Debate contribution: Online Harms: Impact on Young People
Debate contribution by Mrs Ciara Ferguson on .
- MLA
- Mrs Ciara Ferguson
- 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 4948193
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the proposer of the motion, as it expresses serious concerns around some of the more negative impacts of social media for young people in particular and how best to protect and ensure children's safety, happiness and well-being online. As outlined by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), children today grow up in a modern and technologically advanced world, so it is all the more important to have regular, age-appropriate conversations. A good few Members in the House will remember when the internet came into being in the mid-1990s and the challenges that we had to face. My children are in their late twenties, and they are helping me now with social media. I am the one who is passing over the controls when my grandchildren come to my house, so it is intergenerational. It is not about banning something; it is about how we all actively get involved and engaged in supporting child protection. For children under 11 years old, we have Talk PANTS and Techosaurus to help, with additional guidance available for older children and teenagers. The Thinkuknow platform is provided by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre education team. It provides education, training, resources and information to professionals working with children, alongside young people, families and carers, with separate guidance developed for a range of age groups from age four up to age 18. Furthermore, we have the Safeguarding Board, which has online safety hubs that are accessible for under-13s, 13-to-18 year-olds and over-18s. We welcome the call for strengthened cross-departmental working. I will go further and say that it is not just a whole-government approach that is needed but a societal effort to include whole-school approaches from teachers to staff, governors, parents and volunteers. Similarly, across our communities, workplaces, youth clubs, organisations, internet service providers and platforms, enhancing the safeguards and strengthening child protection efforts require increased knowledge and training on child protection. Good guidance and toolkits are available for parents and carers, but additional support should be sought where needed in relation to using device controls, checking content and age suitability.
We also have the Chief Medical Officer's commentary on screen time, which provides advice on the impacts of prolonged screen time on mental and physical health. Balancing the risks against the potential value of online learning that can be done on computers and smartphones is a 24/7 societal challenge. While we sympathise with the sentiments expressed in the debate, we think that making information and support available should be its practical outworking. We would benefit from strengthening relationships and sexuality education for children and young people, as they all should have the right to comprehensive, accurate and reliable information on their bodies, as well as information on how to foster safe and healthy relationships, how to make informed decisions and, importantly, how to stay as safe as is possible within their control from potential harms in person and online. As a member of the Justice Committee, I welcome the ask of the Minister of Justice to ensure that funding adequately prioritises the issue, including funding for the PSNI's child internet protection team, which investigates serious and complex online abuse cases. Just last year, it was involved in 125 searches and made 52 arrests, so its work should not be underestimated. It is important that the Executive's online safety strategy be renewed and updated. Ofcom's online safety policy director has also produced some important advice on helping tech firms better understand their duties under the Online Safety Act 2023 so that they can assess the risks of harm and take proportionate and necessary steps to manage and mitigate risk. Online safety is a justice issue and a safety issue, and it has the potential to have a direct impact on the rights, safety and well-being of children and other individuals. We have a duty to support communities, parents and families in that regard.
655 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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | 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 | 0.43 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.38 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.18 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.