The Government’s newly published roadmap for digitisation and the launch of the marks one of the most significant state modernisation programmes in a generation. Rebuilding government as a joined-up digital platform — a true “super-app” — is both bold and necessary. It represents a fundamental re-engineering of how the state operates: its systems, processes, and institutional culture.
Government Digital Service deserves recognition for the scale of ambition involved. This is transformation at national scale.
But history teaches us a consistent lesson: strategies rarely fail on paper. They fail in practice. Culture, incentives and unintended consequences shape outcomes far more than architecture diagrams ever will.
The real challenge for political leaders and delivery teams is not simply what to change — but what not to change. That judgement will determine whether this programme empowers citizens or concentrates power in new and problematic ways.
Identity is not entitlement
Digital Identity sits at the centre of this debate. The key question is deceptively simple:
Is your identity something you own — or something the state owns?
There is a critical distinction between identity and entitlement. Your identity is intrinsic. Entitlements are conditional. Conflating the two creates a subtle but profound shift in power. Design choices made today will define that balance for decades.
The same principle applies to public service infrastructure more broadly. If DBS checks become free and reusable within a government wallet, that may benefit users — but it risks quietly dismantling the safeguarding ecosystem that exists today. Those checks currently fund training, compliance, community services and innovation across the voluntary and private sectors.
Similarly, DVLA verification fees partially fund core operations. If that revenue disappears, what replaces it? If nothing does, service quality will inevitably degrade.
These are not abstract concerns. They are structural consequences.
The danger of unintended consequences
Public sector reform has a long history of well-intentioned interventions producing harmful side effects. One striking parallel comes from humanitarian aid: the large-scale donation of second-hand clothes to African countries. The intention was charitable. The outcome was the collapse of local textile industries, increasing dependency and destroying livelihoods.
Digitising government carries similar risks if we fail to think systemically.
This is not just a technology project. It is an economic intervention. A cultural shift. A redistribution of power.
Which is why the principle of “do no harm” must sit at the heart of digital transformation.
Why data sovereignty matters
Ownership and control of data is the foundation upon which everything else is built. The Digital Verification Services (DVS) Trust Framework — anchored in the Data (Use and Access) Act — provides a legal basis for personal data sovereignty.
In practical terms, this means:
- Individuals control where their data lives
- They decide who accesses it
- They can reuse it without repeating processes
- Consent is meaningful, not performative
This mirrors how we manage our finances. Banks hold money, but they do not own it. We do. Data should follow the same model.
SafeGuarden in practice: a real-world case study
At CDD Services, we are applying these principles through SafeGuarden — our community-powered data cooperative.
One of our pilots works with local authorities and VCSE partners supporting people furthest from the digital mainstream: care leavers, refugees, people experiencing homelessness, and those without formal identity documents.
Traditionally, these individuals face repeated barriers:
- Multiple proof requests
- Repeated form filling
- Costly and slow manual checks
- Exclusion due to lack of documentation
Through SafeGuarden, individuals are supported to build a secure digital wallet containing verified credentials — identity, Right to Work status, training records, DBS outcomes, references.
Once verified:
- Credentials can be reused across employers and services
- Individuals choose who sees what
- Data is not centrally harvested
- Control remains with the person
In one pilot area, this reduced onboarding time for volunteers by over 60%, cut repeat checks, and allowed people to move between services without restarting their journey every time.
Crucially, the data is not owned by government or ourselves. It belongs to the individual.
That is what data sovereignty looks like in practice.
The debate we must now have
The Government announced last week that Digital ID will no longer be mandatory for an individual for RTW. This is very welcome. It creates space for a serious national conversation around its Digital ID consultation paper be issued in a few weeks time.
On the Biometric Update podcast in December, Alexander Iosad and I explored these issues. We aligned on much: the private sector can move faster, innovate more effectively, and deliver value efficiently. Partnership matters.
But a philosophical divergence emerged:
- Is the future a Government Wallet — a single super-app acting as the gateway to the state?
- Or is it an ecosystem of interoperable wallets where individuals hold their own credentials and choose where to use them?
That difference is fundamental.
We already accept mixed models across society:
- Utilities are public
- Banking is private
- Telecoms are competitive markets
- Strategic assets sit in hybrid ownership
So where should data sit? Digital ID is not the question. It is a symptom of a bigger one. Who holds power in the digital economy?
When I met Darren Jones MP alongside techUK and industry leaders on the 2nd December, he was clear: the forthcoming consultation is to inform policy, not justify pre-made decisions. That commitment matters. We should hold government to it — constructively and collaboratively.
Choosing the future
As Peter Ustinov said: “Doubts unite us. Certainty divides us.”Digital identity feels simple — until we examine its implications. Like time, it turns out to be relative.
The future is not just digital. It is about: trust, power, autonomy, and who holds the keys.
At CDD Services, and through SafeGuarden, we are building towards a future where:
- People own their data
- Systems interoperate, not monopolise
- Innovation thrives in open markets
- Government enables rather than controls
Digitising government is essential. The roadmap is a strong foundation. Now we must ensure what we build empowers citizens — rather than encloses them.
Because better services should feel like freedom, not surveillance.
And that choice is still ours to make.
