Written submission from Sex Worker Advocacy and Resistance
Movement (SWARM) (PTN0008)

About our organisation

The Sex Worker Advocacy and Resistance Movement (SWARM) is a sex worker-led, grassroots collective based in the UK. Approximately 90% of our membership and every member of our board has lived experience of full service sex work (prostitution). We do not allow managers, clients or third parties to join our organisation. As well as advocacy work, our members run peer support meet-ups in several locations (currently London, East Midlands, Exeter and Yorkshire). Our private online forums connect us to hundreds of sex workers across the UK.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Sex workers need full decriminalisation as a fundamental first step in improving our safety and access to rights and justice. This is the legal model supported by all sex worker led organisations in the UK and Ireland (SWARM, English Collective of Prostitutes, ScotPep, Umbrella Lane, Sex Worker Alliance Ireland). It is the model supported by frontline charities Basis Yorkshire, POW Nottingham, National Ugly Mugs and Ugly Mugs Ireland. It is supported by Amnesty International[1], STOP AIDS[2] and ILGA (the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association)[3]. It is also the model supported by multiple United Nations bodies including UNAIDS, the World Health Organization and the UN Development Programme.

2. There is a wealth of evidence to show that full decriminalisation has positive impacts on sex worker safety, but it not a ‘magic bullet’ on its own - wider social policies that promote the economic empowerment of women are essential for providing viable routes out and reducing the numbers of women who feel pressured to go into sex work to make ends meet. These wider policies include affordable childcare, higher pay in women-dominated industries, flexible working, well-funded women’s services, and an end to benefit cuts and sanctions. Migrant women and asylum seekers need full access to benefits and the right to work so as not to be pushed into destitution. We call on the government to promote these policies alongside the decriminalisation of prostitution.

3. The growing evidence of harmful outcomes from countries which have implemented “end demand” or Nordic Model must be reviewed by the Committee. In particular, we wish to draw the Committee’s attention to the detailed report by Medecins du Monde about the extreme failures of the model in France[4], and evidence from Ugly Mugs Ireland about the sharp increase in reports of violence following the introduction of an “end demand” law in 2017[5].

4. SWARM gave evidence to the recent Inquiry by the Department for Work and Pensions Select Committee into the link between benefits cuts and survival sex; we recommend that the Women and Equalities Committee also consider that written and oral testimony. In particular we wish to highlight that cuts to and gatekeeping around disability benefits have pushed many of our members into selling sex to avoid destitution, and the refusal of these benefits is blocking these members from being able to stop selling sex. 

5. The criminalisation of sex work is a driving factor in sex workers’ difficulty in accessing health services.  A 2018 study from the London School of Tropical Hygiene showed that the criminalisation of sex work, including countries with ‘end demand’ policies, increased sex workers’ exposure to violence and jeopardised their health[6].

6. We urgently need long-term state funding for holistic, non-judgmental support services for people who are selling sex. For support services to succeed in delivering good outcomes for people who sell sex, they must have these essential components:

●       6a) People who want to leave prostitution need material support to do so: a liveable alternative income, affordable housing, adequate benefits, or access to other suitable and accessible well-paid work. Services that seek to persuade women to leave prostitution without being able to offer them viable alternative sources of income will inevitably fail.

●       6b) Services must be prepared to support both sex workers who are planning to leave prostitution and want support with this, and those who do not currently wish to “exit” - or are unable to do so - and need help instead with improving their health, conditions and quality of life while they continue to sell sex.

●       6c) Services must be non-coercive (i.e. not use the threat of criminal justice sanctions as a punishment for lack of engagement) and operate with a “firewall” so that women can access them without fear of being reported to police or immigration authorities.

●       6d) Services must be accessible to specific marginalised groups who are over-represented in sex work: e.g. welcoming to trans and LGB people and sensitive to their needs; providing translation and language support for migrants; accessible to those with disabilities, substance users and people with complex needs.

INQUIRY RESPONSE

These are the questions that the Committee has asked for consultation on, which we have answered in order below.

1. What, if any, harms are associated with buying and selling sex? Who is affected? How?

People who sell sex in the UK are vulnerable to violence due to the impact of criminalisation and high levels of stigma. We have a wide network of members who sell sex in the UK in various settings - some in positions of relative safety and good conditions, and some in very poor conditions where they are more vulnerable to harm.

Before discussing the various harms experienced by our members who are selling sex, we want to stress that sex work / “prostitution” is not inherently a form of violence. The claim that selling sex is inherently a form of violence reinforces the idea that violence against sex workers is inevitable, and erases the fact that people selling sex in good conditions, with better access to safety measures and justice, are at much less risk of harm than those forced to work in higher risk settings. As sex workers ourselves, this is not an abstract debate but an issue of life-and-death importance to us. We campaign for a rights-based approach to sex work/prostitution. All our experience and the international evidence confirms that the best way to reduce harm would be through full decriminalisation, increased protection for the human and labour rights of sex workers, alongside wide-ranging efforts to provide economic alternatives and well-funded, non-judgmental services - so that no one is pressured by economic necessity to sell sex, and help is available for people to leave when they want to.

Sex workers tend to be people who are economically marginalised and unable to secure other forms of work or income that would offer better conditions. Over-represented groups include: women, single mothers, migrants, disabled people, LGBT people, and people who have experienced poverty and/or homelessness. For this reason, the reduction of economic inequality in general and the reversal of austerity politics is essential for securing material improvements in the lives of people selling sex.

SWARM gave evidence to the recent Inquiry by the Department for Work and Pensions Select Committee into the link between benefits cuts and survival sex; we recommend that the Women and Equalities Committee also consider that written and oral testimony. In particular we wish to highlight that cuts to and gatekeeping around disability benefits have pushed many of our members into selling sex to avoid destitution, and the refusal of these benefits is blocking these members from being able to stop selling sex. 

Harms that people selling sex are vulnerable to include:

-          Little or no access to justice when we are victims of crime. Among those of us who have approached police after suffering a crime such as sexual violence, harassment, or robbery, experiences of being treated dismissively or even threatened with prosecution ourselves are common. Many of us would not approach police at all due to high levels of distrust and fears of being charged with a criminal offence (and in the case of migrant workers, fears of being detained or forcibly deported).

-          Brothel closures and raids. Sometimes misleadingly presented as ‘welfare checks’, police frequently raid brothels, with harmful outcomes for the workers. This can involve policy officers taking away sex workers’ earnings, threatening or enacting deportations of migrants, or otherwise behaving violently, threateningly, or misogynistically.

-          Poor experiences of accessing services (e.g. sexual health, social services, mental health services) due to stigma and lack of understanding by professionals. Fear of social services reporting involvement in prostitution to other authorities is also very high and impedes access (e.g. police, immigration, social services for sex workers who are parents).

-          Harassment and stalking - this can be from sex buyers, former partners, or neighbours / other acquaintances. Police responses to sex workers’ reports of harassment are often dismissive and victim-blaming.

-          Blackmail/coercion - abusive people can use the fear of being “outed” as a sex worker or reported to police to extort or manipulate sex workers.

-          Robbery - sex workers are vulnerable to robbery and are frequently targeted specifically because they are known to fear going to the police.

-          Sexual violence - the vast majority of cases of rape or sexual assault go unreported, just as they do outside of sex work. 

-          Workplace exploitation: sex workers who are working in managed brothels are in a criminalised workplace and therefore cannot access justice through employment law or union representation. This gives them little power to challenge practices such as wage theft, exploitative conditions, unfair dismissal or sexual harassment.

2. How does buying and selling sex affect attitudes towards women more widely?

As the women directly affected by selling sex (the sellers), we urge parliamentarians to prioritise our immediate needs and safety above unsubstantiated claims that harsher policies towards prostitution will create wider gains in gender equality. When policy-makers suggest that any negative outcomes for women in prostitution of further criminalisation can be justified on the basis of the potential imagined gains for other, non-sex working women, we find this deeply wrong and offensive. On the contrary, improved safety and rights for women in prostitution would be a gain for all women. A reduction in the number of women in prostitution may well occur if there were further improvements in wider gender equality (e.g. higher pay for women, better childcare provision, more and better paid flexible and part time work) but gains in gender equality cannot be achieved through criminalising prostitution.

3. What local initiatives are you aware of that address these harms? Are they effective? Why?

Basis Yorkshire a charity which delivers an excellent frontline service - offering non-judgmental support to women selling sex in Leeds. A great example of the kind of holistic support that needs to be offered on a much wider scale is their Housing First pilot project. Housing First is based on the principle that stable and suitable housing should be provided without restrictions based on personal circumstances or life choices. Intensive personalised support from a dedicated caseworker and housing management are provided to the women alongside each other, without one being dependent on the other. The evaluation report conducted by the University of Leeds has shown positive improvements in areas such as offending, substance use, physical and mental health and engagement with other support services. Some women who have received the support are no longer sex working, and some still are but in improved conditions.[7] We strongly believe that if more housing was provided to sex workers through projects like this, the harms they experience would be greatly reduced. This approach which empowers women by improving the options available to them is not more expensive than the punitive, criminal justice system approach - it just requires the political will to actually work with and support women in poverty rather than attempt to punish them and push them “out of sight” with police enforcement.

We are aware of a number of very worrying local approaches to prostitution which have caused increased harm to sellers of sex. The heavy enforcement approach operated by Redbridge Council in London is causing displacement and high levels of fines and arrests of migrant women who sell sex in the borough[8]. The harms of this approach have recently been reported on by human rights organisation RightsInfo.[9]

We also want to highlight a worrying trend whereby rhetoric around “ending demand” for prostitution or concern for victims is used as a smokescreen to enforce policies which are actually motivated by gentrification, social cleansing and anti-migrant sentiment. Redbridge Council has been praised by some supporters of the Nordic Model for targeting sex buyers, completely ignoring that the great majority of fines and arrests relating to prostitution since the declaration of the “no tolerance” approach have been of sellers - overwhelmingly migrant women. It is highly alarming that the Council has received a £460,000 Government grant to expand its dangerous anti-prostitution policies from the Government’s Controlling Migration Fund - clear evidence that the Government would rather put resources into criminalising and deporting migrants through the hostile environment, than fund effective support services for vulnerable adults.

4. What, if any, are the challenges for those facing harm in accessing services (for example, healthcare; support services; advice; exit services)? What needs to change?

The criminalisation of sex work is a driving factor in sex workers’ difficulty in accessing health services.  A 2018 study from the London School of Tropical Hygiene showed that the criminalisation of sex work, including countries with ‘end demand’ policies, increased sex workers’ exposure to violence and jeopardised their health[10]. The service manager at Open Doors, a specialist service for sex workers in East London, reported that sex workers refused to accept free condoms as they feared, “often with cause”, that police would use them as evidence for prosecution[11]. She also reported that in 2016, the London Borough of Hackney requested that sex worker patients registered with Open Doors ‘were referred to drug cessation services with a police presence, which “undid years of trust”.

For support services to succeed in delivering good outcomes for women in prostitution, they must have these essential components:

-          Women who want to leave prostitution need material support to do so: a liveable alternative income, affordable housing, adequate benefits, or access to other suitable and accessible well-paid work. Services that seek to persuade women to leave prostitution without being able to offer them viable alternative sources of income will inevitably fail.

-          Services must be prepared to support both sex workers who are planning to leave prostitution and want support with this, and those who do not currently wish to “exit” - or are unable to do so - and need help instead with improving their health, conditions and quality of life while they continue to sell sex.

-          Services must be non-coercive (i.e. not use the threat of criminal justice sanctions as a punishment for lack of engagement) and operate with a “firewall” so that women can access them without fear of being reported to police or immigration authorities.

-          Services must be accessible to specific marginalised groups who are over-represented in sex work: e.g. welcoming to trans and LGB people and sensitive to their needs; providing translation and language support for migrants; accessible to those with disabilities, substance users and people with complex needs.

We consider “John schools” to be a poor use of resources which do nothing to impact the welfare or wellbeing of people selling sex and are dependent on the implementation of a harmful enforcement model which has negative consequences for sellers.

5. What relevance does the Public Sector Equality Duty have for the way that public authorities address prostitution in their area?

It is an unfortunately common approach that local authorities base their approach to prostitution around tackling “anti-social behaviour” - punishing sex workers for their own poverty and social exclusion with criminal sanctions. It is frequently the most marginalised sex workers (migrant women, outdoor workers) who are most heavily targeted by enforcement. In our view it would be more in keeping with the spirit of the public sector equality duty if local authorities were to recognise their duty to offer equal treatment and services to people who sell sex (who are overwhelmingly women, and disproportionately from migrant/ethnic minority communities, LGBT and disabled), and to do this by funding non-judgmental support services, adopting a harm reduction approach and upholding the 2015 National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) which states that brothel closures and raids cause harm and should be avoided.[12]

We would be very alarmed by any attempt to misinterpret the Public Sector Equality Duty as a justification for more raids and on-street crackdowns.

6. How does the law currently treat paying for sex? How could law and policy be improved to address harm? 

The National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) updated its guidance on the policing of prostitution in England and Wales in 2015 to reflect some of the lessons learned from harmful enforcement operations in previous years.

The guidance states that police forces should consider that enforcement actions can cause “risk, harm and threat to sex workers who are likely to choose to continue to work, albeit in other areas which may be less safe or familiar to them.” It further states that “brothel closures and ‘raids’ create a mistrust of all external agencies including outreach services. It is difficult to rebuild trust and ultimately reduces the amount of intelligence submitted to the police and puts sex workers at greater risk.”

This guidance strongly reflects the experiences of our own members. Those of us who work indoors are terrified of police raids - even when we are told they are “welfare checks” not raids, they are highly traumatic experiences, particularly for migrant workers who fear deportation. Even when no arrests are made, the loss of income during the hours of the raid means that brothel workers then have to work longer and scrabble to make up for the loss income. If the brothel closes we may have to sell sex in a more risky, unfamiliar or isolated setting to make up that lost income.

This NPCC guidance is very widely disregarded by police forces across the country. Raids are common and they are increasing - causing a lot of distress and displacement of sex workers. Frequently in these raids, sex workers are themselves criminalised under brothel-keeping law, immigration law, or for possession of a self-defence weapon.[13] To give just one example to illustrate this - in January 2019 a Romanian sex worker living in Lancashire was sentenced to two years in prison for possession of a stun gun (intended for self-defence) following a raid on her home.

It is also common in raids for cash earnings to be seized as “proceeds from crime” leaving the sex workers financially precarious or even destitute. The fact that under our current law earnings can be seized and retained by police forces creates a financial incentive for them to target brothels and go after sex workers’ earnings, which is completely counter-productive to a victim-focused approach.

Police enforcement often particularly targets migrant sex workers, and there is no clear separation between raids supposedly intended to identify victims of trafficking and regular immigration raids. The ‘hostile environment’ mindset views migrant sex workers as ‘undesirables’, with brutal consequences. Even when people are officially recognised as trafficking victims through the National Referral Mechanism, material and legal support for them to settle in the UK and escape poverty is frequently absent or inadequate. Trafficking victims are being be subject to forced deportation from the UK, regardless of what further danger awaits them in their home country.[14]

Many sex workers have had terrible experiences when trying to report violence to the police - being dismissed and subjected to victim blaming. When the police treat women in this way they not only exacerbate the trauma we have already experienced, but also destroy trust and push us into further isolation and vulnerability.

Law reform based on full decriminalisation and developed in consultation with sex worker led groups is needed to improve sex worker safety. In the interim we need a clear signal from government that police forces should uphold the 2015 NPCC guidelines and desist from raids and counter-productive enforcement approaches. There is currently widespread inconsistency across the country in how different police forces, and different officers within those forces, interpret the existing laws and guidance.

7. How effective are different international approaches at addressing any harms associated with buying and selling sex?

We are strongly opposed to the full criminalisation approach adopted in many countries of the world e.g. the United States, Russia where exploitation, human rights abuses, and state violence towards sex workers is rife. Similarly, many systems of partial criminalisation are characterised by a lack of access to justice and discriminatory abuse by police forces.[15]

We also oppose the “legalisation” approach taken in Germany and the Netherlands which create a two-tier system of licensed and illegal sex workers - with restrictive limitations on the former and harsh punitive approaches to the latter.[16]

As there are few people currently advocating for either the full criminalisation or legalisation model to be introduced in the UK, we will focus on why we support full decriminalisation (based on the New Zealand model) rather than the “End Demand” or Nordic Model.

The dangers of the Nordic Model / “End Demand” model

Before discussing the academic and research evidence, we wish to stress that the Nordic Model is strongly opposed by the overwhelming majority of sex workers, and by all sex worker led organisations, based on our own personal knowledge of how this approach would affect our safety. It is also opposed by National Ugly Mugs, the national frontline charity for sex worker safety[17]. The “end demand” legal framework has not been introduced in any jurisdiction in consultation with or co-designed by sex worker-led groups - instead it has been imposed despite loud protests and warnings from the sex worker community.

In the survey of sex workers in Northern Ireland commissioned by the Ministry of Justice in 2014, only 2% supported the criminalisation of clients, out of 171 respondents.[18] When National Ugly Mugs surveyed sex workers in 2015, 81% said they would feel less safe if clients were criminalised and only 3% said they would feel more safe (our of 232 responses).[19]

When clients are criminalised, that means that the sex worker has to assist the client to evade the police in order to get his business. If she is working outdoors on the street, that might mean having to get into his car quickly to avoid police arrest, not having time to talk first and get a sense of whether he seems drunk or pushy, and not being able to negotiate price, condom use or boundaries before getting into the car. It might mean working outdoors in a more isolated area away from other sex workers, so as to avoid police crackdowns. If a sex worker is based indoors, it might mean that clients are unwilling to give their real name or phone number for safety screening and will call from withheld numbers. It means that a flat that someone sells sex from is a ‘crime scene’ and subject to being raided.

Countries which have brought in this model tend to keep in place much of the criminalisation which surrounds selling sex, so that sex workers are still criminalised for ‘brothel keeping’ if they work together in a flat for safety. When police have a crackdown with the stated aim of arresting clients, sex workers who they come into contact with can often end up getting charged under other laws - such as immigration offences, anti-social behaviour orders or drug possession, or evicted and left homeless. The removal of penalties for soliciting and selling is definitely needed, but under the Nordic Model the cloud of criminalisation around prostitution remains and the ones who suffer most from that are still the sellers.

The deliberate disruption and displacement of prostitution by enforcement measures which occurs under the Nordic Model can lead to sex workers being more desperate for income and therefore having to accept riskier situations in order to get the money they need.

In April 2018, Médecins du Monde published a report analysing the impact of the 2016 implementation of the Nordic Model in France. 583 sex workers took part in the research. Key findings include:

- 63% of sex workers have experienced deterioration of their living conditions.

- 78% of sex workers have experienced a loss of income.

- 42% of sex workers are more exposed to violence.

- 38% of sex workers find it increasingly hard to demand use of condoms.

- 70% of sex workers observe no improvement or deterioration of their relations with the police.

- Only 39% of sex workers are aware of the existence of the exit program and, of those who know of its existence, only 26% intend to apply. The programme has been criticised for creating barriers to access which exclude most sex workers from being eligible, and for providing insufficient financial assistance to live on.[20]

Ugly Mugs Ireland, a sex worker safety organisation which takes anonymous reports of violent clients from sex workers, reported that reports from sex workers of being victims of crime almost doubled in the two years following the introduction of the “Nordic Model” in 2017. Distrust of police remains very high - among the sex workers in the Republic of Ireland reporting crime to Ugly Mugs, only 1% say they have reported or intend to report to the police.[21]

Recent research from Ireland shows that since 2009, the vast majority of those convicted of brothel keeping are migrant women, who were working together for safety.[22] The high levels of prosecutions of women for brothel-keeping in Ireland show that the rhetoric that the “End Demand” model decriminalises the women is not borne out in reality.

The benefits of full decriminalisation

New Zealand decriminalised prostitution through the implementation of its Prostitution Reform Act (PRA) in June 2003. The purpose of the legislation was: to decriminalise prostitution; to create a framework to safeguard the human rights of sex workers and protect them from exploitation; to promote the occupational health of sex workers; contribute to public health; and prohibit buying sex from workers under 18 years of age. The PRA also established a certification regime for brothel operators.

A 2007 study of the New Zealand full decriminalisation model found “numerous benefits” to this legislation.[23] We do not hold up the law in New Zealand as an example of a perfect society as we believe that the law could go further in terms of decriminalising migrant workers[24]. However, a 2008 report by the New Zealand Ministry of Justice found no instances of trafficking, and no increase in the number of sex workers; 95% of sex worker respondents felt that they had rights in the decriminalised context. Furthermore, 60% of participants felt more able to refuse clients since the law had changed[25], allowing them to make safer choices.

This increased trust and interaction with authorities is further reflected in the data: 65% of street-based sex workers told researchers that they felt the police had improved as a result of the law and about 70% that they feel ‘most or all’ cops now look out for their safety.

The report concluded that “there is little or no evidence that there have been negative consequences for the health and safety of sex workers post-decriminalisation”.

Later research conducted with street-based sex workers in New Zealand indicated that decriminalisation better supports safety strategies. For example, when negotiating with clients, it was reported that:

“sex workers can spend as much time as they wish standing beside the car talking with potential clients before deciding whether or not to do the job. Decriminalisation can therefore be argued to simplify the screening process by reducing the number of risks sex workers must consider before deciding whether or not to accept a job. Individuals who may have untoward intentions cannot excuse their anxiety as concern over the possibility they may be arrested. In addition, sex workers themselves no longer have to fear entrapment and thus there is no need to be covert in their negotiations with clients. ...The change in law has therefore afforded not only the power to be seen on the street while working but also greater capacity to mitigate potential risks.”[26]

Sex workers need decriminalisation as a fundamental first step in improving safety and access to rights and justice. But decriminalisation is not a magic bullet on its own - wider social policies that promote the economic empowerment of women are essential for providing viable routes out and reducing the numbers of women who feel pressured to go into sex work to make ends meet. These policies include affordable childcare, higher pay in women-dominated industries, flexible working, well-funded women’s services, and an end to benefit cuts and sanctions. Migrant women and asylum seekers need full access to benefits and the right to work so as not to be pushed into destitution.

Policy Recommendations:

●       Urgent law reform: Decriminalise adult prostitution by removing laws prohibiting soliciting, brothel keeping and kerb crawling (and in Northern Ireland, purchasing sex). Coercing a person through intimidation, grooming or violence into any sexual act, commercial or not, should remain illegal.

●       Enshrine in law the principle that people selling sex outdoors should not be targeted with anti-social behaviour orders - the decriminalisation of soliciting will not be effective if local authorities and police simply use other criminal sanctions to criminalise outdoor sex workers.

●       Expunge past convictions for prostitution-related offences from people’s criminal records. Many sex workers feel blocked from applying for alternative work due to fear of past convictions being disclosed to prospective employers.

●       Consult with current sex workers and sex worker led organisations in a review of the laws affecting us.

●       Provide long-term state funding for non-judgmental, holistic support services for sex workers which do not use coercive measures (e.g. threats of prosecution or imprisonment if the woman refuses to cooperate or fails to ‘succeed’ in the programme; or support offered being conditional on the woman first desisting from selling sex even if the woman has not yet been able to secure alternative employment or financial means).

●       Review and address how benefit reforms, including Universal Credit and disability benefit reforms, have negatively impacted on women and resulted in more people being forced to sell sex due to poverty.

●       Reinstate financial aid grants for students and abolish tuition fees to offer alternatives for students who are selling sex in order to sustain themselves financially while studying.

●       Introduce a strict principle of non-prosecution of victims when they come forward to report exploitation in the sex industry, and training for police to ensure this is adhered to.

●       Create a ‘firewall’ between immigration enforcement and support for victims of trafficking, exploitation or other crimes in prostitution, so they can feel safe to come forward to authorities.

September 2019