MP hits out at Security Service practices

Labour MP Josè Herrera insisted in Parliament yesterday that it was wrong to involve the Security Service in the secret assessment of personnel before appointments or promotions in the public service or the army.

He argued in Parliament that if such a procedure was to become the norm, then legislation needed to be changed so that those involved could know what was going on and have the right to defend themselves.

Speaking in Parliament on the adjournment, Dr Herrera raised two points about the Security Service.

He said the Security Service Act needed to be amended because it was unacceptable in a democratic society that the service only needed the warrant of a minister in order to investigate a person - without his knowledge. Such investigations could include phone tapping investigation of bank accounts, correspondence and computer communications.

Such investigations, Dr Herrera said, should only be carried out after authorisation by the criminal court or a member of the judiciary. That a politician was responsible for such investigations was dangerous because there could be a hidden agenda.

One could have a situation where the security service was used to smear or blackmail a person. One could have secret investigations of the lives of Opposition MPs, although he was not saying that this was happening.

Secondly, it was just as unacceptable that the Security Service was now being involved in vetting people before appointments or promotions. A recent case was how the promotion of an army officer, Major Pierre Vassallo, was effectively torpedoed when the Security Service dug up a disciplinary case going back over 20 years. This procedure was becoming common. Where would it end? Would lawyers be investigated before being appointed magistrates? Would magistrates be investigated before being appointed judges? What about MPs before they were appointed ministers?

Such investigations were wrong, but if they were to be made, then in terms of natural justice the people under investigation should be told why they were seen as posing a security risk and given the opportunity to explain. One could not have a situation where something which happened many years ago and was minor served to destroy somebody's career. Everyone made mistakes along the years and one needed to be reasonable. It all depended on the nature of the mistake and when it happened.

As things stood, it was terrifying that careers depended on a mysterious and secret organisation. One would end up living as if in the cold war or under Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini or Pinochet.