Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, it is a notable achievement by the House that we have made this much progress. As a result of our amendment being sent to the other place, there was a long and major debate there on the issue of costs, which had not happened before. A great deal of scepticism was expressed, not least from the government Benches, about the Government’s cost estimates. We have drawn the attention of the other place to the flaws in the Government’s presentation of costs, and that is important. As my noble friend said, it is a disadvantage that the Government’s amendment would not stop them proceeding, even if the costs grow by a substantial amount. Unlike our amendment, there is nothing in it stating that no provision of the Act shall be brought into force until the costs have been approved. None the less, if we are to get six-monthly updates—and the costs are found to be running totally out of control, as the costs of many schemes have—that will be a real discipline on the Government. Mr Dobson was extremely rough on the Government’s attempts to justify the Bill on the basis of costs, but the major shortcoming in his amendment was that it dealt only with the Home Office’s costs. One of the most extraordinary arguments that the Government have presented at intervals is that it is only the Home Office costs that matter and that, after all, other departments will decide in due course whether the whole thing is a good idea and will undertake a cost-benefit analysis before joining the scheme. I think that at one point in a debate in the other place the Minister rather plaintively said that there did not seem to be much willingness by the other government departments to help to meet the Home Office costs. None the less, the Government repeatedly identify the total benefits, which arise only if the other departments come on board. It is unrealistic to say that the only costs that matter are the Home Office costs. If the Government are to get the benefits that they say they will get, it is vital that other departments come on board. Therefore, when the six-monthly reports are brought before it, Parliament will need to look very carefully at what is happening so far as concerns the other government departments. However, it is a notable achievement by this House to have got the other place to look at these important issues and to make the Government accept an amendment which will allow a closer examination of costs than has been permitted in almost any other major project involving IT that I can remember being undertaken by any government in the past.