The House of Lords dealt a massive blow to the government on 16 January 2006 by blocking the ID Cards Bill until the Home Office makes known the full costs of the bill public and allows the National Audit Office to scrutinise the scheme.

A week later, the House of Lords defeated the government once more on the bill by voting against the new legislation making it compulsory for people to have their biometric details included on the National Identity Register (NIR) when they apply for a new passport.

The government is expected to try to overturn the amendments when MPs vote again once the bill returns to the House of Commons. If the Lords continue to block the bill and no compromises are agreed the government can invoke the Parliament Act to force the bill through.

In the meantime industry has been hitting back, with the Director General at Intellect (the trade association for the UK hi-tech industry) commenting that the initial government focus should not be on the costs of the scheme, but on the requirements. The government needs to define its project objectives well from the start, including conducting detailed discussions with industry in order to make informed decisions on all of the proposed technologies and to build up a "comprehensive understanding of the industry, its capacity and its capabilities". Indeed, many recent commentaries seem to suggest that the government should pay more attention to all those things that it is better known for neglecting when implementing large scale IT projects.

If you would like further information on the ID Cards Bill and how it is progressing, including where appropriate, information regarding the nature and the scope of the associated procurement process we would be happy to advise you.

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 01/02/2006.