Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Earl of Erroll (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 13 December 2011. It occurred during Committee proceeding and Debate on bill on Protection of Freedoms Bill.


Protection of Freedoms Bill

I want to go back to the business about being able to assume that there is implied consent, when it is very difficult to get it. Does the Minister not accept that inertia can be quite large among people and that, if you have to get positive consent, there will be a whole raft of parents who will not get round to doing it, for one reason or another? Therefore, you will suddenly find in these systems such a large failure to opt in because of inertia that they will be quite expensive and will have to be replaced by manual systems. That could put a huge burden on some of the schools, which would have to be paid for by the Government. Is it not much more sensible to move into a positive opt-out rather than a positive opt-in? I think that it will be much more burdensome than the Minister thinks. People are full of inertia, and you are not going to get that many people opting in.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
733 c291GC 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Children Disclosure of information Admissibility of evidence Data protection Codes of practice CCTV Biometrics Crime Alcoholic drinks Anti-social behaviour Electronic surveillance Educational institutions Local government Personal records Powers Public appointments Pupils Standards Information Commissioner's Office Tobacco Sales Schools Young people Security Office of Surveillance Commissioners
Legislation
Protection of Freedoms Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk