Identity Cards Bill

I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this interesting debate which has helped to illuminate some of the areas of difference to which we will want to return on Report. The noble Baroness said that the costs of £584 million—which we have to accept as an odd average—will be 70 per cent of the total costs. So we have to take entirely on trust that everything that would not be required for the passport is going to amount to the 30 per cent addition; that is, the whole of the cost of running the register, the whole of the interconnection to other departments and, indeed, other organisations, and the way in which it will be used. We find that quite difficult. The figures that the noble Baroness gave did not help me to understand that these figures were of the right order of magnitude. However, in the amendment I was not trying to answer that question; I was saying that insufficient information had been made available to Parliament to allow Parliament to do that. I fully accept that it is for the other place to have control over supply, but I do not believe that it is wrong for your Lordships’ House to have a proper interest in the costs involved in implementing such major legislation—especially legislation such as this which will have a major impact on people’s lives via their pockets, given the charging provisions in Clause 37. Two reports have been referred to: the London School of Economics report and the KPMG report. The London School of Economics report comes out with figures that are very much higher than the Government’s. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that that issue needs bottoming-out. I do not believe that we have yet achieved that. I am almost embarrassed to talk about the KPMG report. When I used to ply my trade as a jobbing accountant one did reports from time to time, and one was asked from time to time to publish the kind that can be put in the public arena. That raises hugely difficult issues because reports are generally meant to be read as a whole. I am used to looking for the code of what is not in there. Paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3—which cover the scope, the exclusions and the assumptions—tell one quite a lot about what the KPMG report does not tell you about costs. We have to bear that in mind. We are not going to agree on whether this House should be allowed to see not only Home Office costs but costs arising across Whitehall. We cannot see an artificial distinction so that the Government, having divided up into departments, can then say, ““We will only talk about departments””. The noble Baroness said that it did not even include the Immigration Service’s total costs. That seems to me a very partial view on life. I said at the outset that this was a probing amendment to explore the issue of costs in more depth than has been done to date in Committee. For my purpose it has been most useful, and I look forward to returning to this issue on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 37 [Fees in respect of functions carried out under Act]: [Amendments Nos. 260 and 261 not moved.] [Amendment No. 262 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.] [Amendments Nos. 263 to 268 not moved.] Clause 37 agreed to. Clause 38 agreed to. Clause 39 [Verifying information provided with passport applications etc.]: [Amendments Nos. 268A and 268B not moved.] [Amendment No. 269 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.] Clause 39 agreed to. Clauses 40 to 42 agreed to. Clause 43 [General interpretation]: [Amendment No. 270 not moved.] [Amendments Nos. 271 to 275 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.] Clause 43 agreed to. Clause 44 agreed to. Clause 45 [Short title, repeals, commencement, transitory provision and extent]: [Amendments Nos. 276 and 277 not moved.] [Amendments Nos. 278 and 279 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.] Clause 45 agreed to. Schedule 2 agreed to. Title agreed to.