I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, for tabling the amendment, as I believe it, or something like it, is much needed. The way the matter is drafted puts primacy on Schedule 1 rather than on Clause 1, which is the wrong way round. It seems to me that an example of what Clause 1(7)(e) would at present allow would be dental records. Someone’s teeth, and all to do therewith, are physical characteristics. As the Bill stands, Clause 3(5) allows the Secretary of State by order to modify the information required by Schedule 1, so it would be open to him to say, ““Now we want complete dental records of everyone with an identity card and everyone applying for an identity card””. The fact that that is not at present in Schedule 1 is beside the point as Clause 3(5) allows extensions of information so as long as they are within Schedule 1. This is an important amendment and I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether we are right or wrong.
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
(Liberal Democrat)
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 c1661 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:33:56 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279321
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279321
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279321