Debate contribution: Adult Services Websites

Debate contribution by Mr Doug Beattie MC on .

MLA
Mr Doug Beattie MC
Party at the time
Ulster Unionist Party
Date
27 January 2026
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Adult Services Websites
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5345492

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Support for the motion is a no-brainer, and I support it wholeheartedly. I support it on the fundamental grounds of justice, human dignity, safety and a duty to protect the most vulnerable. The motion correctly identifies a grim reality of the digital age: adult services websites have become the modern-day high street for exploitation. They do not simply advertise: they industrialise and normalise the buying of human beings, primarily women and girls, under a thin veil of commerce. Those platforms are the primary facilitators of traffickers and exploitative punters, allowing them to operate with anonymity, scale and impunity. They mask coercion behind a drop-down menu and transform profound human suffering into a simple online transaction. Northern Ireland has rightly taken a pioneering stand. Our 2015 Human Trafficking Act, which criminalised the purchase of sex, was built on the Nordic model — the principle of targeting demand and supporting those who are being exploited.

I have previously spoken in the Chamber about my experiences in Kosovo, where I saw the genesis of human trafficking. Most of the time, we see its outcomes, but I saw the start of it. I saw the kidnapping gangs that went out to look for young women and girls. I saw them warehoused before they were trafficked on. I saw the families who were exploited by those people before they trafficked their daughters into that trade. I have seen that route, and it has stayed with me for an awfully long time. Now that I am here, working with the good people in the Assembly, I can see what we are trying to do to end trafficking, but we see the end stage, not necessarily all the suffering that goes along with it. Prostitution is not a career choice but, in the vast majority of cases, a site of immense gender violence, poverty and trauma. We have been leaders in recognising that you cannot truly combat trafficking while providing a safe, searchable marketplace for traffickers' goods. Our laws have a critical gap, however. While it is an offence here to purchase or control a person for the purpose of prostitution, the digital pimps and website operators who profit enormously from such exploitation often operate from outside this jurisdiction. They are shielded by the lack of specific UK-wide offences. That loophole undermines our entire legislative intent. Therefore, the call to the Justice Minister is not just logical but imperative. The Minister must press the UK Government on one clear, unequivocal demand: to create a new offence of operating a website that hosts advertisements for prostitution. That would target the business model and its sources. It would increase the risk for traffickers, disrupt the primary channel of the trade and begin to shrink the demand that fuels it. It would be a targeted response to the organised crime gangs that exploit the present gaps. We need to understand that the vast majority of this is done by organised crime gangs. It is not about policing the internet; it is about upholding the law and protecting women. Just as we would not tolerate a newspaper openly advertising and trafficking women, we cannot tolerate its digital equivalent. The motion reaffirms our moral and legislative consistency. We have chosen to stand with the exploited, not the exploiters.

There is no doubt of that. The Minister can only do so much. She can make robust calls, but we need something to be done in Westminster. In many ways, Westminster will have to lead on some of it. It is not left sitting on the Minister's shoulders, but the call is for us, through the Minister, to be robust in trying to get change. To maintain our leadership, we must now ensure that our tools match the technology of the abusers. I urge all Members to support the motion. Let us send a clear message to victims that we see their exploitation and demand that the UK Government act to shut down the digital slave markets that operate in plain sight. I am in no doubt that everybody in the Chamber and further afield fully understands the issues that we face. It is important now that we build momentum to close the sites down, because, if we do not, we will fail the victims.

711 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: 0.04 (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 (0.94).
  • 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

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 framing0.08No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.04No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.94Yes
Overall judgement0.04At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.99
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.01
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.66
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.34
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

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.

Challenge this classification