Debate contribution: Online Harms: Impact on Young People
Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on .
- 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 4948162
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will address some of what my colleague referenced in the next section of my speech. I am particularly grateful to Smartphone Free Childhood for being a pioneer on the issue in Northern Ireland. Its research has been extremely useful to me. I publicly acknowledge Rosalind McClean and Dr Peter Cosgrove in particular. Some of the facts that my colleague referenced are startling. Members may not be aware of them. They include that 67% of 16- to 18-year-olds think that smartphones are harmful; 94% of parents think that smartphones are harmful; and 50% of teenagers say that they are addicted to social media. Research also shows that girls with no social media use have a 12% predilection for suffering from depression or low self-esteem, but that, with six hours of usage per day, that figure rises to 38%. That is a rise of 26%. Take a minute to consider those two figures and the impact that six hours of social media use has on our children. If we are serious about dealing with mental health, as my colleague just mentioned, that would be a good place to start. That is what he is trying to address in schools, and there is also a role for the Public Health Agency (PHA) and the Department of Health more widely. I concur that increasing provision of counselling services in schools would be welcome, and I know that there has been provision in post-primary schools for some time. I turn to the end of our amendment. We agree with the SDLP, although our wording is slightly different, that a call for the Minister of Justice to properly fund the PSNI is important; I do not believe that this is an operational matter. That would allow for additional funding for the child sexual exploitation unit, which, day in and day out, deals with the matters that we are debating today. I recently met Detective Chief Superintendent Jordan Piper, who runs that unit. Her and her officers' dedication and commitment to protecting children from online abuse and prosecuting the offenders was clear to me, but it remains clear that our PSNI needs to be properly funded to provide additional officers. That is the basis of the latter part of our amendment. I know that all Members want to see our children protected not just from dangerous individuals in the online world but from the mental health dangers that are so concurrent with extensive smartphone use. There is a clear role for schools and teachers, and we should welcome the fact that those dangers are being addressed in schools in Northern Ireland right now. We very much welcome the debate and the SDLP's tabling the motion, but I ask Members to support our amendment.
457 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 (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.41 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.28 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.24 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.06 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 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.