Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I spoke and voted for your Lordships’ amendment when it was previously before the House. I remain sceptical about the costs, whether estimated by the London School of Economics or by the Government. Taking an estimate of costs over 10 years and dividing by 10 to arrive at an annual cost is, to put it mildly in such a complex area as IT management, a little difficult to comprehend. The amendment now before the House is called the Dobson amendment as it was proposed, in another place, by my right honourable friend Frank Dobson. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I did not go into the Chamber to hear him speak, but I have read what he said in considerable detail. He thought that, if the costs turned out as the Minister has estimated, it would be the greatest miracle he has ever seen. He was also very harsh on IT management companies which he described as the greatest intergalactic rip-off merchants of all time. That is a little unfair because many other people rip off governments; many consultants have done so and I am sure will continue to do so. However, in this case the Opposition seemed to be accepting, as the noble Baroness said, that Frank Dobson was over optimistic—““naive”” is another word. The purpose of his amendment is that at the end of six months, if there are, as he puts it, huge increases taking place, it will not be too late for us to say, ““Stop””. Anyone who has considered these matters in another place will know that for the House of Commons to say ““Stop”” to a government is, to put it mildly, unlikely. The plain fact is that the only people who, I hope, will take note of the amendment are those in the Treasury who seem to have been very silent in recent times about this. At least they will have some vague understanding about the costs. It would be nice if my noble friend, in whom I have enormous trust, were to accept that any of these costs, given the assumptions that have to be made, whether up to six months or as they were previously, are estimates and highly speculative estimates at the best of times. I would not like to make a forecast of costs of anything next year, let alone over a 10-year period. I see her smile, so perhaps she will accept what I am saying. To take a cost over 10 years of anything, especially in the area of IT, is, to put it mildly, given the experience that all governments have had over a long time, difficult. I have no doubt that if the noble Baroness were sitting on this side of the House, she would be introducing an identity card Bill and our side would be vigorously opposing it—that is a fact of life. I voted for the Lords’ amendment even though, as I said at the time, I did not like the amendment but I wanted to give the other place a chance to rethink. It has ““rethunk””—if that is a word—and has come up with the Dobson Amendment No. 70A in lieu. The words, ““every six months”” will not help in any way. In practice, the Bill will go ahead with excessive costs, as there will inevitably be, although there is a remote possibility—I hope it is not remote—that some people in the Treasury will take note of them. The noble Baroness is quite right to say that we should not take this further and I am happy to go along with that.