Sir
Your articles on MI5 highlight some of the reasons why Liberty has for years
been concerned about the principles and practice of the intelligence and
security services. We have represented many people who suffered their
attentions, as well as ex-employees who tried to blow the whistle. My
predecessors at Liberty, Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt, were even
targets of MI5 surveillance - it was their case in the European Court of
Human Rights that led to the organisation being put on a statutory footing
for the first time.

Of course we need secret intelligence-gathering on genuine threats to
national security. But who should best do this - and how can they be
independently monitored and rigorously scrutinised?

Liberty believes that there is no longer any case for the continuing
existence of MI5. Its domestic operations should be handed back to the
Metropolitan Police Special Branch or anti-terrorist branch (with ex-MI5
officers then training Special Branch in long-term intelligence-gathering).

As for scrutiny, Parliament's Security and Intelligence Committee is
insufficiently independent. The restrictions on it make its reports
incoherent and of no service to the agencies; it has also refused to take
evidence from whistleblowers (and, incidentally, has never deigned to talk
to Liberty).

The complaints tribunals - for people who believe MI5 is targeting them -
are secretive and totally inadequate. Complainants can't access any
information, even if it would not affect national security: they can't see
the agencies' case against them (if there is one) or the reasons for
tribunal rulings, nor can they challenge those rulings in the courts.
Unsurprisingly, no complaints have ever been upheld.

Change is overdue.

Yours
John Wadham
Director, Liberty
21 Tabard Street
London SE1 4LA