Digital ID holds the promise of improved lives, services and systems for citizen, consumer and country. But the
Government’s current approach, suggesting mandatory digital ID to stop illegal immigration, is going about it in precisely the wrong way.
Fintech benefits
I have been writing about the potential benefits of
digital ID for years. There are significant gains in terms of digital finance, with a clear tie-in to digital assets, and related opportunities for financial and digital inclusion. A vast number of stakeholders, including the
FCA, and Ron Kalifa in his 2021
Review explained the economic benefits, including supporting the greater adoption of open finance.
Social benefits
A trusted and effective Government-backed decentralised digital ID could enable and empower individuals currently excluded from exercising their citizen rights (since 2023 this includes in-person voting) and accessing basic financial services. According
to the 2021 Census 13.5% of residents of England and Wales do not have a passport – that is eight million people without access to that form of ID.
Public sector support
There is a good level of awareness from within the public sector community of the potential benefits of digital ID. In a
recent survey by Global Government Fintech on attitudes to fintech, digital ID was identified as one of the top three areas that are “most important for the UK public sector to explore further” (alongside fraud and payments). This is positive, although
slightly more worryingly only 4.5% of respondents felt ‘very well prepared’ for adoption and deployment.
False starts
The Government’s flagship digital identity project (Gov.uk Verify) was launched in 2013 and abandoned in 2021 due to “over-elaborate
expectations trajectory and cost.” The initial goal was to have 25 million users by 2020 with every government department using the system. When it was wound up, at a cost of £175 million, it had fewer than eight million users.
Financial Services Bill amendment
I tried to encourage greater urgency on this issue when I was working on the Financial Services Bill (now Act) putting forward several amendments. My proposed
amendment on digital ID would have required the Secretary of State, within six months of the passage of the bill, to publish the Government’s plans for the development and deployment of a distributed digital identification for individuals and corporate entities
in the financial services sector.
Digital identity and attributes framework
While I was pushing for action the Government published a
draft trust framework (UK digital identity and attributes trust framework or DIATF). Since the passage of the
Data (Use and Access) Act this framework has statutory force and over 40 identity providers are certified against its robust rules and standards. It is overseen by the Office for Digital Identities and Attributes (OfDIA) in the Department for Science, Innovation,
and Technology.
GOV.UK One Login
Alongside the trust framework the Government has introduced a single sign-on and identity verification scheme known as One Login which is designed to allow access to a wide range of government digital services. For example, One Login is being used for identity
verification for Companies House as this becomes a legal requirement for new and existing company directors at the end of the year.
The Government’s recent announcement about
‘using government data to verify your identity’ through a GOV.UK Wallet has led to
industry fears of an expansion into private-sector use cases creating a de facto government monopoly rather than encouraging a healthy digital ID ecosystem.
Scalable, flexible, inclusive, interoperable
My proposed amendment (which was not accepted) had stated that such ID must be scalable, flexible, and inclusive, capable of deployment and take-up across the entire UK, and capable of adapting to change.
The twelve guiding principles of self-sovereign identity (SSI) help to explain how a distributed digital ID could work in all our interests; secure, decentralised, transparent, embedding equity and inclusion and protecting our privacy. A practical, functional
solution. In terms of effective operation, just one word: interoperability.
Public engagement
Finally, that (unaccepted) amendment required the Secretary of State to undertake a public engagement campaign around digital IDs to raise awareness and participation in the process.
Public antipathy and scepticism are more than understandable given recent history of digital roll outs gone wrong and citizens ignored – think the Horizon Post Office scandal – or even more specifically reports earlier this year of
serious security problems at One Login.
A petition demanding that the Government do not introduce digital ID cards is already approaching three million signatures and climbing. The Government’s response stated that “we will introduce
a digital ID within this Parliament to help tackle illegal migration, make accessing government services easier, and enable wider efficiencies.”
Looking to get people onside by pushing illegal immigration as the convincing use case is unfortunate and unhelpful. Instead, we need a meaningful and sustained public debate, engaging, enquiring, critiquing.
Ultimately, a decentralised approach, avoiding significant risk and putting the citizen in control, could be such a positive development, with incredible potential for and from digital ID.
If this is done right, we decide when, we decide to whom, we decide what and for what purpose our data is shared. This can only come from meaningful, sustained citizen engagement, and full discussion and consideration of the real use cases rather than the
current approach.