| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10 May 2006 : Column 131WH—continued
Mr. Peter Atkinson (in the Chair): Order. The etiquette in these short debates is that there are to be no
interventions. If there are to be interventions, that has to be done with the permission of the Member and of the Minister.
The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality (Mr. Tony McNulty): I have no problems.
Mark Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is compounded in rural areas? In Wales, four facilities to renew passports have been announced. From October, the renewal of those passports will involve the collection of personal data. There are four new passport offices in an incredibly rural area and the cost to individual householders will be far greater than the cost of the application.
Jo Swinson: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is right to mention the additional travel costs that individuals will face when they go to have their details processed. For many people, those costs might end up well in excess of £93. In addition, how can we be certain that the cost will remain at £93, given that it has already escalated on several occasions?
My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) questioned the Home Office on how much money had been spent on the Government’s ID card scheme from April 2003 to December 2005. He was informed that £32 million had already been spent by the Government on the scheme before the legislation was passed by Parliament.
The former Home Secretary made the House aware that a small contribution from public funds would be required towards the running costs of the scheme. However, we have never had much clarity on the interpretation of “a small contribution”. That is a rather ambiguous phrase, and it leaves a great deal to changes in circumstances and the patterns of take-up of the card. Now that ID cards are on the way, I ask the Minister whether the Home Office has any firm figures so that we can be aware of how much this small contribution from public funds might be.
The Government have consistently refused to publish their estimate of the set-up costs of the database design of the national identity register. They argue that that might jeopardise the procurement of the contracts for the database. The London School of Economics has tried its best to make up for the Government’s lack of clarity with several extensively researched reports published in the past 12 months, most recently a report on the Home Office accounting of the ID cards scheme in March. The previous Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Leigh, in his best defence of the Government, suggested that the LSE figures for the ID card scheme were designed to confuse and frighten people. A lack of any financial preparation for the national identity register is far more confusing and frightening for the taxpayer when no estimates are being put forward by the Government.
Mark Hunter (Cheadle) (LD): Does my hon. Friend agree that given the Government’s lamentable record to date in delivering IT infrastructure projects on budget and on time, they would have been better advised to spend the millions and millions of pounds that the ID card scheme will now cost us on improving police presence on our streets?
Jo Swinson: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I will return later in my speech to the issue of the Government’s handling of IT systems and their ability to deliver. I accept that there are many projects that taxpayers’ money could be better spent on—regardless of whether the amount is £3 billion or £5 billion, or £10 billion or £19 billion.
For clarity, let me remind Members of the supposed aims of the ID card scheme according to the Home Office regulatory impact assessment which it published in November 2004: to reduce illegal migration and illegal working; to enhance the UK’s capability to counter terrorism and serious and organised crime; to reduce identity fraud; and to implement a more efficient and effective delivery of public services. On all these points the Government are weak in both clarity and their hoped-for delivery. After last July, the terrorist attacks blew out of the water the suggestion that the counter-terrorism side of the card’s purpose would be effective. The country is all too aware that a piece of plastic will not act as a deterrent or as a tool against terrorism. There is strong evidence that terrorists do not hide their identity. The release of the foreign national prisoners which unseated the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), also suggests that an ID card scheme would not have helped. The problem was not the identity of most of the foreign prisoners; the immigration and nationality directorate and the Prison Service knew the identity of most of them. The problems arose because the two parts of the Home Office were not communicating with each other. That poses a lot of questions, and does not bode well for the national identity register.
The Home Office’s current estimate of the cost of introducing and implementing the biometric passport and ID card scheme is £584 million each year for the next 10 years; the total cost of that is £5.8 billion. However, that figure does not provide a true picture of the total cost of the ID card scheme. There is a variety of hidden costs in respect of ID cards.
The Government have consistently refused to say how much the plans will cost other Departments, despite several parliamentary questions on this matter. I hope the Minister will enlighten us; if he is unable to do so, perhaps he will undertake to consult his ministerial colleagues in other Departments so that they can present to the House a realistic estimate of the overall cost to the Government of implementing the scheme, rather than simply the cost to the Home Office. If we do not have the full, total figures, it is impossible for the people and the taxpayers to make a realistic assessment of whether this is good value for money.
Some of the hidden costs, other than the costs to other Departments, include the cost of designing the database, which, as I have said, the Government will not reveal. One would expect that it will be a complex and technologically sophisticated database, and security measures will need to be incredibly robust given the nature and the quantities of data that will be stored on the database. Therefore, this is unlikely to be a piece of software that comes cheaply. There is also the cost of the scanners and the readers. Many problems have been reported in trials with the accuracy of some of the reading equipment. That varies in terms of the different types of biometrics used. People with
disabilities have reported problems with using some of the biometric readers; for such cases, more than one type of scanning equipment may be required at sites where the ID cards will be used.
An individual card reader is estimated to cost about £275, and a card and fingerprint reader about £500. However, many people, such as manual labourers, cannot use the fingerprint reader with great accuracy because their fingers are often worn down. Facial scanners would cost £750 and iris scanners, which are the most accurate, are very costly at £3,500.
The aims of the project were about delivering better public services, but if the costs I have mentioned are multiplied across the various Government Departments, hospitals and police stations up and down the country, they soon start to escalate, and the costs to other Departments should be borne in mind.
I am also concerned that some of the costs of the scheme are being concealed in other budgets. A large part of the money being used for the scheme is said to be going only towards the upgrade of the UK Passport Service, as if all the biometric data were absolutely necessary for that. We must scotch that myth. Under international regulations, all the different forms of biometric data do not need to be stored on the cards. Yes, we have to have facial recognition, but fingerprinting and iris scanning are optional, not mandatory. No other country has as many biometric details stored in their ID cards or passport systems; this project is far more ambitious than the others, and the Government would do well to rethink it.
We also have to consider the cost of replacing the cards. Currently, it is estimated that once every 10 years will be sufficient. However, biometric data diminish over time; people’s appearance changes and as time passes, the scans—particularly those for facial recognition—become less accurate. The operator of the national fingerprint information system, Northrop Grumman, argues that cards may need to be replaced as often as every three years; even if it were necessary only every five years, that would significantly increase the cost of the scheme and increase the figure of£584 million a year.
Taking into account various of those factors, the London School of Economics report estimates the true cost to be anywhere between £10.6 billion and£19.2 billion. Even at the optimistic end of that range, the costs would be almost double those projected by the Home Office.
In assessing the costs of such a scheme, it is also important to compare them with any expected benefits. Given the Government’s track record on IT projects, already mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter), such benefits may be dubious.
Hong Kong has a widely praised ID card scheme. In the Sunday Herald of 28 November 2004, the consultant responsible for implementing it said of the UK scheme:
“‘Saying you’re going to introduce a nationwide identity card is easy. Making it happen is a different matter...This would be the most ambitious IT project in UK history, an enormously complex system involving untried technologies, and success seems unlikely when you consider the public sector’s abysmal track record in this area.’”
For example, EDS was the company responsible for developing the tax credits database. I am sure that in
the past few years, most Members have had contact with constituents who have been on the receiving end of that flawed system because of overpayments, underpayments or administrative failures. EDS has negotiated a £71.25 million settlement with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to compensate for the IT failures that have plagued the system since its inception. Yet that very company has been awarded another Government contract—to revamp Ministry of Defence systems. Unlike other contracts, which have been worth tens of millions of pounds, that contract is worth £4 billion. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me and the taxpayer, first, that the national identity register contract will not necessarily cost that much—an estimate of how much he thinks it will cost would be very much appreciated—and secondly, that careful consideration will take place before an IT contractor is chosen, particularly if a company such as EDS is placing a bid.
The Home Office’s own report shows that for other Government Departments to take up and benefit from the ID card scheme, there will need to be high levels of take-up. For example, the Department for Work and Pensions and Revenue and Customs are unlikely to get large benefits until 80 per cent. of the population are using the scheme. When does the Minister expect us to reach a level of 80 per cent. take-up with a voluntary scheme?
In their manifesto, the Government said that they would introduce a voluntary scheme. We have had many debates on whether requiring people who have passports to have ID cards complies with the assertion that it is a voluntary scheme. I would argue that that represents a great degree of compulsion. I still believe that 80 per cent. is a fairly optimistic level to achieve in a short space of time. Although 80 per cent. of people have passports—
Mr. Michael Wills (North Swindon) (Lab): I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me for intervening. I have listened carefully to her detailed and cogently argued speech, but I would like her to clarify something before she sits down. This matter is of great concern to my constituents. I receive a lot of correspondence on this matter supporting both sides of the case. It is unclear to me whether her opposition to ID cards, such as I take it, is on a matter of principle or practice. We have to accept that the relevant costs are variable and will inevitably be imprecise at this stage, but is there a cost at which the implementation of ID cards would be acceptable to her?
Jo Swinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As a Liberal, I have a principled objection to ID cards. We do not need the system, and no evidence has been presented to the House to suggest that it is necessary. However, as the debate is about the cost of the scheme, I have focused on those particular arguments.
The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made. I am opposed to ID cards in principle, as are many people. I am sure that some of his constituents have written to him voicing that view. Hon. Members might know that there is a strong campaign at renewforfreedom.org, which is encouraging people to renew their passports before the ID cards database comes into effect. I
wonder whether the Minister thinks that that will have an impact on the likely take-up of the scheme and, therefore, when the anticipated benefits might be achieved by Government Departments.
However, I am keen to press on. The cost of the project has spiralled, and it has been characterised by a complete lack of clarity about what it is intended to achieve. The stated aim of the project has changed from anti-terrorism to tackling benefit fraud, to making things easier for Government Departments, to making it easier to prove one’s identity without having to take one’s passport out with one, but we have not heard a strong argument for introducing ID cards. The likely cost is incredibly worrying, and we can expect it to increase further because not all aspects of the scheme have been included in the projections. The scheme offers poor value for money.
I understand that the Treasury has asked for an annual review of the scheme’s cost. I hope that the Minister will tell us when that review will be undertaken. Will it be published in front of the House? If the costs escalate, on the annual review basis, at what point would the Government reconsider the merits of the scheme and review its implementation? Are they committed to implementing ID cards no matter how high the costs and how small the benefits?
4.18 pm
The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality (Mr. Tony McNulty): I hesitate to say this because the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire(Jo Swinson) has been in the House for only a year and her reputation is strong and growing, but, with the best will in the world, I have never listened to such cliché-ridden tosh since the last time I heard a Liberal speak on ID cards. That is a shame because there are serious and substantive matters of practicality rather than principle that we now need to consider. This is such an important debate, regardless of where one started from in terms of the Bill, which means so much to the country, that it demands slightly better than a cliché-ridden rehash of the arguments of the past two or three years. I say that with real regret.
The hon. Lady is wrong in so many instances that I am not sure that I could go through them all in 10 or15 minutes, but let me start at the beginning. She is wrong to suggest—I do not want anyone to be misled in this regard—that somehow by 30 September, as a result of amendments to the Bill accepted by the Government, there will be a full and detailed cost breakdown of every single aspect of the project. There will not. That was not the substance of the Lords amendment that we quite rightly accepted, which was that we should report to the House progress on the project, including costs, on a six-monthly basis. It is entirely right and proper that the House should know such things.
I suspect that the paucity of intellect in many of the hon. Lady’s arguments comes from a complete lack of understanding—God knows, I do not understand it entirely—of how government works. The Liberals seem to think that we have thought of a number and doubled it, and that is the apparent cost of the ID cards. Whatever the Government, internal governmental processes and accountability simply
would not allow that. She is quite right to quote the figure of £584 million; she is quite wrong to ascribe that in full or in part to ID cards, with a little bolt-on for the new biometric passport scheme. It was the other way around. We have said throughout that about 70 per cent.-plus of those costs are for the biometric passport.
I had a look, and never have I found in this House—admittedly before the hon. Lady became a Member of the House—any peep, any whisper from the Liberal Democrats countering the introduction of biometric passports. Nothing. By the bye, I did not find anything from the official Opposition either. That is right and proper. The consensus was that we must have a far more secure international travel document than we have had hitherto.
The hon. Lady is right—in a fourth-form sort of way—to suggest that what we are seeking goes far beyond international requirements in international agreements. They require facial recognition and fingerprints, but not the all-singing, all-dancing 13 biometrics that we suggest. That is not a critique of where we are going with the project, because I guarantee her and the House that everybody else internationally will get to where the UK is starting from. It is not sufficient to suggest that somehow there is a flaw in the entire project because we are going for an absolutely copper-bottomed gold standard biometric system for passports and ID cards. As far as I am aware, apart from the rumbling around the edges, there is continuing support for a biometric passport.
I accept in full the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) about our network of offices and application by interview. I appreciate that it will cause difficulties in rural areas. It was discussed at length during the last Committee sitting of the Bill and previously, but the interview is a necessary part of obtaining a biometric passport, and those matters must be overcome. By the bye, it was probably the most far-flung Liberal Democrat, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who made that point, and given his constituency, he can make it in far stronger terms than anyone else. It is an issue, there are 70 offices, and we may need to consider mobile facilities and others in more detail, and we have said that we will; but there is no other way to capture people’s biometrics, even for the first phase for the new passport, other than through application by interview. It is a fair point, and one that we are addressing.
On the hon. Lady’s points—again, clichéd, I am afraid—about the trials thus far, there has not been in substance a mock-up of every aspect of capturing people’s biometrics. She knows that; she has read the reports. They are, for the individual, about physicality, ergonomics and all the other elements of having one’s biometrics captured; no more than that. The trials did not use the tip-top, state-of-the-art biometric capture technology that exists for passports and will exist when ID cards come in. One cannot say from a series of tests about the ergonomics and physicality of the process of having one’s fingerprints, irises and everything else captured, that the incumbent and subsequent flaws in many aspects of it are due to flaws in the technology. One simply cannot say that, and the hon. Ladyknows it.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |