In one of St Paul’s letters, he prefaces his argument by saying: ""I speak as a fool"."
I can only reiterate the apostle’s words when entering a debate on a legal question with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, demolished the amendment very effectively and said that the real issue was whether Clause 13 should stand part of the Bill. That is the real force of the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, although I note that they expressed support for the amendment. There are powerful arguments on their side. I should like at least to put the other point of view, although I am sure that the Minister will do it far better, with the advice that is available to him.
In a sense, this is quite a strict liability—it is a semi-strict liability. First, the man has chosen to pay for sex. The starting point is not somebody innocently caught up, which is where the case of the person who found that a lodger was smoking cannabis behind a locked door is not an exact analogy. We are starting with someone who is paying for sex. It may be that behind this, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, suggested, there is a desire to criminalise paying for sex. That point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is not in his place at the moment.
To use the Minister’s phrase when he responded to the previous debate, the issue turns on whether we need a whole culture shift in the area of prostitution. I think that the Government take the view that we do. There is a growth in prostitution and those who are engaged in it are now increasingly exploited in the most dreadful way. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, gave a vivid illustration of that earlier. In fact, the girl to whom the noble and learned Baroness referred had in all but name been raped. Think how we in this country regard rape. A lot of the prostitution that occurs in this country is in all but name rape. In those circumstances, I think that the Government are right to say that something has to be done—something which targets the worst examples and aims to achieve a culture shift.
Notwithstanding the powerful arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the extremely learned noble Lord, Lord Pannick—I respect them hugely as lawyers and normally agree with everything they say—on this matter I think that the balance comes down in favour of the Government.
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Bishop of Chester
(Bishops (affiliation))
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 July 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Policing and Crime Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c263-4 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:24:49 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_572662
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_572662
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_572662