The cost was originally said to be £77 but it emerged that a second estimate of £88 was still too low because it did not take into account VAT or other extras. It now stands at £93.
Worryingly, the technology supposed to crack down on terrorism and ID fraudsters, was revealed to have major faults – it failed to recognise faces and had problems recognising black people, those over 59 years old and those with big fingers.
Problems in recognising the distances between a person's features were also revealed and there were difficulties if someone was being scanned when they had a bandaged finger or an eye infection. Problems were experienced by people who wore spectacles, particularly vari-focal or bi-focal lenses.
The Identity Cards Bill – which fell at the end of the last Parliament – was reissued yesterday amid fierce political opposition and anger from civil liberties groups.
It emerged that the average annual running cost of the project would be £584m.
Over a decade the running costs would be £5.8bn at current prices, excluding set-up expenses which Ministers refused to reveal on "commercial sensitivity" grounds.
The £93 charge could eventually be imposed on every British adult for a passport and a biometric identity card lasting 10 years.
Home Office Minister Tony McNulty refused to rule out that some people could pay even more, to make up for discounts offered to pensioners and benefits claimants.
Shadow Home Secretary and MP for Haltemprice and Howden David Davis said: "We will vote against the Identity Cards Bill at its Second Reading.
"When the Bill was introduced before the election, we decided it would be right to give the Government the opportunity to meet the concerns we raised. They have had six months to do so but today said the Bill was, in essence, the same one as before.
"Our concerns included the cost-effectiveness of the scheme. Today the Home Office would not even tell us how much it would cost.
"We also questioned whether the technology exists to make the scheme workable. Rather than answering the question, studies published today raised yet more concerns about its practicalities."
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "If there was ever any doubt that the costs of this scheme were going to spiral out of control, the new figures should put paid to them – £93 is a ludicrous amount of money to ask people to pay, especially when you consider the combined cost for a family with children over the age of 16."
The pilot project, which included volunteers from Sheffield, took the fingerprints and a digital scan of the faces and irises of 10,000 volunteers and revealed facial scanning technology had worked successfully in just seven out of 10 cases.
Success rates for facial verification were 69 per cent for a representative sample of 2,000 people and 48 per cent in a sample of 750 disabled people.
Fingerprint verification was successful in 81 per cent of the larger sample and 80 per cent among the disabled.
Iris verification worked properly in 96 per cent of cases overall and 91 per cent among the disabled volunteers. However, the iris scan technology was less successful with black people and people aged over 59.
A report suggested further work on difficulties experienced by disabled groups in the enrolment process.
The Home Office stressed that the trial was not a test of the technology, but rather it was designed to study people's experiences of being enrolled on all three biometrics – face, iris and fingerprints.
Mr McNulty said: "Those who know far better than I say things are going in the right direction."