Identity Cards Bill

I share the noble Baroness’s concern about costs. I shall try to be brief in my few remarks. If I may say so, with the greatest possible respect to noble and learned Law Lords, I note that in their most recent report, every Law Lord said that he agreed with the first Law Lord and that there was no need to add anything else and then proceeded to do so. As I hope that, for a change, this debate may not include barristers, perhaps we can keep it relatively brief. Unlike the noble Baroness, I was not a partner in KPMG; mine was a much lesser firm than that in which the noble Baroness was a senior partner. As I said, I share her concern about costs. My noble friend, who has replied to so much of our debate and to the Written Questions that I have tabled, is so courteous and such a great member of your Lordships’ House, especially in replying to debates, that I am reluctant to be critical in any way. I tabled around 14 Written Questions following my brief intervention on the first amendment of Committee stage. I will not bore the Committee with the Answers that I received, for two reasons: first, I wish to keep my remarks brief, and, secondly, the Answers told us nothing. Indeed, some of my Questions have not yet been answered, which is surprising because they were put down over a month ago. I should have thought that the answers were readily available. I asked, for example,"““what is the assumed number of identity cards that will be issued over the first ten years””." That information must have been taken into account in arriving at the cost. Secondly, I asked,"““what is the assumed number of new passports that will be issued over the first ten years””." Again, that assumption must have been made in arriving at the estimate of cost. I also asked,"““in arriving at the estimated annual cost of the implementation of the Identity Cards Bill, what is the assumed number of passport renewals over the first ten years””." That information must be readily available. I am sure that my noble friend will be able to tell us. The final Question, to which I had an Answer today, was whether the Government will,"““publish an analysis of their estimate of the annual implementation costs of the Identity Cards Bill of £584 million””." I will not read out the Answer because it was very long and told us nothing at all. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has indicated, they could not give us the answer because it would compromise negotiations. I, too, find it difficult to understand the argument about compromising negotiations. If I were involved in any negotiations, I would have no wish to have anybody tell the other side anything at all, but we have already told them the total cost. They would have to be somewhat idiotic, especially if they are advised by KPMG, and it would be surprising if they did not work out the rough estimates for particular aspects of the negotiations. I find that Answer very strange. Equally, I find the noble Baroness’s amendment strange. I was glad that at the outset she described it as a probing amendment because clearly it was drafted by somebody, if I may put it this way, with no experience in government whatever. I declare a past interest as a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury for five years. Contrary to the idea that even the Comptroller and Auditor General can get his hands on an ““estimate””, it is, to put it mildly, a bit difficult. I found it difficult to get estimates of all kinds of expenditure, especially involving the intelligence services. That was quite impossible for a Chief Secretary who had his fingers on all the funds made available to any department. There is an idea that the Comptroller and Auditor General will somehow be able to find the answer, but it will not be easy to find the answer for ““estimates””. Indeed, by the end of the timescale referred to in the estimate, they would be no longer estimates but actual costs, I assume. One should emphasise, as the noble Baroness did, that if you count depreciation, which is how accounts of government costs are now published, they would not by their very nature include the cash costs of the capital expenditure. We should have that figure, so maybe my noble friend will be able to give us it today. I remain very worried. I hate to put it this way, but I wonder whether the Treasury agrees with those estimates or has the faintest idea whether they are likely to prove actual costs in due course. Knowing that all members of the Government agree with one another on everything, I assume that the Chancellor and Chief Secretary have agreed with the Home Office’s estimate of costs—no doubt my noble friend will be able to tell us. Indeed, they may have even collated the costs of other government departments as well; that is to say, the Treasury may not even have told the Home Office. It will be obvious to noble Lords that I remain to be convinced that £584 million will be the final cost. I look forward with great interest to my noble friend’s reply.