Proceeding contribution from Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat) 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, subject to anything that the noble Baroness may say, it would seem to me to be just if Amendment No. 98 were accepted because criminal liability without intent or recklessness is generally unacceptable. But I find it hard to believe that the deletion of Clause 31, with nothing in its place, can be in the public interest, despite the extremely learned exegesis of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. Again, I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say but, as I said, I am inclined to oppose Amendment No. 100.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 678 c65-6
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-06-10 14:36:26 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_295870
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_295870
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_295870