Identity Cards Bill

The two noble Lords should have a meeting after this and perhaps thrash out the matter between them. On the one hand, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, seems to want us to provide information on every single occasion to those affected by misinformation, which is in line with the amendment, while on the other hand the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, is rightly concerned with the cost of cross-checking. The Government are trying to provide a proportionate way through and, as I have explained carefully, there will be circumstances when it would be entirely inappropriate, silly and foolish, in an investigation into, say, major fraud, to tip off the person to whom the information relates that checks were being undertaken, because that would undermine the investigation. Fraud is the most obvious example, but there may be other reasons—for example, national security, continuing criminal investigations, or simply impracticality. The Data Protection Act provides a regime for when data processing of this nature occurs. As we have said on many occasions, it is not appropriate to replicate all the requirements and the exceptions to them here. Any significant discrepancy is, in practice, almost certain to be taken up with the person concerned, but it would not be right to make it an absolute requirement. That is why the amendment, for understandable reasons in terms of drawing out this debate, has been moved. I invite the noble Baroness to reconsider her amendment and withdraw it.