Identity Cards Bill

I thank the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment in particular because it has enabled some Members of the Committee to give voice to their concerns about the use to which cards will be put by commercial organisations, public service organisations and so on. The protections that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, seeks will not be greatly helped by this amendment. The kind of situation that he and perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, envisage is not intended to be covered by the proposal. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, alluded to what the amendment would do, but I do not believe it does anything. It is important to remember that ultimately it will be a personal judgment on whether it is reasonable for a particular organisation—public service or commercial—to ask for some form of proof of identity. I do not think that these words add anything. For instance, in the situation described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, it is extremely unlikely that people will be wandering around wanting to check information on an ID that they might have been able to access as a public service. We must remember what the ID card does. Primarily, it provides visual proof that you are who you say you are when you are standing in front of the person asking you to identify yourself. I do not believe that the amendment does what it says it does—I do not believe that it offers that extra measure of reassurance. Most people will understand that having the card is valuable to them and is a very convenient way of saying to their bank, their Post Office, or their council tax office, ““Yes, I am who I say I am and I have a national identity card with visual recognition which tells you next to my name that I am who I say I am””. I do not see the reason for the amendment and I do not think that it adds—