moved Amendment No. 39:"Page 2, line 24, after ““been”” insert ““legally””"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 39, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 84. The purpose of these amendments is to ask the Government to set out clearly the number of names we will be required to register on the national identity register. As my noble friend Lord Peyton has rightly said, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, is trying to help us find our way through the undergrowth of this Bill. The difficulty we find in debating it arises because so much of this Bill is left to statutory instrument, because it is a skeleton—an enabling Bill. It means that we often have to write in parts of the Bill in order to get an answer from the Government about what will happen next.
Clause 1(7)(b) requires the recording of,"““other names by which he is or has previously been known””."
The difficulty, I find, is in knowing just what kind of information the Government are trying to capture and what guidance there will be for applicants about how extensive a list of names they should supply. For example, in my life I have been known by my maiden name, my married name, and am currently known by my name in this House, Baroness Anelay of St Johns—and perhaps something not so polite on occasion. In my amendment I want to direct attention to the name by which I am legally known, and ask whether that should not be the basis for registration.
I notice that sometimes in this Bill the Government seem to ask us to register information of which we simply will have no knowledge. For example, what if I am known by a name about which I know nothing? It might be a very nice nickname. Some people know their nicknames very well; what about the Deputy Prime Minister? Does he have to register ““Two Jags”” in the national identity register? Perhaps he does. Also, we may commonly be called by names by those who simply misunderstand our names. I am the victim of that. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, is always absolutely correct in her pronunciation, but I am more commonly known around the House as ““Lady Annaly””. Those who have been here since before 1999 will know that that was the name of a gentleman who is very different from me, and who had to leave this House in 1999 because of this Government’s changes. When I came to this House I was not allowed straightforwardly to call myself Lady Anelay, because Garter told me that people might confuse me with Luke Annaly. I could not believe that he was right, but he is. I do not want to have that confusion on the national identity register, if and when my identity has to be declared. This looks like a light-hearted amendment, but it tries to get to the kernel of what kind of guidance the Government will give us in establishing our identity. I beg to move.
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 23 November 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Identity Cards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
675 c1631-2 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:17:36 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279222
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279222
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279222