I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said, but we are still in unfinished business here. She rightly discoursed on the closeness that can sometimes apply in civil cases where an application of a quasi-criminal burden of proof is sensibly applied. I still think, as she has persuaded me this far, that there is a good deal to be said for having a civil penalty, but we really have to look closely at the procedures. I will try to focus on this before we get to Report stage, and I hope that she might have time to do the same.
We are in a very complex area here, and there is always a danger of slipping back into Second Reading speeches. When one looks at Clause 37 under ““Fees and Charges””, one is reminded of the song in ““Les Misérables”” called ““Master of the House””, where one is charging for everything that happens in the hotel; tuppence for the mouse and so on. It is going to get very expensive, people are going to make a very great many mistakes, and they are going to find themselves issued with penalties. It really is important that we try to devise a system that is sensible for the Home Office to use and not oppressive to the citizen. I hope that we may revert to it.
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Lyell of Markyate
(Conservative)
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 c1084-5 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:49:54 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_285939
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_285939
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_285939