---

Identity Cards Bill

I understand why the noble and learned Lord has raised this point. The reason for inserting the word ““conclusive”” is that we anticipate—and we have framed the legislation to reflect this—that great care will be given to the registering of any fact. The integrity of the system will depend on its accuracy and its ability to identify each individual placed on it. Having done that, the import will be to ensure that it has a ““conclusive presumption”” for the purposes of the Act. I shall certainly consider this issue to ensure that that is the most felicitous way of expressing it. But I know, as does the noble and learned Lord, that a presumption is ultimately still only a presumption. I shall come back on the issue, but the reason it is drafted in that way is because of the robustness and soundness that we hope the register will have. I have further assistance which states that, for the purposes of the Act, the Secretary of State can withdraw the conclusive presumption if it proves to be wrong. But the purpose of the revision is to protect people with new identities—for example, those in the witness protection programme.