Following recent ministerial comments indicating that the UK will explore a possible compulsory identity programme, beginning with the immigration sector, many parliamentarians have filed questions, which are still seeking answers

Ministers have reinforced government’s plan to explore the possibility of introducing some form of national state digital identity – but claimed that a proper assessment has not yet been made of the costs and other implications of delivering such a system.

Two weeks ago it was revealed that the potential introduction of an ID regime – particularly in the context of clamping down on illegal immigration – was discussed at a cabinet meeting. A Downing Street spokesperson stated that plans being pursued by the administration includes “exploring options around digital ID”, while other ministers expressed support for such an idea.

Since then, MPs – chiefly representatives of the Conservatives or Reform – have filed numerous written parliamentary questions seeking more details of these explorations, as well as how a mandatory identity scheme might work in practice and the cost and operational implications.

In a unified response to a recent tranche of such questions, Kanishka Narayan – recently appointed as a junior minister at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology – indicated that explorations are ongoing. He reiterated comments previously made by colleagues suggesting that the UK will study other countries where digital ID has been implemented, but added that government is not yet in a position to comment on the possible cost or other potential implications.

“The government is committed to making the state more efficient and easier to interact with through harnessing technology,” Narayan said. “We want to learn from countries who have digitised government services for the benefit of their citizens. We are looking at whether a new digital ID could help tackle illegal immigration, transform public services, and bring benefits to people’s everyday lives. No firm decision, estimate or assessment has yet been made.”

Related content

• GDS and digital ID watchdog meet with vendors to explore ‘how GOV.UK Wallet can work with private sector solutions’
• GDS opens GOV.UK Wallet for public bodies
• Growing band of MPs call on government to introduce digital ID

Earlier this month, the concept was also given backing by cabinet minister Pat McFadden who, during a visit to Estonia – a notable and long-standing user of digital ID – told The Times that “there are applications of digital ID to the immigration system, to the benefit system, [and] to a number of areas”. Shortly after making these remarks McFadden was moved from a post leading the Cabinet Office to his new role as work and pensions secretary.

Government is already in the process of creating the GOV.UK Wallet, which will operate on a similar basis to equivalent commercial platforms from Apple and Google. The government-led version will enable citizens to store formal state-issued documents, beginning with digital version of the HM Armed Forces Veteran Card. An electronic driving licence is planned to follow later this year and, in time, other documents – including benefit and tax information and, eventually, some form of digital passport – will be offered via the Wallet, the government has previously indicated.

DSIT also operates the UK digital identity and attributes trust framework, which enables technology providers to obtain a government-endorsed trustmark. Certified digital ID providers can then be searched for via a publicly available online register – a list which, as of May of this year, no longer includes government’s own One Login digital identity platform.

It is understood that the loss of this trust certification was because a supplier – understood to be tech firm iProov – “allowed their certification to lapse”.

As of earlier this summer, PublicTechnology reported that the government contends that the removal of the badge “is not due to any change in product or approach in One Login and [the project is] working to commence recertification”. No timeline for re-attaining the trustmark has been provided.