 |
|
| CURRENT SECTION :: News | |
|
 |
The cost of a biometric United Kingdom to support the national identity card scheme has risen by £400m since October, in addition to an extra £200m needed to process foreign nationals. In real terms, the Home Office estimates the ten-year project will cost taxpayers a total of £5.55billion, according to a six-month audit of the scheme released last week. In its analysis, Identity Cards Scheme Cost Report, officials said that a “greater understanding of the work required” explains why costs to the taxpayer will increase £60m a year until 2014. Thereafter, the cost of maintaining ID cards will decline to the tune of £20m a year, bar arising “uncertainties,“ meaning taxpayers will fork out between £560m and £600m every 12 months. Under Section 37 of the Identity Cards Act 2006, the Government must spell out the programme’s likely cost every six months, as part of a projection covering its next 10 years. The latest estimate follows the previous cost report in October 2006, which projected costs from then, to October 2016 for ID cards and ePassports at £5.4billion. But the initial cost excluded £400m needed to train a growing number of staff to deliver ID cards; a number “which may well change in the light of more detailed work,” the new report says. Although the updated estimate does not include the costs that will fall on other organisations which use ID cards, it does project the cost of issuing the identifiers to foreign nationals - £200m. The reasons given for scaling up the costs of the project failed to ring true for Phil Booth, national coordinator for NO2ID, the anti-identity scheme lobbyist. He told Contractor UK: “It [the government] claims that it's got a better idea of some staffing costs now that the International Passport Service's interrogation centre network has begun to come online. “-But this has been planned in detail for well over 18 months, and none of the Centres are actually open for business yet. It's hard to believe that this could account for £640 million in any case.” The government’s self-imposed ‘optimum bias’ in its cost reports for ID cards was “laughable,” he added, citing operating costs to have quintupled since initial estimates as low as £1.1bn over 13 years. Mr Booth reflected: “The Home Office's culture of secrecy about its estimates and workings make it hard to assess, let alone believe, any such 'adjustments' at this late stage.” Like the scheme’s other critics, including the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, he wants to see the scheme stopped in its tracks. But the National Audit Office, the public spending watchdog, yesterday said it has no plans to scrutinise the UK-wide scheme, though the IT programme would fall within its remit. Appeals to examine it for value for money from groups like Intellect, the hi-tech trade body, which failed to respond to a request for comment, would not alter its mind, a spokesman said. And even if scrutiny was applied, there is disquiet about the powers of the scheme’s closest watchdogs. “Unfortunately, the NAO and Public Accounts Committee don't seem to have sufficient teeth to stop the scheme,” Mr Booth said, responding to questions. “The point of the Section 37…was so that Parliament could oversee the costs of the programme – but unfortunately, as it was never stated exactly how Parliament could intervene, for example to halt the programme or trigger a full independent audit, the reporting process seems to be a bit of an empty exercise.” David Davis, the shadow home secretary said: “It is also no surprise the Government has had to revise their cost estimate up by so much in less than a year and undermines their criticism of the independent London School of Economics cost estimate of up to £20bn. “The public should brace themselves for more increases every time this estimate is updated.” Aside from the figures, both opposition parties voiced concern over the government’s decision to defer the release of the cost report from its original date of April 9. Instead, the news of more cost to the taxpayer was released on May 10 – the date Tony Blair announced his departure, prompting Tory accusations that Labour was trying to “bury bad news.” David Heath MP, of the Lib Dems, said he hoped that from now on ministers would appreciate that “when they have a statutory duty to report to Parliament, it is not an optional request, it is a requirement.” May 16, 2007 Email this article Printer friendly page Previous Page
|
|
  |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| All content © Contractor UK Limited | http://www.contractoruk.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1[Register for News Letter] | [Privacy Statement] | [Terms of Use] | [Top of Page] |