Debate contribution: Online Harms: Impact on Young People

Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on 13 May 2025.

MLA: Mr Peter Martin
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 13 May 2025
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Online Harms: Impact on Young People
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4948141

Text

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the sponsors of the motion for tabling it. Our amendment tries to enhance the motion without significantly changing it. I pay tribute to the Member opposite for East Londonderry, who has raised this issue consistently at the Education Committee. It is worth spending a little time highlighting some of the recent findings from Ofcom, which the proposer of the motion mentioned, to put the matter in the context that it deserves. Ofcom recently reported that children aged from five to seven are increasingly present online, with 30% in that age bracket using social media unsupervised and a growing number having personal profiles.
This generation is very different from the previous one. Years ago, as children, we played outside endlessly, and our parents may seldom have known where we were. Now, as parents, we can sometimes be overprotective of our children in the physical environment but seem unconcerned when they disappear to their bedroom with a smartphone. Suddenly, the world opens up: beheadings, extreme pornography and sexual exploitation are all part of the cocktail that they are suddenly exposed to. It appears that we are unaware of where in the shadows the new dangers lurk. In the course of the evidence taken by the Education Committee over the past year, one thing that I have learned is that children are exposed to those appalling things faster and earlier. That is why the motion is extremely useful and timely. We agree with the SDLP that online safety must be in the curriculum, and I assure the party that it is. In preparation for the debate, I visited the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) hub, which has a really good resources section. From feedback that I received from pupils, I know that teachers are dealing with these areas, and rightly so. There is also a recently updated and very detailed policy document called 'Safeguarding and Child Protection in Schools' on the Department's website, and I know that schools are using that. It is worth noting that, this morning, my DUP colleague the Education Minister, who is sitting in front of me, announced ongoing funding for the Safer Schools NI app, which provides online safety advice to schools across Northern Ireland. I am sure that all Members will want to publicly acknowledge that. I am very proud that the Minister has led on the wider issue of smartphone use, and, in September 2024, despite enduring a little criticism from some in the Chamber, he issued a circular to boards of governors that read:
"in light of the evidence presented above, Boards of Governors and principals/leaders should take steps to restrict the use of mobile phones and other similar devices for pupils’ personal use throughout the school day, including during lunch and recreational periods."
As Members are aware, there is already a pilot in place across nine schools to build an evidence and research base.
I will indeed.
I thank the Member for the question. I think that it has been rolled out to nine schools. I may be wrong. My understanding — I have no doubt that the Minister will speak to this — is that it is a pilot project to build an evidence and research base in order to see what effect the —.
I will give way to the Minister.

561 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.04 (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 (0.90).
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.03	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.02	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.01	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.03	No
Controversy escalation	0.03	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.90	Yes
Overall judgement	0.04	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
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 area (top five)
Subject	Probability
No identity-related subject	0.40
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups	0.32
Education structures, integration and community division	0.22
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	0.05
Another identity-related subject	0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:36 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