Debate contribution: Adult Services Websites
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 27 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Adult Services Websites
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5345547
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the motion. The truth is that one of the main drivers for human trafficking in Northern Ireland is the demand for paid sex. That is not to suggest for one moment that we should not do everything that we can to address demand for all forms of human trafficking. We all have a moral duty to do so. However, the way we address demand for forced labour is different from the way we address demand for paid sex. I strongly support having a focus on this element of the demand for human trafficking today. It is really important that, in addressing the subject, we do not fall into the trap of seeking to address the suffering that arises from the demand for paid sex only if people have been trafficked. While some people who are drawn into prostitution have been trafficked, most are exploited in domestic prostitution. That is the principal reason why the 2015 Act is called the "Human Trafficking and Exploitation Act": while it engages with human trafficking, it is not just about human trafficking but about wider exploitation. As a society, we need to keep in view the central exploitation that arises from commodifying someone and paying for access to their body. That is deeply dehumanising and degrading and should have no place in Northern Ireland. In 2015, Northern Ireland took the lead in the area by criminalising paying for sex. I am concerned that we seem to have lost our way somewhat since then. In the first instance, the rates of arrests, prosecutions and convictions for purchasing sexual services remain low, although they are much higher than those that relate to the previous offence. Last year, Belfast Live reported that, between 2015 and March 2025, the PSNI had recorded 115 arrests for the offence of paying for sexual services. Between 2015 and the end of 2024, the PSNI referred 131 cases to the PPS. In 55 of those cases, the decision was taken not to prosecute. Even after such cases are passed to the PPS, they are rarely progressed further. The first case reached the Magistrates' Court in 2018, and the first case before the Crown Court was in 2021. We can change the culture in Northern Ireland only if we apply the will to properly enforce our law. Today, I detect a loss of way or, at least, momentum in the motion. In 2015, we led the way in the UK. Had we, back then, simply passed a motion asking UK Ministers to criminalise paying for sex, nothing would have happened. We have the powers to legislate to prohibit pimping websites in Northern Ireland already, so we should prohibit them rather than waiting for others to do so.
455 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.84 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.15 |
| 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 14:22 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.