In a recent article, Tony Blair made a compelling case for the adoption of digital identity in the UK, arguing that the country is falling behind in technological modernization. He stressed that a unique digital identifier for every citizen would enhance efficiency, improve security, and reduce friction when interacting with both public and private services.
While Blair is right to call for digital identity, his argument overlooks two critical factors that will determine its success: reusability and ownership. Digital ID must not only exist but must be useful across multiple domains. If digital identity is to gain widespread adoption in the UK, it cannot be limited to government services. It must be reusable across financial services, healthcare, travel, e-commerce, and more.
Identity is fundamental to society, yet it can't exist in isolation - individuals need to prove who they are to interact with others, while governments need to verify citizens to provide services. There is a nuanced, symbiotic exchange at play. When adopting digital identity solutions, we need to be aware of and consider this relationship. They must also accommodate diverse edge cases, such as dual citizenship, immigration status, and multinational affiliations.
Crucially, individuals, not the government, should own and control their digital identities. While government and other institutions play a key role in issuing digital credentials, ultimate ownership must reside with the individual. People should be empowered to decide where, when and how their digital identity is used.
People should be empowered to decide where, when and how their digital identity is used.
Blair rightly points out that the UK lags behind other nations. Estonia, India, and Singapore have implemented national digital identity systems that have transformed access to services.
In Estonia, the e-ID system is used for everything from voting to medical records. India’s Aadhaar system has enabled millions of people to open bank accounts, receive government benefits, and verify their identities instantly. Singapore’s SingPass allows residents to access hundreds of services with a single digital login. In California the mobile driving licence (mDL) is being adopted. There are many other countries adopting this technology too.
Meanwhile, the UK has struggled. The government’s attempt at a digital identity framework, GOV.UK Verify, was not successful. Launched in 2016, it was meant to be a secure way for citizens to prove their identity online. By 2021, it had been abandoned due to low adoption and technical difficulties.
The private sector, however, is leading the way. Companies like Yoti, OneID, OneSpan, and Vidos have developed reusable digital ID solutions that allow individuals to verify their identity without constantly presenting physical documents. Financial institutions, e-commerce platforms, and healthcare providers are beginning to adopt these solutions, highlighting a key reality: a digital identity system that is not reusable will not work.
A digital identity system that is not reusable will not work
One of the biggest flaws of GOV.UK Verify was its limited use case. It was mainly for government services, which meant that most people rarely used it. If a person only needs to prove their identity a few times a year, they won’t adopt a new system. Digital ID must become a useful part of daily life.
Consider the way people use their email address or mobile number. These identifiers are used across multiple services, from banking to social media. Digital ID should function the same way. If it is limited to just a handful of interactions, people will not see the value in adopting it.
A reusable digital identity allows people to prove who they are in multiple scenarios:
If digital ID is reusable across these contexts, people will naturally integrate it into their daily lives. This will accelerate adoption far more than any government mandate ever could.
One of the most significant concerns surrounding digital identity is control. Who owns the identity? Who has access to the data?
Blair suggests that the UK government should take the lead in implementing a digital ID system, but history shows that government-run digital ID systems often lead to surveillance concerns.The solution? A model where IDs are issued by governments, but owned by individuals.
A model where IDs are issued by governments, but owned by individuals.
This means:
This is precisely how decentralized identity (self-sovereign) solutions work. Rather than a central authority controlling identity, individuals hold verifiable credentials in their own digital wallets. They can present these credentials when needed without revealing excess personal information.
A citizen-owned model prevents digital identity from being weaponized for surveillance or political control. The UK government should serve its citizens, not the other way around. Digital ID should empower individuals, not force them into a centralized database.
Blair dismisses concerns about privacy and security, arguing that digital identity will reduce fraud and improve efficiency. While this is true, it is not enough. A poorly designed digital ID system can become a security risk rather than a security solution. For digital ID to work in the UK, it must have strong privacy protections:
The UK’s approach must be based on open, verifiable, and decentralized standards, ensuring that digital identity is not a tool for tracking, but a tool for empowerment.
For digital identity to succeed in the UK, three key things need to happen:
Tony Blair is right that the UK needs digital identity, but his vision does not go far enough. Reusability and individual ownership must be at the heart of any digital identity framework. The UK must avoid past mistakes and learn from global examples.
A digital ID system that is reusable across multiple domains, controlled by individuals, and built on privacy-first principles will not only modernize the UK but will also protect the rights of its citizens. If done right, digital identity can be a powerful tool for empowerment rather than a mechanism for control.
