Third report on MI5
01 January 1991
Third report on MI5
artdoc May=1993
In his third report as the Security Service (MI5) Commissioner,
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith says, again, that he is satisfied with
their operations. The warrants issued by the Home Secretary,
which empower MI5 to `interfere' with property (ie: to enter,
burgle and place bugs or other materials) were examined by the
Commissioner as were the warrants that were renewed (para.3). In
1992 a total of 25 complaints were received by the Tribunal and
20 investigations of complaints were completed (see Statewatch,
vol 1 no 2). None were substantiated, or in the parlance of the
Commissioner: `No determination has been made in favour of the
complainant'.
He is a bit more forthcoming over the total number of
complaints received over the three year period. A total of 102
people complained that inquiries were being made into their
activities. In 99 cases the Commissioner says `no such inquiries
were made'. In the remaining 3 cases either inquiries had been
made but had now ceased or the Tribunal concluded: `that the
Service has reasonable grounds at that time for deciding to
institute or continue inquiries about the complainant' (para.7).
A further total of 22 people complained that MI5 had disclosed
information about them in the vetting procedure - in only 2 cases
had this been done and this was justified because `the Service
has reasonable grounds for believing the information to be true'
(para.7).
During the year the Tribunal sought the guidance of the
Commissioner on the meaning of `making inquiries' - an exercise
in tortuous semantics. As the Commissioner reported last year
there are three categories of file codes: green when inquiries
are being made; amber when inquiries are prohibited but new
information may be added to the file; red when inquiries are
prohibited as is `any addition of substantive information'. The
Tribunal however was concerned about information added to the
file of Subject A as a result of inquiries into Subject B or an
organisation associated with Subject A during the amber period.
The Commissioner's advice is that `the mere receipt or recording
of information' in Subject A's file as a result of an inquiry
into Subject B, did not constitute an `inquiry' into Subject A
(para. 9).
Report of the Commissioner for 1992, Security Service Act 1989,
Rt Hon Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, March 1993, Cm 2174.
Statewatch vol 3 no 2 March-April 1993