I very much support the amendment. Transparency is everything in this field. I will draw an analogy with the congestion charge. One of the interesting things that emerged recently in the litigation commenced by my noble friend Lady Walmsley in relation to the congestion charge was that Transport for London had a policy, which had never been published and no one knew about, that it could remit part of or the whole congestion charge in certain mitigating circumstances. No one knew that it had that discretion, and no one knew the circumstances in which it operated. It was the subject of huge criticism, both in the divisional court and by Lord Justice Sedley in the recent Court of Appeal decision.
It is essential that the right of the citizen to know that he is regarded as a defaulter and that a procedure whereby he can put mitigating circumstances before the registrar or the Secretary of State should be crystal clear on the face of the Bill.
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Thomas of Gresford
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 19 December 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Identity Cards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c1537-8 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 19:30:05 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_288216
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_288216
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_288216