Member's statement: MI5: Phone Tapping
Member's statement by Mr Gerry Kelly on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Kelly
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 16 September 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- MI5: Phone Tapping
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5110879
Read the official Assembly record
Text
A Cheann Comhairle, as you will know, it was reported in the media yesterday that MI5 conceded that it had obtained information from well-known journalist Vincent Kearney's phone. It was also said that that was an unprecedented admission, and that is true: I cannot remember MI5 ever admitting anything. While the admission was unprecedented, from its foundation MI5 has been doing that all along. It is part of its raison d'être. The question is this: who else? Are there other journalists whose phones or laptops are being tapped? Is it politicians? Is it lawyers talking to their clients or even judges? In case that sounds a bit out of kilter, remember that it is not so long ago that the PSNI was checking journalists' phones every six months. All of this emerged from the sterling work done by two other journalists, Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney, on the Loughinisland massacre. Instead of being lauded for what they had done to bring out the truth about what happened there, they were pursued by the PSNI. MI5 is not an accountable organisation, but it needs to be made accountable. Freedom of the press is, of course, critical to a democratic society and democratic governance. The issues with the PSNI and MI5 have been raised a number of times with the Chief Constable and at the Policing Board. Where there are accountability mechanisms for the PSNI, at least we have the ability to use them. Where is the ability to stop the surveillance, interference and illegality by MI5?
255 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.12 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.78).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.78 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.12 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.50 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.46 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:12 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.