Leading article: The true cost of this folly

The government's position is well known. By 2011 the use of identity cards in Britain will be widespread, trialled first by airline pilots, then issued to foreign nationals and finally for us all. To achieve this ambition a great deal of our money must be spent. Already, the Home Office is negotiating £1bn worth of contracts though their plans will ultimately cost much more.

There is much to provoke apprehension here, regarding the effectiveness of the scheme in combating terrorism (its stated objective), the security of the information stored on the identity database, and the freedom of British citizens.

Of immediate concern, however, is the cost for which there remains no consistent estimate. The Government originally budgeted £5.6bn; it now estimates £4.9bn. The London School of Economics has estimated that it will run to £19bn. If past performance is any guide this estimate is not unreasonable. Our Government's recurrent failure to negotiate efficient agreements with the private sector contractors is cause for anxiety.

Consider the Libra IT project, created for magistrates' courts; it took a decade to implement and came in at two-and-a-half times its original budget. Or, worse, the £6.2bn National Programme for IT, which quickly became the £12.4bn Programme for IT. The ID card scheme is of greater complexity than either and demands greater care if our taxes are not to be wasted, yet already there is evidence that contracts are being botched.

Today we report that substantial compensation is being offered to those firms bidding for ID contracts in the event that the plans are cancelled by an future Conservative administration. It is two years since the Tory party committed to scrapping ID cards if elected, creating an immediate complication for any firm hired – the scheme may never be completed. This complication has seemingly been ignored and, worse, the Government refuses to reveal how much compensation may be provided, though it will certainly cost tens of millions.

That taxpayers must pay so much for a project that may never happen is a bitter pill. But the cost of abandonment, unnecessary as it might be, is nothing when set against the dearer costs to our freedom imposed by this sinister scheme.