moved Amendment No. 67:"Page 3, line 33, leave out paragraph (c)."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 67, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 68, which stands in my name. I note that Amendment No. 67A, which was a late entry into the list in the name of my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, is also in this group. My noble friend remarked to me earlier that he would not be able to be here at this late stage. He asked me to convey his apologies to the House and said that if on reading the debate in Hansard on the remaining amendments in this group he felt that it was not appropriate to bring it back on Report, he would not do so. On the other hand, he may find that he needs to return to it on Report; so we await that with interest.
We have had some long and ultimately inconclusive debates on Clause 1 about what may or may not be registered. The link was never clearly elucidated between Schedule 1 and Clause 1.The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, carefully pointed out some of the mismatch between Schedule 1 and Clause 1. Here is another set of information purporting to define what may be registered. Clause 3(1)(c) is rather muddy and needs to be explained. My question is simple—what are the,"““purposes connected with the issue or cancellation of ID cards””,"
for which,"““information of a technical nature””"
can be stored?
I looked in the Explanatory Notes for help but came there none because they were silent on this point. The Explanatory Notes did say something else that rather intrigued me on Clause 3(1); namely, that people’s emergency contact details might be included on the register. Where would that information come from? Could anyone just write in, as provided for in Clause 3(2)? That information is not listed in the schedule, but I suppose it could come under the Government’s outer limit of a catch-all in Clause 1(5)(i). I wonder how it could be accessed in an emergency and how access to it could be controlled.
Amendment No. 68 refers to Clause 3(2)(c). It looks at the ability of the individual to place information on his record that he wishes to have placed there. As currently drafted, Clause 3(2)(c) states that information about an individual must be recorded in the register if,"““the Secretary of State considers that it is both practicable and appropriate for it to be recorded in accordance with the applicant’s request””."
I have substituted a different requirement of reasonableless, and I have done so to ask the Government to put on the record how they intend to judge what is ““practicable and appropriate”” to be entered and why they feel that ““reasonable”” would not be a better test. 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 c1705-6 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:35:12 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279418
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279418
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279418