I can’t see any non legal in the way the presidency has handled this case, ” says stortingspresidenten to Aftenposten.
The control sent Wednesday a letter to the presidency with strong criticism of its conduct when kontrollutvalget for the secret services (EOS range) should be evaluated by the so-called Solbakken-selection.
– I shall not be dead certain that all we have done is completely perfect, but I will firmly reject that we have kept the documents away from the Parliament or violated the Parliament’s rules of procedure, ” he says.
Several other members of the presidency are of the same opinion as Thommessen, but refers to Thommessen for any comments.
- Parliamentary control has asked The presidency for answers and documentation in connection with a battle between the presidency and Parliament kontrollutvalg for intelligence, surveillance and security service (EOS range)
- the Case is related to the fact that the Storting’s presidency in 2014 discounted a selection, Solbakken-selection, who should evaluate the EOS-selection.
- the Presidency shall have made any changes in the mandate of the Solbakken-selection, so that a point, Parliament wanted to have with – to look at foreign states ‘ surveillance in the Uk – fell out.
- According to the control committee had not had the presidency the authority to suspended the obligation of confidentiality to the Solvakken-committee members in connection with the evaluation.
- the Presidency shall have failed to pass on an urgent from the EOS-committee on the disagreement to the control committee. When the message was put forward to Parliament, was it in a form that made the content difficult would be known, according to the committee
- Exemption from the obligation of confidentiality was given in the Storting in the form of a separate act, of Parliament’s decision 29. January 2015.
do Not need to hide
the control committee suggests that the presidency deliberately allowed to be to archive the documents in the case and deliberately held back important information, bl.a. an urgent from the EOS committee about the controversy with the presidency of the obligation of confidentiality.
Thommessen reject this categorically.
– What interest would we have to hide information for the Parliament, he will ask.
Maybe because you didn’t want attention about the disagreement with the EOS-committee on the necessity of a statutory basis for that confidentiality to be set aside?
– But why should we hide it? There has been a discussion about the need for a separate law or not. But it is not something we need to hide, says Thommessen, and continues:
the EOS-selection insisted that it was necessary with a separate statutory basis, and so they got it. Neither the presidency nor I have added any prestige in it, ” says Thommessen and adds that the so-called særmeldingen from the EOS-selection is The web pages and has been available there for two years.
Here are five questions and answers that explains the criticism of Stortingspresidenten
– Why was the entire seven weeks before særmeldingen was known for the Parliament?
– This is the question that is all about the details and that I don’t think I can answer now. This we will come back to in svarbrevet to the committee.
– But seven weeks is a long time?
– Now we’ll go through all of this, and then we come back to it in the svarbrevet.
Why write you in a letter to Solbakken-selection 4. June 2014 that the committee’s mandate should include an assessment of how to ensure “the democratic control of foreign states ‘surveillance of Norwegian citizens”? The parliament wanted precisely this?
It is not appropriate that the Parliament has made any decision about this, either before or since.
However, the committee expresses in its report to the Parliament that this point will be with in the mandate?
It is the presidency’s prerogative to determine how and to what extent comments from the committee or other should have consequences for the mandate. There was not a storting.
But why are you asking Solbakken-selection specifically not to do this?
– Why we wrote exactly that, do I have to come back to, because this must be seen in a whole to understand it.
do you Feel that some of the committee have motives beyond the purely factual in this case?
– so I have no comment to.
do you Feel that there is someone who is looking to frame you?
– so I have no comment to.
– A unified control committee believes the Parliament adopted the decision without having the knowledge of “material information” in the case. What do you think about that?
I know me simply not again.
Can you elaborate on it?
– to be completely honest, I don’t get completely this. If the committee believes it is not well known to the matter, so it is strange to hear. But this we will highlight in our response letter. Then you’ll get an overall representation of the whole, and then I think you will see the relationship between some of the questions you ask.
Not operated alone
Thommessen says svarbrevet probably will be released in the end of next week, but can’t guarantee it.
– Have you operated on your own in this matter?
A total presidentsklap has handled this matter. This is not something I have dabbled with alone.
– Professor Eivind Smith believes you should resign if the criticism of the committee are standing. What do you think about that?
I don’t think the criticism will stop.
None of the control committee that Aftenposten spoke with on Friday want to comment on the case before there is a response from the presidency.
Aftenposten mean: Stortingspresidenten should be kept away from the lawn in front of the Parliament Beyond will review The kostnadssprekk. Stortingspresidenten owe on the contractor. Beyond will review The kostnadssprekk. Stortingspresidenten owe on the contractor.