Member's statement: AI-generated Explicit Images in Schools
Member's statement by Mrs Michelle Guy on .
- MLA
- Mrs Michelle Guy
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 19 January 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- AI-generated Explicit Images in Schools
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5322008
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I express my deep concern at reports of AI-generated explicit images being circulated among children in school settings in Northern Ireland. The incidents are serious enough to warrant police investigation. The misuse of that technology and the way in which it is proliferating without guard rails is a profound safeguarding issue. It causes devastating and lasting harm to the children targeted by the doctored images, and it exposes those creating or sharing them to the risk of committing serious criminal offences. I welcome the work being taken forward by my party colleagues Justice Minister Naomi Long and Kate Nicholl MLA to ensure that the creation and sharing of sexually explicit AI-generated images is clearly and robustly criminalised, along with the apps that create them. It is an important step in ensuring that the law keeps pace with technological change and provides meaningful protection for victims. We all know that legislation alone will not be enough, however. The speed of change and the abuse of AI, combined with the widespread use of smartphones and social media, present daily challenges for schools, families and young people. There are, however, things that we can do as an Executive and an Assembly. For example, current guidance on mobile phone use in schools is non-statutory, yet the risks of unrestricted access are well evidenced and include cyberbullying, exposure to inappropriate content, sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. In that context, it is time for the Education Minister to consider giving stronger backing, potentially through legislation, to guidance on mobile phone use in schools and to require schools to demonstrate how they meet their safeguarding responsibilities through the inspection process. Of course, actions are not just for the Justice and Education Ministers to take. It is an issue on which the Executive and Assembly can and must work together more, so my ask today is that we give the area more attention, whether that be by demanding that Ofcom use all its powers to ensure that companies comply with the Online Safety Act 2023, by asking the Chief Medical Officers to look again at the evidence on the harms of social media or by coming together to a joint position on further social media regulation. I will end by saying that, while we work on the issues, support is out there for children and families. The PSNI, the NSPCC, Safer Schools NI, the Marie Collins Foundation and the UK Safer Internet Centre are there to provide advice. Technological progress is welcome, but we need to say together that it is not welcome at any cost, especially when it comes to the welfare of our children and young people.
441 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 (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.96 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.34 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.31 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.30 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:12 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.