Proceeding contribution from Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 16 November 2005. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Identity Cards Bill.
Identity Cards Bill
Can I assist as to why I do not, respectfully, agree? If we look at the totality of Clause 1(5), we have in relation to subsection 5(f) ““residential statuses previously held by him,”” which are not necessarily referable to residences in the United Kingdom. If we then look at paragraph (i), there is, in terms of residence or any other information,"““information recorded in the Register at his request””." In relation to residence we have at paragraph (b),"““where he resides in the United Kingdom””." That could catch all places at which he resides. I think many of us have the advantage of having more than one home.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 675 c1099
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Data protection Databases Crime prevention Costs Banks Fraud Identity cards Undocumented migrants Domicil Personal records Personation Proof of identity Registration Terrorism Security
- Legislation
- Identity Cards Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 10:22:10 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279923
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279923
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279923