Debate contribution: Online Scams
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 3 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Online Scams
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4826008
Read the official Assembly record
Text
My Department is actively engaged in ensuring that claimants and those in vulnerable groups are aware of preventative measures to take in order to avoid online scams. Such measures include ensuring that claimants can detect potential scams, what action to take and whom to contact. Benefit information on nidirect sets out how my Department will liaise with or contact customers. Many of our online information pages signpost to the public sector's ScamwiseNI campaign, which provides advice on how to recognise and report a scam. In addition, universal credit claimants have access to a guide within their online account that provides information on how to stay safe online and how to keep their universal credit account secure. My Department regularly uses social media messaging to promote scam awareness. The messages make it clear that we will never ask for details by text, email or a weblink. We also encourage customers to report anything suspicious to Action Fraud or its local office. Digital and IT courses are run regularly across the library network through the Go ON NI programme to help people develop their digital skills and to raise awareness. Those include courses on topics such as common internet scams and how to avoid them. Libraries NI also links up with partners to deliver activities as part of national initiatives such as Cyber Week and Safer Internet Day.
226 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: 0.02 (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).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.54 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.86 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.08 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:06 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.