Part of Oral Answers to Questions — Home Department – in the House of Commons at 2:30 pm on 9 July 2007.
Jacqui Smith
Home Secretary, The Secretary of State for the Home Department
2:30,
9 July 2007
The hon. Gentleman and his party, as well as the official Opposition, have taken a consistently oppositional approach to the use of identity cards to support our objectives in relation to immigration, how we counter terror, and how we make sure that people in this country get the things to which they are entitled— [Interruption.] Sometimes that opposition is hidden behind concerns about costs, and sometimes it is hidden behind more supposedly principled arguments. Nevertheless, it is opposition, and Opposition Members have to face up to the consequences when difficult decisions are being made. On the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, it is about the release of information being prepared for and provided to Ministers to allow the most rigorous analysis to be made of the ongoing costs of delivering a very important policy—ID cards. I am, of course, completely in favour of freedom of information, but it is also my view that there will be— [Interruption.] There will be important areas such as advice to Ministers and ongoing analysis of policies that the original legislation never proposed should be subject to freedom of information. If we are to ensure that those reviews are as rigorous as the hon. Gentleman and I both hope they are, that is an entirely reasonable position to take.
The Opposition are the political parties in the House of Commons other than the largest or Government party. They are called the Opposition because they sit on the benches opposite the Government in the House of Commons Chamber. The largest of the Opposition parties is known as Her Majesty's Opposition. The role of the Official Opposition is to question and scrutinise the work of Government. The Opposition often votes against the Government. In a sense the Official Opposition is the "Government in waiting".
Annotations
aaron trevena
Posted on 12 Jul 2007 3:59 pm (Report this annotation)
Is Jacqui Smith claiming that opposition to ID Cards is for some nefarious or party political reason - surely ID Cards can be a bad idea both in practice and principle - the two are certainly not mutually exclusive.
A bad idea, implemented badly certainly doesn't become a good idea.
campbell waterman
Posted on 12 Jul 2007 4:44 pm (Report this annotation)
This has all the aspects of another stonewall.It certainly must give rise to fears about the eventual costs of a project that has never been explained properly and that has too many hidden agendas therein.
James Carter
Posted on 13 Jul 2007 2:17 pm (Report this annotation)
Jacqui Smith's argument for not releasing this information is misguided and wrong. The potential cost of ID cards is very definitely something that the public should have full information on. New Prime Minister, same old Labour cover ups.
Stu Fyles
Posted on 26 Jul 2007 4:52 pm (Report this annotation)
"There will be important areas such as advice to Ministers and ongoing analysis of policies that the original legislation never proposed should be subject to freedom of information." I really struggle to think of a policy that, when analysed to indicate the cost hitherto, would not be subject to FoI.
I'll welcome anyone's explanation if I've got the wrong end of the stick here. This seems a pathetic excuse to avoid saying either (a) "we're too embarrassed to tell you how much it costs because you'll go ballistic," or (b) "we have no idea how much it costs and no amount of policy analysis would give us the slightest clue."