Identity Cards Bill

The wording is: "““If . . . it would be prejudicial to securing the best value from the use of public money””." The Government therefore could not claim that they were securing the best value from the use of public money after some contract had been let. That covers the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point. All that I am doing is giving the House an opportunity for us to do our job. I can commend my amendment both to those who are for identity cards and to those who are against identity cards. For those who are present who are in favour of identity cards, voting for my amendment is a vote of confidence in the accuracy of the Government’s estimates and the likelihood that they will prove to be true. There cannot be anyone who is in favour of identity cards who does not believe that the true costs should not be known, and that will also have the effect of bringing pressure to bear on the IT firms to make low bids, because otherwise they will go over the top of the £6 billion figure, and it will maintain a constant pressure both on civil servants and on the contractors to keep the costs low. Those arguments are intended to appeal to those who are in favour of identity cards. If, like me, Members are not in favour of identity cards, instead of a vote of confidence, it is a vote of scepticism. It enables us to put the chocks under the wheel of the ID card wagon if it starts running down—or running up—the hill of cost escalation. I am in what might be described as a unique situation in that I can advocate my amendment to those who are in favour and those who are against for them to pursue their totally opposing reasons and attitudes to ID cards by voting for one single amendment, and that is why I commend it to the House.