Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1, 68, 69 and 70 and do agree to Amendment No. 70A proposed by the Commons in lieu of those amendments. I should say, yet again, that we have already published the expected costs of issuing identity cards. The current best estimate of the annual average running costs of issuing identity cards and passports to British citizens is £584 million from the start of the identity cards scheme. This is the cost of issuing identity cards and passports, as well as the cost of running and compiling the national identity register and providing an identity verification service. The running costs of the identity cards scheme will be funded from fees charged to passport and identity card applicants or users of the identity verification service or from within existing departmental budgets. The fact that the bulk of the costs will be covered from fees means that, without these fees, there simply is no vast pot of money that could be diverted to other uses, such as more police officers or more immigration officers. We have published the estimated unit cost of the joint passport and identity card package, which is £93 for both documents—a passport and an identity card. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has also made it clear that it will be affordable to issue a stand-alone identity card at a fee of around £30. The new Home Office agency to be established to issue identity cards and to incorporate the existing United Kingdom Passport Service will publish corporate and business plans as well as annual accounts. A full business case will go through extensive internal and Treasury review and challenge prior to contract sign on identity cards, and the whole identity cards programme is subject to regular Office of Government Commerce gateway reviews. As I made clear when we discussed Amendment No. 70 on Report, the Government do not accept that there is a need for such a complicated report of the estimated costs of the identity card scheme as set out in the proposed new clause—together with any consequential costs falling on other departments—before the Bill can come into effect. Nor do we consider that the parliamentary procedure proposed in Amendment No. 70 is appropriate, as it cuts across existing procedure for estimates of government expenditure to be approved in the other place. The Government’s view is that it would be wrong for the identity cards legislation to be incapable of being commenced fully until a report on cost estimates was completed, as set out in Amendment No. 70. For this reason, the amendment was rejected by a majority of 53 in the other place. The Government have listened, however, to what has been said in both Houses about the need to be reassured further on costs. We accept that there is a legitimate public interest in the estimated costs of the identity card scheme and it is for that reason that the Government agreed to the alternative amendment in lieu, Amendment No. 70A. This requires regular reports of the expected costs of the identity card scheme to be published and laid before Parliament. Indeed, unlike what is proposed in Amendment No. 70, these reports will need to be published not just once but every six months and so will provide reassurance that any changes in the estimated costs, whether the estimates increase or decrease, will be reported on at least a half-yearly basis. The reports will include the estimated costs for the 10 years from the laying of the report and so will give a clear view on the future estimated costs once the scheme is fully rolled out and will cover the expected validity period of 10 years for identity cards. Amendment No. 70A also recognises that we must not provide information that could undermine obtaining the best value for money when we go out to the open tender for the procurement of the different elements of the identity card scheme. The amendment means that, while procurement is in progress, any commercially confidential breakdown of costs will not be published. But, and it is an important but, the requirement to report on a six-monthly basis means that any such exclusion will be reviewed and will apply for only as long as there is genuine reason to safeguard value for money so as to protect the taxpayer and the public who will benefit from the identity card scheme. In summary, we are now persuaded that we should include a reference on the face of the Bill to publish regularly, indeed at six-monthly intervals, reports which would be laid before Parliament of the likely costs of the identity card scheme. The procedure included in Amendment No. 70A is, we think, sensible and balanced and would not put value for money at risk. On that basis, I beg to move. Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1, 68, 69 and 70 and do agree to Amendment No. 70A proposed by the Commons in lieu of those amendments.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)