Identity Cards Bill

I am rather disappointed by the response from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I appreciate that it is the Government’s intention that the system should not overall be applied in any discriminatory way. I am aware that the Minister thinks that the amendment it is not necessary or desirable, but my argument is that it is necessary to have clarity on the issue. This is an enabling Bill in a very rough form at the moment. I am also aware that, when noble Lords approached Second Reading we were sent briefings that showed that organisations such as the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants believed that there had not been a full race equality impact assessment. I raised that issue at Second Reading and the Minister was very kind in a letter that she wrote afterwards to address some of my concerns, but the feeling remained that sufficient attention had not been given to the race equality impact assessment throughout the Bill. As a result of that, I looked at an amendment that had been tabled in another place by my honourable and right honourable friends and felt that that too had not addressed the full range of those who might feel that they could be discriminated against when required to produce their ID cards. I feel that it is the production of the cards that could lead to difficulties with discrimination. Therefore, given the briefings that I have been given, I remain dissatisfied with the courteous and I am sure well-intentioned response from the Minister. It is with no great pleasure that I feel that I must test the opinion of the Committee. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 194) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 120 Clause 18 agreed to. Clause 19 [Public authorities etc.]: