The digital identity industry seeks clarity and collaboration with the government on digital ID initiatives
The UK government’s digital identity plans are moving fast, but not everyone is in sync. Right now, the industry that’s spent over a decade investing in identity verification systems is asking a simple question: what direction are we actually going in?
The Association of Digital Verification Professionals (ADVP) issued a formal letter to Cabinet Office Minister Darren Jones. Their request? Meet, talk, and plan. They’re not asking for control, they’re offering alignment. The proposal includes setting up a cross-sector forum to formalize the collaboration between public and private sectors. This isn’t just bureaucracy, it’s about alignment on risk, innovation, and execution.
Industry leaders know how to build and scale. They’ve been working with frameworks like the DIATF, not because they were told to, but because they saw value in compliance-driven innovation. When the government moves ahead without defining how private actors fit into its vision, you naturally get a fragmented ecosystem. That slows everything down.
For C-suite leaders, the takeaway here is clear: sustained innovation happens faster with transparency and aligned execution across sectors. Government technology can benefit from the pace and adaptability that private companies bring, but only if there’s a seat at the table and a shared blueprint.
Ambiguity in the government’s digital ID strategy is destabilizing market confidence and investment security
Uncertainty isn’t just uncomfortable, it’s expensive. Right now, the government hasn’t defined what the digital identity system is supposed to be. Will it live in the Gov.uk Wallet? Will it run via certified private wallets? Or are we looking at some hybrid where providers plug into a central system?
This isn’t a small detail. Each route defines a fundamentally different structure, who manages the data, who verifies the user, and who owns the relationship. And the current silence isn’t neutral. It’s pushing potential investors to hold back, slowing funds from being allocated to solutions, and freezing the kind of experimentation that normally leads to breakthroughs.
C-suite executives should see this as a risk-management gap. Markets operate on expectation. When expectations are murky, so are ROI projections. Regulatory silence can hold more weight than regulation when the value of a company or product depends on government alignment.
The ADVP is calling attention to the ambiguity because this confusion impacts not just the public rollout, but every related service in the digital economy, payments, logistics, HR tech. Decision-makers need a clear signal from the government: what’s the architecture, what’s the timeline, and where can industry plug in? Without it, growth stalls. Execution delays. And trust declines.
There’s no need to wait to align structure with scale. Define the system. Enable the build. Let the rest move accordingly.
Established frameworks are being sidelined by the government’s new proposals
The Digital Identity and Attribute Trust Framework (DIATF) wasn’t built yesterday. It’s the result of over a decade of cross-party political support and direct input from the private sector. It works. It gives regulators a structure to govern and gives businesses the certainty to innovate within defined boundaries. That’s why the government’s silence around DIATF in its new digital identity plans is generating real concern.
The tech and identity sectors have spent serious budget and time aligning with DIATF. Companies have architected systems for age verification, credentialing, and biometric-based identity services based specifically on DIATF standards. They’ve hired compliance teams, scaled platforms, and passed audits. The omission of DIATF in the government’s latest rollout isn’t just a missed detail, it tells the market that one of its key foundations might no longer be valid.
This undermines trust across the innovation pipeline. Without consistency, the feedback loop between public-sector policy and private-sector delivery breaks down. Companies will pause product development, reallocate funds, and hesitate to commit to new integrations until they know if they’re building for a framework that’s going to still matter in six months.
Executives should consider this a performance issue tied to product certainty. If the UK government wants to lead in secure, user-centric identity systems, then reaffirming support for the DIATF, or clearly replacing it with something better, needs to happen now, not after rollout begins. Otherwise, the system will stall before it even scales.
The unconsulted rollout of the gov.uk wallet has negatively affected industry relations
When the government launched Gov.uk Wallet without prior industry consultation, it damaged cooperation with the very companies responsible for building the digital verification tools it depends on. This wasn’t just a failure of communication. It told the private sector: we’ll move without you.
Many of these companies contributed critical technologies, aligned with regulatory frameworks, and helped develop standards over years of collaboration. They’ve already proven they can deliver. So when the state launches a foundational identity product, without warning, without integration points, and without considering ongoing industry development, it signals that government is moving toward centralized control, even if that wasn’t the intention.
This shift creates unnecessary friction. It also generates strategic risk. Trust in government-led platforms depends on both security and interoperability. The most effective rollout leverages capabilities that exist outside of government, reducing redundancy and accelerating scale. By not inviting proven partners into the conversation early, the government weakens the entire system’s effectiveness and indirectly increases cost through duplicated efforts.
For executives managing strategy in identity, fintech, or compliance-heavy sectors, the lesson is simple: watch what’s being done, not just what’s being said. You need to know whether the digital identity ecosystem is going to be a collaborative market or a closed platform. The direction the UK takes here will shape developer roadmaps, partnership models, and compliance requirements across entire product categories.
The industry’s challenge to the compulsory use of digital IDs for fraud mitigation highlights the limits of a one-size-fits-all solution
The government’s plan to use a mandatory national digital ID system to enforce Right to Work checks is centered around curbing illegal migration. But the Association of Digital Verification Professionals (ADVP) is pushing back, raising critical questions about whether the model addresses the actual problem, impersonation fraud.
This specific type of fraud doesn’t involve fake credentials. It involves valid, government-issued credentials being used by someone other than the rightful owner. Much of this stems from the government’s own e-visa system. Simply making digital identity compulsory doesn’t eliminate impersonation; it may even amplify dependency on a mechanism that hasn’t resolved core security flaws.
The industry knows these threats well. They’re suggesting a sharper focus, not on forcing ID adoption across the board, but on strengthening fraud detection systems and increasing penalties against non-compliant employers. In other words, enhance intelligence around bad actors, rather than assume technology alone will fix behavior.
From an executive standpoint, this argument matters. It separates tech implementation from measurable outcome. Just mandating adoption won’t reduce fraud unless the system evolves in how it detects misuse and enforces accountability. Business leaders in regulated industries, from hiring platforms to logistics, should ensure internal fraud prevention strategies don’t lean entirely on what the state mandates. Instead, they should remain agile to reinforce internal checks and revisit how technology fits into broader compliance goals.
Independent oversight is recommended to ensure transparency and accountability in the digital identity rollout
ADVP’s request for independent oversight isn’t just posturing, it’s a strategic checkpoint. In their recommendation, they name the UK’s National Audit Office (NAO) as the right body to evaluate the government’s digital ID scheme. The purpose is straightforward: validate decisions with data, and give the public clarity on how identity tools will be governed.
There’s concern that if the government starts functioning as both issuer and gatekeeper of digital identity, it removes necessary distance between the system and the regulator. That’s where the NAO comes in. As an independent entity, it’s positioned to apply pressure where needed, on cost, efficiency, impact, and public trust.
For the private sector, this proposal signals maturity. It’s not geared toward slowing down development. It’s about ensuring the system doesn’t lose credibility before it gains adoption. Leaders in fintech, health, and digital infrastructure should understand that independent review isn’t red tape, it’s a blueprint check.
If digital identity becomes infrastructure-level critical, then like any infrastructure, it needs oversight that users can trust. A National Audit Office review would add weight to the project, validate its claims, and reduce risks of reputational fallout for companies and service providers building alongside it. Leaders should focus on aligning their roadmaps with systems that are auditable, open, and reliably governed. That’s what enables long-term integration and public trust in any platform handling personal identity data.
Key highlights
- Industry demands active collaboration: Leaders should engage private-sector stakeholders early to align capabilities, reduce friction, and accelerate delivery of digital identity infrastructure.
- Strategic uncertainty delays investment: Lack of clarity on whether the UK will adopt a state-only model or allow certified providers is undermining investor confidence and slowing innovation.
- Existing frameworks must not be sidelined: To protect past investments and maintain system continuity, executives should ensure future strategies integrate or clearly replace the DIATF framework.
- Partnerships require open communication: The rollout of Gov.uk Wallet without industry consultation damaged trust; future government-led tech initiatives must prioritize early engagement with ecosystem players.
- Risk mitigation goes beyond mandatory ID checks: Mandating digital IDs won’t stop impersonation fraud; leaders should combine tech adoption with stronger enforcement and employer accountability mechanisms.
- Oversight is critical for system trust: Independent review by a body like the National Audit Office is essential to validate outcomes, ensure civil accountability, and build long-term public and market trust.
