---

Identity Cards Bill

After that explanation I remain puzzled about one or two things. I have been searching in vain in this Bill for the right of a person to see their entry on the register. I would be very grateful if the noble Baroness would point that out to me. I am delighted that she says that it is there. I am sure that it is just my blindness, but I would appreciate her help. If the police have access to the information, so must the defence in any situation in order to make things square. If that is the case, it seems enormously important that ““may”” should be replaced by ““must””. That gives the authorities the option not to record something in the register about when the information has been accessed if it would in some way be embarrassing to their case or their cause. It is dangerous for an individual that ““may”” can be used in that way. The noble Baroness gave the example of going in and coming out of a government building. When we get our new security system here, I would very much like to be able to demonstrate when I was on the premises and when I was not. It might be extremely important for my case for a defence of murder. If I happened to be on the premises and for some reason the government had decided not to record that fact, I might reasonably be upset. It also allows these things to be done ““at the discretion””, so if for some reason they did not want me know what was being done or who was looking at what I was doing it could be hidden. That is a very dangerous way of doing things. If we are going to have this record, it must be complete and open. Anything else really is too open to manipulation.