Identity Cards Bill

I thank the Minister for her response, and thank all Members of the Committee who have contributed to this short debate. As the Minister said, many of the issues implicit in the amendment were addressed yesterday, although I am rather less sanguine about whether they have been dealt with. To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and indeed, the Minister, much of my time in the House has been spent probing the very issues to which they referred. The noble Baronesses may be aware that doubts exist about whether the Computer Misuse Act is an effective measure against denial of service attacks on IT infrastructure and databases. I introduced a Private Member’s Bill to attend to the problem a few years ago, which unfortunately did not receive the Government’s blessing. I focus as much of my energy on existing databases as I do on the national identity register. I do not doubt the Government’s intention to have the very best system, but I am concerned that the very best may fall short of appropriate and adequate thresholds of security and reliability. It is eminently sensible to attempt to probe those parameters, and unfortunately I am not sure that this debate has managed to do so to any great effect. Perhaps we shall have more success with Amendment No. 15. I ought to make the point about the LSE report—I shall continue to call it that—that while it has informed my knowledge of the Bill, it is only one of a multitude of sources to which I have resorted to determine my views. The 36 per cent or so of data verification is quoted directly from research in the US and has nothing to do with Italian research. The other thing that I find strange about the LSE report is that it seems extraordinary that rather than dealing with the substance of the report the Government have often aimed to shoot the messenger. All those issues aside, I have been unable to progress this aspect of the debate too much, so I am content to beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.