I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I think that my amendment would provide some protection which currently is not available, but perhaps should be provided. I should like to refer to one or two of the comments the Minister made in his initial response. I know that he has been as helpful as he can in setting out clearly the Government’s position. He said that one should not be concerned because of other protections contained in the Bill. To that end he referred to Clause 18, but that provision offers only a partial protection at a particular stage in the process. He also remarked that after compulsion, there will be personal judgments to be made, and that is for some time in the future.
He also said that it would be difficult to enforce. I have to say with all due diffidence that that does not seem to stop the Government legislating in every part of our lives where enforcement is also difficult but where perhaps it is, on some occasions, proper to do so. I do not think that that is a strong argument.
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 c1081-2 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:40:56 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279889
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279889
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279889