The final part of Clause 3(3) states:"““there is to be a conclusive presumption for the purposes of this Act that the information to which the direction relates is accurate and complete information about that matter””."
Is that wise? Would not the word ““presumption”” be perfectly adequate? If for any reason—and I cannot immediately imagine one—there was an issue in court where the accuracy of a fact that had been recorded was shown to be nonsense, would it mean that the court was bound by something which was completely inaccurate and consequently might find it very difficult to do justice? The wording seems to be unnecessarily strong and the word ““presumption”” would probably be sufficient.
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Lyell of Markyate
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 16 November 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Identity Cards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
675 c1138 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 00:22:07 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_280016
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_280016
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_280016