Debate contribution: Tackling Scams and Improving Public Protection
Debate contribution by Ms Kate Nicholl on .
- MLA
- Ms Kate Nicholl
- 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 5296444
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the motion and the opportunity to speak on it and talk about a case that came into my constituency office. An older woman came in very distressed because she had received a message from someone saying that they were her son. The message read, "Hi, mum. It's me. I've changed my number. Can you save it?", so she saved the number. Later that afternoon, she got another message saying, "Hi, mum. I need some help paying an online bill, and I'll pay you back at the weekend. Here are the account details", so she transferred, I think, about £900 to the account. An hour later, she got another message saying, "Hi, mum. Sorry, the amount is actually an extra £600". It was at that moment that she realised that she had been scammed. She called her son after realising that it was not him who had messaged her. She called the bank, the PSNI and Action Fraud. What began was a long saga of going backwards and forwards. My colleague Curtis, who works in my office, is a phenomenal caseworker, among other things, and was so diligent. He ended up taking the case to the Financial Ombudsman Service and managed to get the money back with 8% interest. That is the exception, not the rule. It took an awful amount of work. I welcome the motion and the discussion around it. As is the case with so many issues, it is cross-cutting and touches on so many other Departments. We had been in touch with the Older People's Commissioner about this as well. Everyone knows that I am passionate about AI and how we get up to speed with digitisation, but people are being left behind, and we are not doing enough to talk about it. I tabled a question to the Department for Communities about the goods and services directorate for older people and the need for that here, because every day we have people coming into the office. Another constituent came in and said, "I used to book all my tickets online. I don't have a smartphone. No one belongs to me" — the most heartbreaking phrase that you could hear. Those are the people who are falling victim to such scams and who are being manipulated and tricked. It is not just that they are left out of pocket; it is deeply humiliating for them. They feel so humiliated by it. It is great that we are talking about it here. Thank you so much for tabling the motion and shining a light on the issue, because we need to have the conversations and to remind people that there is no shame. As Cheryl said, anyone can fall victim to scams, because they are becoming so much smarter, and, with the advance of technology, we have to be especially mindful of that. Real people are at the heart of this, and I am grateful when they come to their elected representatives for assistance. When we look at the issue, we see that it is not just for one Department. It is for many others, and we all have a role to play in addressing it. I wanted to mention that one case, because I think about her a lot. I think about the people who are being left behind in the age of digitisation, how vulnerable they are as a result of that and how we have a duty to support them as best we can.
581 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 (0.73).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.73 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.97 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:09 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.