Identity Cards Bill

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply to my Amendment No. 221A. I never imagined that Clause 24(2)(c) could be construed so widely. Perhaps I may ask her a couple of supplementary questions on that. I take it that in subsection (2)(c), the word ““information”” has its ordinary English usage and is not a defined term. Secondly, the noble Baroness said that the arrangements made for using the information can extend to the uses made of it. The arrangements I make for using my car are not the same as the uses which I make of my car. So in ordinary English I still find Clause 24(2)(c) extremely confusing. I cannot, as I say, in ordinary English, extend it as far as she wishes to the first part of my Amendment No. 221A. If the noble Baroness can assure me that there is some quirk of language where ““arrangements made for using”” are the same as ““the uses made of””, I should be extremely grateful. I should also be grateful for a reply to my Amendment No.  236A—unless I missed it, in which case I will be happy to read it in Hansard. I take the opportunity to urge my noble friend, when she returns with amendments on Report, to consider making it more explicit that the national identity scheme commissioner has responsibility for the effects of the scheme on the privacy of the individual, because that could well benefit from being made explicit in the Bill, rather than being left to the back end of an extremely obscure subsection.