Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on .

MLA
Mr Peter Martin
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
8 June 2026
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Executive Committee Business
Heading
Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5600971

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thought that I had broken some convention and was going to get admonished by the Deputy Speaker, but it was just my colleague taking his seat. The APG is taking evidence and conducting an inquiry. Studies have been prevalent across the UK and Ireland, and the APG is trying to complement those studies and ensure that the situation in Northern Ireland is fully understood. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will thank, in particular, my APG deputy chair, Connie Egan, and my colleague, Brian Kingston. Both of those folk come to nearly every APG meeting. An old friend of mine once told me that God's kingdom functions on small groups of people praying; the APG functions on small numbers of people faithfully attending. The APG has heard evidence from survivors, academics, organisations and international experts. We have heard what has been, at times, harrowing and shocking evidence of sexual exploitation. What is clearly and immediately evident to me, as chair, is that the nature of prostitution and trafficking has changed fundamentally not just in Northern Ireland but across the world. The image that many may hold of prostitution or escorts is one of people working from the streets, but that is definitely not the reality any more. Exploitation, in most of its forms, has migrated online and become digitised, scalable, in many instances hidden and vastly more profitable. The Home Affairs Committee at Westminster concluded that websites advertising prostitution are now:

"the most significant enabler of sexual exploitation".

Similarly, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner's report, published earlier this year, stated that multiple indicators of trafficking or exploitation are found on websites advertising escorts in the UK. During its evidence-gathering, the APG has found similar cases of harm directly attributable to adverts in Northern Ireland. During April and May this year, researchers from CARE, assisting the all-party group, looked at each of the main platforms that advertise women in Belfast. The research will be more fully published with our report, but preliminary analysis of that data shows that indications of trafficking and exploitation are prevalent on the four main sites used to advertise women in Northern Ireland. We have found multiple women being advertised using similar profiles, which indicates that there are pimps who control several women in towns and cities in Northern Ireland. Our research has found the same mobile phone number being used as a contact point for multiple adverts, which shows that those women are trafficked and controlled by the same person. Many of the profiles offer exceptionally risky services, often for a low price. According to the University of Sheffield and its sexual trafficking identification matrix (STIM) indicators, that is another clear sign of exploitation. While the APG will take time to study the evidence and data, we are content to say that exploitation and trafficking is taking place in the UK and Northern Ireland. Evidence that has been presented to parliamentary inquiries across the UK that are similar in scope to the one that we are undertaking in the APG has identified multiple indicators of trafficking and exploitation on those websites. Members should pause for a minute and consider what that means in practical terms.

Northern Ireland is not dealing with isolated acts of prostitution or with escorts in hidden corners or on dark streets. It happens behind closed doors, and, in some cases, it is organised in plain sight. Organised crime is very much behind what we see, and that happens in towns across Northern Ireland. The amendment is not particularly radical. We have an opportunity to lead in the area yet again. In 2015, my DUP colleague Lord Morrow led the way with his private Member's Bill that outlawed the purchase of sex in Northern Ireland. Therefore, by passing amendment No 78, Northern Ireland can lead the way again by being the first legislature in the UK to ensure that the operation of those sites is curtailed and that the criminal infrastructure that lies behind them starts to be dismantled. I commend the work of the PSNI. Recently, I met Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Beck and a chief superintendent. It was a useful meeting, and they have a particularly challenging task. The problem has become so prevalent that the resources that the PSNI can task to stop the criminal gangs undoubtedly need to be increased. We need to give the PSNI the tools and resources that it needs to act, gather evidence and execute successful prosecutions. The amendment gives an additional tool in the form of a new criminal sanction to the PSNI and the Public Prosecution Service, for that matter, to help them investigate and find the evidence needed to dismantle the criminal infrastructure that lies behind some of what we are talking about today. No one is pretending that the amendment alone will solve trafficking or prostitution in Northern Ireland. Undoubtedly, more will be required. Better services and supports are needed for many survivors, both in the process of exiting and in the stage after that. We need stronger exit pathways, better cross-border cooperation and urgent reforms at Westminster. As well as the colleagues that I mentioned, I thank a few people who have been helpful to the APG's work. I thank Ruth Breslin from SERPI, which works out of Dublin in the South; Eleanor Lyons, who is the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner; and the survivors of prostitution who came to the APG and told us some harrowing things in their own words. Their evidence was incredibly powerful. Finally, I thank Jessica and Tim from CARE, who provide secretariat support. The amendment is a necessary first step in dealing with some of the issues that I have highlighted that we can take in this place today. For those reasons and having been informed by a growing body of UK and international evidence, I support and commend amendment No 78 as a first step to ending the scourge of the existence of such platforms and the profit that they make from the exploitation of women.

1,002 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: 0.05 (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

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 framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.96Yes
Overall judgement0.05At 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
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.84
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.15
No identity-related subject0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:56 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