Proceeding contribution from Earl of Erroll (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Monday, 28 January 2019. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Offensive Weapons Bill.
Offensive Weapons Bill
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is absolutely on the right lines. One of the troubles is knowing what is permissible and what is not. In speaking to the amendments in his name, I will suggest something which takes it a bit further. I declare an interest as chair of the Digital Policy Alliance, which, among other things, worked for several years on age verification for the Digital Economy Act. This Bill has exactly the same problem as Section 3 of that Act: what systems are adequate for proving the age of someone in an online sale? We worked on such systems and if noble Lords want to see that it can be done properly and securely I recommend they go to the web portal dpatechgateway.co.uk, where there are several to play with. The challenge is that there is no official certification scheme in place, but those systems are compliant with BSI publicly available specification 1296. I chaired the steering group that produced that standard and it had a lot of different people on it—people from the industry, academics, legislators, lawyers, et cetera. It shows that it can be done securely.
This goes one stage further than the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the police can certify. Here is a system that you could trust. The technology also enables it to be on a mobile, so you can do point-of-delivery verification. You have got the person there: you can compare them with the device. Amendment 13 goes some way to solving the quandary for a seller, but what is “adequate”? Someone in the industry has suggested to me that it might be better to insert a new paragraph (c) after line 22 saying that: “The Secretary of State may lay regulations as to which bodies are recognised to provide standards against which age-verification schemes can be assessed”. In that way, a certification system could be set up. The BBFC and DCMS have been struggling with this for some time. They are getting there, but there is a lot to be learned from the fallout from that which could be imported into this Bill. Giving the Secretary of State the power to say what schemes can be certified against would go a long way to making life far simpler. We are moving into an online age. We cannot do all this offline and we should not pretend we can.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 795 c158GC
- Session
- 2017-19
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Children in care Abuse Accountability Crime prevention Crimes of violence Age Certification Evidence Licensing Exemptions Internet Protection Police Public places Offensive weapons Proof of identity Postal services Sentencing Sales Stop and search Young people Regulation Retail trade Community orders Acids Care leavers Corrosive substances Age assurance
- Legislation
- Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on hansard.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-11-01 10:08:07 +0000
- URI
- http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2019-01-28/19012842000006
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2019-01-28/19012842000006
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2019-01-28/19012842000006