---

Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I understand noble Lords’ anxiety although in this case, again, I believe that it is misplaced. I understand that two or three minutes past 10 is not the opportunity for me to expound on all the reasons why they are misplaced. In a fairly truncated form, perhaps I may say why we think the safeguards suffice. I shall be happy to write more fully to noble Lords. Indeed, perhaps between now and Third Reading we can further amplify issues which may still be causing anxiety. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, so helpfully suggested, if they cannot be dealt with, then at Third Reading we would know the dividing lines and can deal with them at that stage. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the most important matter is that the audit log is essentially a safeguard for the individual as it allows an individual to check where and when information has been verified or provided to an organisation. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, may have an exemplary recall of every transaction he has ever made but that is not the experience of all of us. Sometimes we need an aide-mémoire to jog our memories as to where we might have been. In any event, if an individual had to consent to this provision of information being recorded, that could also create a loophole in the scheme which could be exploited by fraudsters. Perhaps I may explain why I say that. Certain types of fraud, especially financial fraud, are often detected by the pattern of usage. Someone attempting to engage in this sort of fraud will no doubt be aware of that and will therefore not wish to have the provision of information recorded in case it assists in the detection of his activities. The record of the provision of information will assist with any disputes over what information has been provided. For example, someone may consent to his record being verified but state that he does not wish the provision of the information to be recorded in the audit log. If he later complains that the organisation was provided with information that he had not consented to, it will be impossible for the agency to check back and confirm exactly what information was provided. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that the audit log is a safeguard which is of benefit to the individual, as opposed to a disadvantage. Officials in the agency operating the identity card scheme will determine, on behalf of the Secretary of State, whether audit log information may be provided to the police or government department under Clause 19. Noble Lords will remember that that information can be only for the purposes of serious crime. In practice, we expect to establish a specialised section in the agency, staffed by officials with a high security clearance, to deal with requests for audit log information. I hope that noble Lords will remember that I said in our earlier debates that this information will not be generally available; it will be available to the individual, who will want to check the use to which the information has been put in order that he can verify and challenge, as appropriate.