The questions that the prime minister must answer to prevent mistrust



Neither the Attorney General nor the Minister of Defense have ensured major terrorist targets. What is done is not in accordance with the Security Act and the assumptions of the Deposit, repeated the OAG in a report that was presented in June.

Security was put on the agenda seriously after July 22, 2011. The terrorist attack revealed that neither the Deposit nor the government building – and a number of other & # 39; objects & # 39; not sufficiently secured. Before the 2013 elections, Erna Solberg ensured that an important election campaign took place.

But the office of the Auditor General, the other in a short period of time, gives a clear picture that the government has not done what it promised – and that the image is different from Erna Solberg and the central ministers express as late as during a hearing in last year.

Did the government get a correct picture last year?

That is why the Control and Constitution Committee of the Storting – before the Storting meets this fall – has called the Prime Minister and several current and former ministers on the carpet.

During a hearing on Monday they have to explain how terrorist security in Norway and why they have given a different picture of the situation than the OAG.

  • Has the government misunderstood the Deposit on how to deal with terrorism?
  • Has the government retained information, for example? about the costs?
  • Why is the deadline for securing the items available from 2015 to 2025?

These are some things that the government needs to give good answers to prevent a government crisis.

Rasler with the sablets

KrF & # 39; s spokesperson in the committee, Hans Fredrik Grøvan, has already said that ministers have distinguished the image of terrorism. He also used words like & # 39; not reliable & # 39; for statements by state ministers.

The case can cause suspicion and cause crises. SV and Red have already suggested that they will introduce distrust to the government. KrF does not rule it out in principle.

"We can not believe that a government can not secure the country, there is an incredible burden of proof on the government," said SV & # 39; s Torgeir Knag Fylkesnes.

OAG: risk and life and health

The Storting made it clear that the nation expects better cooperation between the police and the armed forces on security and preparedness after 22 July 2011.

"I am amazed at the dysfunctional situation in the follow-up of July 22," says Knag Fylkesnes.

The report of the OAG is about the follow-up by the government of decisions to secure critical infrastructure and important buildings against terror and attacks, the so-called object protection.

The report states that they consider "very serious" that "ground protection of protective objects is not prioritized by the Ministry of Justice and Emergency Affairs".

"Very serious" is the strongest criticism that the OAG can bring. The term is used when the consequences for society or affected citizens are very serious, such as the risk of life or health.

Help: not aware of the deadline

The chairman of the steering group, Dag Terje Andersen (AP), emphasized that the Deposit assumed that the security would have been implemented before 1 January 2015.

"Now it has been pushed out until 2025, ten years after the plan and without the government having informed the Deposit or being notified why they are failing," he says.

AP is particularly critical of the remark of the OAG that there is insufficient protection of the ground by the police: "JIn the state budget for 2018, the Ustis and the emergency department have not given priority to separate funds for the protection of protective objects by the police. Lack of priorities in 2018 will ensure that the initiation of soil protection measures is shifted over time. "

"It is clearly confirmed in the unpublished documents of the Ministry of Justice," says Andersen.

Requires understanding of size and status

Andersen and the other party politicians in the committee will ask a number of questions.

Specifically, anyone who wonders how the Minister of Defense at the last hearing could indicate that all sheltered objects had ground protection when the EAC repeated that something is secured for the first time by 2025 and that there are few compensatory measures.

Several parties indicate that they will ask a lot of questions about the following:

  • How does the government explain that it has given a different version of the situation?
  • How high has the government given priority to terrorism?
  • What extensive definition does the government have of "object protection": signals which in its view only apply to the armed forces and the own installations of the police, but not to those of importance for social security (water, electricity, network)?
  • How is security today?
  • Does the government have coverage to shift the deadline from 2015 to 2025?
  • What is plan B for objects without ground protection: What compensatory measures are available?

Two main questions

All in all, how serious the matter is for the government, is the question of politicians that the government has given them incorrect information and / or has recovered information.

Otherwise, politicians have different approaches to why the situation has become the way the EAG makes it.

Could it be because of the reforms?

Sps, member of the monitoring committee, Nils T. Bjørke, fears that the reforms of the government are the reason that the preparedness has weakened. He strives for

reforms in the armed forces, the police, the Ministry of the Interior and the County Council.

– Has everyone been so busy with his own desk that they can not cooperate? Has it become more important to implement the reforms than to make society work, he asks.

He believes that the conditional release of the incumbent government is that "only it will be centralized and big, so it will be fine."

"There have been so many changes in so short a time that it is about representing a security threat in itself, and all reforms are leading to the disappearance of political governance, he says, and announces it. sheHe will ask for answers during the hearing.


Source link

Leave a Reply