|
Patrick Mercer: The sum of £116, to which my hon. Friend is referring, prompts the question whether there will be a sliding scale. Of course, that matter has not been addressed by the Minister—we are clear about that—but should not it be pointed out that if the cost to people will vary, the sum of £116, which is itself excessive, might turn out to be quite modest? If some people are not paying, it is self-evident that those who have to pay that relatively modest sum, if it is correct—and I am sure that my hon. Friend has considered it in detail—will perhaps be looking at £130 to £150 per card.
Mr. Malins: We may even be looking at more; my hon. Friend is right in that respect. I have to say sincerely to my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon that next year's winter fuel allowance may just be sufficient to pay for his card, so if the cheque is not marked ''Account payee'' it could be endorsed back to the Home Secretary, having been received from the Chancellor.
This is a vital issue. I do not understand how we can have a debate on the cost of the cards without having the firmest indications from the Government as to their proposals for those on supplementary benefits and the like, because many people may have to pay considerably more.
Mr. Oaten: I am interested in the point about the charge being more than £85. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the Minister's polling, which he has quoted, which says that 68 per cent. of the public would be prepared to pay for a card that cost £85? Have the Conservatives done any research on whether tipping the cost over £100 would bring down that figure?
Mr. Malins: This is my first opportunity to welcome the hon. Gentleman to our deliberations and say that we much enjoyed the presence of his colleague, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, in earlier sittings. The hon. Gentleman is right. The polling on people's reactions to cost is interesting. One poll seems to have overtaken another. If 68 per cent. of the population, or thereabouts, would be prepared to pay up to £85 for a card, it seems highly likely, although we cannot be sure, that if people were asked, ''Would you be prepared to pay £116, or even more?'', their reaction would be very different, and swathes of them would say no.
The reason that we are in difficult territory is illustrated by the issue of age. I do not know enough about procedure to know when the Minister will have an opportunity to deal—more thoroughly, please—
Column Number: 240
with various issues that were raised on Thursday and with those that are being raised today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said, the cost of the card to the individual must surely have some relationship to the number of cards that are issued by the Government. We skated over the point in an earlier debate on clause 2, when we found out that those who are entitled to be entered on the register are those who have attained the age of 16. However, the Secretary of State may subsequently, by order, modify the age. As my hon. Friends have said this morning, there is no indication from the Government as to their thinking on that.
Turning back to the cost, we are all aware that many 16-year-olds, who will have to be issued with this card, are not in employment but at school. The Government promote continuing education, A-levels, and so forth—many say that that is a good thing—but not once have they told us who will pay if a card is to be issued to a 16-year-old.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am sure that he is aware because of his own children, as I am aware because of mine and their friends, that children tend to travel at a much younger age these days, so the need for those aged 16 to 20 to apply for a passport while still in full-time education is likely to increase. Many of those people have no income, so they will be particularly badly hit by these provisions.
Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend is right. One assumes that there is no question of making a child aged 16 personally liable for such a debt: it is voluntary in the same way that a passport application is voluntary. However, one is faced with the prospect of parents having to pay for a card for their child, or children, at 16 or under. The point was made a little earlier in the debate that there is a trend for children to reach maturity and do more in life at a younger age, lawfully, than was the case many years ago. The matter of payment on behalf of children, which burdens the family, has not been explored by the Minister. We are entitled to hear much more.
In the last debate I asked the Minister for a little information about the cost of biometric readers, and I think—I will be corrected if I am wrong—he referred me to the regulatory impact assessment, which says that the likely cost is between £250 and £750 each. I hope that I will be forgiven for saying that that is a wide range. It is disappointing that we have not had a more accurate figure, or some argument from the Government about why no such figure could be found at this stage. That means that we are, to a great extent, stepping forward in the dark.
I also asked the Minister how many biometric readers there would be in the country, but received no answer; perhaps he cannot tell us. However, it follows automatically that the more biometric readers there are, the greater the set-up and running costs will be, not to mention the individual cost.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is, as always, on to another interesting point, which pertains to what my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull said. People
Column Number: 241
will be entitled to check the biometric cards for purposes other than tackling criminal activity. Does my hon. Friend think it entirely probable that large employers, such as the NHS and the Ministry of Defence, which have a large staff turnover, will have to have biometric readers in their recruitment office so that they can easily vet those who are applying for a job?
Mr. Malins: I am certain that my hon. Friend is right: such employers will have to have biometric readers. I think that I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends in saying that the debate has been disappointing because we have put many questions to the Government, but we have not had full answers. My hon. Friend makes a good point in that respect. It is also disappointing that we have not had a full response from the Minister on the charging regime as it relates to different age and income groups. I do not know what the procedure is when making such a point, Mr. Conway; I just leave the thought with you.
Such is the importance of the many issues—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) wish to intervene?
John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman is misleading us slightly, and as an experienced—
The Chairman: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to say that, and that he is not accusing his colleague of misleading the Committee.
John Robertson: In danger of misleading us, I meant to say. You were quite right to correct me, Mr. Conway. The hon. Member for Woking, with his vast experience of filling the Chair, will understand exactly the rules governing what he says.
Mr. Malins: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland—I hope that I have pronounced that correctly—has been a contributor to our debates. I do not think that he intended to cast a slur on my character, and I forgive him if he accidentally did so. The point that I was making when he intervened is that we have not had a full debate on how the charging regime will apply to people who are vulnerable, poor, rich, very young, very old or homeless.
When we go back to our constituencies at the weekend, people will say to us, ''You've been debating the cost of the identity card in Committee for the past fortnight. What will it cost us, bearing in mind our family circumstances and the number of children we have?'' The truth is that we will not be able to answer them, because we simply have not been provided with that information, and that is very disappointing. Earlier, I confirmed the point that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam made, quite rightly, towards the end of last week: we should not fool ourselves that the sums are not public money. Of course the total cost is public money; it must be.
Column Number: 242
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend consider that, if my costings are right and a card is to cost £116, it will cost an average family—two parents and two children—nearly £500 to get their identity cards? They can easily get cheap flights for £20 or £30 each, so the cost of the flights is likely to be less than £150, yet they will have to pay £500 for the ID cards. Where is the equity in that?
Mr. Malins: There is no equity at all; my hon. Friend is entirely right. I say now, before the whole Committee, that if the Government are directly to challenge to what my hon. Friend said about the possible cost of the card, let them tell us so, in an intervention or otherwise. I see that they are not doing so.
The document that the Government gave us right at the beginning of the Committee resulted in my hon. Friend concluding that the overall cost of the scheme could be in the order of £5.5 billion, a vast sum. It is distressing for Opposition Members to have to put forward that figure as a possible cost based on the Government's own figures. However, we were met with Stephen Harrison's evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. The Chairman had said:
''1.3 billion to 3.1, quite a wide range. 1.8 billion between top and bottom'',
and in reply—
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman read quite a lengthy extract from the proceedings of that Committee earlier. I am sure that he is experienced enough to know that the Chairman could not possibly allow him to read it into the record a second time.
10.30 am
Mr. Malins: That is entirely right. I was accused by Labour Members, rather unfairly I thought, of spending too much time looking at what the Home Affairs Committee had to say about the issue of cost. I quoted the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) and got into some trouble for doing it. That is entirely right, and it is not to be quoted again today; but the actual bracket given there—£1.3 billion to £3.1 billion—is rather different, I think, from the figures given to us today.
I am disappointed that we have not had more contributions from Government Members on the issue of costs. It is a great shame, because at least one of them would take a very serious view on this issue, that we have not had a contribution from them on this point.
| 
