Debate contribution: Online Harms: Impact on Young People

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .

MLA
Mr Robbie Butler
Party at the time
Ulster 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 4948181

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member from East Londonderry for moving such a positive, proactive motion, even though I feel that it needs an amendment. I welcome the motion and the attention that it brings to a hugely important issue: tackling the impact of online harms on young people. However, it does not just affect young people; as we in the Chamber know, the Member for East Londonderry has been the victim of serious online harm, and our deputy First Minister yesterday outlined the threats that were made to her in a similar manner. When we talk about the impact of online harms on young people, we always have to be cognisant of giving them their voice, which I will return to. There is no doubt that many children and teenagers today are exposed to harmful content, be it cyberbullying, exploitation or the amplification of social pressures. They have a digital life that many of us did not grow up with. It is completely different and alien to many of us, but we must act decisively and in a cross-departmental way to protect them, so we welcome a lot of the stuff that is captured in the motion and the amendments. Whilst we support the intent behind the calls to limit smartphone use in schools, I offer a word of caution against a blanket ban, because digital connectedness is not inherently harmful. The way devices are used and how young people are supported in navigating the online world will make a difference. Many pupils use smartphones to stay connected with their family, to access school materials or, indeed, for safe travel. Such devices are a lifeline for some, particularly those with caring responsibilities or mental health issues and disabled students. Rather than introducing an outright ban, we must trust young people, empower them with the knowledge and provide them with the appropriate guard rails. That includes high-quality online safety education that is embedded across the curriculum, better support and resources for teachers and consistent, age-appropriate guidance for families. It means modernising relationships and sexuality education to address the root causes of online abuse, misogyny and exploitation. I commend the Minister — this is giving with one hand and perhaps taking away with the other — for the additional support that he is bringing to the Safer Schools app. The good news is that we have something that our schools can access for free, and that is being supported by the Minister of Education. I will take away with the other hand, because I have a difference of opinion on the most predominant cause of poor mental health among our children. It is adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), poverty and exclusion and a multiplicity of those issues. What I agree with, however, is that uncontrolled access to phones without support and guidelines magnifies and exacerbates the issue.

Absolutely, if you are quick.

It goes to the point of why we have a problem with mental health, and that is the exclusion of information and not recognising the world that we live in. We live in a digital world, and young people have a digital life now. We look at it through a different prism. We need to trust our young people and ensure that their voices are included in the discussion, but we have to give them the guard rails, and the guard rails are not there. That is the solution. Importantly, young people must be part of the conversation. They are far more aware of the evolving, online landscapes than we give them credit for. Policy developed without their voices risks being out of touch or even counterproductive, so let us focus on co-design and guidance and not simply impose restrictions on them. I strongly support the call for greater counselling provision in schools. I always have done, because online harms often manifest in anxiety, depression and low self-esteem. We must ensure that children have someone to talk to early on and in safe, trusted settings. Finally, we echo the calls for resourcing the PSNI's child internet protection team. Those officers carry out critical work to protect young people from grooming, abuse and exploitation. Funding that work properly should be a core part of any plan to expand our police workforce. In summary, we need to take a balanced, informed and child-centred approach, with the voice of young people listened to at every step of the way. Let us educate, support and empower rather than restrict and exclude. We must act — I see that — but, as a father of five children, I will say that things have developed very quickly. It is sad to see very young children stuck in front of not just phones but televisions, where they are being programmed, and iPads. The conversation needs to extend significantly to families.

801 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 (0.95).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.96).
  • Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
  • 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 messaging0.04No
Controversy escalation0.04No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.95Yes
Overall judgement0.04At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.96
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.04
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.45
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.43
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.07
No identity-related subject0.03
Education structures, integration and community division0.01

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