At the end of two hours of debate, I am sure of only three things in this world. First, this has been a very well informed and detailed debate kicking off what may be up to five days of consideration in Committee—unlike the BBC website today that said we would have only two days in Committee; we take more care over legislation than that. Secondly, I am sure that we will have a chance to return to many of these issues in more detail at the proper time. Thirdly, I will be lynched if I take too much time withdrawing an amendment that I said was probing in the first place.
One thing that I am not sure about at the end of this debate is whether the Government have any idea about the real costs overall. I can see a geographical colleague here; the noble Lord, Lord Gould of Brookwood, whose title comes from somewhere a stone’s throw away from mine. I know about his great expertise in polling, but what the Government have come up with here is a resounding ““don’t know””.
The Minister must have a cadre of civil servants behind her who know my every move and thought, and I got even more worried about that because although we are not allowed to refer to any of those who attend these debates, I had intended to quote the words of the Minister, Mr Andy Burnham, and will continue to do so. He was kind enough to attend a meeting in the House last week. He was very courteous and came along to a meeting about costs that I chaired along with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, that was also attended by representatives from the LSE. I was struck by one of his remarks to us. He said:"““Please do not take into account integration costs””—"
That is, the costs to other departments. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has asked the Government to state clearly the benefits to the Treasury. The whole thrust of the debate today is to say, ““be clear and honest””. If the Government are telling us not to take integration costs into account, we must say ““Why, what are you hiding?”” The Government now have five days to show us that there is benefit after all. At the moment, we still ““don’t know””. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 15 November 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Identity Cards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
675 c990-1 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-26 17:06:57 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_276615
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_276615
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_276615