Perhaps it might assist the Committee if I respond to that now, since we are at Committee; it might inform further debate and the Minister may want to respond. I was going to address this issue in my winding-up speech. I think it is commonly misunderstood that this amendment might have that effect. I do not believe that it does and it certainly is not the intention. The intention is to make it clear, at the very beginning of the Bill, to every member of the public who will be compulsorily registered, what their rights are when they apply for a new passport or renew a passport. It is to give them security about whether they are able to refuse agreement or validation to be accessed; that very freedom that the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, has rightly wanted to focus on. I do not believe that my amendment has the negative results that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, believes. There is certainly scope for further amendments, later in the Bill, which may well reflect his concerns. I do not think mine cuts the Bill off at the knees.
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 16 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 c1078 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:40:54 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279878
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279878
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279878