Debate contribution: Independent Inquiry into the Alleged Use of Wiretapping of Northern Ireland Journalists
Debate contribution by Mr Stewart Dickson on .
- MLA
- Mr Stewart Dickson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 4 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Independent Inquiry into the Alleged Use of Wiretapping of Northern Ireland Journalists
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4493822
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Speaker. You would think that, after all these years, I would know that. In proposing the Alliance Party amendment, I extend my thanks to the Members for tabling this important motion, and I also place on record my thanks to my party colleague Dr Stephen Farry for his dedicated work on this crucial issue during his time as a Member of Parliament. As has been acknowledged, if we were simply to pass the motion unamended, we would be in serious danger of bypassing and, indeed, sending the wrong signal to those who are currently tasked with the inquiry into these matters. I do not believe that anyone who believes in good order in dealing with these matters would want to interfere in due process, and that is why we are giving the proposer of the motion the opportunity to join us in supporting all the steps required to deliver a robust inquiry in a responsible way. Indeed, as the Member who proposed the motion said, that is what, I believe, Amnesty International has encouraged us to do today: to support a Policing Board inquiry, and, only if that fails to satisfy, other courses of action may be required, including the type of inquiry that the proposer of the motion calls for. Let me make this unequivocally clear: journalism is not a crime, and a free press is the cornerstone of our free, open and democratic society. Northern Ireland's journalism has a proud history that is marked by resilience and dedication. Even during the darkest days of our Troubles, our journalists always provided crucial investigative reporting and held those in power accountable. They must be free to carry out their work without fear or interference, as a society in which journalists are silenced is significantly diminished. The Alliance Party amendment is not just a procedural amendment or adjustment; it is a necessary step to ensure that we uphold the integrity of the investigative process. Rushing into an independent inquiry without exhausting the existing mechanisms would not only be imprudent but would do a disservice to the principle of process. The investigatory powers tribunal hearings are ongoing, and it is imperative that we allow those established processes to unfold and await their findings before considering further actions. Moreover, let us not forget the operational independence of the Police Service of Northern Ireland from the Department of Justice. The PSNI is, as has been said, accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board, which includes both political and independent representative members, and that ensures that our Police Service is effective, impartial and accountable. The Policing Board is actively addressing surveillance concerns and will thoroughly assess those issues. We must respect its role and allow it to complete its review before the Minister considers any further measures. The original motion, though well-intentioned, lacks a concrete timeline and does not consider the logical and necessary steps required for a thorough investigation. Our amendment calls for the Policing Board to take the lead in that investigation, as it should. Should the review fall short, there will certainly be a case for further action, including potentially an independent inquiry by the Minister. While the original motion highlights the importance of a free press and the protection of journalistic sources, it is essential to approach this matter with a clear strategy and with respect for due process. I encourage Members, including those who tabled the motion, to support our amendment. That approach ensures that the actions that we take will be well-informed and appropriate and will uphold the principles of justice and accountability.
597 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.05 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.64 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.33 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:36 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.