Debate contribution: Online Harms: Impact on Young People

Debate contribution by Ms Connie Egan on .

MLA
Ms Connie Egan
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
13 May 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Online Harms: Impact on Young People
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4948175

Read the official Assembly record

Text

We are debating an issue that, over the past decade, has had a growing relevance and importance in our schools and communities and for families and policymakers: how to keep young people safe online and protect them from harm in a digital world. Technology has given us so much — connection, community and knowledge — but it also presents us with distinct challenges that reflect and build on some of the most damaging ideologies and behaviours that exist in our societies. Unregulated, it can, unfortunately, be a vehicle for bullying and hurt. A report from Ofcom suggested that, in 2023, 61% of children aged three to 17 in Northern Ireland had their own mobile phones, with 95% using video-sharing platforms and 80% using messaging sites or apps. Naturally, the average percentage of children and young people who are exposed to that massive online world will only grow with time. Digital platforms and websites are intertwined with our young people's lives to an extent that we have never seen before. We have a responsibility, as the motion suggests, to ensure that our young people are safe, accessing age-appropriate content and protected from bullying or harmful ideas that make them fundamentally question their worth at an age at which they are discovering who they are to begin with. Integrating online safety into the curriculum, including additional training for teachers and recognition of its impact on the mental health of children and young people, is essential. As the motion and both amendments recognise, tackling online harms requires genuine cross-departmental working by the Departments of Education, Justice, Health and the Executive Office. I will go further and say that, due to the fact that telecommunications legislation is a reserved matter, collaboration across all levels of government is required, particularly engagement with colleagues at Westminster and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Mobile phones, tablets and laptops allow the harms that are out there to be at our children's fingertips, but that will not be fully ended by banning smartphones in schools. We need legislation and regulation that not only works but keeps up to date with the times. We need effective legislation and statutory guidance on advertising, harmful messaging and the role and responsibilities of influencers in the online space that ensure safety by protecting freedoms of speech. There need to be consequences for social media and online platforms that do not do their bit to protect their users, particularly their young users.

As an example, Amnesty International published the results of a poll earlier this year on how misogyny is shaping the online experience of young people in the UK. It exposed that 73% of Gen Z social media users have witnessed misogynistic content online, with half encountering it weekly. Less than half of those polled felt that social media was a safe space, and 65% said that tech leaders, particularly on the platforms TikTok and X, have an essential role to play in challenging the discourse.

My party will today support an approach that allows flexibility with an advancement of the ongoing work on limiting smartphone usage in schools, where realistic. We still need to explore how a ban would work practically and whether it would factor in exceptions for young people who rely on smartphones for reasons such as their health. Some children and young people monitor their diabetes on their smartphone in school. It is for those reasons that, at this stage, we support the Minister's working towards the development of appropriate whilst flexible policies on smartphones instead of implementing a full blanket ban. Both the motion and the amendments call on the Minister of Justice to ensure that there is funding for the PSNI's child internet protection team. Whilst internal budget allocations and the administration of resources are ultimately a matter for the Chief Constable of the PSNI, Alliance recognises the importance of that work and is committed to assisting the PSNI in any way that it finds appropriate, including through supporting the Chief Constable's recovery business case for the policing workforce. It is imperative that all Departments work with the PSNI to ensure that the protection of children online is on the agenda, including using departmental touchpoints with the public to educate in conjunction with the police, raise awareness of how to talk to young people and recognise the signs of criminal exploitation and activity. It is imperative that we protect young people from the quickly developing dangers of the online world. We need to work together to do that.

753 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: 0.03 (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 (0.83).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.96Yes
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.83
Reports or questions it0.02
Criticises or condemns it0.15
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.92
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.06
No identity-related subject0.02
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

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