Espionage expert claims GCHQ could merge with MI5 and MI6 to save costs
GCHQ could merge with Britain's two other top intelligence agencies, according to an espionage expert.
Author Richard Aldrich says Government spending cuts and centralisation could dictate the move.
-
Merger theory: GCHQ
The historian believes a union of the Cheltenham-based intelligence headquarters, the Secret Intelligence Service, or M16, and the Security Service, or M15, would follow a growing trend of "inter-service collaboration" to respond to an increasingly blurred distinction between foreign and domestic threats.
Costs would be cut, even if the intelligence budget was only £2.3 billion pounds compared to a £155 billion government budget deficit for 2009/10.
"There are obviously economies of scale," said Mr Aldrich, professor of International Security at the University of Warwick.
"With big cuts sought in most ministries' spending, the services will be asked to contribute. Globalisation has made a complete nonsense of boundaries and borders.
"In reality they almost have merged. You rarely find a team of agents from a single service."
GCHQ is a signals intercept service, MI6 intelligence officers run agents overseas and MI5 operates intelligence networks at home.
MI5 is also responsible for counter-espionage.
Officials have not publicly demanded a merger. But the services are working hard on efficiencies, according to the 2009/10 annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), a group of lawmakers who oversee the three agencies.
Mr Aldrich has published a study, GCHQ: The Uncensored Story of Britain's Most Secret Intelligence Agency.
He says all three agencies will face calls to unify functions such as personnel, finance and data storage. But it could mean foreign agents who penetrate one large service would have far wider access to data and it would be harder to detect human rights abuses.
Government officials have declined to comment.
A GCHQ spokesman denied any moves to merge.
He said: "We are doing more and more collaborative working with the other intelligence agencies where it makes sense, but there are no plans to merge and little operational or financial advantage in doing so."
3 Comments
by Severn Bore, Gloucester
Monday, July 05 2010, 1:08PM
“Oh dear, Bobble, did it really take this article in TiG for you to realise that this country welcomes with open arms those who seek to destroy our way of life and even allows them the time and funds to pursue their treacherous activities by giving them state benefits instead of forcing them to work for their living - young, fit and able-bodied as most of them are?
It's a truly naive person who doesn't suspect that people like MI5 and MI6 are beavering away behind the scenes to ensure that he/she can live in relative peace and safety.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." (Thomas Jefferson)”
by Bobble, Glos
Monday, July 05 2010, 12:14PM
“I don't know anything about this, but as I was skim-reading I saw one sentence that caused a shiver to run down my spine as I remembered my George Orwell
"...to respond to an increasingly blurred distinction between foreign and domestic threats."
Oo-er!”
by Paul, Cheltenham
Monday, July 05 2010, 10:41AM
“I don't believe that Mr Aldrich has ever worked at GCHQ, or MI5 or MI6, so find it very unconvincing that his view should be taken with such authority.
Remember that he is an author with a current book about GCHQ to sell.
(Although I did find Spy Catcher a hoot as it was so inaccurate!)
I would prefer to take the advice of the people on the Joint Intelligence Committee as to what amount of overlap there is between the three agencies.
For what it's worth, my opinion is that the agencies shouldn't be merged.
One major aspect of having the agencies split is that people within the organisation know less about what other people are doing.
"Need to Know" or compartmentalisation of knowledge.
If the agencies were to merge that would inevitably lead to more people knowing more about other areas and therefore a danger of any espionage being more successful.”