Identity Cards Bill

I have added my name to the amendment moved by my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was the first person on the opening day of Committee to ask questions about costs. That led the Minister into a pretty miserable two hours. On 12 December the noble Baroness wrote a letter addressed to my noble friend Lady Anelay and copied to all noble Lords who took part in that debate. Over six pages the letter sets out a preview to the response that the Minister will make to this debate. However, it will not put out the fire that scorched her on the earlier occasion. Indeed, it may well add fuel to the flames. As my noble friend has said, the central argument is that information about capital costs estimates would prejudice the Government’s ability to obtain value for money. I served on the committee looking at the Constitutional Reform Bill. When it was debated in this House, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor set out a precise costing for the new Supreme Court. He did not appear worried that doing so would prejudice getting good value for money. Indeed, the very fact that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, an extremely experienced Chief Secretary to the Treasury, thinks it appropriate to ask for this kind of information reinforces my belief that it will not prejudice the Government’s ability to secure value for money. I asked a former Chancellor of the Exchequer what he thought of the response given in the Minister’s six-page letter. On this point he said that he thought the argument was nonsense, but that if we did get the information, no one would believe it. That is almost what the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, observed a few moments ago. It is not impossible for the Government to give details of the principal areas of expenditure without breaking them down into the precise contract items that could prejudice the procurement process. I shall take one example: the facilities for the national identity register building. In a different incarnation I tendered for a similar project. I am confident that there will be separate cost items and tenders for the building itself, probably several for the IT facilities, for communication links, for security and for a good deal else besides. We can reach a total cost without prejudicing the need to secure value for money. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said that my noble friend has no experience in government. I have had a certain experience in government. I recall sitting in endless Cabinet committees during which my noble friend Lady Thatcher would go over proposals of this kind. Her paper would be marked with yellow ink and there would be a brief from the Treasury. I do not believe for a moment that she would have given the go-ahead for this scheme without knowing in detailed terms what the likely costs would be. Even in these days of sofa government, I find it hard to believe that the Treasury has not probed into this pretty thoroughly and that the successor to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was not a little anxious. It may be that the Prime Minister—