Debate contribution: Adult Services Websites

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on 27 January 2026.

MLA

Mr Gerry Carroll

Party at the time

People Before Profit Alliance

Date

27 January 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Adult Services Websites

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5345549

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Of course, human trafficking is a disgusting, exploitative and rotten practice that must end. One of the quickest ways to do that would be to ensure that there is support and safe access routes for migrants and asylum seekers, which the party to my right usually opposes. There is no doubt that some sex traffickers try to use adult services websites to coerce, prey on and bring harm to vulnerable women. However, it is dangerous to conflate sex work and human trafficking, which is what the motion does. That is precisely why we should challenge the call to further criminalise sex work under the guise of protecting women and girls from trafficking, which is what the motion does. It is currently illegal to purchase sex, but it is not illegal to sell it. That partial criminalisation — neo-abolitionism, if you will — has clearly not succeeded in its aims. The demand is still there, and people continue to buy services online. We need to listen to the voice of sex workers — that has not been mentioned in the debate — who tell us that they want to feel safe in their job, regardless of how people in here feel about the nature of that work. NHS drop-in support services for sex workers in the North have been shut down, leaving people isolated and vulnerable. The state is actively failing those sex workers. Sex workers tell people that adult services give them more control over their work, which is something that everybody wants across society. They can potentially screen clients before they meet them and set limits on what they will and will not offer. The term "adult services" is generic and wide-ranging. I am concerned that the likes of OnlyFans and other websites that, quite often, adults and younger adults use are included in the motion. That is very problematic, to put it mildly. We need to decriminalise and regulate sex work, not criminalise websites that actively reduce harm out of existence. Prohibition will not stifle demand; it will only drive sex work underground, where there is a far greater risk of exploitation and violence against women. The creation of a black market is not good for anyone except human traffickers. It is worth nothing that, in the South of Ireland, violence against sex workers increased by 77% in the year following partial criminalisation. That is not protection; it is state-sanctioned harm. We should also be suspicious of any demands relating to women's bodies coming from evangelical Christian lobby groups and the DUP in particular. Policies should be evidence-based, not driven by religious or aggressive political ideology. If the DUP really cared about the safety of women and girls, it would support women who are engaged in sex work to be as safe as possible. Further criminalisation will have the opposite effect.

Sure.

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether the Member has been listening, but the Nordic model is problematic. However, I note that the DUP led the way in that regard. The DUP often talk about women's safety, but, usually, it is a pretext for an attack on migrants, trans people or other people. It is worth challenging that point.

I do not know what the Member to my right is saying, but I will move on. Adult services websites are already regulated under the Online Safety Act 2023, which is supposed to protect users from trafficking. Those websites are regulated by Ofcom. If we want to stop the exploitation of women, we should consider more effective ways of regulating websites in order to stop trafficking. Everybody wants to do that, but I and many others have a problem with the conflation of it and adult services. It could help to identify red flags such as the one phone number being used, as Members mentioned. It is possible and necessary to support the full decriminalisation of sex work and the self-organisation of sex workers while being critical of exploitation and fundamentally opposed to trafficking. That means listening to sex workers, respecting their choices and refusing to criminalise women out of existence while claiming to save them. I refer Members to today's 'The Irish News', in which Aoife Moore has a good column that deals with some of the issues. She says:

"OnlyFans is the opposite of Grok"

because it allows people to have choice. She also states:

"Consent and ownership is the whole point. In most cases, those who own the channel, run the channel and have complete authority over what goes on."

There needs to be a bit more nuance in the debate. I really oppose the way in which adult services and human trafficking have purposely been conflated.

787 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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