Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat) 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

I support the amendment. Clarity will be essential if a lot of people are not to get very upset over the legislation—and they will get upset anyway. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, must be commended for his library work. He could have gone further. One could have 10 lawyers arguing for 10 days without reaching a conclusion on what ““residence”” means. The noble Baroness will remember that ““residence”” for tax purposes engages many, rather well-paid, lawyers in endless argument. Since we are being confessional, my grandfather’s residence was a series of hotels. He never had a place of residence but went from one spa town to another staying in hotels. Where would he stand under the Bill? Perhaps under the terms of the Bill he has no place of residence, placing him in the same class as the poor old fellow on the London street. We need to do far more on this issue before the Bill leaves the House. I shall be fascinated to hear the Minister’s response.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
675 c1164-5 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Data protection Databases Biometrics Crime prevention Costs Banks Fraud Identity cards Undocumented migrants Domicil Personal records Personation National identity register Proof of identity Registration Terrorism Security
Legislation
Identity Cards Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk