Written evidence submitted by the Nordic Model Information Network

1. The Nordic Model Information Network is a global alliance of researchers with deep and systematic expertise in researching the dynamics of prostitution and the sex industry, trafficking and violence against women. We welcome the opportunity to respond to the Home Affairs Committee Prostitution inquiry.

2. Our research is grounded in contemporary evidence including, importantly, the testimony of survivors of the prostitution system, as well as drawing on historical, philosophical and sociological inquiry. Many of us have worked directly with prostituted women and girls. We have individual and collective links with a wide variety of organisations working for the abolition of prostitution as an institution of gender inequality and exploitation. We call for the criminalisation of buying and selling of others for sex and the decriminalisation of those who are bought and sold for sex.

Whether criminal sanction in relation to prostitution should continue to fall more heavily on those who sell sex, rather than those who buy it

3. We unequivocally support the removal of criminal sanctions for all those who are bought and sold for sex and support criminal sanctions for those who buy and sell others for sex (pimping and sex trafficking). Men are overwhelmingly the majority of those who buy sex, and women and girls those whose bodies are bought and sold. For the latter, criminal sanctions are a punishment for being coerced, or making a decision to survive where there are no meaningful alternatives. Linking criminality to being used in prostitution deepens the social stigma directed at women and girls in systems of prostitution, creates distrust between them and the police/statutory agencies, acting as a deterrent to seeking support, and presents a formidable barrier to exiting.[1] We call for the immediate removal of criminal sanctions for activities related to persons who are bought and sold for sex.

4. We support the criminalisation of the purchase of sex. In Sweden, where this approach was pioneered, prostitution is recognised as incompatible with equality between women and men. The countries with the highest levels of gender equality in the world have subsequently adopted this approach. [2] Research from Sweden, Norway, the U.S. and a global survey shows a correlation between attitudes supporting equality between women and men and being critical of the social institution of prostitution.[3] For the UK to fulfil aspirations and obligations to address ongoing inequalities between women and men, it is vital to send a strong law and policy message that it is unacceptable for women’s bodies to be on sale for men’s sexual release.

5. Criminal sanctions should be shifted to men who buy sex. First, the UK is obliged under a range of international human rights instruments to reduce demand for commercial sexual exploitation.

6. For instance, the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children (The Palermo Protocol) requires States Parties to ‘adopt or strengthen legislative or other measures, such as educational, social or cultural measures, including through bilateral and multilateral cooperation, to discourage the demand that fosters all forms of exploitation of persons, especially women and children, that leads to trafficking’. The UN Recommended Principles on Human Rights and Human Trafficking (2002) specify that ‘strategies aimed at preventing trafficking shall address demand as a root cause of trafficking’. In 2014, the European Parliament, following a vote overwhelmingly in favour of MEP Mary Honeyball’s motion to recognise prostitution and sexual exploitation as cause and consequence of gender inequality, called upon Member States to reduce demand as part of ‘an integrated strategy against trafficking’.[4] Resolution 1983 adopted by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly in April 2014 echoed this, requiring states to consider criminalising the purchase of sex as a means to address trafficking.[5]

7. Secondly, evidence on the impact of the criminalisation of paying for sex in Sweden shows that prostitution markets and the proportion of men who buy sex have reduced, and popular support for the law increased. Since the law was enacted in 1999, independent evaluations have found that street prostitution markets have been reduced by half; there is no evidence that prostitution has been displaced into other spaces.[6] The size of the sex industry decreased considerably in Sweden following the introduction of the law, compared to neighbouring countries Denmark and Norway, where the number of prostituted persons has been estimated with similar indicators to be about 10 times higher per capita than in Sweden around 2007 (before buying sex was criminalised in Norway in 2009).[7] Although those figures may not be completely precise, the huge per capita difference cannot be explained by an increase in so-called ‘hidden’ prostitution, as women must be visible for buyers to locate for any significant sex trade to occur.[8] Evidence on this comparative impact of criminalising the purchase of sex shows the effectiveness of the law in reducing commercial sex markets, and therefore reducing contexts in which trafficking and other forms of violence flourish.[9] This contrasts with contexts where prostitution is legalised, which show ‘expansion[s] of the prostitution market’ and larger inflows of trafficking.[10] A smaller commercial sex market means fewer buyers,[11] so fewer harms of prostitution.

8. Support for the law in Sweden from the general public has increased from 20% of men and 45% of women in 1996[12] to 60% of men and 85% of women in 2014.[13]

9. The only fatality of a woman in prostitution in Sweden was murdered in 2013 by her ex-boyfriend during a custody visit (a domestic violence murder). This contrasts to New Zealand, where since decriminalisation of the sex industry at least four women involved in prostitution are known to have been murdered by sex buyers. At least 55 prostituted women have been murdered in Germany since 2002, when prostitution was legalised.[14] Since the sex purchase prohibition was introduced in Sweden, there has been no lethal violence against women in prostitution.

10. Disinformation about women’s safety under the Nordic model has been exposed elsewhere.[15] Violence against women by sex buyers is documented in all policy contexts, demonstrating the impossibility of keeping women safe while in prostitution.[16] Making women’s lives safer requires ending demand and commercial sexual exploitation.

Implications for prostitution-related offences of the Crown Prosecution Service's recognition of prostitution as violence against women

11. Prostitution can be viewed as on a continuum of violence against women and girls (VAWG)[17] because as with other practices of violation such as domestic violence, rape, sexual assault, childhood sexual abuse, stalking, sexual harassment and crimes in the name of honour, there is a gender asymmetry and hierarchy: prostitution overwhelmingly involves the abuse of women and girls’ bodies by men. This pattern reflects persistent inequalities between the sexes. The UN recognises VAWG as ‘cause and consequence of gender inequality’.[18] Prostitution can also be understood this way: men’s sense of sexual entitlement to women’s bodies, and legal impunity for sex purchase, normalises the practice of paying for sex and perpetuates the idea that men ‘need’ sexual release in/through a woman’s body, and practices accordingly. The legacies of prostitution that many women describe mirror those of sexual violence: e.g. dissociation from the body[19]; negative impacts on emotional and psychological health, including those that would fit the diagnostic criteria for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder[20]; substance misuse as a coping strategy.[21]

12. This does not mean that every woman experiences prostitution as violent, rather that the violation of the body involved has similar impacts. Understanding prostitution as violence against women means that less prostitution is less violence. Reducing the size of the sex industry, as the Nordic model has demonstrably done,[22] also diminishes prostitution as a conducive context[23] for other forms of sexual and physical violence experienced by those who are sold for sex.[24] Multiple research studies also document that most women in prostitution have histories of childhood sexual abuse.[25] Linking prostitution to VAWG means that policy will reflect these lived connections.

13. The implication for prostitution-related offences is that sanctions should be directed at tackling men’s sense of entitlement to the bodies of women and girls, a sense of entitlement that also underpins other forms of VAWG. Law is a powerful tool in defining what is, and is not, socially acceptable behaviour. Just as law is used to demarcate offences of abuse and violence, it can shift the acceptability of buying and selling access to women’s bodies.

14. As policy implications, national and local strategies on VAWG should be extended to include prostitution. The current Home Office strategy on all forms of VAWG does not include prostitution. Some areas have developed strategies that do (e.g. Lambeth), and enacted measures to discourage demand locally and provide specialist support for those bought and sold in the sex industry. A consistent national approach is necessary, including linking with policies on sexual exploitation of children (more below). These initiatives should fund specialist services for women used in the sex industry, including projects that focus on exiting and provide support for women who have been criminalised and/or homeless.

Whether further measures are necessary, including legal reforms, to assist those involved in prostitution to exit from it

15. A crucial first step is to decriminalise those who are bought and sold for sex in all circumstances. Providing specialist support services is also essential, both to address immediate safety and provide routes to exiting. Exiting is an intensive and complex process to which specialist support and advocacy, safe accommodation and alternative economic support are key.[26] Current government ambitions to ‘shake up’ the prison system should recognise the needs of women and girls criminalised for involvement in prostitution through the provision of specialist support for those whose options are limited by criminal records and custody. 

16. Funding should be provided for outreach services to all being commercially sexually exploited. A spend-to-save approach recognises that many agencies such as housing/homelessness projects, drug and alcohol services, social services, rape crisis centres and women’s refuges already pick up the costs of prostitution.[27] These costs would be reduced if commercial sexual exploitation in the UK diminished. An evaluation of an approach to street-based prostitution in Ipswich found that involving a range of local agencies was key to enabling women to exit, alongside disrupting men’s demand.[28] A saving of £2 for every £1 spent on this strategy was found.

Whether further measures are necessary, including legal reforms, to increase the extent to which exploiters are held to account

17. Further measures to hold exploiters, including pimps and traffickers as well as buyers, to account are needed. Currently criminal sanctions are focussed on those bought and sold for sex. As the Committee will be aware, Crown Prosecution Service statistics reveal that during 2013-14, there were more prosecutions in England and Wales for loitering and soliciting than for the crimes of pimping, brothel-keeping, kerb-crawling and advertising prostitution combined.[29] This must change.

18. Recognising prostitution as a condition of gender inequality and a form of VAWG automatically shifts attention to all exploiters. For existing legal frameworks on exploitation and coercion to be effectively implemented, once those bought and sold are decriminalised, specialist policing units should be established or expanded. Specialist support for those who have been trafficked and/or have insecure immigration status is absolutely crucial to guarantee human rights, as well as for victimised persons to report and testify against exploiters.

Whether further measures are necessary, including legal reforms, to discourage demand which drives commercial sexual exploitation

19. For reasons detailed above, the UK should adopt the Nordic Model, bringing UK legislation and approaches into line with the 2014 (Honeyball) Resolution of the European Parliament, and of the Council of Europe report “Prostitution, trafficking and modern slavery in Europe”. Both endorsed by overwhelming majority the Nordic Model as the best legislative practice throughout the European Union.

20. Addressing men’s demand for commercial sex is also crucial to policy on sexual exploitation of children.[30] Recent high profile cases of men convicted of sexually exploiting young women in the UK (e.g. Oxford and Bristol) have included offences of facilitating or arranging child prostitution. If girls are being sold, likely men are buying.[31]

21. Men who pay for sex from girls are buying female bodies in commercial sex markets where youth is eroticised and prized. Challenging men’s entitlement through criminalising the purchase of sex offers a transformative approach to tackling sexual exploitation of children.

22. A recent international comparative study concluded that Sweden was unique in acknowledging that preventing sexual exploitation of children requires a dual focus on enabling young people to protect themselves and interventions with perpetrators.[32] This reflects a deep understanding of how sexual exploitation develops and is experienced as cause and consequence of unequal power and respect between women and men, enacted on the bodies of women and girls.[33] If the UK is to achieve its aims of ending sexual exploitation of children and young people, focus should be on the practices of those who commodify bodies in the act of buying sex. 

23. Criminalising the purchase of sex offers an opportunity for the UK to become a beacon of gender equality. We urge the Home Affairs Committee to recognise and recommend this.

1. Dr Maddy Coy, Reader in Sexual Exploitation and Gender Equality, London Metropolitan University, UK
2. Dr Helen Pringle, Senior Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, University of New South Wales, Australia
3. Dr Meagan Tyler, Vice-Chancellor's Research Fellow, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

4. Dr Esohe Aghatise, Visiting Lecturer, United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI), Turin and Faculty of Law, University of Turin (Master of Laws in International Crime and Justice Programme), Italy
5. Professor Kathleen Barry, PhD, Professor Emerita, Penn State University, US
6. Janine Benedet, Professor of Law and Associate Dean, Academic Affairs, University of British Columbia, Canada
7. Ciaran Benson, Emeritus Professor of Psychology, University College Dublin, Ireland
8. Professor Karen Boyle, Co-Director of the Centre for Gender and Feminist Studies, University of Stirling, UK

9. Catherine Briddick, doctoral researcher, University of Oxford
10. Dr Heather Brunskell-Evans, Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Medical Humanities and Academic Expert on Issues of Sexual Violence, University of Leicester, UK
11. Professor Michelle M. Dempsey, Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law, US
12. Dr Gail Dines, Professor of Sociology and Women's Studies, Wheelock College, Boston, US
13. Dr Elizabeth Evans, Faculty of Social Sciences and Law, University of Bristol, UK
14. Melissa Farley, Ph.D., Executive Director, Prostitution Research & Education, US
15. Dr Maria Garner, London Metropolitan University, UK
16. Professor Aisha K. Gill, Ph.D. Professor of Criminology, University of Roehampton, UK
17. Dr Kieran McGrath, Visiting Research Associate, Department of Social Studies, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
18. Professor Marianne Hester, Chair in Gender, Violence and International Policy, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, UK
19. Donna M. Hughes, Professor & Eleanor M. and Oscar M. Carlson Endowed Chair, Gender and Women's Studies Program, University of Rhode Island, US
20. Sheila Jeffreys, Professorial Fellow, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
21. Dr Patricia Kelleher, Kelleher Associates and University of Limerick, County Cork, Ireland
22. Professor Liz Kelly, Director, Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit, London Metropolitan University, UK
23. Dr Julia Long, Lecturer in Sociology, Anglia Ruskin University, UK
24. Jo Lovett, Senior Research Fellow, London Metropolitan University, UK
25. Professor Kathleen Lynch, UCD Professor of Equality Studies, Head of the UCD School of Social Justice, University College Dublin, Ireland
26. Dr Finn Mackay, author, UK
27. Catharine A. MacKinnon, (for identification only) Elizabeth A. Long Professor of Law, University of Michigan, The James Barr Ames Visiting Professor of Law (long term), Harvard Law School, US
28. Professor Roger Matthews, Professor of Criminology, University of Kent, UK
29. Dr Melanie McCarry, University of Strathclyde, UK
30. Andrea Matolsci, doctoral researcher, University of Bristol, UK
31. Professor Hiroshi Nakasatomi, University of Tokushima, Japan
32. Dr Caroline Norma, Lecturer in Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Australia
33. Dr Monica O'Connor, Independent Researcher, Ireland
34. Professor Keith Pringle, Professor Emeritus in Sociology with a specialism in social work, Uppsala University, Sweden, Professor Emeritus in Social Policy and Social Work, London Metropolitan University, UK, Affiliated Professor in Social Work, Mälardalen University, Sweden, Honorary Professor, University of Warwick, UK.
35. Charlotte Proudman, doctoral researcher, University of Cambridge, UK
36. Dr Kaye Quek, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
37. Jody Raphael, Visiting Professor of Law, De Paul University College of Law, US
38. Professor Janice G. Raymond, Professor Emerita, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, US
39. Dr Emma Rush, Lecturer in Ethics and Philosophy, Charles Sturt University, Australia
40. Dr Jackie Turner, London Metropolitan University, UK
41. Nicola Sharp-Jeffs, Research Fellow, London Metropolitan University, UK
42. Dr Olivia Smith, Lecturer in Criminology, Anglia Ruskin University, UK
43. Max Waltman, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Stockholm University, Sweden
44. Dr Ruth Van Dyke, Senior Lecturer in Social Policy, London South Bank University, UK
45. Dr Fiona Vera-Gray, Leverhulme Research Fellow, Durham University, UK
46. Dr Rebecca Whisnant, Associate Professor in Philosophy and Director of Women's and Gender Studies, University of Dayton, US
47. Dr Emma Williamson, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Gender and Violence Research, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, UK
48. Nusha Yonkova, doctoral researcher, School of Social Justice, University College Dublin, Ireland

7