Identity Cards Bill

Whatever my noble friend says sounds gentle on the ears to me. I welcome his contributions. I agree with my noble friend that we need clarity. That is why I brought the amendment forward. The Select Committee on the Constitution tried to assist the House in debating how that clarity can be achieved. I agree that whatever one’s views on the merits or faults of the Bill, it is vital that the scheme should be conducted on a strong legal basis and that adequate safeguards should be in place to protect individuals from excessive intrusion into their affairs by institutions of the state or indeed by others. That has underpinned our discussions today. The Minister specifically and repeatedly mentioned in answer to this amendment the role of the Passport Agency in rolling out the scheme. The more she talks in that vein, the more it sounds as though the Government have assumed that the Passport Agency will run the whole ID system. It will not merely roll out passport biometrics with an ID register, but it will get the Golden plumb—the Oscar at the end of the red carpet—to run the scheme. In future amendments, we will need to consider whether it is appropriate for the agency to roll out the scheme or to run it. The Minister’s noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead has tabled Amendment No. 151 to which I have added my name. It gently probes whether there should be competitive tendering and again that is an issue to which we must return. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.