Source · Select Committees · Northern Ireland Affairs Committee
Recommendation 21
21
Rejected
PSNI's obligation to classify sensitive information creates an unfunded administrative burden.
Recommendation
We recognise the fundamental importance of balancing information disclosure with national security issues. Someone has to strike that balance. The Government did not undertake that role under the previous “Package of Measures” for investigating Troubles-related cases, nor does it under Operation Kenova. It will do, however, under the Troubles Bill. This is of course not an issue for the terrorist organisations that caused so much harm and suffering during the Troubles. It was not their modus operandi to keep records. Despite some loosening of disclosure restrictions, however, trust and confidence in the process among some groups still needs to be attained. There may be merit, for example, in amending the right of appeal against Legacy Commission and ministerial decisions on information disclosure to allow for a merits-based rehearing. On a matter of principle, and in terms of resourcing, the obligation on organisations such as the PSNI to assess and classify information as ‘sensitive or prejudicial’ before transfer to the Commission is potentially unnecessary and will impose a 84 substantial and unfunded administrative burden to deal with the past, for organisations already under pressure to deliver services in the present. (Conclusion, Paragraph 160) Information retrieval
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the suggestion of introducing a merits-based appeal against ministerial decisions on information disclosure, stating that decisions will be subject to appeal on judicial review principles and upholding the Executive's primacy in national security.
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
National security is the first responsibility of the Government, and the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament on matters of national security. Some information—even if historic—has present day implications for the life and safety of individuals, and national security. The need for ministers to balance the public interest against the interests of national security when considering public disclosure is a well established principle. It forms an important part of the process for Public Interest Immunity, and there are specific provisions regarding such a balancing exercise in the Inquiries Act 2005. The Troubles Bill puts in place a fairer disclosure regime, ensuring that the Commission has the powers it needs to find answers for families, and can make public the maximum possible amount of information, consistent with the State’s responsibility to protect life and national security. That includes the introduction of a balancing exercise, akin to the Inquiries Act 2005, where the relevant Secretary of State is required to conduct when considering whether the public interest requires the disclosure of sensitive information. Any decision to prohibit disclosure can, consistent with the approach taken in the Inquiries Act 2005, be subject to an appeal on judicial review principles. The Government does not intend to introduce a merits-based appeal against ministerial decisions regarding information disclosure. The primacy of the Executive in decisions relating to the security of the State is a principle long recognised by our judiciary, and is a crucial element of the State’s ability to keep people safe. This is also currently subject to consideration by the UK Supreme Court in Dillon, with judgment awaited.