Debate contribution: Tackling Scams and Improving Public Protection
Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter Martin
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 9 December 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Tackling Scams and Improving Public Protection
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5296446
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I was not planning to speak on the motion, but the more I saw of the debate on my monitor upstairs, the more I thought that I had better come down and say something about it. I pay tribute to my colleagues from the Ulster Unionist Party for tabling the motion. I will focus on one issue and pick up on my constituency colleague Ms Egan's comments about Just Eat. I have a constituent who runs the Bokhara Indian restaurant in north Down. They were defrauded out of £17,000 as part of some sort of scam. That incident was reported in 'The Irish News', which stated:
"Just Eat says the food companies were victims of phishing scams"
and that Just Eat has been in dispute with businesses, many of which feel that the company has not done enough to prevent fraud. I have been working on the issue for a number of weeks. I think that it was yesterday that my office received a statement from Just Eat. The more I read the statement and looked at the press coverage from the time of the incident, the more I realised that it had simply sent me a press statement from about a year ago, because all the details and sentences in the statement that I received were part of the press coverage at that time. That is wholly unacceptable. My understanding of that phishing scam is that the money was taken not from the restaurant's bank account but from its partner centre account, which is some sort of holding account between the restaurant and Just Eat. I would like to address Just Eat. I have two questions. First, what action has it taken to recover those funds on behalf of my constituent from its account? Secondly, how will it make the matter right? A fact in this case is that the company is not registered in the UK — apparently, it is registered in Amsterdam — and it is charging our restaurants and takeaways fairly high levies for their business. That is not money that is staying in our local economy. It is money that is being siphoned off, in this case —.
I certainly will give way to Ms Egan.
I am not sure that I will need that extra minute, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will do the best that I can. I completely agree with my colleague. Just Eat is an enormous company. My understanding is that it has offered some of those businesses small sums. It was reported in 'The Irish News' that:
"One Belfast business claims it was offered money by JustEat to 'keep quiet' about their loss of over £15,000",
after the company described it as a "goodwill gesture". Some of us will recall the press coverage from that time. Unless Just Eat wants me to stand in the Assembly talking about the company, how it acts, the percentages that it takes off our local businesses and the fact that I have a constituent who is £17,000 down through no fault of his own, I suggest that it engages with MLAs better than it has done and sorts out the matter.
527 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 (0.77).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.77 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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.