Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Identity Cards Bill.


Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I support government Motion E—the first government Motion I have supported today. I accept that it is a very reasonable substitute for my Amendment No. 21. When I tabled it during earlier consideration of the Bill, when the main thrust of my argument was to leave out Clauses 6 and 7, I did so as a representative consequential amendment. At the time I appreciated that my resources in opposition were simply inadequate fully to list all the consequential amendments that might be needed. I certainly accept that the Government have found a much more elegant way of having a consequential amendment by introducing the new definition. It fully meets the needs that I had in seeking to remove Clauses 6 and 7. The Government’s Motion does not in any way jeopardise the change made to the Bill by this House’s acceptance of Motion D1, which retains Amendments Nos. 16 and 22. Therefore, I support the Government’s Motion.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c576 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Databases Applications Costs Delegated legislation Fraud Fees and charges Enforcement Identity cards Information Documents National security Public appointments National identity register Proof of identity Passports Registration Office of the Identity Commissioner Driving licences
Legislation
Identity Cards Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk