I know that I do not have to say what I am about to say, and that she appreciates it, but I say it for the record. There is an enormous distinction between procedure of due process that has in it a presumption of innocence and which requires the prosecution to prove its case—that is, a criminal charge—and the system that the Minister proposes, whereby you are absolutely liable. Intention does not come into it under this scheme; you are liable for a penalty, and you cannot try to excuse yourself before a court. There is all the difference in the world between the civil and criminal approach.
As the noble and learned Lord said, when penalties are as high as £2,500 or £1,500, it bears no relation at all to any amount by which the state suffers by reason of a person failing to fill in a form. That has to be a punishment for failing to fill in a form and send it off. It is not a civil penalty that has any connection at all with any loss to the state.
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Thomas of Gresford
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 12 December 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Identity Cards Bill 2005-06.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c1080 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:50:03 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_285928
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_285928
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_285928