Identity Cards Bill

I have attached my name to this amendment. I listened to the Minister with care. It seemed to me that he only came to a good point right at the end, when he referred to fraud. I personally would find it perfectly acceptable if he were to come back with a redrafted amendment that covered that point, which seemed to be legitimate. None of the other arguments seemed to hold water at all. At one point, I think he said that it would be unreasonable if the department had to provide information every time something was checked, but I do not think that is what our amendment says. We are dealing with where the information is incorrect. I cannot see why the Government should not carry out that simple task. Every time I ring up a financial or commercial organisation nowadays I have to listen to an endless telephone message at my expense, telling me what my rights and obligations are, that I will be given any information that is necessary for my good and that I must provide information that the organisation or the regulator thinks is necessary for my good. It seems that those requirements have gone too far—certainly the need to hear such messages every time I make a telephone call, having pressed about 20 buttons to get that far. We are asking only that the department inform the individual where there has been a change because the record was incorrect. That is such an obvious and natural requirement that I am astonished that the Minister should challenge it. I urge him to come forward with a revised amendment that covers the legitimate point he made about circumstances in which fraud or some other crime has been revealed, but where, if an inaccurate fact has been recorded about an ordinary citizen, the citizen should be told that the change has been made.