Member's statement: All-Party Group on Modern Slavery and Sexual Exploitation: Inquiry
Member's statement by Mr Peter Martin on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter Martin
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 19 January 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- All-Party Group on Modern Slavery and Sexual Exploitation: Inquiry
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5321998
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In 2015, my DUP colleague Lord Morrow got his Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Further Provisions and Support for Victims) Bill through the Assembly, and it became law. I am thankful to him for that. I am also thankful to Christian Action Research and Education, a Christian social policy charity, for its work at that time and its ongoing focus on the issue. However, human trafficking remains a pervasive, adaptive and deeply entrenched issue. Criminal networks continue to exploit gaps between immigration systems, labour markets and social protections, and technology has accelerated recruitment and control. As the chair of the newly formed all-party group on modern slavery and sexual exploitation, I am keen to push forward with our inquiry into the operation and impact of pimping websites in Northern Ireland. Globally, growing evidence shows that websites that cynically attempt to label themselves as "adult services" websites profit from the trafficking, exploitation and abuse of women and girls. Such websites are often heralded as providing women with empowerment. Instead, they are full of adverts for women who have been trafficked, deceived and manipulated. A House of Commons Committee recently found that the advertising of sexual services has moved increasingly online and that adult services websites are "the most significant enabler" of trafficking for sexual exploitation. I will pause briefly to thank the UK Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Eleanor Lyons, for her excellent work and research in the area. I also bring the Assembly's attention to the brilliant work of Ruth Breslin, who is the director of the Sexual Exploitation Research and Policy Institute in the South. Critical to addressing commercial sexual exploitation is tackling the persistent myth of choice. The presence of money does not negate the presence of coercion. Where there is an imbalance of power, or where there is vulnerability, fear or a lack of viable alternatives, consent is rendered meaningless. I am proud that my party, the DUP, introduced that legislation to protect women. However, we must all now refocus and adapt our energy to combat the new and pervasive enemy that is in our midst. If we are to call ourselves a society that values dignity and justice, we must ensure that exploitation is neither tolerated nor ignored. The measure of our commitment will be found not in words but in the protection that we offer our most vulnerable.
390 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: 0.05 (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 (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.72 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.27 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.