(Martin Ingram, The People)

The former Army agent known only as Martin Ingram worked at the heart of the security force's counter-terrorism activities in the 80s and 90s. In this exclusive article written for the Northern Ireland People, he reveals his reactions to the fall-out in the aftermath of the Stevens' Report. And he hits back at claims that collusion is as yet unproven saying: "I should know about it - because I did it."

There has been claim after claim in recent days - all aimed at discrediting the Stevens Inquiry. His report was published last week amid many moans from people who think it's some kind of stitch-up.

Many of those who don't like what it says have become more agitated because attention has been focused on them. The Stevens III report delves deep into collusion between security forces and illegal paramilitaries.

Days after one unidentified police officer was quoted in the Press saying unequivocally that the case against the security forces was not as yet proven. He said he had worked within the RUC's shadowy E department during the eighties when UDA men William Stobie (RIP) and Brian Nelson were active agents of the security forces.

The officer quoted extracts from the public report to justify his belief that it produced no proof of 'collusion'. He relies on one particular quote: "Sir John states that there was wilful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, and the extreme of agents being involved in murder."

The officer then states that this method of operating did not constitute 'collusion'.

In fact, he states clearly: "No way do they add up to collusion." Indeed, further on he states: "There was no collusion, except by the paramilitaries that carried out the murder."

Now let's leave Alice in Wonderland and return to the land of reality.

This officer was plainly walking around with either his head in the clouds or up to his neck in the conspiracy. Many will point at me and say: "How the heck do you know?"

For many years I, too, was a member of an organisation which was involved in illegal activities - the Force Research Unit (FRU). I know there was collusion. I was arrested and imprisoned for making what many, at the time, described as extravagant claims about collusion. To give two examples: the arson at Sir John's offices during his investigations and the UFF murder of Mr Antonio Notorantonio in west Belfast.

Let us examine the word 'collusion'.

The Collins English dictionary defines it as 'secret agreement for a fraudulent purpose'.

Now let's be specific.

When, as a handler, I gave the agent information such as a vehicle registration number or a photograph to further his career or to underwrite his personal security within the terrorist organisation, I am engaging in 'collusion'.

Everyone suspects that Sir John Stevens' full report, given to the Chief Constable recently, contains a dossier full of proof regarding collusion between security force personnel and illegal murder gangs.

I won't go into detail - because some of us still consider our primary responsibility is to preserve life - but there are many situations, not yet even on the agenda, which involved collusion. They include murders of citizens and blind eyes being turned towards robberies - including robbieries in art galleries.

The latter financed terrorist campaigns and lined pockets, on all sides. The officer I referred to earlier stated: "The officers who handled Stobie would have prevented the murder of Pat Finucane, had he said that was what was going to happen.

"But Stobie didn't say that, 'because he didn't know.'" That may or may not be true, but what we do know is that the RUC had other elements who certainly did know who the target was. Brian Nelson knew, Ken Barrett knew and Tommy Lyttle knew. There are probably quite a few others who did too.

If we assume Stobie did not know the target, what was his use in all this? Well, as a quartermaster, Stobie was in charge of the custody of the weapons. He had both the time and control of access to those weapons.

It would be inconceivable, as an Intelligence Officer, if I did not facilitate those weapons to be electronically 'tagged'. If the weapons were not under control I would want to know why. Rule number one of Agent Handling was broken!

Maybe the officer who is so bruised by all this would like to ask his friends to comment on the measures taken to place those weapons under control. There are many, many other aspects of this particular case, which will require at some stage to be addressed.

Time and space is limited but rest assured on one thing, collusion is definitely proven. Half-baked arguments that it never happened are falling away.

This article appeared first in The People on April 27, 2003.