Debate contribution: Tackling Scams and Improving Public Protection

Debate contribution by Ms Connie Egan on .

MLA
Ms Connie Egan
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
9 December 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Tackling Scams and Improving Public Protection
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5296435

Read the official Assembly record

Text

On behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the Ulster Unionist Party's motion on tackling scams and improving public protection and the amendment. We have all seen the concerning upward trend in scams, which often take advantage of the most vulnerable people, with around 100 reports to Action Fraud per week and close to £19 million lost in the period from November 2023 to October 2024. We also know that the losses are under-reported and only scratch the surface due to the shame and embarrassment that victims of fraudulent crime can feel for not seeing through the scam that they have endured. That is not good enough, particularly in a world where fraudsters are using increasingly sophisticated technology and scams to commit these crimes. We need to move the dial not only to make people feel comfortable enough to come forward and report the crime but, perhaps more importantly, to work together across all Departments and agencies to intervene and prevent people becoming a victim to begin with. That is why we welcome the motion. What makes those scams particularly sickening is that they usually arise from a victim putting trust in a fraudster. They have genuine intentions of doing what is needed, fostering a connection or helping another. It makes the cruel impact of the scams all the more felt. I think particularly of the deception that is used in romance scams, and the proposer of the motion mentioned in her speech how that affected one of her constituents. It really is despicable that, for their own criminal gain, a person will prey on someone who is perhaps just seeking love or feels a bit lonely. There is a common misconception that, if you are smart and savvy enough, you will not fall victim to a scam or fraudulent activity, but with modern technology and the weaponisation of digital products, such as artificial intelligence and spyware, scams are getting more sophisticated and harder to spot. For example, in my borough of Ards and North Down, a story hit the news during the summer of a business owner and bank customer who lost thousands of pounds from her hard-earned business because of multiple fraudulent banking messages. Of course, such fraud also extends to our communities through postal and doorstep scams, manipulating and misleading those in our communities, young and old, to give over their money in the promise of receiving goods and services that just never materialise. As the motion states and the amendment reiterates, it is essential that we include as many partners as possible in the work to tackle cybersecurity threats and scamming behaviour. That extends from the Department of Justice, the PSNI and ScamwiseNI through to the Department for the Economy's Trading Standards Service. Scams can happen anywhere and at any time, so having a joint approach that coordinates with the joint agency task force and bodies in Westminster makes sense. Last year, Members may have seen last that 'The Nolan Show' highlighted a story about the Just Eat platform and the scams that followed a cybersecurity breach. The losses in that amounted to something in the realm of at least £200,000 across Northern Ireland. That breach was felt deeply in my constituency of North Down, with two local businesses in Bangor losing nearly £30,000 combined. Following that news breaking, I wrote directly to Just Eat as the home platform and engaged with investigatory bodies. To be honest, I was disappointed with how that was initially handled. I am not here to rehash that but to highlight the devastating impact that those crimes have, threatening the livelihoods of local business people who already face many barriers to success and leaving them unsure as to whether they could pay their staff's wages. Such crimes take a heavy mental toll on victims, leaving them feeling under pressure. If we are to prevent anything like that from happening again, we must have clear accountability for online platforms and those who commit those crimes. Scams and fraud devastate people, businesses and communities. We must work with everyone we can to deliver better outcomes for victims of fraud and to minimise the risks of such distress and real hurt from happening again.

700 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: 0.02 (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

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 framing0.02No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.90Yes
Overall judgement0.02At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.89
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.05
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.03
Another identity-related subject0.02
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:08 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