Immigration: Public Services

Lord Vinson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Vinson]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of net immigration continuing at over 300,000 people per year, and the latest Office for National Statistics projections indicating an increase in the United Kingdom population, including births, of 500,000 per year for the next six years, what plans they have to limit immigration and to build more hospitals, schools, housing and prisons to meet an increase in demand.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government recognise that mass immigration can increase population pressures. That is why we are seeking to reduce net migration to a sustainable level, from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands. The Government are committed to a significant programme of investment in our public services. Taken together, these steps and future measures will ensure that there is adequate provision.

[Lord Vinson (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his somewhat sanguine reply. Would he also agree, though, that the million or so refugees whom Angela Merkel has accepted will soon have the right to come here, and the Turks could be next, adding to the overload on our hospitals, schools and houses, greatly to the detriment of our existing population? Is he also surprised that the effect of uncontrolled immigration from the EU on the stability of our nation and on the welfare of working people appears not to be of concern, with very few exceptions, to the Labour Party?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the Government are completely reforming the immigration system, cutting abuse and focusing on attracting the brightest and the best. Since 2010, reforms have cut abuse in the student and family visa systems and raised standards in the work routes. In addition, of course, our recent negotiations in Europe have brought to fruition the provision of new settlement agreements for EU migrants, with the requirement for a seven-year emergency brake being in place.

Economic Case for HS2 (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Vinson Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hollick (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to introduce the report of the Economic Affairs Committee entitled The Economics of High Speed 2. Speaking in June this year, the Secretary of State for Transport said:

“The time to debate the various merits of high-speed rail is over”.

I am delighted that so many Members of your Lordships’ House are here this afternoon to prove him wrong.

I would like first of all to record the committee’s thanks to Tom Worsley, our specialist adviser, and to committee staff Rob Whiteway, Ben McNamee and Stephanie Johnson for their valuable support.

When he appeared before our committee last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that, despite the very high cost of HS2 and the many controversies over aspects of it, each generation had a responsibility to take big controversial decisions to improve the national infrastructure. In his view, HS2 is just one such decision facing this generation. The Chancellor’s enthusiasm could not be faulted, but in the absence of a rigorous, independent and transparent appraisal of the costs and benefits of this huge undertaking, HS2 has become a project of faith, all too often supported only by overblown rhetoric.

The construction of the new railway and the cost of the rolling stock is estimated, in 2011 prices, to amount to £50 billion. The committee estimated that this would be £56.6 billion in 2014 prices. The overall cost of £50 billion includes an estimated £21.2 billion for phase 2, from Birmingham to Manchester and to Leeds. This estimate is a number imposed by the Treasury and, in the absence of a detailed cost plan, is simply a placeholder. The Treasury estimates that the net cost to the taxpayer is expected to be £31.5 billion at 2011 prices, or £35.6 billion at 2014 prices; the net cost taking into account the cost, the running cost and all the income—that is the final bill that lands with the taxpayer.

This cost will be borne by all taxpayers, many of whom will derive no benefit from the project. Yet the Government assume that fares on HS2 will be the same as on the existing network. Would it not be more sensible to make those benefiting most from the railway, principally business travellers, contribute more towards the cost through higher fares and relieve the burden on taxpayers generally?

It was unclear from the evidence whether all the necessary infrastructure improvements to complement HS2 were included, and this could push the overall cost much higher. The cost of construction is, surprisingly, up to nine times higher than the cost of constructing high-speed lines in France. Sir David Higgins said that the UK cannot hide behind the idea that the UK is more densely populated than France. We welcome his commitment to learning from international examples to reduce cost.

We heard that there are a number of ways that HS2 could be built at a lower cost. The Department for Transport told us that the additional cost of designing the train to run at 400 kilometres per hour, as opposed to 300 kilometres per hour as in Europe, was 9% of the total cost. Significant savings could also be made by terminating the line at Old Oak Common. This would eliminate the need for expensive tunnelling under London and substantially reduce the cost and disruption over many years of redeveloping Euston station, which has already risen to £7 billion from the original £2 billion estimate. Many witnesses raised concerns about cost escalation. These concerns appear to be shared by the Major Projects Authority, whose recent report gave HS2, for the second year in a row, an amber/red rating. Will the Minister please explain the reason for this high-risk rating and why the Government are refusing to publish its report?

The Government’s principal justification for building HS2 is to provide capacity to meet long-term rail demand and for long-distance travel. From the limited information on rail usage in the public domain, the capacity problem on the west coast main line is caused mainly by commuter traffic, particularly travelling into London. The Government have failed to make a convincing case that there is a capacity problem on long-distance services. The Secretary of State for Transport told us that long-distance services arriving in London in the morning peak hour,

“are already at full capacity”,

but that is not borne out by the statistics that we received. Long-distance services arriving in London between 7 am and 10 am have 57% seats taken on average. Virgin Trains, the operator of long-distance services on the west coast main line told us that its busiest train is the first off-peak train leaving London on a Friday evening. That is hardly surprising when the ticket cost of the last peak train to Manchester is six times more than the cost of the first off-peak—one would wait another 10 minutes or so. This cries out for the introduction of variable pricing to manage capacity bottlenecks, which is often routine in the airline industry.

The crowding statistics published by the Department for Transport last week showed that the busiest trains from Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield, are the local services. The Secretary of State has now acknowledged that HS2 will mainly relieve congestion on commuter trains, principally into London, yet he continues to claim that intercity west coast services will be overwhelmed by the year 2033-34 under the projections of a 2.2% annual growth in long-distance travel. However, in the Government’s economic case for HS2—a document published last year—a chart showing projected demand for Virgin services from Manchester Piccadilly to London up to 2026, which assumed not 2.2% growth but 5% annual growth, revealed that the trains are only 75% full most of the time. The spike in demand between 4 pm and 6 pm is again most likely to be commuter traffic as the Manchester to Euston services stop at Stockport, Wilmslow and Macclesfield.

The problem with the statistics on long-distance rail is that no distinction is made between passengers travelling between Manchester and London and between Manchester and Stockport on long-distance trains. Both are counted as long-distance journeys. In the absence of detailed ticket sales data, it is difficult to assess the actual demand for intercity travel and therefore assess the validity of the Government’s growth projections.

We were not satisfied that the alternative ways of improving capacity have been rigorously and fully assessed. Additional capacity could be provided by incremental improvements to the existing network—longer trains, fewer first-class carriages and in-cab signalling to allow trains to travel more closely together, for instance. Professor Stephen Glaister told us that these incremental improvements could provide significant extra capacity at a much lower cost than HS2 and at the very least delay the need for the decision to be taken on the need for an additional railway line for some years.

Incremental improvements were rejected by the Government, however, for two main reasons. They would provide only a third of the number of extra seats that HS2 would and the work required would be too disruptive. But the committee concluded that the Government had failed to make a convincing case for why the capacity that HS2 would provide was required. The Government have yet to reveal the price of disruption that HS2 would cause. On both grounds, the comparison is unproven.

The Government’s other reason for building the line is that the improved connectivity between cities would support economic growth and contribute towards rebalancing the economy. That is an important objective that we fully support, but is HS2 the right answer?

While investment outside London is long overdue, the committee was not convinced that the Government had shown that HS2 is the best way of stimulating growth in the cities of the north and the Midlands. Evidence from other countries suggests that London will be the biggest beneficiary economically from a project like HS2. We heard evidence from Emile Quinet, an expert on TGV, that although cities such as Lyon had indeed benefited from TGV, it was Paris which had benefited the most. Studies in Spain and Japan came to similar conclusions. If London commuters benefit the most from the increase in capacity and London benefits the most economically, HS2 could actually widen the north/south divide.

We heard widespread support for improving the regional links between cities in the north to stimulate growth. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, now the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, who told us in January when he was chairman of the City Growth Commission, that connecting cities in the north is,

“‘way more important’ than making it faster to travel to London from those cities”.

The 2006 Eddington study came to a similar conclusion. As east/west links are poor and north/south links are already good, there is a strong case for prioritising the former over the latter, but following the recently announced pause to work on the electrification of the TransPennine railway, the Government are doing precisely the opposite. This pause seems to be an excuse straight out of “Yes Minister”, dreamt up by Sir Humphrey himself. Can the Minister please decipher its meaning for us?

The cost-benefit analysis of HS2 published by the Government in 2013 relies on evidence that is out of date and unconvincing. To calculate the value of a rail project, the Department for Transport places a value on time saved as the result of a faster journey. For business travellers this is calculated at £31.96 an hour. But this assumes that time spent on the train is unproductive, and that 70% of the transport benefits, which come to a whopping £40.5 billion, derive from this business value of time. As many witnesses have pointed out, time spent on a train is not at all unproductive. Virgin told us that it plans to introduce free superfast internet connectivity on board for all passengers. Following a review by the Institute for Transport Studies which concluded that there is no consensus on how business travel time should be valued, the Department for Transport admitted that fresh evidence of businesses’ willingness to pay was required, due, in their words,

“to the uncertainties and inconsistencies in the existing evidence”.

A further 33% of net transport benefits worth some £19.3 billion are derived from the value placed on non-work travel time; that is, people either commuting or travelling for leisure. These values are based on a survey of motorists that was carried out in 1994. This cannot be the best basis on which to assume almost £20 billion-worth of benefit for a major rail project. Again, the department concluded that the data are old and that fresh evidence is required. We simply do not understand why this work did not take place before the project was launched.

Much of the evidence presented to justify HS2 is either defective, unconvincing or out of date, and the process of oversight falls short of what is required for a major infrastructure project relying on substantial taxpayer money. The Department for Transport and HS2 have both carried out significant analyses of the benefits and costs of HS2, but as the sponsoring body and the implementation body respectively, neither can claim independent objectivity. That, and the failure to put into the public domain the information on capacity that is essential to evaluating the case for additional capacity for HS2, means that we have a £56 billion project requiring £36 billion of public subsidy on which no return is expected and which has failed to be independently and objectively assessed. In my opinion, this points to the urgent need for the creation of an independent body—an OBR for public investment, if you like—charged with the responsibility to review major publicly funded infrastructure projects. Such a body could provide the public, Parliament and the Government with a robust and dispassionate assessment of projects like HS2 and Hinkley Point and help us to determine whether these great schemes are the most cost-effective and appropriate way of investing public funds to meet the infrastructure needs that our country so badly requires.

[Lord Vinson (Con)]

My Lords, I think the House may be interested that I saw Professor Richard Wellings of the Institute of Economic Affairs this morning to get the latest figures. He has done a great deal of research on this, and is mentioned in the publication today. Allowing for all the enormous add-ons that are bound to happen and the linkages necessary to link the new system with the old system, which is an apparent weakness, he considers that the overall cost will be at least £80 billion.

European Court of Justice: Jurisdiction

Lord Vinson Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Vinson]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will exercise their right, as agreed in the Lisbon Treaty, to opt out of the extension to the United Kingdom from December 2014 of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over crime and policing laws.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, the Government are considering carefully the many different factors involved in this decision and its implications. I am aware of the level of interest in the decision, which we have to make by the end of May 2014. We want to ensure that both Houses of Parliament have the opportunity for a full debate and vote on the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vinson]

I thank the Minister for his considered reply. However, does he agree that we now have the opportunity, at this critical time for the EU’s future, to confirm our opt-out from the EU’s overall control of our policing and justice system? I am sure he appreciates that to opt in would be the final surrender of our sovereignty. Our Ministry of Justice would become largely redundant as the ECJ became our supreme court. We would effectively become a province in the republic of Europe. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are well aware of the severity of this choice for our nation and will inform the wider public accordingly?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, we are committed to making a decision by May 2014. It is a very important decision and we understand its severity. That is why we have committed ourselves to a debate in both Houses of Parliament, followed by a vote. In the end, the decision will be based on what is in the interests of the United Kingdom. My right honourable friend has given that assurance.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Lord Vinson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vinson]

My Lords, I share with many in the Chamber the deep concern about the erosion of our freedoms. If our forebears were listening today and hearing that more than 1,000 organisations and, through them, probably tens of thousands of officials have the right of entry into the Englishman’s castle, his home, they would be horrified.

I am comforted by the emollient words of the Minister, who says that what we are trying to do is helpful but he would rather leave it to his own officials to take two years to work out the position. I suggest that we put the clause the other way round and that he says to his officials, “I am going to accept the latest amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and if you have not reviewed your position and come up with a satisfactory conclusion within two years, by default the noble Lord’s amendment will stand”. That would surely put a boot behind the consideration of these matters by the various departments and help achieve what we all want to achieve. Perhaps in his reply the Minister will say whether that idea has any grains of usefulness.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, picking up on the point of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, I think everyone’s heart is in the right place on this matter but that we are struggling to articulate what is in our hearts in the right way. I am with those who, as the debate goes on, increasingly see complexity in this matter and a need for us to be very careful in the way we do what we are all trying to do.

We have reached a point in the procedure where what we agree to in the wording has got to be very precise and correct. Some noble Lords have said, “Send this back to the Commons and it can sort it out”. However, we know that in practical terms that would be very difficult within what is now almost a matter of hours. To be rather boring, perhaps necessarily so, on the drafting, I said on the previous occasion that I find the term “demonstrate” very difficult. It is not one which I am accustomed to seeing in legislation and I do not know where it rests in the evidential hierarchy, if that is the right way of expressing it. I am worried about the possibility of judicial review around “demonstrate” within new subsection (3)(b)(i).

I am also quite puzzled. I think I am correct in saying that what the Government are proposing in Clause 40(1) is discretionary, and so could come within the review; that Clause 40(2) is not exclusive; and that we, as a House, would be asked to consider what is proposed in particular instances through the statutory instruments procedure. Sometimes, notwithstanding the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, of which I am a member—I was not there this afternoon but I read the green bananas order realising that it might have some application today—it is incumbent on all of us, as a House, to be very diligent with what is coming before us via statutory instruments. However, if there is discretion—I think the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, are not mandatory but discretionary—then, in a sense, what is proposed is something and nothing. However, we are talking about them as if they are mandatory.

As to noble Lord’s reference that, essentially, future Parliaments may say, “Notwithstanding that a statute says X, Y, Z, it shall be something else”, again that may be something or nothing. However, I wonder what implication it has because no Parliament can bind its successors, as we know.

This brings me back to thinking that we need the review which has not only been promised but is required. I am entirely with those noble Lords who say that two years is too long given the demands that we are all making. It is easy to ridicule departmental inquiries. As I had understood it—I have never been in government —it is the departments that do all the work, with Ministers being advised by them. So we should not be too dismissive of the departments. However, the work needs to be done more quickly than under the timetable the Government are currently setting, and I for one would urge my noble friend on. If the Government can see their way to a quicker exercise, that might take the sting out of this.

I ought to say, finally, that I am vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. However, I have not been briefed by it, or even discussed it with it, and it has not been in my mind as in any way influencing what I have said.

Criminal Records Bureau

Lord Vinson Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Vinson]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many checks have been conducted by the Criminal Records Bureau since it was established, and at what total cost to applicants.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, the Criminal Records Bureau has issued more than 31 million certificates since its launch in March 2002 and has received more than £868 million in fees. The bureau does not hold any information to determine what portion of this cost has been paid by applicants, employers or other bodies.

[Lord Vinson]

I thank the Minister for his very considered reply. Trust is the glue that holds society together. Is he aware that many organisations find that this staggering level of CRB checks is overdone, is disproportionate to the risk and is putting off good volunteers? As aggressive paedophilia is rare, and unlikely in the presence of others, will he reissue the sensible Home Office guidance on this matter and so help re-engender trust and good neighbourliness?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the importance of trust. He is also right to draw attention to the very high number of certificates that have been issued. This is a matter that we have been addressing in the course of the Protection of Freedoms Bill. I refer my noble friend to the impact assessment of last year on that Bill, which estimated that there would be a reduction of some 50 per cent in the number of such certificates being issued, dropping from about 3.7 million a year to something like 1.7 million. I think that is a step in the right direction.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Lord Vinson Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vinson]

My Lords, first I apologise to the House for arriving late; my train was very late. I was particularly anxious to come to what I regard as an extremely important debate on fundamental freedoms. I join those who congratulated my noble friend Lord Marlesford on what he has done. It is apparent that the Minister, too, is sympathetic. However, his solution of a review carried out by the departments that have these powers is rather like asking a druggie to prescribe his own dose. Knowing the Civil Service, I predict that it will simply perpetuate the status quo. Frankly, that is not good enough. I suggest to the Minister that when he sums up, he should promise to strengthen the review mechanism so that other eyes, outside the quangos and departments concerned, can look at the necessity of the rights of entry and bring fresh thinking to the matter.

[Lord Selsdon]

My Lords, I hope that I may be able to help the House. This has been a 10-year journey for me. Three Private Member’s Bills have gone through the House. I have thoroughly enjoyed myself. Having worked in one of the biggest bureaucracies in the world—Midland Bank—I enjoy the relationship with bureaucrats.

Those who work in trading standards are great people. I have written to them many times. A few days ago they sent me an e-mail at 4.13 pm. When I rang back at 4.30 pm they had gone home. However, we are good friends now and I am inviting them all to tea. If a trading standards officer goes into a restaurant or food shop, they go in either as themselves to buy something or, if they are going in to inspect, they have to be completely schizophrenic.

I wanted to see if I could help. As a Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, knows well, and will probably let us know in his response, exactly how many powers of entry his department has at this time. There was a problem when Ministers did not know what their powers of entry were and numerous Parliamentary Questions failed to get an answer. Finally, with the great help of the party opposite, we got the final part of the Bill through. It was difficult because no one really knew what it was about. I then thought we should have a period of consultation. I had not raised the matter before. I wrote to the LGA, every local authority in the land, every bishop and vicar and everybody at a local level, saying that we had a new private website and that if they wanted to know what the powers were they could contact the website. We did that with considerable difficulty. I also got in touch with Citizens Advice.

I kept coming back to try to give advice to people. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, does not accept advice willingly because he sees the end game very quickly. He has a very quick mind and found me rather a nuisance. Therefore, I introduced a few amendments in Grand Committee but have decided not to introduce any now.

The main objective of the three Bills was to promote the introduction of legislation after the election that would prevent officials from entering people's homes, land or places of work without permission or a warrant, and would introduce a suitable code of practice. We drafted such a code; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, will remember it. The Minister does not seem to want a code of practice at the moment. He just says, “We’ll put one in”. If we do not have a code of practice now, we will have a problem with powers of entry.

The second thing I asked for was a list. The Home Office stated that it could not put this into the Bill because by the time it was put in, a piece of secondary legislation might have changed it. I said, “Can we not have a list?”. We could not really have a list, so I thought of another solution. In preparing the Bills I had great help from a professor at Lincoln University. With Oxford University Press, he regularly publishes the laws of search, seizure and entry. A new edition is coming out. They have agreed to co-operate with the Home Office, which has already been in touch with them. Naturally, I am not necessary in the loop. However, we will have an official publication that will be updated from time to time, and a website. I would like to be able to put that in the Library. It is, however, extraordinarily difficult, as a Back-Bencher is not allowed to put anything in the Library. The only person who can do so is the Minister. If I do get these things together, could the Minister arrange for me to have permission to put it in the Library? Could he also agree that there will be a code of conduct and that he will produce it before this Bill is finished?

This has been a most interesting time. I have bored to death not everyone—because there were not a lot of people around—but I have certainly bored Hansard. Again and again one has to re-type every Bill. Being on the Information Committee, I have the benefit of PICT. In the latest list I managed to transpose three Bills, but the Home Office has not picked up which ones they were.

I am very grateful to all those who have helped on this. I support my noble friend Lord Marlesford because I support him on almost everything he does. I am extraordinarily grateful to the party opposite for raising some serious problems. They looked at me with a certain cynicism to begin with, but I think we are good friends.

European Arrest Warrant and Investigation Order

Lord Vinson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Vinson]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government to what extent the European Arrest Warrant and European Investigation Order conform with the principle of habeas corpus.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

The UK’s transposition of the European arrest warrant complies fully with the concept of habeas corpus. UK implementation of the European investigation order will also be fully compliant. However, I understand that the noble Lord’s principal concern is the separate issue of European arrest warrants being issued for trivial offences. The Government share this concern and are talking to other EU countries, bilaterally and through the European Union, to stop this happening.

[Lord Vinson]

I thank the Minister for her considered reply, but I am not as optimistic. The fact remains that hundreds of UK citizens are being compelled to appear before any EU court without the merit of the often frivolous charges being first assessed. They can be locked up without pre-trial. Is she not concerned that this totally overrides the ancient liberties of the British citizen enshrined in Magna Carta and habeas corpus? Will she assure the House that this will be resolved? Three member states of the EU have already declared the European arrest warrant unconstitutional. We should do the same. It really is time that we started to say no to damaging EU legislation.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the Government are concerned, as I have just said, with the disproportionate use of the European arrest warrant for trivial purposes. That is one of the reasons why we have asked Sir Scott Baker, with the panel that he is heading on extradition, to look specifically at the operation of the European arrest warrant. He is able to take submissions from Members of this House and others and I hope that the noble Lord will take advantage of that.

Identity Documents Bill

Lord Vinson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for interrupting him. I think that the technical term for what was going on around here is “kerfuffle”.

I will not pretend that I have not been troubled by this issue. I am not persuaded by arguments that members of the public should have read the manifestos, certainly not in the detail that might have been expected, nor that they could have predicted the outcome of the general election. I am being told that everybody should have been reading the manifestos, but we leave it to the press to summarise them. However, the debate in Committee was about fine detail in the manifestos, and I do not think that that should be used as the basis—certainly not the only basis—for the Government’s argument.

My view is that this issue is finely balanced between taxpayers and individual cardholders. It is not the same as a consumer situation where there are two parties, the supplier of goods and the purchaser of goods. There are three parties, and the third party is the taxpayer. I understand the point that this is a comparatively small sum of money, but comparatively small sums have more value than they did a year or two ago.

The point has been made about whether this would be expropriation. That point was not taken up by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. No doubt the Minister will say something about that. I hope, too, that she will say what would be required if the cards were to go on having a use. As I understand it, it would still be necessary to retain the register. Otherwise, the cards are pieces of plastic that do not relate to anything. Quite apart from our objection to the offensiveness of the register, the cost and perhaps the confusion of retaining the register would be issues.

[Lord Vinson]

My Lords, I am sorry to speak from this side against the clause, but I believe that it is morally indefensible. It is not just that it is a small sum of money, so it is particularly stupid not to pay it, but, as has been said, this sort of thing does the Government—any Government, those of the ruling political class—absolutely no good. The public will say, “They are just not to be trusted. They just can’t do things fairly”. Whoever was the civil servant and others who put up the suggestion that this money should not be compensated or that the card should not be used, I beg them to think again. We really cannot endorse something as shabby as this.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, I have taken no part in the debates concerning the Bill. Indeed, when I came in here this afternoon, I did not think I was going to take part in it today. However, I have listened to this debate and I find myself in total agreement with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It seems to me that, from looking at this as objectively as one can, this is an issue about the continuity of government. The identity cards were not sold on the basis of, “You are buying it from a Labour Government, but if another one come in, things may change and you may have to renegotiate it”. The contract—if it was a formal contract—was with the Government, and it is the Government who are now reneging on the contract. I feel very uneasy about it and I hope the Minister will take this back and have another look at it. It is interesting, listening to this debate, that the only person, I think, who has suggested that what the Government are proposing should take place was the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Everybody else seems unanimously against the Government’s position. There is a famous dictum about a hole—I do not need to repeat it. This seems to be an occasion when the Government should think very hard.