Debate contribution: Online Harms: Impact on Young People
Debate contribution by Miss Deirdre Hargey on .
- MLA
- Miss Deirdre Hargey
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 13 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Online Harms: Impact on Young People
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4948169
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thanks very much. I thank the Member who proposed the motion for raising this important issue. There is no doubt that advances in technology can be a driver for positive change in many aspects of our lives, from health and education to communications, but we must be alert to the dangers and the intended and unintended consequences of its use. Advances in technology, particularly in AI, are moving at such a pace that our laws and policies are often playing catch-up. Cyberbullying, data privacy breaches, disinformation, inappropriate content and online predators are all risk factors for those who interact online, particularly our children and young people. Online safety should be a fundamental part of safeguarding and child protection, particularly in schools, so the Department of Education should support schools in developing appropriate policies and embed online safety across the curriculum and in teacher training. There should also be appropriate support through education for parents on navigating the use of smartphones by their children and on what is age appropriate etc. We know that many young people, particularly those of secondary-school age, use phones and technology as learning tools in their education journey. We need to strike the right balance between recognising that and addressing the obvious harms. That can be done by limiting screen time, monitoring application use and using parental controls and content filters.
Yes, but that is why these issues need to be taken on in a holistic way. Sometimes, the boundaries between school and the wider community are crossed, and we therefore need to look at wider protections. That is what we are saying: it is an issue not just for educators but for parents and the wider community. Responsibility lies not just with educators and parents but with social media companies, as the platforms have a profound impact on the lives of our children and young people by shaping their perceptions, interactions and experiences. Work needs to be coordinated across Departments to tackle the impact of online harms. That includes the Department of Justice — that is noted in the motion and amendments — as well as the wider justice infrastructure, which includes the PSNI and the Safeguarding Board. Online safety and protecting children and young people should be paramount, and resources should be prioritised to that area. I raised with the Department of Justice the need to ensure coordination on the issue and to have engagement with the British Government, as much of the legislation in that area is a reserved matter, as well as engagement with the Irish Government to look at island-wide impacts. The British Government enacted the Online Safety Act 2023, and it is essential that that legislation is consistently reviewed and updated to take account of the challenges of online technology and trends. The Act outlined a number of areas to work on, such as risk assessment; action to address risk; the protection of children; age verification; transparency; and user control. Ofcom was given powers to enforce the Act, particularly when companies fail in their duties. Compliance and oversight need much greater attention, particularly when it comes to tech companies with information and activity that appear online and in situations where they fail to protect children. An industry levy on social media companies, similar to that which is being looked at for the gambling industry, needs careful consideration to see how those companies can support education about online harms. Those companies make huge profits, and they have not only a responsibility but a moral duty to act on that issue and to work with us as legislators and with wider society. They must not only comply with current legislation but invest in supports and embed training to prevent the harms occurring in the first place.
624 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | 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 | 0.55 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.34 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.06 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
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.