I do not want to make a meal of this, but the Minister cannot say that the draughtsmanship is felicitous. If one looks at Clause 1(3), one is talking there about an individual who may have a convenient method of proving registrable facts about himself. Clearly, when Clause 1(3) refers to individuals it is referring to living persons. If one then moves to Clause 1(7) and reads ““an individual’s identity””, because there is nothing to show the opposite, presumably one is talking about a living person’s identity. To then jump to an entirely different concept of what is going to happen after a person’s death in Clause 1(7)(d) really is absolute nonsense. If you are going to deal with the question of what is going to happen after a person dies, whether that death should be registered and if so by whom, that should be the subject of an entirely different clause in the Bill. As it stands, what it is really saying is that a live person should register his death.
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Waddington
(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 c1649-50 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:17:58 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279281
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279281
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279281