---

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]

My Lords, may I take away the issue of the letters and how we may make them available to the public? I will look at it to see what would be feasible to have on a website, but I shall need advice on what we are able to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the list. I tried to explain how complex the list would be if it covered everything. The problem is that a list would be illustrative only and having an illustrative list is not the right thing to do in legislation. It would not be a good way forward. On fingerprints, DNA and whatever, the Government are completely committed to a public consultation on how they respond to the judgment in S v Marper and will inform the House when it is launched. If I get a heads up about when it is coming up, I will let noble Lords who have taken part in this debate know, but I am not aware of the date yet. Schedule 7 was teased out in my letter because of the discussion we had. That is why I particularly put it in. The necessity to specify parts of the CRCA 2005 is because we have excluded application of that Act generally, but we need to apply certain provisions of it specifically, such as the example given by the noble Lord relating to the commissioner’s functions. That is why we have done that. It looks strange, but that is the reason behind it. I think the noble Lord said that I said that we would put something on the website about this. May I look in Hansard, see exactly what was said and come back when I have taken advice about what I can do? I appreciate the motivation behind all these amendments. I hope I have explained why I do not feel that they are appropriate. I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments and ask the House to accept the Government’s amendments. Amendment 3 agreed.