Clause 20
4:47 pm
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
I shall be brief, because I know that we are running out of time, but I want to pick up on the point just made. There is no such evidence, because we have not passed any legislation like this before that would inform us of what the consequences will be. One can only guess, assume and speak to those working in this field, not as prostitutes, but as outreach workers, social workers and nurses.
The big concern is that girls working as prostitutes will not stop working just because their brothel is closed down. That is the place where they are warm, where they work in relative safety and away from the view of residents and people on the streets, including children. They work there in seclusion almost; their business is kept indoors and behind closed doors. However, if their brothel is closed down, the girls will not stop working. They will go straight back out on the streets, but it will not just be the streets; it will also be wasteland, cars and secluded areas. I have heard it said that the girls will go “underground”. They will go on to waste ground. They will go on to the streets. The girls who were protected by being indoors and out of the public eye will suddenly be at risk of being prosecuted for loitering. Whereas before they were not criminalised, so that if they wanted to remove themselves from prostitution and go into another form of work, they could do so, now, as a result of being turfed out on to the streets, they will be more likely to have a criminal record around their neck. They will be more exposed and more liable to being prosecuted than they were before.
There are issues of safety. We all said after the events in Ipswich, “This will never happen again; it must not happen again.” I cannot see how anyone can say that when we are about to close down many brothels and put the girls into dangerous situations. They do not need prosecuting; they need help and assistance. If they want to leave prostitution, we need to provide a framework of assistance to get them out of that line of work. We do not need to put them in danger. Whatever the Minister says in his comeback, there is no evidence to show the results of this measure; we can only guess. However, the events in Ipswich, so fresh in our minds, show us that putting the girls out on the streets can only mean that they will be in danger.
A number of other points have been raised with me by the English Collective of Prostitutes, the Royal College of Nursing and the Safety First coalition. We heard someone say that the overwhelming body of evidence is against a particular argument. The RCN—I will admit that I was a member of the RCN, so I listen to what it has to say—is hugely opposed to closure orders. At least when the girls are working in brothels, they are easier for the outreach workers to get to; they are easier to make contact with. Even simple things, such as telephoning them and making appointments to see them, are easier to do when the workers know where they are than when the girls are on the streets.
The only advantage to the measure that I imagine the Government perceive is that it will crack down on those who are controlling for gain and on trafficking. As I said, the aims are laudable, but it is like a using a big hammer to smash a very small nut. There will also be many girls back out on the streets who have not been trafficked and are not being controlled for gain. There will be girls out on the streets who are there because they want to do that work, not just those who were driven into it as a result of need or drug abuse.
The girls will be on the streets, but they are not there at the moment. In the present difficult economic circumstances, young girls who see the girls working on the streets may be tempted to follow that line of work, whereas before—when the girls were not so visible—it would not have come to their attention so much. This is almost a recruitment campaign—turning the girls out on the streets, where other vulnerable young girls can see them working. Residents who do not want the girls on the streets—who would prefer them to be indoors—will have them on their streets. I cannot see one argument to back closure orders that does not put the girls in danger.
If I could wave a magic wand and stop prostitution tomorrow, I would. No woman should have to sell her body to make money to live, to keep her family or to do anything else. I abhor prostitution for those women who are forced into it and do not want to be in that line of work, but by the same token those women should not be exposed to danger. I cannot see any outcome of closure orders other than the girls being put in danger.
I heard the priest from Soho at the meeting involving the English Collective of Prostitutes the other night. These were his words:
“It will not be long before I have to officiate at a funeral of one of these girls as a result of being turned out on to the streets, and when I do, I will point my finger at the Government and say, ‘This was your fault.’”
Do we really want that to be the consequence of the closure order? That could really happen.