:57 AMDUP is counted out of the game, this is a Brit Govt - SF deal. Just counting time for SF Ard Comhairle to call an Ard Fheis now all the ducks are lined up…
From Sunday Business Post…
“Somebody from outside the North’s assembly could be appointed to oversee policing and justice if the political deadlock on the issue is not resolved, Peter Hain said today.
The Northern Ireland Secretary warned that the May 2008 deadline for devolution of powers to a Northern Ireland justice minister must be adhered to.
He was speaking after addressing the Assembly’s Policing and Justice Committee in Belfast today.
“This is a backstop, the overwhelming preference is to do this by consent under the agreed proceedings.
“If we get to the stage where this process is deadlocked, perhaps around May 2008, then you have to look for an alternative legislative vehicle.”
Mr Hain added that the appointee could be “somebody from a party outside the Executive or from outside the Assembly”.
Democratic Unionists have said they will share power with Sinn Féin once they are sure of that party’s commitment to policing and law and order.
Republicans had agreed to call an Ard fhéis by the end of January to endorse the policing structures but party president Gerry Adams has accused the DUP of failing in its own commitments to agree a timetable for devolution.
Both parties have experienced dissent from members concerned about the shift in policies.
Mr Hain said the March deadline for restoration of government was absolute.
“People know that on January 30 Stormont either dissolves permanently or power is devolved, it is the last chance.
“If there is wilful obstruction, some kind of deadlock almost despite the best intentions of the parties then we will have to look at another way through, but that is very much second best.”
He added that the dates for power sharing and fresh Assembly elections in March and devolved policing powers by May 2008 were achievable but said there was no point in holding elections if there was no agreement on devolution.”
Posted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 10:59 AMTo be fair to Martin I think what he said was that secondment was totally different than people transferring to a new job within MI5. So no secondments, big deal. They’ll just find any skills and capacities they need in another way because that i assume is what secondments were really about, mundane needs for skills.
Given fair numbers of branch people are now working for MI5 and the old boys club could well be intact.
In short nothing has changed really.
What this may be about is the republican theory about dark forces controlling everything. By stating that MI5 don’t control the police its stating the obvious of what already exists but for SF members it may feel like a re-assurance.
Whilst these organizations worked together and so forth, equally there were rivalries between them and I’m sure they each defend their own patch with some ferocity. I can think of one senior republican who was shot, he was an SB informer but apparently the military intelligence people had wind of the attack and dint do a thing about it.
Saying the two are separate organisations is stating the obvious but perhaps is designed for Gerry to take to members and say ‘the PSNI is not controlled by dark forces fo MI5’.
Posted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 11:05 AMEolas.
Keep up…..
Posted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 11:06 AMParcifal.
Yes, exactly as I reported on a number of occassions on this board recently.
The Officers have transfered and are now on the establishment of MI5.
A secondment is a temporary measure.They are not seconded. To do so they would remain upon the establishment of the Police .The police would be required to fund them and they would be liable to the Ombudsman for their conduct. The last two years has seen a lot of Police taking EARLY retirement from the jobs. Many of these have sought new employment in the civil service(MI5).
MI5 new all UK based role has meant a 100% increase in their man power. They have NOT sought to second but to RECRUIT.
This process is now complete.They are now ready to rumble.
In relation to Liason Officers L/O it is once more exactly as I reported yesterday upon how a L/O works and operates. These individuals ARE seconded to their role in “smoothing” the coming together of various agencies working together.
Thanks to the PM for that collateral to my post of last night.
The important Fact reinforced today in both the above PM statement and the SOS live in Parliament today is the role and activities of MI5.
The SOS confirmed their role in combatting terrorism. That means they will be targetting their resources against ( and he mentioned them) dissident Irish Republicans.
The SOS confirmed that Sinn Fein and their supporters will be expected to inform the police in respect to this activity.The IMC will monitor their comittement in this respect in the coming months and years(that is a direct quote).
That is a very clear statement.
Hope that helps Parcifal. In summary. NO CHANGE.Ding Ding
MartinPosted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 11:16 AMYokel.
yes agreed.
I thought the DUP & Tory spokesman pushed the boat a touch too far.The SOS was clearly uncomfortable.
That said we did get clarity! BUT at what price?
MartinPosted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 11:23 AMIt is clear from the lack of ‘military’ successes by armed dissident republicanism over the last few years, that the primary objective of such dissidents is not to get the Brits to withdraw but to cause embarrassment to Sinn Fein because of their perceived abandonment of traditional Republican values.
(As an example, check out the weekly articles by Anthony McIntyre in the Blanket emotively declaring that before long Sinn Fein will be assisting a ‘British constabulary’ in the ‘jailing and criminalising’ of ‘young Irish republicans’.)
Now, recent resignees from Sinn Fein such as Laurence O’Neill and Davy Hyland presumably agree that the armed struggle is no longer viable, since they stayed with the Sinn Fein leadership throughout the decommissioning process. They are of course entitled to express their differences of opinion with SF on the policing issue but they should think carefully before aligning themselves too closely to those who would continue to exploit impressionable young republicans and consign them to several years incarceration PURELY for the purpose of embarrassing Sinn Fein.
If anyone reading this intends to go to next week’s gathering of republicans in Derry, where no doubt the fierce policing debate will continue to rage, perhaps they could make the above point?
Posted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 11:26 AMmartin,
Thanks, am only concerned if SF can use it to move things on, and judging by Kelly’s statement on the SF website it is enough.
http://www.sinnfein.ie/news/detail/17344
Freely admit my knowlede is sparse on these matters.Posted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 11:30 AMyokel,
In relation to inter agency rivalry.
It happens the world over mate.
You will never stop it. If you take 9/11 CIA had Intelligence upon many of those involved in the flight schools. The FBI was not told of this information because of inter agency rivalry.
One of the five principles of Intelligence is:
Centralisation( One central control and command)
If you read my book, you will see examples of Inter agency rivalry.
In relation to the example you cite? are you refering to Ruby Davison?
Ding Ding
IngramPS. I cannot wait for Patsy and Chris to “visit” should be interesting.
Posted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 11:32 AMHere’s a theoretical question:
Suppose the various ‘disaffected’ republicans get their act together sufficiently to do well enough in the Assembly elections such that they’d be entitled to a Ministry under the d’Hont system?
Then, assuming they show an intention to take up the ministry, but without declaring support for the police and the rule of law (naturally, as that’s the reason why they’ve recently split from SF) - presumably the Unionists wouldn’t agree to their taking up an Executive position - but would the SDLP and Sinn Fein continue to argue for a fully inclusive mandatory coalition, including the dissident minister who doesn’t support the police?
Posted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 11:38 AMParcifal,
No problem mate.If I can help in any way just ask.
In relation to Sinn Fein statement.
That statement was released during the SOS statement in Parliament. Clearly it was a prepared acceptance.
That would suggest to me a clear indication that they are prepared to move forward on this basis. The DUP clearly are not going to move much.
Sinn Fein I believe and understand are determined to go forward to the AF. Adams would not risk a AF if he did not KNOW he could carry the motion through.
No matter what or HOW this situation as come about I for one welcome it.
We just need the DUP to wind their knecks in now and it really is a “Neville Chamberlain” moment.
Peace in our time.
Well done to all.
MartinPosted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 11:41 AM‘There has been some concern over the arrangements set out in Annex E, which was published along with the St Andrews Agreement. The Government is therefore issuing a new statement in relation to national security.’
Annex E removed as I stated
‘The PSNI and the Security Service will be completely distinct and entirely separate bodies.’
No role for MI5 in civic policing, as I stated.
‘No police officers will be seconded to or under the control of the Security Service.’Again, as I stated.
Posted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 11:58 AMmartin,
agree with every word, even “knecks”, there’s something modern about that, and would suggest you send it to the Oxford Dictionary for approval to describe knackered people with out of date knackered views. :-)Posted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 11:59 AMNo doubt MI5 and so on will continue to interfere and play dirty in whatever takes their fancy. The point here is that if the PSNI liase with MI5, then that liaison will be fully accountable through the PSNI’s usual accountability methods (Ombudsman et cetera). So SF can pass their motion and still be implacably opposed to MI5’s role in Ireland - they just support entities which are locally accountable and transparent.
And also, what’s a ‘dissident’? People can’t make up their mind whether it’s limited to anti-ceasefire people or not. If often sounds like unionists are saying it should be a crime to disagree with SF, which is an amazing about turn!
Posted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 12:08 PMPat,
No serious person on this board has argued MI5 is involved in CIVIC policing.
MI5 have never been involved in speeding, rape nor Burglary.
The SOS and PM have confirmed their role in protecting British National interest from terrorist. The SOS actually refered to the threat from dissident Republican terrorist.
MI5 will be involved in policing Republicans engaged in terrorist activity. Now if Republicans or Sinn Fein members dont enage in terrorist activity then clearly they will not encounter MI5.
Just as they would not yesterday.
I have explained to you previously that SB officers working now for MI5 are NOT SECONDED but are established posts.
The SDLP have just made a similar point.
The bottom line Pat, is MI5 are monitoring and disrupting Republican/ potential terrorist activity. That includes Sinn Fein and the animal liberation front.
The SDLP have just made the point that these activities WILL NOT BE OPEN TO ANY local scrutiny.The Ombudsman will not be able to investigate incidents like she would be able in the case of Loyalism.
You are welcome to support this position, indeed I urge you to suport it.But please dont insult the people on this board BY painting this situation any differently than it clearly is.
Martin
Posted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 12:11 PMPat Mc Larnon, like Gerry Adams on Talkback, sounds more like he is trying to convice himself than ayone else! Sinn Fein seems to be relying on words from the Prime Minister regarding the role of MI5 in the North instead of fixed mechanism that makes intelligence gathering subject to oversight and complaints.
Gerry Adams is wrong to pretend that the MI5 issue is resolved; it clearly is not. It would appear that what he negotiated with the British actually in fact reduces MI5 accountability! Nice one Gerry - way to go! Where was your Chief Negociator that day, playing golf? Gerry has accepted that during a lawful search, the police can seize any document, regardless of their level of suspicion. This proposed power is way too excessive but seems great news to Gerry!
Posted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 12:15 PMAaron Mcdaid.
Your assessment is wrong.That would be a conditional agreement. That is not on offer.
MI5 is part of the Criminal justice system.
Support for the CJS includes the security services and the secret intelligence service.The IMC have been tasked to monitor Sinn Fein`s acceptance or otherwise.
The role of a L/O is simple. They will not be privy to anything likely to be of use to an investigation.That is common sense that is why she cannot investigate MI5 nor the military today. No change.
A PSNI L/O role in life is to organise a police presence( arrest) or A VAN etc.Ombudsman can investigate this procurement.Good luck to her.
A military L/O will be responsible for the organisation of the military ( SAS, 14 Coy,Sigs Intelligence) The Ombudsman will NOT be able to investigate.
I hope this helps you.
Ding Ding
MartinPosted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 12:20 PMAaron,
“...that liaison will be fully accountable through the PSNI’s usual accountability methods.”
Even on the most benign reading, this leaves MI5 huge scope for independent operation. The only body it is actually accountable to, is the Intelligence and security committee. Currently no one in Northern Ireland is entitled to sit on that body. And, since it is Westminster based, there is little prospect of anyone from Sinn Fein getting access to it through (possible) further negotiation.
On a less benign reading, it looks like SF has ‘privatised’ the Branch.
Posted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 12:25 PMAaron McDaid:
“SF can pass their motion and still be implacably opposed to MI5’s role in Ireland - they just support entities which are locally accountable and transparent.”
Which is a point I made earlier in the thread “Sinn Fein hoping Blair will undo MI5 proposals…” - will the DUP raise this as the next excuse to block progress? If Sinn Fein are fully supportive of a locally accountable police service but not of the nefarious machinations of MI5, will that constitute ‘failing to support the rule of law’ as MI5 is a component of the criminal justice system, even though MI5 themselves clearly disregard the Rule of Law when it suits them?
Posted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 12:25 PMIan,
I can answer your first question at least:
“...will the DUP raise this as the next excuse to block progress?”
This is not a deal breaker with them. Indeed, it may actually make it easier to quell any incipient rebellion in the ranks.
Posted by on Jan 10, 2007 @ 12:31 PM
