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

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 4 June 2024.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour 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 4493907

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the fact that we have had broad consensus on the importance of a free press and, indeed, broad or relatively broad consensus on the unacceptability of what happened to Barry McCaffrey, Trevor Birney and other journalists operating in Northern Ireland. We know now that inappropriate surveillance of those journalists happened. There are real concerns about the breadth and depth of the surveillance of others — journalists and lawyers — and that is the core issue that we are discussing. Sometimes, amid the back and forth on scrutiny responsibility and statutory powers, it can be lost on us that the core thing that we are debating is protecting and defending the freedom of the press in this society. As I said at the start of the debate, we have a particular duty in the Chamber and in Northern Ireland to guard jealously the freedom of the press, not just because we are a society coming out of conflict but because we are, according to Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and others, among the most dangerous places in Europe for journalists to operate. We have a particular challenge with our defamation regime and the use of SLAPPs, which Patsy McGlone mentioned, to silence legitimate public interest journalism. Those are the structural problems that exist. When you layer on to those the routine surveillance of journalists who do deep investigatory work, that is an unacceptable situation. We should not cavil or quibble about its seriousness.

We can add to that the heinous Legacy Act, which, I hope, an incoming Government will repeal, which will place an even greater burden on public interest journalists — I will give way in one second to Mr Carroll — who want to get to the heart of some of the darker recesses of what happened during our conflict, including actions by the state and paramilitaries. That is what Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney were doing with 'No Stone Unturned', which led to some of the revelations in the first place.

I like to think that I am occasionally thought of as a troublemaker; I would wear that badge of honour. It is important that we get to the heart of this and find out whether surveillance has happened routinely and goes beyond journalism. I will respond to a few of the comments that were made, and I will pick up on comments about the amendment. As I said at the beginning, our desire is to get to the right outcome; it is not simply to make a political statement. Stewart Dickson said — other Alliance Members reflected his comments — that there was a need to follow due process and to respect the process that has been laid down. The Alliance amendment asks us to defer to the existing process. I acknowledge that there is a process at the Policing Board, and I will come on to say what we think about the amendment, the actions of the Policing Board and where the board might go from here. Part of the reason for tabling the motion and asking the Justice Minister to take some accountability was not simply so that we could play ministerial politics; it was because we cannot simply defer to due process. Due process, as it were, got us into this situation in the first place. Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney would probably not have found out that they were being surveilled had they simply followed due process and taken the word of the authorities. Yes, it is important to give the Policing Board its head and role in all these matters, and I will come on to our reflections on the amendment on that basis. Linda Dillon also asked about who else the PSNI surveilled. That is why, unless a robust independent statutory inquiry ultimately comes out of the Policing Board process — I hope that it does, because that is the first port of call — the Minister may need to step in and set it up. Why do I say that? I say that because a couple of Members said that the Chief Constable, whom I respect, given his record on Operation Kenova, has set up an independent review. That review is independent in the sense that neither the Chief Constable nor other PSNI staff are doing it, but it is not wholly independent as it is not being set up on an independent statutory basis under the Inquiries Act. It is important to say that it is a review, and I recognise the huge stature of Alyson Kilpatrick, Daniel Holder and Nuala O'Loan, who are giving advice on this. They are very serious people, and we can all be confident in them. Those people, the CAJ and Amnesty have acknowledged that it is not yet an independent statutory inquiry, and that may be where we ultimately need to get to. Peter McReynolds talked about us undermining the Policing Board. I will slightly push back on the idea that having today's debate and asking the Justice Minister to be accountable is somehow undermining the Policing Board, notwithstanding the fact that, in the current context, we are not minded to divide on the Alliance amendment. I do not accept the idea that we are undermining the Policing Board by having the debate in the Chamber. It is frankly churlish to respond to the debate —.

I will take an intervention.

Of course, I have acknowledged the role of the Policing Board. The point that I was making is that this is a Chamber to which we are elected to debate the vital matters of the day. Should the Policing Board not be able to take this forward because there is no consensus in the Policing Board to do so, or it feels that it does not have the budget, for example — an issue that, I know, has been raised — there will be a role for the Minister. Let me acknowledge that we got clarity from the Minister that she is willing to, as it were, go there, should that be required: I welcome that. It will be on all of us to hold her accountable to those remarks, but, before then, to hold the PSNI and the Policing Board accountable for the process that emerges in the coming days and weeks around the independent review by Mr McCullough KC, with the advice of the panel that I have mentioned. I will respond to some of the other comments that were made. My colleague Patsy McGlone highlighted the "industrial scale" — he is right to use that term — of spying that happened here. That term is important; it was not simply one discrete example. We do not know — to use that cliché — how far or how deep this goes. Patsy also acknowledged, and I will repeat it, that there is a degree of hypocrisy sometimes: people in public life here talk about press freedom when certain people have used some of the powers relating to the defamation regime to silence public-interest journalism. That point was made clearly and distinctly. I move now to the Justice Minister's remarks. I welcome the fact that the Justice Minister gave us a clear overview of the legal position in relation to RIPA — the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act — and the oversight role of the investigatory powers tribunal. Yes, of course, those are excepted matters. The Justice Minister being named in our motion is, in a sense, vindicated by the fact that she has come and given us a detailed explanation of the legal position, and acknowledged that, should there not be a satisfactory outcome, or a clear, robust, independent process and an inquiry from the Policing Board — should it be necessary that an inquiry emerges from the Policing Board — she is willing to take the necessary action to set up an independent inquiry, acknowledging that, legally, she may need to ask others, such as particular Departments in the UK Government, to set up an inquiry. I acknowledge that, and I welcome that. It proves that it was worth having this debate, and worth having the Justice Minister accountable in the motion. Yes, of course, the SDLP is proud of its work in developing the Policing Board and the recommendations of the Patten inquiry. It is not our role to undermine or question the role of the Policing Board, but there are real questions about the ability and the budget of the Policing Board to take this forward. We hope to see that accountability emerge from the Policing Board.

I have very little time, but I am happy to give way, very briefly.

I, of course, acknowledge that there are pressures on the budget. Let me say this: we cannot let the debate go by, and let the issue pass by, without acknowledging the seriousness of it. We need a proper, robust, independent investigation to get to the bottom of this.

Should that require an independent inquiry, ultimately —

— I call on the Justice Minister to work with colleagues, whether there are budgetary issues or anything else, to set that up.

I commend the motion.

1,528 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