Budget Watchdog Exposes £1.8 Billion Price Tag for Digital ID
The Office for Budget Responsibility has revealed that the Labour government's controversial Digital ID card scheme is projected to cost British taxpayers a staggering £1.8 billion. This figure was disclosed for the first time in the OBR's detailed report on the Budget, which was sensationally leaked online just before Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivered her speech.
Unfunded Mandate and Implementation Timeline
Despite the colossal price tag, ministers have failed to identify where the money for this massive project will come from. The OBR included the Digital ID initiative in a list of 'risks and pressures' on Government spending, explicitly stating that 'no specific funding has been identified' for the scheme that was first announced in September.
The implementation is forecast to cost £1.8 billion in total over the next three years, with a split of £0.5 billion in Resource Departmental Expenditure Limits and £1.3 billion in Capital Departmental Expenditure Limits. The government has indicated it intends to meet these costs through existing departmental budgets, but the OBR noted that 'no specific savings have yet been identified.'
Championed as Solution to Illegal Migration
Chancellor Rachel Reeves referenced the Digital ID program in her Budget speech, highlighting its role in the government's efforts to combat illegal migration. She told the Commons: 'The introduction of Digital ID will break the link between illegal migration and illegal working.'
The Digital ID system, which bears similarities to the 'BritCard' proposed by think-tank Labour Together, is set to become mandatory for right-to-work checks by the end of the decade. Ministers hope the scheme will also streamline processes for renting properties and opening bank accounts, though these benefits come with significant financial questions remaining unanswered.
The OBR further described the initiative as 'unfunded' and highlighted 'the risks around the implementation of digital ID cards for which no explicit provision has been made for its £0.6 billion annual cost,' raising serious concerns about the fiscal responsibility of proceeding without a clear funding plan.
