Commons Leader Harriet Harman has told the BBC she wants the law to be changed to make it illegal to pay for sex.

This subject is always a controversial one, and feminists I have seen debate this issue on both sides of the spectrum. However I personally think that in the current climate, and based on my personal opinion, Harriet Harman's statement about changing the law on prostitution is ill conceived. Let's take a look at the rest of the content of this article...

It would counter international human trafficking which sees girls bought and sold by criminals in the UK, she added.

I can see and respect why it is that she is instigating the reinvigoration of this debate. Human trafficking is a nasty issue and should be stopped as soon as possible. The trouble is that Human trafficking is already illegal, and for all intents and purposes prostitution is too. Any further demonisation of the trade, as if it needs any more, and definitely any more legislation against it is something that I feel can't inherently help the problem while leaving everyone's rights intact.

For a slight anecdotal example, music file sharing was put into a very legal grey area early in 2000, a new crime that just so happened to coincide with a revival of the music industry from a slump. At that time it was still a very small thing to do. However high profile cases later, and a lot of public posturing by the RIAA and the amount of ways and places to share content illegally over the internet has soared. Criminalisation and condemnation of something that people feel should fairly be a right of theirs regardless of the laws stance ultimately ends up being counter-productive in my mind.

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We do need to have a debate and unless you tackle the demand side of human trafficking which is fuelling this trade, we will not be able to protect women from it.

The trouble is that the demand is being driven by shady pimps who are ultimately in the business to make money, and the demand isn't curbed at any point because the issue of prostitution is a mighty grey area to be inside of. Banning prostitution would indeed lower the demand for human trafficking, but would it stop the practice?

My personal thought are that, like with drugs, people will find a way to carry on...and like drugs they will carry on in a completely unregulated manner with absolutely no law whatsoever protecting the "workers". No matter what you do with prostitution it is a sad and sick truth that there will always be twisted individuals out there that have specific tendencies and individuals morally corrupt enough to do whatever gets them the most money in feeding that fantasy. But banning the act completely only makes these people the only option for those willing to flout the law in the return for sexual encounters.

Ms Harman, who is also deputy Labour leader and equality secretary, said she wanted a "very big debate" on the issue involving groups such as the Women's Institute, community organisations, Church and other faith groups.

What about prostitutes themselves, what about pro-liberty groups? How does only bringing one very Christian and conservative side of the debate to the table mean that any debate is really being had?

This should look at whether "we think it's right in the 21st Century that women should be in a sex trade or do we think it's exploitation and should be banned".

And this is the crux of the problem, she wants to get a lot of idealistic individuals around a table to discuss what every woman in the country should feel about women's rights when it comes to sex. Quite frankly this is the now typical response that this Government seems to have to problems, generalisation even if it conflicts with some peoples wishes. Some women don't think that the right to use their body's as they wish to make money is exploitation. I don't think any of them would deny that in the current system exploitation takes place but logically just because it does doesn't make everyone exploited.

Ms Harman said action needed to be taken to tackle the demand side of international human trafficking, which had led to "teenage girls being bought and sold by criminal gangs in car parks in this country".

So ban car parks, you kill two bird with one stone. You foil those canny criminal gangs and you lower carbon emissions!

"The new guidance will stop those ads. But the next question is - can we really stop this trade when we've still got a lawful sex trade going on?"

I think the answer is yes. If the trade was truly lawful rather than seedy and hidden behind smokes and mirrors because of the quagmire it resides in, then I think human trafficking for the sex trade can be stopped as much as it ever can be. If pimps were no longer independent business people with no laws to guide them and protect their workers, if women in the trade felt they had all of their rights and assurances of support, protection and safe means to work, and if brothels and sex workers were regulated so that we knew who they were then I think that human trafficking would be extremely hard to take place by and large.

It was said in 2001 that Prostitution is an almost £800million industry, meaning legalisation and regulation of the whole trade could happily and easily bring in several hundred million pounds to treasury coffers. Regulation would also mean that women working would be known, be able to get free check ups to ensure the prevention of spread of STIs, and it'd be very hard for any "pimp" that still existed to use women trafficked into this country for sex without being found out. Clients would have the opportunity to know that if they choose to be with a prostitute they are doing so with a woman that should not be in the game because of force, blackmail or coercion, nor that they will be sleeping with a woman without having some assurances over the health of the woman.

All in all very little positives can come from the outright ban of prostitution, yet legalisation offers very few negatives...the majority of those coming from the moral "right" of this country that are disgusted by the practice and think that is enough to make it unlawful.

Many have commented on Nick Clegg's decision to say he doesn't believe in God and have said it was a great move. Personally I applaud him, but while Conservative Christian groups in the country so obviously still strike fear into any positive policy changes, and are the first people to be looked to for guidance on these types of "moral" quandaries, it seems very naive to suggest that such a statement doesn't matter.

Edit (22/01/08): A clarification to make, I didn't intend to state as I did above that little could come from banning prostitution. I am not sure what I was thinking but my point was more that the true evils that are part of prostitution will still be there when it is banned completely, just as they will unfortunately be around if legalised in any way. My belief was, and is, that these evils need to be tackled on their own merit, while the changes to the system need to be done to align the industry in favour of women doing a job they want to (if they want to, if they don't and the industry falls then that is that) rather than in favour of their pimps and the men looking for easy and cheap sex.