Identity Cards Bill

I think you would say, ““Two lawyers too many””. I am grateful, as ever, to the noble Baroness for presenting an extremely clear argument on why the amendments are not acceptable. I am equally grateful to the two noble Lords who have just spoken as they have made my riposte. The only thing I would add is that if the Minister is ever out of power, and if I have to take a matter like this to the European Court, I would as well instruct her as anyone. Her powers of advocacy are formidable. Frankly, however, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, put it so well, one is not in the business of forcing citizens into the European Court to get their remedies. One of the problems of this wonderful House is that we are so absorbed and intrigued by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act, and all that is therewith, that we forget that the great British public know very little about either of those two pieces of legislation. I always try to look for legislation that will be user-friendly—and by that I do not mean lawyer-friendly; I mean citizen-friendly. I hoped that adding these words would not distort the intent of the Government, and I think that what the Minister has said makes clear that it does not do so, but rather reinforces it. Her argument is that the words are superfluous, because if you go through all the Euro stuff, you come out with what I have suggested is here. I am trying to make this user-friendly. I do not want to clutter the Bill with lots of unnecessary language, but I did think there was virtue in putting that little word in because it puts people on notice. It gives a person attempting to get his head around any of this some hint that ““necessary”” is the test. However, I do not propose to labour the set of amendments, and beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 196 to 198 not moved.] [Amendment No. 199 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.] [Amendment No. 200 not moved.]