As the public service tech world collectively heads into another new year, PublicTechnology editor Sam Trendall considers the topics and questions that will define and dominate the coming 12 months
It might be tempting to assume that 2025 will be a – comparatively – quiet year for government and the wider public sector.
After all, between 2015 and 2024 we had four general elections and six prime ministers, plus the multi-year emergencies of Brexit and the pandemic – on top of all the usual critical work demanded of public servants, throughout every day of the year.
But, even if the coming 12 months can provide a period of something resembling stability – which may yet prove to be a big ‘if’ – there will still be plenty of potential intrigue, innovation, and controversy.
This year will include a long-term spending review, the ongoing introduction of a raft of legislation from the new Labour administration, and the crucial months of delivery for one of government’s most significant ever tech projects. All of which will take place against the backdrop of the continuing rise of artificial intelligence, and the attendant opportunity and complexity, as well as the shakeout of the biggest revamp of digital government in 15 years.
There is, in short, a lot to look out for. Here are just five things that might well catch your eye in 2025.
Is this the end for GDS?
Since its creation in 2011, the Government Digital Service has been seen as a standard-bearer for public sector use of tech and data – both in its home country and, certainly in its early years, around the world.
The ‘GDS’ brand not only retains a high level of respect but continues to be regarded as shorthand for public service transformation.
Just a few days after the election in July 2024, the incoming Labour government was quick to announce a major shake-up of the machinery of digital government, with GDS – alongside its sister unit the Central Digital and Data Office and the Incubator for Artificial Intelligence – all moving from the Cabinet Office to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
The intention is to create a new ‘digital centre’ of government with delivery and strategy teams housed alongside key economic and policy functions.
In the months since, GDS and CDDO have continued to operate in much the same way – and under the same names and structures.
But it is understood that, following the conclusion in early 2025 of a review of digital government operations, a much more significant shake-up may take place. This may include the creation of a new entity (or entities) to serve as Whitehall’s flagship for tech and transformation.
As part of which, it is possible – perhaps even likely – that GDS will cease to exist. In name, at least – although not, it is to be hoped, in personnel, or ambition.
Getting rid of a well-known name – including its reputation, and the clear connotations it provides – has obvious potential drawbacks. But digital government has also come a long way since GDS’s creation.
For one thing, its headcount is now far exceeded by the digital and data teams of the biggest departments. And, at least to some extent, those departments often need a partner that can convene, rather than cajole.
The work of GDS has been extremely important, and its name will also remain so. Even if, in 12 months’ time, we find ourselves using it in the past tense.
Dealing with the loss of public trust
Public trust in institutions – including, but not limited to, those of the state – seems set on a gradual, but insistent path of decline.
Until now, this may have largely been seen as a problem for ministers – and, indeed, public servants retain far higher levels of trust than their elected colleagues.
For most digital and data professionals, the erosion of citizens’ trust has probably thus far been only an abstract concern in the context of their work – if it has been a concern at all.
But, as public bodies become ever-more ambitious and far-reaching in their use of data, there is a real risk that this mistrust will see a significant minority of the public seeking to actively disengage with – and potentially event disrupt – public-services providers.
There is also the ongoing rollout of One Login, which will provide a single means for citizens to access government services. The implementation of the cross-department sign-in system comes alongside the growth of the commercial digital identity sector – backed by government accreditation.
These areas are all separate and distinct. But, if those working in digital, data and related policy roles in Whitehall wish to gain an understanding of how declining public trust could derail their work and its objectives, it might be worth studying the social-media discourse around ‘digital identity’.
Such discussions reinforce the status of the online world as the key battleground on which government needs to fight to protect public trust. Those that have long advocated for that world as a means of delivering excellent public services need to make sure that their work does not become a casualty of this conflict.
One Login to rule them all?
Speaking of One Login, this year may well define the success – or otherwise – of the new platform.
It is now more than four years since plans for such a system were first announced. Since then, work seems to have proceeded more-or-less as intended – perhaps with a little linguistic plausible deniability around precise timelines and volumes.
This year begins with more than 50 services already having adopted One Login, and with all departments mandated to at least begin the implementation process within the coming weeks.
This is, to be sure, a very good foundation. But it is no more than that.
For the biggest departments – including HM Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions – and their most widely used services, the process of migrating to the new system will be a real job of work.
Unlike with the One Login’s little-loved predecessor, Verify, leaders across government have shown a sincere enthusiasm for the new platform, and a strong intent to make it a success.
But the project’s leaders – as well as its detractors – will be all too aware of the kind of road that is paved with good intentions.
With ministers having committed to doubling the number of services using One Login this year – which would bring in tens of millions of additional users – the destination and the duration of the journey is coming into ever-sharper focus. We will soon find out if the technology is ready for its close-up.
Will Labour leave behind Conservative controversy?
While the incoming administration was quick to make some significant changes to the public sector tech environment, several of the previous government’s biggest and most contentious programmes have remained largely untouched.
Among these are Tory proposals for the Department for Work and Pensions to be granted access to a far greater range of data from the bank accounts of benefit claimants. Six weeks before the country went to the polls, 16 Labour MPs spearheaded a parliamentary motion warning that the plan “risks creating a Post Office Horizon-style scandal”.
This risk was seemingly not enough to dissuade Labour ministers from pressing ahead with the data-gathering agenda – or at least something that appears near-identical.
While it is no less controversial, the NHS Federated Data Platform, based on technology from Palantir, is already a long way into delivery, so perhaps there can be little surprise that the new administration is, thus far, proceeding with the programme as planned.
The Conservative government’s ambition to move to an entirely digital immigration system may be a less binary issue. It seems entirely feasible that ministers could pursue the same broad ambition of digitising services and documents wherever possible, while making the key concession of continuing to allow physical and electronic options to co-exist.
This would help address and allay the fears of those – again, including parliamentarians from within the Labour party itself – that have warned that wholesale digitisation could lead to “another Windrush”.
For the sharpest critics of the tech programmes and policy of the previous government, Labour still – if it wishes to do so – has a little time to demonstrate its difference. A year from now, this will no longer be the case.
Transparency vs opacity
As someone whose scouting for stories encompasses daily searches covering the breadth of the public sector’s online footprint, I can attest to the fact that there is a lot – a lot – of data and documents out there, and thousands upon thousands more with each passing day.
But, then again, of course there is. And, of course, there should be. And the ongoing vast volumes should not distract from the fact that there may be often be less than there should be, and that many areas of government transparency have gone backwards in the past few years.
The closure of the Digital Marketplace procurement platform has made it harder to find information on planned digital and technology projects – including schemes backed by tens of millions of pounds of public money, and others featuring secretive or controversial collection or processing of data.
Alongside which, for 20 years there has been a steady and continuing decline in the proportion of Freedom of Information requests that receive, in response, all requested data. This includes attempts by journalists – matched by efforts from parliamentarians – to find out information about the operations of some of the more shadowy parts of government.
Meanwhile more recent measures, such as the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS) introduced in 2022, have – until recently – had very limited uptake.
But a newly mandatory regime resulted in a recent flurry of ATRS publications, and more information releases are hoped to follow in the coming months.
And the presence of a new administration has also led to hopes of a wider and ongoing increase in transparency. Shortly after the election, the UK Open Government Civil Society Network – bringing together of more than 50 organisations, including the Open Data Institute, Transparency International, and Spotlight on Corruption – wrote to incoming prime minister Keir Starmer asking him to “commit to re-energising open government as the basis of a more democratic, equal, and just society”.
Again, Labour has an opportunity here to differentiate and distance itself from its predecessors. The authors of that letter to 10 Downing Street – as well as a wide range of other beneficiaries and advocates of open, transparent public services – will be watching closely this year to see if it does so.
