Debate contribution: Online Harms: Impact on Young People
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- 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 4948209
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I applaud the motion and the Member who moved it. I thank her and her party for that. I also thank my colleagues who tabled amendment No 1, which strengthens the motion on tackling the impact of online harms on young people. I have listened intently to Members talk about the dangers of online harm and the online world, and we keep talking about the digital world. I grew up in a world in which I could climb trees, swim in rivers, ride bikes and do all sorts of things that would now be classed as very risky. A lot of parents have lost the art of measuring risk. I think that that is down to the experiences that we had growing up and how we have matured in this digital world. We have lost the ability to manage risk. It is not only the fact that we have lost the ability to manage risk; it is the fact that we now do not see the risk in the same way. We cannot measure something that we cannot see, and that is simply because of what children now do. I was encouraged to go out, ride my bike, meet friends, play in the sunshine and everything else. Most youngsters now tend to stay in their bedrooms, and parents will think that they are safe when they are anything but, because the world is now in front of their eyes. I want to talk about one specific online harm: online gambling. According to the recently published gambling prevalence survey for Northern Ireland, 38% of young people aged 16 to 24 have gambled online. The figures also show that almost one quarter — 23% — of young people are experiencing some degree of gambling-related harm, with 5% falling into the problem gambling category. Smartphones mean that young people who, in years gone by, would have driven by a bookies now have a casino in their pocket 24 hours a day. Whilst we can applaud the technological advances of our age, there are two faces to that, and I can tell you that, when it shows its ugly face, it is an absolute monster. It is probably the biggest enemy in the parenting world. Most young people are interested in sports, and, when they go on to the Sky Sports app, they are directed straight away to Sky Bet.
You cannot escape it. Even if a young person does not intentionally go on to a casino app or a bookie app on their phone, they will be bombarded by gambling advertisements. It is suffocating; it is immense. When young people, who are fanatical in nature, support their local team or their favourite football team and follow the team online, they will be bombarded by advert after advert after advert giving them ridiculous odds — massive odds — so that, if they win, they will get all this money. Then, however, there will be a particular scoreline that they must match, which is nigh-on possible. These people are masters at manipulation not only in the gambling world but in the wider online scene, and we must protect our young people more. In that regard, because this is such a monster, I think that a ban in schools is the bare minimum that we should be looking at. In my politics, I am a libertarian, so I have to meet a high threshold to ban anything. However, I see the harm, so, in a legislature such as this, which passes legislation, the first thing that we should look to is harm. If a section of our population — our young people — is being harmed, we need to act. This is one occasion on which I support a ban in schools and the stricter regulation of online companies, including those in the gambling world.
639 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: 0.04 (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 (0.90).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.40 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.38 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.18 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| 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.