I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, not least for the sympathy that my arguments seem to have provoked in the minds of the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Williams.
The Minister will appreciate that my original intention in tabling the amendment was probing in character. As I said in my introduction, I certainly have no wish to remove the provision per se; rather, it is my firm belief that the drafting here needs to be tightened up. Indeed, that would appear to be the tenor of opinion throughout the Committee. I find myself extremely torn. The responses that we have received on this issue have been unwieldy and cumbersome and have not helped to move the issue forward.
I certainly wish that the Minister might have responded more positively and sympathetically to the concerns expressed. My mind is torn, particularly because I do not deem this as a first-division issue. Nevertheless, in the absence of anything more constructive from the Minister I have no doubt that we will need to return to this issue on Report, and for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Earl of Northesk
(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 c1651 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:17:56 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279290
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279290
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279290