Identity Cards Bill

It is important that we get this right for two reasons that the Minister gave earlier—first, because we now have a scheme that will be compulsory and, secondly, because, as the Minister has said, the bulk of the costs will be covered by fees. If costs go up, fees will go up. The cost of the scheme will be borne by our constituents. It is therefore important that we have as much information as possible about what the scheme will mean to the people whom we represent. I do not believe that amendment (a), tabled by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson), would do what it is claimed it would do. I suspect that the very reason that the Minister is prepared to accept it is because he knows that it is the dog that will not bark. It will not even growl or whimper. The Minister is bound to like the amendment because it will not provide any ability to stop the scheme in its tracks. We will not have the information that would allow us to make a considered decision until it is too late. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that it was better than the Lords amendment because it allowed us to look at the ongoing costs, but we know that the Minister will be able to hold back information on that under subsection (4). It states that information may be held back if it is "““prejudicial to securing the best value from the use of public money””." That is the very basis on which the Minister has held back the full capital cost of the scheme. We are told that it would breach commercial confidentiality and stop us getting the best value. So in his six-monthly reports, the Home Secretary will be able to hold back the very information that would enable us to make an assessment of the costs. Amendment (a) would not do what is necessary. We have heard a lot of hocus-pocus economics this evening. It must be down to my experience in local government, but I always get worried when a report goes into minute detail. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) said, the Minister can pinpoint the cost as £584 million a year. But when we start asking the big questions, everything becomes vague and we are told that for reasons of commercial confidentiality the capital costs cannot be revealed. In my experience of local government, that usually means that no one is quite sure how much the scheme will cost at the end of the day. When I encounter that approach, I begin to be wary. The Minister, again in answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, said that the capital could either be paid in a lump sum or annualised and added on as running costs. He gave an assurance that it would not be more than the annual running costs according to the present estimate, but if the amount was equal to the running costs the annual cost would double. Will that be added to the fees that the public pay for the card? The Minister gave no indication.