The crux of the matter is whether there is evidence. The point I made is that if there is evidence of rape, the person should be prosecuted for rape and the penalties would be considerably higher. We seek to introduce for the first time an offence, and a penalty, to deal with people who have until now been able to get away scot-free. It would cover situations when traffickers have been held responsible for the women who were victims. We know what to do with the victims, but the men were able to walk away. We are saying—indeed, I am strongly saying—that if there is evidence that can be used to prosecute another offence that tackles the problem, that is what should be done. We are talking about reducing demand by sending out a strong message, based on strict liability. The penalty that goes with that strict liability offence is compatible with other measures that we want to introduce, and associated action we could take, to press down on demand—whether that is kerb crawling or other areas. We are saying to men, "If you pay for sex with a woman, whether or not you know she has been trafficked, you will be held responsible and the penalty will be commensurate with that offence". However, I agree with my hon. Friend that if something else can be brought to bear in such circumstances, the authorities should use that offence.
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Alan Campbell
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 19 May 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Policing and Crime Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
492 c1405 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:39:27 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_560229
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_560229
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_560229