---

Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I think we have withdrawn the amendment by not moving it. I gave the Government notice that I would not move Amendment No. 28 to give the Minister the opportunity to open debate on the matter. Noble Lords could then question the noble Baroness, and she would be able to respond properly. Conventions on Report mean that if I had moved the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, would have had only one opportunity to speak. I thank the noble Baroness for her introduction to the government amendment and her letter informing us that she would table an amendment on the issue. Although it was one of the more light-hearted debates in Committee, the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Northesk stimulated an important discussion. As he said, allowing the Bill to state only ““head”” could mean that some,"““refusenik might arrive to have his biometric captured and sit with his back to the capture machine, which would be a complete waste of everyone’s time””.—[Official Report, 12/12/05; col. 982.]" Indeed, the fact that we had to have the debate only goes to show the importance of precision in statute and the fact that the Government had failed to consider such precision or thought through the finer details of the working of the Bill and the system proposed. Unfortunately, that is a recurring theme, not only in this legislation. In light of that, I move on to Amendment No. 41, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns. Amendment No. 29 enabled me not to move Amendment No. 28. However, I still believe that a consequential amendment to Clause 5(5)(c), as a result of that change, is necessary. It could reflect the wording that the Government have decided to use in Amendment No. 29, rather than that proposed in Amendment No. 41. I would very much like the Minister to confirm that she will reflect on that point or accept ours.