I have sat with some incredulity through debates on previous amendments, not understanding the purpose for some of the interventions and wondering why we were spending so much time on them. However, on this amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, have put forward some very convincing arguments, backed up by a short but telling intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. I hope that whichever Minister replies, they will give some serious consideration to the matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said, it seems strange if the requirement is on individuals to provide the information, as it is manifestly impossible for them to do so after their death. It is strange, too, that the date of death is required.
The Opposition have made their arguments cogently on this matter—though that is something that I wish I could have said about the previous amendments, when the arguments were not quite as convincing. I hope that the Minister will give some sympathetic consideration to what is a very cogent and rational argument.
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
(Labour)
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 c1645-6 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:17:51 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279269
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279269
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279269