As a prime candidate for cuts in government expenditure ID cards are
top of the list (as it is already Tory policy to scrap them). This
story suggests that the government has decided to ensnarl any
government that succeeds it in contracts which are watertight and
thus stop any policy change from being implemented. - not most
people’s idea of democracy!
However, there may be an element of bluff here in the hope that
nobody will notice that the ongoing costs are in Billions whereas
penaltis for cancellation are in Millions! Since the costs of
implementation can be saved anyway this should still remain as prime
candidate for the chop!
xxxxxxxxxxxxx cs
=========================
SUNDAY TELEGRAPH 16.11.08
Taxpayer faces big bill if ID cards go
David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent
The taxpayer will have to compensate a French company for lost
profits if the Government’s controversial national identity card
scheme is cancelled at short notice.
Under the terms of a £5bn contract signed by the Home Office, Thales
will be entitled to claim if ministers call off the ID cards scheme
with less than a year’s notice. If the company is given between a
year’s and eighteen month’s notice, it will be entitled to have its
costs met.
The total bill for the taxpayer is expected to run into millions of
pounds [note: ‘millions’ -cs] , but exact figures are being kept
secret for “commercial confidentiality” reasons.
Details of the contract were obtained by the Conservatives , who have
pledged to terminate the ID cardfs contract if they win power.
The contract uses standard terms and conditions but the Tories argue
that a specially tailored contract should have been used because of
the unique circumstances of the ID cards contract. Dominic Grieve,
the shadow Home Secretary, called on the governmernt to renegotiate
the penalty clause and disclose full details of the contract.
“Given the rising costs, and the increasing evidence of serious
problems in delivering the ID cards project, it was reckless and
irresponsible of the government to burden the taxpayer with such
onerous financial liabilities”, he said.
top of the list (as it is already Tory policy to scrap them). This
story suggests that the government has decided to ensnarl any
government that succeeds it in contracts which are watertight and
thus stop any policy change from being implemented. - not most
people’s idea of democracy!
However, there may be an element of bluff here in the hope that
nobody will notice that the ongoing costs are in Billions whereas
penaltis for cancellation are in Millions! Since the costs of
implementation can be saved anyway this should still remain as prime
candidate for the chop!
xxxxxxxxxxxxx cs
=========================
SUNDAY TELEGRAPH 16.11.08
Taxpayer faces big bill if ID cards go
David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent
The taxpayer will have to compensate a French company for lost
profits if the Government’s controversial national identity card
scheme is cancelled at short notice.
Under the terms of a £5bn contract signed by the Home Office, Thales
will be entitled to claim if ministers call off the ID cards scheme
with less than a year’s notice. If the company is given between a
year’s and eighteen month’s notice, it will be entitled to have its
costs met.
The total bill for the taxpayer is expected to run into millions of
pounds [note: ‘millions’ -cs] , but exact figures are being kept
secret for “commercial confidentiality” reasons.
Details of the contract were obtained by the Conservatives , who have
pledged to terminate the ID cardfs contract if they win power.
The contract uses standard terms and conditions but the Tories argue
that a specially tailored contract should have been used because of
the unique circumstances of the ID cards contract. Dominic Grieve,
the shadow Home Secretary, called on the governmernt to renegotiate
the penalty clause and disclose full details of the contract.
“Given the rising costs, and the increasing evidence of serious
problems in delivering the ID cards project, it was reckless and
irresponsible of the government to burden the taxpayer with such
onerous financial liabilities”, he said.
Posts
