Debate contribution: Press Freedom
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 9 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Press Freedom
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5453253
Read the official Assembly record
Text
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 6 and 13 together. Freedom of the press is fundamental to a democratic society, allowing independent scrutiny of those in power and giving the public reliable, fact-based information. I therefore share the concerns raised around the surveillance of journalists. However, the UK security services and the oversight of such surveillance are excepted matters and fall outside the purview of my role as Minister of Justice. I recognise the importance of the issues raised in the McCullough review, particularly those relating to the protection of press freedom and the oversight of covert surveillance authorisations involving journalists. The operational responsibility for covert surveillance lies with the Chief Constable. I note that the Chief Constable acknowledged that the McCullough review identified concerns about specific authorisations and has committed to improving processes and addressing inconsistencies. The PSNI has provided assurances that comprehensive and robust measures have now been implemented in the system to prevent a recurrence of similar failures. The revised system is scheduled to undergo review as part of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office inspection in 2026. I also note that the PSNI has enhanced the central record of surveillance authorisations to provide greater transparency to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office and its inspections.
210 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: 0.03 (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 (0.72).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.72 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.98 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:05 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.