Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I should make it clear from the very beginning that I do not oppose the Government’s Motion A, and on that basis I invite my colleagues also not to oppose the Government’s Motion A. I think it right that I should put on record our views, particularly on the amendment in lieu. As the noble Baroness explained, Amendment No. 70A was proposed in the other place in lieu of our amendments. It was technically, as the noble Baroness explained, not a government-led amendment but was tabled by Mr Frank Dobson. It is not right today that we should return to rehearsing arguments for greater transparency and openness about the costs associated with the ID card scheme. The Government conceded that principle in another place when they supported Mr Dobson’s amendment. The issue for today is whether Amendment No. 70A achieves transparency and openness in sufficient measure. I took the opportunity to go to another place on the occasion of its consideration of Lords amendments and I watched Mr Dobson move his amendment. I do not for one moment doubt his sincerity or his belief that he was making very significant progress towards transparency; I just think he was a little over-optimistic. I think his amendment is a little too timid—not a word I would normally dare put in the same sentence as Mr Dobson, but let me remind the House that that refers to his amendment and not to the gentleman himself. When the Bill left your Lordships’ House, it required a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of the ID card scheme. Amendment No. 70A concentrates only on the costs of the scheme and has nothing about benefits. That is not surprising, because the amendment refers to costs incurred only by the Home Office and the designated document authorities. Our Amendment No. 70 was very clear in requiring the Government to reveal all the costs to be incurred across the whole of government. We know that if the ID card scheme is to yield the benefits that the Government have claimed—for example, in benefits, entitlements and identity fraud—costs will be incurred in other departments and agencies. Our amendment took a holistic view of the costs and the benefits of the ID card scheme. Mr Dobson’s Amendment No. 70A takes a narrow view from the Home Office’s perspective. Amendment No. 70A, as the Minister explained, has the advantage of providing regular, rolling 10-year estimates of costs on a six-monthly basis. This is a valuable feature. It talks about estimates of ““public expenditure””, which is not defined. I am not clear whether that is expected to be on a cash basis or a resource accounts basis. Our amendment was quite specific that both types of figure were required and that both revenue and capital costs were required. That may seem arcane, but if a PFI-type financing deal were used to pay for the ID card scheme, it is not clear that Amendment No. 70A would deliver the transparency that we all seek. The Minister will not be surprised that we find subsection (4) of Amendment No. 70A difficult to swallow. We have tried hard and we are managing to do it—just. The subsection allows the Secretary of State to exclude any information that he considers would be prejudicial to securing best value from the use of public money. We have disagreed with the Government on the validity of withholding procurement information from Parliament, given that they are purchasing in competitive markets. We fear that that subsection could be abused, especially as Amendment No. 70A also lacks the mandatory review by the Comptroller and Auditor General that featured in our amendment. But I have listened to and, as always, accept the assurances given by the Minister. I also accept that our C&AG has the power to examine what he likes, including whether information is properly withheld. We hope that, given the high profile of this issue, the C&AG has already pencilled in a regular look at the Home Office’s six-monthly reports to Parliament. Lastly, and crucially, Amendment No. 70A lacks the formal approval mechanism by another place before the Act can be implemented. The question will be whether the rolling six-monthly reports are an adequate substitute for formal approval. That will keep the issue of costs in the spotlight. A formal approval mechanism remains the preference of these Benches, but we should accept the views of the other place on the matter. In summary, Amendment No. 70A falls short of the ideals that underpinned our Amendment No. 70, but we should recognise that we have achieved as much progress towards the principles of openness and transparency as the Government are prepared to allow. On that basis, we did not table our own Motion, and we do not oppose the Government’s Motion.