Identity Cards Bill

I am grateful for that helpful clarification. As I say, I am not convinced that it is desirable to go further and establish a right to damages for inaccuracies regardless of whether any damage has been caused; or whether the inaccuracy results from any action taken by the Secretary of State; or whether anyone had behaved negligently or fraudulently. On the face of it, the amendment would make the Secretary of State liable for damages if the register contained an inaccuracy as a result of fraudulent information being provided by the applicant. That cannot be right. For that reason, the amendment is unworkable. Of course, the Secretary of State will potentially be vicariously liable for any torts committed by staff operating the register. The Bill makes no attempt to exclude liability, and the normal law of tort—I am sure that the noble Lord knows better than I—will apply. Just as it is not necessary to restate the law on data protection, human rights or discrimination in this Bill, it is not necessary to reformulate the law of tort or negligent misstatement. The identity cards scheme will operate within the rest of the framework of the law, as I am sure we all understand. The Bill makes no attempt to exclude liability, and the normal law will apply, as one would expect. We do not think that the amendment is desirable. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it, not least because it is defective.