Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 February 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Identity Cards Bill.


Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I have sensations of modified rapture. It is good to have half of one’s amendment accepted, and I am genuinely grateful for that. I put on record the fact that the first part of that amendment was important. One of the problems with this Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in particular will agree, is that it so complicated and intertwined that it has taken some issues a long time to find expression. Had that come to my mind at an earlier stage, we would then have voted on the first part of the amendment. However, there is no point in doing more than mentioning that. The Bill has received conscientious consideration in this House, but several aspects of it, of which this is one, are still deeply unsatisfactory. It is not a protection against fraud to stop any citizen from having the choice on whether utilisation of their card for verification is logged. If a citizen is most motivated by a desire to prevent fraud, he or she will consent to having all the verification uses of his or her ID card logged on the national register. If the citizen is more concerned about privacy—and many are—he or she will choose not to have that logged. Having said that, I am grateful for what the Minister said.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c435-6 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Data protection Codes of practice Crime prevention Applications Costs Certification Fraud Fees and charges ICT Identity cards Documents European Union Fines Entry clearances National identity register Proof of identity Passports Registration Criminal Records Bureau Office of the Identity Commissioner
Legislation
Identity Cards Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk