Debate contribution: Tackling Scams and Improving Public Protection

Debate contribution by Mrs Ciara Ferguson on .

MLA
Mrs Ciara Ferguson
Party at the time
Sinn Féin
Date
9 December 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Tackling Scams and Improving Public Protection
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5296472

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I, too, thank those who tabled the motion on tackling scams and improving public protection. I will start by acknowledging the publication last Friday of the research and statistical bulletin on the findings of the 2023-24 safe community telephone survey, including experiences of cybercrime and awareness of online cybercrime-related issues. Whilst it is welcome news that the proportion of respondents who know where or how to seek advice about cybersecurity and staying safe online has risen by 3%, concerningly, the number of those who are confident that the criminal justice system can effectively deal with cybercrime has fallen by 3%. We recognise, as the motion does, that we are experiencing a rise in the number and an increase in the sophistication of scams across online, telephone, postal and doorstep methods. We also know, as outlined by Age NI, that, sadly, it is only too often older people who are specifically targeted. I welcome Age NI's campaign, in collaboration with Power NI, to provide practical steps to help people recognise, avoid and report fraudulent activity. I also thank the Minister for the Economy for her recent warning to consumers to be alert to scams set up by heartless rogue traders during the Christmas period. The Trading Standards Service is highlighting the "12 scams of Christmas" to help raise awareness and educate people about the common festive frauds to look out for during the holidays, including fake shopping sites, delivery texts phishing for details and other risks, such as technology viruses and tech support scams. Some core advice includes the following: never share personal or banking details; use strong passwords; avoid clicking on suspicious links; end incoming calls and return them using numbers from an official website; and, importantly, adequately report all scam efforts to protect not only yourself but others. We have a duty to spread an awareness and understanding of common scam tactics and to stay vigilant by stopping to think and making checks when approached. I, too, welcome the work of Scamwise and the community safety initiatives that it leads in our local communities alongside restorative justice organisations, which do excellent work. We also welcome the reference to stepping up public information campaigns on the matter, but we emphasise that those must be supported by adequate measures to enable us to hold large social media platforms accountable for any fraudulent content that is advertised online on their channels. Reports can be made to the PSNI, Crimestoppers and Action Fraud, alongside further contact with Consumerline and the potential involvement of the Trading Standards Service. People can forward any suspicious texts for free to 7726 and use the "report phishing" or "report spam" option for questionable email correspondence. As we all know, scammers cause devastating harm to individuals and communities. They cause severe financial ruin for ordinary people, workers and families. Scammers can cause people severe emotional distress and create health implications due to the shame and stigma that are attached to scams. For all those reasons, a much wider challenge exists in rebuilding the trust and self-esteem of the many who have been impacted on and in restoring their confidence so that they feel fully safe online again. We cannot thank Victim Support NI enough for the work that it does to support people in such times. We support the call for a:

"coordinated, cross-departmental strategy to strengthen prevention, improve detection and enforcement"

and to

"enhance data sharing between agencies and financial institutions".

Sinn Féin tabled the amendment, which includes a reference to the cross-border joint agency task force, that we hope will attain cross-party support. We recognise that the joint agency task force, which exists between the gardaí and the PSNI and which was established under the Fresh Start Agreement in 2015, brings other agencies together to conduct synchronised operations, days of action and any other coordinated action that it takes on these matters. Consideration must be given to expanding and strengthening the existing all-Ireland collaboration that takes place in the strategic oversight group and the operations coordination group, alongside significantly improving data sharing on the issue. We have consistently called for that all-Ireland coordinated response to tackling the rising problems of scams and financial fraud. The statistics that were published last week are evidence of the clear need to step up that response, including through a shared database to tackle fraud and protect consumers.

We need a strengthened and coordinated all-Ireland response for the protection of all our citizens.

745 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: 0.03 (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 (0.95).
  • 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

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 framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.95Yes
Overall judgement0.03At 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
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.72
No identity-related subject0.26
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.01
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

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.

Challenge this classification