Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 16 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Identity Cards Bill.


Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I seek clarification on Amendment No. 118. I am always very beady-eyed about prescribed regulations and so on, and the definition of ““prescribed””, which must occur a hundred times in the Bill, is on page 37 and is part of Clause 43. Amendment No. 118 strikes out from the word ““state”” to the end of the definition. That would mean that we are left with a definition that ““prescribed”” means:"““prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State””," full stop. The words to be deleted are,"““or determined in accordance with such regulations by the prescribed person””." Am I right in thinking that they would have allowed regulations to be prescribed by delegation; that is, that there could have been prescribed regulations which permitted regulations to be prescribed by somebody else? If that is what the omission of those words means, I am a happy fellow indeed. We will all cheer and, since good news is hard to find in this Bill, I want that opportunity. If I keep talking, news may come flashing back from the ether, but that is my question to the Minister.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c522 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Access Disclosure of information Data protection Biometrics Age Costs Fraud Fees and charges ICT Identity cards Investment Interviews Police Personation Procurement National identity register Proof of identity Passports Registration Young people Security
Legislation
Identity Cards Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk