Identity Cards Bill

That is indeed what I intend to do. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, that although, as she well knows from Second Reading, we would not have the Bill and are very circumspect about its provisions, we will none the less make the best of it and do our utmost to deal with matters as succinctly as possible. But, as she realises from the amendments, there is huge anxiety about how the legislation will pan out. My first point relates to the cost of the system. I want to piggyback firmly on the shoulders of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who said precisely what I said at Second Reading, as reported at col. 26 of Hansard, as did the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I was cheered that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, also focused on the issue of cost as underpinning the viability of the whole Bill. If the London School of Economics is even half right, the Bill is not a runner. I hope that the noble Baroness will take the invitation that she has had from all sides to really go into the issue in a way that appears not to have been done so far, so that we can proceed on the basis of a Bill that is in the land of reality. We will view the Bill on the basis that we want to get the best outcome that we can, but the sticking points that we have on this side—which I think we share with the Conservative Front Bench—are that we are not prepared to see any compulsion of an ID card without primary legislation; nor are we prepared to see fundamental amendments to the Bill without primary legislation. For me, those are matters of principle—a dangerous word, but I use it advisedly. As regards the amendment, I appreciate that it is a probing amendment, but it is an important probing amendment for all the reasons that have been mentioned. It is a good idea to require the Secretary of State to have a thoroughgoing annual review. If the need for primary legislation to make the provisions compulsory is written into the Bill, it will be hugely helpful for the Government—no less than the rest of us—to know just how the whole thing is panning out in a detailed way, so as to see whether our fears are well founded or misguided. The only way to do that is through a thoroughgoing annual objective report of the sort anticipated by Amendment No. 1. I put two thoughts to the two noble Baronesses and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. First, I do not see why the Secretary of State, in reviewing his department’s capacity, should confine himself to technical capacity. Human capacity is—as often as technical capacity—at the root of malfunctioning. Secondly, under the Bill we rightly have a national identity scheme commissioner, which is a very good idea. Why not involve the commissioner in this report? He or she will surely have more to say about security, accuracy and reliability than anyone because he or she will be poring over those issues during the previous year. Finally, in dealing with affordability, surely it is affordability to the citizen quite as much as affordability in the light of other charges to public funds.