In his amendment to strike out the word ““ascertaining”” from Clause 17(1) the noble Lord goes to the heart of the fears that have been expressed by many noble Lords in our debates regarding the purpose of the register and the likely ways in which verification may be required and made. However, I must put a question to him which takes us back to Clause 1. I have to ask it simply because I do not have with me the Official Report for our first day in Committee. I cannot recall whether the noble Lord moved at that stage an amendment to Clause 1(3)(b) to remove the word ““ascertained”” as it appears there. If he did, I regret that at the time I was not sufficiently with it to take note. If not, would he consider it proper to entertain removing the word from Clause 1(3)(b)? He may want to consider that between now and Report.
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 c1297 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 14:05:40 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_286900
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_286900
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_286900