Debate contribution: Online Harms: Impact on Young People
Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on .
- MLA
- Mr David Brooks
- 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 4948250
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Although I am making the winding-up speech on my party's amendment, colleagues who have already spoken clearly articulated the rationale behind our amendment and detailed the main points of our party's position, with which I align myself. I thank the Members who tabled the motion, particularly Cara, who proposed it. The truth is that areas of division on the issue are largely over the nuances rather than the general principles. We all want to see a world in which our children are better protected online and in which, at the same time as they benefit from the many positives that modern technology brings, they are protected from the great harms that are posed by sinister and malevolent actors online. We also need to ensure that the use of technology does not come at the expense of children's social skills or result in increased anxiety, poor mental health or an over-reliance on devices. Children socialise, engage, learn and concentrate better when restrictions are placed on phone use. Frankly, we all do. We all have to check ourselves, but doing so is doubtlessly more difficult for those who are growing up in a world in which, as has been said, the screen and the internet are so dominant in all that they do. They know no different. Habits that are learned when they are young, whether good or bad, will no doubt persist. The Minister's phone pouch pilot is a positive step and is recognised as such by many of the school leaders to whom I have spoken. The motion calls for a ban on smartphones. There is sympathy on these Benches for that intention. Indeed, it may well be the eventual destination. As Members opposite have said, we have heard that some schools get pupils to use their phone in a way that is deemed to be educational and that assists with lessons. There is some concern that that sends a mixed message. We should be clear that, even where there is occasional use in school or the ability for pupils to carry a phone in case of emergencies — a Member mentioned that a smartphone can be used for diabetes monitoring — that should not be an excuse for their having greater general access throughout the school day. Children should have time each day during which they are free from the distraction and temptation of their phone screen. In that context, our amendment strikes a good balance.
412 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | 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 | 0.56 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.20 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.17 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.05 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
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.