Identity Cards Bill
Later in the debate, Brooks Newmark highlights concern that KPMG did not stand behind the Government's assumption of costs of £540 million but says that further analysis is needed.
Mr. Newmark: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), who made some excellent points? Even if we go with the Government's assumption of £540 million, the key point is that KPMG did not stand behind that figure, but-to use its words and those of the hon. Lady-it did stand behind the costing methodology and the key assumptions. KPMG recommended improvements, such as a
"sensitivity analysis, revisiting the process for estimating contingency and revisiting some cost assumptions."
The point about a sensitivity analysis is that there is some doubt about the cost figure of £540 million that the Government have come up with and that KPMG has decided that further analysis is needed.
Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend, who comes to the matter with some years' experience in the financial services industry, is entirely right, as was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones). By not giving a candid explanation, the Government are falling down in their obligations to the House and to the public. I suspect that the United States Congress got more candour out of the Pentagon on the projected costs of the stealth bomber than we are getting out of the Government on the IT project that we are discussing.
