Proceeding contribution from Baroness Neville-Jones (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 3 November 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Identity Documents Bill.
Identity Documents Bill
I will endeavour to answer those two points. As regards the question posed by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, the distinction depends on the individual application and on the ability of the Identity and Passport Service to determine which source of information is best suited to the application. This is therefore permissive, rather than demanding that every single source should be applied to and used. As regards the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on judicial input, I think that what we are saying here is that a requirement to attend a magistrates’ court on every occasion when a person working for the IPS has a suspicion that there is a problem is impractical. We need to be able to ensure that there is an operational capability to deal with suspected offenders. The provision as it stands replicates the power and ability that exist in the Data Protection Act, which also provides safeguards.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 721 c54GC
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Fraud Identity cards Personal records Personation Proof of identity Passports Vetting
- Legislation
- Identity Documents Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 20:54:34 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_676749
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_676749
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_676749