Debate contribution: Independent Inquiry into the Alleged Use of Wiretapping of Northern Ireland Journalists

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 4 June 2024.

MLA

Mrs Naomi Long

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

4 June 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Independent Inquiry into the Alleged Use of Wiretapping of Northern Ireland Journalists

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4493883

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I am grateful to the leader of the Opposition for tabling this important motion and to all Members who have participated in the debate. At the outset, I make it very clear that I share the concerns that have been raised widely about the alleged routine surveillance of journalists. Journalism is not a crime, and a free press is the cornerstone of a free, open and democratic society. Although lawyers are not mentioned in the text of the motion, I am also aware of concerns that members of the legal profession may have been subjected to similar surveillance. It is important for me, as Minister of Justice, to stress that solicitor-client privilege is essential in order to ensure that we have an effective justice system that secures the trust and confidence of the public. In that regard, I also note the Chief Constable's statement yesterday, which sought to provide some clarity on those matters. Journalism in Northern Ireland has a long and proud history, reporting through the darkest days of the Troubles, providing some of the finest investigative journalism anywhere and never shying away from telling important stories or holding those in power to account. The 'No Stone Unturned' documentary is a classic example of such investigative journalism. Journalists must be free to do their job to the best of their ability, without fear or favour and without interference. A world in which journalists are silenced is a poorer and more dangerous one for us all. I turn now to the use and oversight of covert surveillance powers in the UK. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA) provides a framework for the use of investigatory powers by the security and intelligence services, law enforcement bodies and other public authorities. The legislation is UK-wide, dealing as it does with excepted matters. The powers cover the interception of communications; the retention and acquisition of communications data; and equipment interference for obtaining communications and other data. The IPA also makes provision relating to the security and intelligence agencies' retention and examination of bulk personal data sets. Sections 2, 28, 77, 113 and 114 of the IPA deal in particular with journalistic information. Given the sensitivity and far-reaching nature of the investigatory powers, they are also subject to robust oversight and regulation, which is intended to prevent their abuse. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) is the primary regulatory instrument and, again, generally deals with matters that are excepted or reserved. From a justice perspective, it covers the use of the RIPA powers in a national security or a serious crime situation. It provides a comprehensive regulatory structure governing the acquisition of intelligence information. RIPA sections 28 and 32 give the basis on which surveillance can legitimately be carried out. Oversight of RIPA is twofold. A clear and independent complaints and investigation process is managed through the investigatory powers tribunal, and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office (IPCO) oversees inspection and arrangements for use of RIPA by public authorities. The tribunal exists to investigate complaints about the potential conduct of various public bodies in relation to the public, their property or their communications. IPCO oversees the use of investigatory powers covertly by public authorities to gather information for investigative or intelligence purposes. Members are aware that the concerns that we are dealing with and debating today are currently before the investigatory powers tribunal; as it is a judicially led tribunal, they are sub judice, as the Speaker indicated. With regard to local policing oversight, as I have explained many times in the House, and as the Member will be aware from his party's negotiations during the peace process, a key principle of the Patten report is that policing should be free from direct political influence. The tripartite arrangements resulting from Patten mean that the PSNI is operationally independent from my Department but operationally responsible to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. It is essential that I respect those carefully designed lines of accountability. The Policing Board comprises a balance of political representatives and independent members who are collectively tasked with ensuring an effective, efficient, impartial, representative and accountable Police Service that can secure the confidence of the public. The board has an important statutory duty under section 3 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 to monitor the performance of the PSNI in complying with the Human Rights Act 1998, to which a number of Members referred in their contributions. I understand that, at the June board meeting, the human rights adviser to the board will provide his assessment of a report received from the Chief Constable on the surveillance of journalists and lawyers. It will then be for the board to decide the next steps. I am assured that the Policing Board is holding the Chief Constable to account on this most serious matter. It is therefore important, in the first instance, that I afford the Policing Board the opportunity to explore the issues with the Chief Constable thoroughly. I am also assured that the Chief Constable takes the allegations incredibly seriously and is working closely and cooperating with the Policing Board in its deliberations. The Chief Constable will bring a further report to the Policing Board in the near future and yesterday announced a further independent review mechanism that he has constructed to examine and address the issues. I will set that out in more detail, if I may. He indicated that, in line with his statutory duties to report to the board, he had appointed Angus McCullough KC, a leading special advocate with the appropriate security clearance, to conduct an independent review of any PSNI use of surveillance against journalists, lawyers and non-governmental organisations or any groups that have special status. His role will not extend to anything currently within the scope of the IPT proceedings, as that would cut across matters that are sub judice. To encourage public confidence in the McCullough review, the Chief Constable has also pulled together a group of respected experts and stakeholders to be consulted about its terms of reference and to ensure that its commissioning and work properly examine any additional relevant matters of concern. The group and its members are not accountable for the independent review, as that sits with the Chief Constable, but they will provide advice and direction to the work of the reviewer. The independent stakeholders, as things stand, are the following: Baroness Nuala O'Loan, former Police Ombudsman and known to many in the House; Martha Spurrier, who was the former head of Liberty; Patrick Corrigan, Northern Ireland programme director at Amnesty International UK; Daniel Holder, director of the Committee on the Administration of Justice; Alyson Kilpatrick, chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; David Lavery, chief executive of the Law Society of Northern Ireland; and Séamus Dooley, assistant general secretary of the National Union of Journalists. As the normal processes of policing accountability to the board — by the Chief Constable directly, by its human rights adviser and by the McCullough review — have not yet been fully worked through or exhausted, it would be premature at this stage to consider whether further action is required on my part.

I am not, for a second, ruling out future action; indeed, when previously asked in the Chamber, I have gone to considerable lengths to say that, should my assistance be required, I will not be found wanting. At this stage, however, allowing the Policing Board to hold the Chief Constable to account represents a better use of public money, fully respects the independence and centrality of the board's role and will provide clarity on any outstanding matters more swiftly. That said, I take seriously my role in maintaining and building public confidence in policing and recognise that these events impact on that wider confidence. In the light of that, I stand ready to support the board in such actions as, it feels, are necessary. It is also important that nothing I do interferes with or cuts across the work of the investigatory powers tribunal, which is ongoing and is due to report in late autumn.

Finally, with respect to my powers to call a public inquiry, section 1 of the Inquiries Act 2005 allows any Northern Ireland Minister to:

"cause an inquiry to be held ... where it appears to [them] that ... particular events have caused ... public concern".

The threshold for what constitutes "public concern" is not set out in the legislation, but Cabinet Office guidance states that, generally, an inquiry may be set up:

"to establish the cause of a major disaster, accident or other event involving significant damage or loss of life; to make recommendations as to how to learn lessons from such an event; to investigate serious allegations of general public concern which require thorough and impartial investigation, and for which ordinary civil or criminal processes may not be adequate or appropriate."

It goes on to state that, before deciding to establish an inquiry, a Minister must reflect on what other investigatory mechanisms are available. Given the ongoing nature of the deliberations of the Policing Board and the IPT, it would not be appropriate for me to act in advance of that work concluding.

I have already made my position clear: I stand ready to do what is required to ensure that there is public confidence in policing, up to and including a public inquiry, should that be necessary. Finally, any potential inquiry hearing evidence may determine that part of that evidence is outside its scope due to the application of section 30 of the Inquiries Act. This is important, Mr Speaker: the provision states that any statutory inquiry commenced by a devolved Minister:

"must not consider evidence or make recommendations about any matter"

that is excepted, including national security. It may, therefore, fall to me to ask someone else to initiate the inquiry at the level where that would be required, so that the full remit of the national security elements can be fully considered. I will, of course, keep abreast of both the tribunal findings and the progress of the board's considerations of the matter. I hope that those provide robust reassurance to journalists, the legal profession and the wider public regarding the use of those intrusive powers by the police. I stand ready to offer any assistance that may be appropriate within the law and within my responsibilities.

1,728 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification