Debate contribution: Adult Services Websites
Debate contribution by Ms Connie Egan on .
- MLA
- Ms Connie Egan
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 27 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Adult Services Websites
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5345490
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On behalf of the Alliance party, and as vice chair of the all-party group on modern slavery and sexual exploitation, I will respond to the motion that my DUP colleagues tabled. Let me start by being totally clear. Human trafficking and modern slavery totally undermine what should be a fundamental foundation of our society: the freedom, dignity and choices of one another. Holding another against their will or forcing an individual into unwanted sexual acts for payment is abhorrent and criminal in the strictest terms. That includes when it is facilitated by adult services websites. The UK Anti-slavery Commissioner, Eleanor Lyons, said that, in 2024, almost 5,000 women and girls in the UK were identified as being victims of sexual exploitation and that that was only the tip of the iceberg. Modern slavery and human trafficking is an incredibly hidden, gendered form of abuse that disproportionately affects women and girls globally. It is, of course, under-reported, so, data-wise, understanding its true extent is still a work in progress. It is with that in mind that we, as an Assembly, must take all steps possible to support the investigation that the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner's office announced into adult services platforms in August of last year. The purpose of that investigation is to create an evidence base and make a series of recommendations on the best way to disrupt the exploitative online practices that result in the trafficking and sexual exploitation of individuals in the UK. Telecommunications is a reserved matter for Westminster, so it is right that the motion focuses on pressing the UK Government for further enforcement and penalties for exploitative practices online. That runs alongside the work that the Department of Justice already undertakes locally through its modern slavery and human trafficking strategy. Last week, along with colleagues, I attended the launch of the APG's inquiry into the regulation of websites that advertise sex for sale. We heard from those who are working to tackle the commercial sexual exploitation of women across these islands, and from women with lived experience of that exploitation. I thought that it would be pertinent to share what that exploitation looks like in 2026, 10 years on from Lord Morrow's Act, during which time technology and the tactics used in commercial sexual exploitation have evolved. We learned from those who are actively monitoring the trafficking that, on this island, one dominant website advertises women for sale in such a way that it is as easy as ordering a takeaway. That website uses coded language, outfits and emojis to indicate the age range of those on the platform and the services that they provide. Worryingly, that includes specific indicators that facilitate the exploitation of those who are under 18. Users — more often than not, men — scroll and select who they would like to engage with, based on photographs and the accompanying listing. That is what some have described as "the Etsy of exploitation". There are hundreds of women and girls listed on that website each day. They are victims of trafficking, who are controlled and forcibly moved around the island weekly, because those purchasing sex demand new and unfamiliar faces. Those women and children often blame themselves for being put in that position and, in fear of prosecution or shame, are too embarrassed to come forward to justice agencies for help if the opportunity arises. However, in reality, we know that they are victims — victims of commercial exploitation and trafficking — and that they must be protected. It is positive that our approach in Northern Ireland is not to criminalise those victims but instead, through the national referral mechanism (NRM), to provide holistic, wrap-around support when they come forward. It is only with understanding that we can move the dial forward on such horrific crimes. It is right that we refresh our enthusiasm and focus on the issue of commercial sexual exploitation, particularly 10 years after the passing of legislation in that area. Much can happen in that time, but our reflections must be grounded in the evidence of victims and survivors and others who are working at the coalface. Sexual exploitation through trafficking must be ended. Together, as an Assembly, we can work to ensure that as many barriers to perpetrators as possible are built to end these horrific crimes.
719 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: 0.04 (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 (0.92).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.64 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.36 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:22 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.