Committee representatives make repeated calls for details of likely public expenditure and cast doubt on claims that new national platform can be entirely paid for out of existing departmental budgets
A parliamentary committee has grilled the digital government minister about proposals for a new digital identity, with MPs expressing incredulity at the current lack of detail on the likely costs of the initiative.
During a sometimes rather testy exchange, members of the select committee overseeing the work of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology repeatedly asked minister Ian Murray for information on the costs of delivering the government’s digital ID plans, which will see a new state-issued electronic document mandated for use in employment checks by 2029.
Murray indicated that the costs of delivery would be covered by existing funding awarded via the 2025 Spending Review. This includes both money committed to DSIT, where the ID service is being built by the Government Digital Service, as well as cash provided by other departments that will use the technology.
Committee chair Labour MP Chi Onwurah pointed out that GDS’s budget had been set earlier this year and was based on “responsibilities [that] do not include digital ID”.
Murray said that it was “not necessarily” the case that delivering digital ID thus meant that cuts would have to be made elsewhere. He added that the likely costs of the system – and the projected savings it will deliver – will depend on the designs for how the identity platform will operate, and the use cases for which it will be deployed. All of which will only be finalised once a public consultation phase has been completed next year.
Onwurah put it to the minister that “we all know costs are up front, when it comes to designing, delivering and implementing a system, whereas the savings come over time – how will the costs be paid for up front, when the savings are in the future?”.
Related content
- Digital ID data will all be hosted in UK, minister claims
- UK territories and dependencies to be offered digital ID but will set own laws
- Government ‘considering physical alternatives’ for those unable access digital ID
The minister suggested that the question amounted to “asking me to determine how long a piece of string is, when we do not even know what the string looks like as yet” – to which the chair responded that “I do not think we are; we are just looking for a line item that says whatever the costs are, and that they are going to come from somewhere”.
The line of questioning was picked up by committee member and Conservative MP Kit Malthouse, who put forward a theoretical scenario in which the Home Office – which manages the system of employment checks for which digital ID will be required – was asked for £500m to support the delivery of the technology. In this eventuality, Malthouse suggested that the home secretary might say “do you know what? That is £500m I’d have to take from policing or border security, so I don’t want your service”.
In response, the minister said “that is not the policy of government” and pointed out that digital “is a prime ministerial priority” and that the scheme will be delivered “under the monitoring and policy development of the Cabinet Office”.
Pocket money
Following further questions about the cost of the government’s plans, Murray said that “three pockets of funding” would be required, covering “the build… the on-boarding, and the ongoing costs” – but added that “we do not have numbers” yet for the amounts likely to be required for these three areas.
This marked the start of a series of increasingly exasperated questions from Malthouse, who said that, given there is already a defined specific use case and that “this is a policy that has been announced… there must be a sense of what it is going to cost in the three stages that you pointed out – or are you saying that the prime minister announced something that was completely uncosted?”.
Murray said that “all those three pockets of costs will be determined by what kind of system it is you want to build and deliver” – but Malthouse persisted that “effectively, what you are saying is that the prime minister has announced a policy with an unknown cost envelope that could be into the tens of billions—we don’t really know—but it is an aspiration that we want to get there”.
“You do not actually know what you want as a government. You have announced the policy, but you do not actually know what it is going to be or how much it is going to cost.”
DSIT committee member Kit Malthouse
He then went to ask whether, even if there is not yet a full cost projection, there is, at least “a cost that might be too much, [where] it might be abandoned?”.
Murray said: “[This] is only one element of the entire funding package of this, because the whole point of doing it is to make government and the relationship with citizens much easier, much more efficient and work better.”
Malthouse again asked “you can’t have announced this thing without having any idea of what it will cost?”, and suggested that the minister was starting to sound “like the kind of builder we all dread coming to our house, who says: ‘Well, you know, I’m not quite sure. You want a new kitchen, and it could be x—tell you what, we’ll build it and then tell you how much it’s going to cost’”.
The minister countered that “if I can take your analogy to the other side, you are the worst possible customer – you are asking me to price up a job, but you are not telling me what you want”.
“Right,” responded Malthouse. “So, you do not actually know what you want as a government. You have announced the policy, but you do not actually know what it is going to be or how much it is going to cost. You just have a vague aspiration that this is what you want?”
The chair began to move the discussion onto other areas at this point.
