Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Labour) 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 thank the noble Baroness for that compliment. We thought that the committee did a thorough job. We gave serious consideration to its recommendations and were happy to accede to them. Indeed, we do not think that Amendment No. 41 is necessary, for the reasons that I gave. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. I am sure that message went to the Box, and I am sure that it must have been with me, but I did not get it and I apologise for not having got it. That is why I was a little slow in jumping to my feet, but I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for not moving Amendment No. 28. I would have thanked them more profusely had I known of it when I first got to my feet. We looked at whether Amendment No. 41 was a consequential amendment to our Amendment No. 29. We are clear that, having tabled Amendment No. 29, no other amendment to the Bill is necessary. As always, we will reflect on that but, looking at those amendments, I believe that to be the correct position. No further amendment should be necessary. On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 not moved.]


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c528 
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