Identity Cards Bill

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group of amendments, which probe further the way in which the audit trail will be operated, and the powers we are giving to the Secretary of State through this clause. I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to look at the impact of each amendment individually. I immediately see the force of the Minister’s argument on Amendment No. 202, with the identification of victims of crime. We in this House agreed earlier this year with the Government’s proposals to ensure that DNA could be used—for example, in identifying those who tragically lost their lives in the tsunami. That is not a new argument, and one we accept wholeheartedly. The difficulty is that one has to balance, on one side, the Government’s requirement to be flexible in being able to later add further powers, as against an understanding of what may be appropriate and acceptable—as the Minister says—for the Government so to do. I certainly welcome the fact that the Government—as the Minister said earlier, to a group of my amendments—are prepared to accept the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to ensure that the orders within this clause will be by affirmative resolution. I certainly hope that that would mean that the Government could be held to account. I will have to look carefully at the Minister’s answer, however, because I still feel that, on Amendment No. 208, we are leaving open a very wide gate for the Government to drive through changes. It may well be that, having read her arguments and spoken to her further between now and Report stage, I may be satisfied. However, these are probing amendments, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 203 to 205 not moved.]