Identity Cards Bill

This seems a very reasonable amendment and I should not have thought that the Minister would have any difficulty in accepting it. It simply asks for what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked for—a cost-benefit analysis, keeping the matter under review while it is being set up. I should have thought that any decent organisation, and especially a government, would want to do exactly that. Indeed, if it had been done in many other instances, we would be far better off. It would be interesting to know just how many schemes have gone above estimate—indeed, well above estimate. I think I have mentioned this before, but I can remember debating the Child Support Bill day and night in this House. At the beginning, we were told that it was a marvellous Bill that would catch out errant fathers and save £400 million for the Treasury. As it turns out, far from getting £400 million a year as a result of the Child Support Agency operation, the Treasury has lost some billions of pounds, if I am not mistaken. It would be useful if the House could be told exactly how much the Child Support Agency has cost so that we can see the difference between the promise, when an item is being debated, and the reality. I hate to mention the Scottish Parliament building, because the cost is too dreadful to contemplate. It was estimated to cost £40 million. The last estimate I heard of the final cost was £450 million. So you can see how cost estimates can run ahead of themselves. That is why this is a good amendment, which the Government ought to accept. I agree with those who say that you cannot really think about dealing with this amendment unless you know some of the costs. As the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has just pointed out, the estimates between the Government’s proposed costs and that of the LSE vary between £5.2 billion and £38 billion. So quite obviously a lot of work needs to be done on the whole project.