Identity Cards Bill

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate on the part of the Bill relating to the commissioner’s work, which will affect the confidence that people may have in the operation of the whole scheme. It would be wrong of me to go into detail, and we will be looking at the Minister’s reply very carefully, but it might be helpful if I were to point out one or two areas to which we will most definitely need to return on Report and others where we may not. First, however, I said that I would not return to Amendment No. 226. I entirely accept the Minister’s argument on that matter. I will consult my noble friend Lord Northesk on Amendment No. 221, but I suspect that he may well accept the Minister’s argument on that. Amendment No. 223 relates to the matter of complaints and shows the difference in approach between noble Lords and the Government on these issues. It reflects the concern on this side of the House that the commissioner needs to have an independent oversight in his role of protecting the rights of the individual, reporting to the individual and involving Parliament in scrutiny, rather than this being a matter where it is convenient for the Secretary of State to have the reports and the accountability, so that he is assured, in his eyes, that the system is working properly. I particularly took note of what my noble friend Lord Lucas said on the issue of privacy. I assure him that I shall look very carefully at that matter before the Report stage. I was interested in Amendment No. 222, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I certainly hope he will develop it at Report stage so that I can see whether there is anything else I need to do on the issue. I was certainly taken aback by the way in which my noble friend Lord Lucas painted a picture of the future. He put his finger on the importance of the extent to which the public accept—or, indeed, not accept—how the scheme might roll out and the impact it might have as society evolves over the next decades. At Report, in looking at the role of the commissioner, we will need to ensure that there is a way of enabling the public to exercise their right to complain about how the system may be developing in a way they had not anticipated. That will drive our approach. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell opened the debate by pointing out that it should be the commissioner’s primary task to act as a supreme protector of the public via Parliament. We will try to frame a series of amendments to provide that protection. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 221. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 221A to 227 not moved.]