Our submission sought to oppose some of the measures within the proposed Bill, arguing that they would increase social harms, criminalise vulnerable communities, and are ineffective or redundant.
- Criminalising aspects of sex work (NC1 and NC2): We argued that criminalising aspects of sex work, such as the purchase of sex (NC2) and the facilitation of advertising sexual services or third parties (NC1), could harm sex workers. We asserted that the 'Nordic Model', which these amendments resemble, has been proven to increase harm to people trading sex without reducing the prevalence of commercial sex, as seen in Northern Ireland, Ireland, France, Sweden, and the Nordic region.
- Against NC1 (Commercial sexual exploitation by a third party): Criminalising third parties would increase sex workers’ isolation, when they are already barred from working together under current "brothel-keeping" laws. It could criminalise people who associate themselves with sex workers to keep them safe or offer services that minimise risks like STI transmission. Banning online platforms for advertising sexual services could remove a crucial tool that allows sex workers to screen clients, share information, and work safely from home. In contrast, Belgium's decriminalisation allows sex workers to negotiate employment benefits and ensure employers are screened.
- Against NC2 (Client criminalisation): This amendment forces sex workers to work in more isolated areas to avoid police, increasing their danger. It leads to fewer clients, making sex workers more likely to ignore or accept red flags. Research indicates a doubling of violent crime against sex workers in Ireland and a 225% increase in reported assaults in Northern Ireland after the Nordic Model's introduction, as the most dangerous clients were the least deterred. Client criminalisation stigmatises sex work, making sex workers more anxious and impacting their daily lives. Stigma is a significant barrier to sexual health services and to ending the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
- Impact on Health Services: The amendments conflicts with positions taken by UK HIV and sexual health professional networks, as repressive legal frameworks are linked to increased STI and HIV rates, higher condomless encounters, and more violence. They undermine service provision, making sex workers less likely to engage with health services. The proposals are at odds with the UK Government’s commitment to ending the HIV/AIDS crisis by 2030 and UNAIDS’ Global AIDS Strategy, which calls for removing punitive laws on sex work. Criminalising sex work aspects would burden an already strained sexual health system and increase health inequalities.
- Impact on Homeless Individuals: The criminalisation of sex work would negatively impact people experiencing homelessness who engage in sex work as a survival strategy, leaving them with fewer options to manage risk. Addressing the housing crisis would be a more effective way to reduce sexual violence and exploitation for this vulnerable group.
- Overall Effectiveness: We argued that there is no clear purpose for NC1 and NC2, as engaging in sexual exploitation and buying sexual services from victims of exploitation are already criminal offenses. The aim seems to be to discourage consensual sex work by making it more difficult and unsafe, which we view as endangering sex workers. There is no reliable data showing that the Nordic Model significantly reduces sex work or trafficking in countries where it has been introduced.
- Section 4(3) and (4) - Increase of Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) fines: This section, which proposes increasing PSPO fines from £100 to £500, risks effectively criminalising poverty, as inability to pay on-the-spot can lead to much higher fines and prosecution. It would disproportionately affect young people and those with limited means, potentially leading to devastating impacts on educational attainment, employment, and basic necessities.
- Section 5 - Expansion of closure order powers: The proposal would allow any registered social landlord to issue closure orders. We contend that this outsources government responsibility to private organisations without clear purpose, as local authorities and police would still be involved. It raises significant concerns about accountability mechanisms, as private organisations have less oversight than police or local authorities. If a private landlord unlawfully issues a notice, the only recourse would be an internal complaints procedure, which provides markedly less accountability than a judicial review or legal actions against government bodies. This is particularly concerning for vulnerable people who may not know their rights.
- Section 1 - Respect Order (RO) introduced: The proposed RO is little more than a renamed version of previous ineffective orders like ASBOs, criminal behaviour orders, and anti-social behaviour civil injunctions. We argued that using the criminal justice system to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB) has been proven to do little to make communities safer, instead decreasing public trust and confidence in the police while exacerbating racial disparities. This manifests as targeting communities rather than crime. A loosely defined RO risks abusing wide-ranging powers to criminalize poverty and widen the over-policing of poorer communities. The government's reintroduction of an expanded version of ASBOs, which were repealed for ineffectiveness, is questionable given their past failures
- A New ‘Cuckooing’ Offence: We believe that a new 'cuckooing' offence would do little to protect vulnerable people, as existing offenses already cover the issues it seeks to address. The core problem is identified as the government's failure to adequately safeguard vulnerable individuals, and strengthening local authorities' safeguarding abilities would be more effective. The government’s proposal simply extends criminal definitions while failing to explain how it would actually protect vulnerable people.
- Section 96 - Expansion of drug test on arrest: Release explicitly states its opposition to such an expansion and defers to other consultation responses for detailed arguments.
- Cost: The Bill has a projected implementation cost of £48.65 million and a projected benefit/savings of £11.81 million, resulting in a net cost of £36.84 million to the government. Release questions the justification for implementing a Bill that would increase social harms and incur significant costs without social or economic benefits, especially given the rising national debt. They conclude there is no social or economic justification for these proposals and they should be abandoned.