Proceeding contribution from Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 19 May 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Policing and Crime Bill.
Policing and Crime Bill
To clarify, when the Minister says that he wants strict liability in order to force men, if we can generalise, to consider the consequences of their actions, is he not saying that they should make inquiries as to whether the person is controlled for gain, or whatever the definition is? Yet under a system of strict liability, if men did make such inquiries, as we want them to, but were misled, or got it wrong, they would still be penalised, although they had made every effort to ensure that the person was not controlled for gain. That does not encourage them to make those inquiries, because whether they do or not, if they are misled, they will be caught by the offence. Does the Minister recognise that the measure will therefore not have the impact that he hopes it will? He certainly has not produced evidence that it would have such an impact.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 492 c1409
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Children Databases Crimes of violence ICT Genetics Human trafficking Injunctions Protection Parliamentary scrutiny Offences against children Prostitution Sexual offences Sex establishments
- Legislation
- Policing and Crime Bill 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 11:39:05 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_560240
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_560240
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_560240