The noble Baroness presumes that a constable would decide of their own volition that this was not an innocent question. We are talking about an offence and removing the persistence element. We are not suggesting that innocent people will be prosecuted for an offence; we are suggesting that the person who is being charged is soliciting. The person in the case which the noble Baroness mentioned is not soliciting and is therefore not committing an offence. Therefore, I cannot see why, in those circumstances, the noble Baroness should be so concerned that the individual will be subject to prosecution.
As I was saying before the noble Baroness intervened, removing the need to prove persistence will make the offence easier to prosecute and will send a strong message of deterrence to offenders—that is, kerb-crawlers—thereby contributing to a reduction in demand for street prostitution. I therefore recommend that Clause 18 and Clause 19, which simply replicates Clause 18 so that these charges will apply in Northern Ireland, stand part of the Bill.
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Brett
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 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 c454 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:33:58 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_574766
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_574766
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_574766