The controversial voting ID scheme in Bromley cost the the Home Office  £200,000, it has been revealed.

At the local elections in May, Bromley took part in a government trial that required voters to bring ID with them to have their democratic say.

The trial was to crackdown on electoral fraud, for which there was only one convicted case in the most recent general election.

The scheme was a success according to the council, but came under fire from the Electoral Reform Society and MP for Penge and Lewisham West Ellie Reeves, who dubbed it “draconian”.

At a Full Council meeting on Tuesday night (July 17), the cabinet member for resources, commissioning and contract management revealed how much the Bromley’s trial had cost the government.

Cllr Graham Arthur said: “The cabinet office is meeting all of our costs associated with the pilot scheme of approximately £200,000, which includes additional staffing costs.”

Trials also took place in Gosport, Swindon, Watford and Woking.

Despite reports of widespread queuing and voters being turned away at polling stations, turn out in Bromley was favourable compared to other elections.

Speaking at the meeting last night, Cllr Arthur said: “In total 154 people were recorded as arriving at polling stations with no ID or incorrect ID and did not return to vote.

“Of the 154, that is considerably less than people who spoiled their votes. Interestingly enough, if every one of those 154 who did not vote, if they had come back and voted for the highest losing candidate it would not have affected any result at all across the borough.”

MP Ellie Reeves said the scheme was expensive for what was a "near non-existent" problem. 

She said: "If £200,000 is the average cost to run a Voter ID scheme then to roll this out across England alone would cost £70,600,000.

"The intention of the scheme is to fight impersonation at the polling station, but in the 2017 General Election this represented just 0.000063% of overall votes cast. 

"Therefore I believe £200,000 is a colossal waste of resources being used to fight a near non-existent problem and will only serve to disenfranchise swathes of voters. 

"Instead of this being a 'practical policy' to me the scheme is better represented as 'political tactics' by this weak Government to disenfranchise voters."