Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 23 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Identity Cards Bill 2005-06.


Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, for his courteous response. He has not actually given me reassurance overall, but certainly reassurance enough to withdraw the amendment. I think it has proved to me two things. The first is the importance of tackling this issue from another angle—that is, looking at the audit trail. The noble Lord; Lord Phillips of Sudbury, tabled an amendment on our first day in Committee with regard to the paragraph 9 of the schedule. I want to look at that again as an important way of tackling this. Secondly, the Minister was far too courteous to point out that my amendment did not achieve what I was trying to achieve anyway. He gave me the answer that I needed, even if I did not like it and even though I had tabled the wrong amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 64B to 64D not moved.] Clause 16 [Procedure for regulations under s. 15]:


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c1054-5 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Costs Fees and charges Identity cards Information Documents Personal records Public service Proof of identity Registration Security
Legislation
Identity Cards Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk