I am grateful that the Minister has answered the question about consulting the Scottish Executive which had been left unanswered, so we have that on the record. This was a probing amendment; one of the points I made, about buying into a database, has not yet been answered. Tesco was the first one that came to mind, as it is one of the store cards I hold—one of many. On the costs of setting up and maintaining the scheme, we need to know whether the requirement that is to be imposed upon certain bodies by the clause brings with it a payment from the Government to the outside organisation, which may then be required to provide information. I notice that the noble Baroness did not address that. We will have the opportunity to return to the issue of costs next week; I may simply put that down as a Written Question, unless she would like to give a yes or no answer now. I see that she does not wish to give an answer at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Notification of changes affecting accuracy of Register]:
[Amendments Nos. 167 to 174A not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Invalidity and surrender of ID cards]:
[Amendment No. 175 not moved.]
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 December 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Identity Cards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c1277-8 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 23:55:26 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_286850
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_286850
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_286850