Parliamentary Search

Proceeding contribution from Earl of Onslow (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 30 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Identity Cards Bill 2005-06.

Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, it seems to me that unless the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, regarding usage is inserted, then the uses to which ID cards are to be put under subsection (2)(d) will be excluded from the noble Baroness’s amendment. The amendment says:"““Where the Commissioner reviews any arrangements in accordance with subsection (2)””." That refers to arrangements, not to uses. I understood the Minister to say when she introduced her amendment that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was unnecessary. I am afraid that that is an abuse of the English language. If one says that we must look at arrangements, we look at arrangements—uses are by their nature excluded. So a provision that puts in a ““use”” is either deliberate or bad English. Which is it?

Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c48 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Disability Disclosure of information Data protection Databases Codes of practice CCTV Biometrics Costs ICT Genetics EU law Identity cards European communities Internet Ethnic groups Personal records Public appointments Photographs Nationality National identity register Proof of identity Passports Prescriptions Registration Surveillance Hacking Office of the Identity Commissioner Driving licences Transgender people
Legislation
Identity Cards Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk