Identity Cards Bill

Absolutely, but I am sure that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, are mindful of the one-way traffic concerning some of the issues. I concede what the Minister said about Amendment No. 209. She made her case on that and I am happy not to move that amendment. But while at first, and perhaps second, sight some of the examples that she gave would lead me and others to think that this difficult line should be drawn a bit this way or a bit that way, I do not believe—she may agree—that one should haul into this whole regime any crime. For example, making the subject of a careless driving prosecution open to the investigatory powers given under the Bill would be wholly disproportionate and wholly outside the basis on which the project was brought forward. So I must think about this matter before Report and come back with something that strikes a balance and takes account of the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. I accept that if there are certain offences against the person which are not, none the less, caught by the serious crimes definition, as there are, then one should deal with that. But two of the examples given by the noble Baroness to justify her position would be covered by ““serious crime””. One must think coolly about this matter but, on the basis of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.