The Government Digital Service (GDS) has unveiled details of GOV.UK One Login, the UK government’s new digital identity system. It verifies who you are online and gives you access to government services through a single account, replacing dozens of separate login methods previously needed for different departments. 

Meanwhile, the Government Communication Service (GCS) has launched another digital initiative, called Assist AI, which helps government staff create communications.

As someone with four decades of experience in government digital services across both the Netherlands and the UK, I’ve witnessed numerous iterations of “transformative” technologies.

My specialised work in inclusive, accessible content strategy and design has consistently focused on one critical question: who gets left behind?

While these two initiatives serve different audiences – with One Login directly impacting citizens and Assist being an internal tool – they both reflect important shifts in how government approaches digital transformation.

It’s important to note that my analysis is based on GDS’s published documentation and prototypes, as GOV.UK One Login is currently only accessible to those with government email addresses.

This review examines what we know from public information rather than direct testing of the system.

Two parallel tracks of government digital inclusion

The UK government is currently pursuing digital transformation on two parallel tracks: internal tools to improve efficiency and citizen-facing systems to enhance access to services.

These initiatives reveal different aspects of the government’s digital approach and priorities for ensuring digital inclusion.

Assist AI: Boosting internal efficiency

The Government Communication Service (GCS) recently launched Assist, an AI tool designed to support government communicators in drafting content, brainstorming ideas and reviewing work.

The tool represents a significant investment in bringing generative AI capabilities into government workflow.

What’s notable about Assist is its focus on supporting government staff rather than citizens directly. The reported three-hour weekly time savings for users suggests potential efficiency gains, though these remain largely anecdotal at this stage.

By building a specialised tool that incorporates GCS guidelines and standards, the team has created something potentially more valuable than simply giving staff access to commercial AI alternatives.

However, the initiative raises questions about resource allocation in the broader context of government digital inclusion.

While improving internal efficiency is important, we must ask whether these innovations meaningfully improve service delivery for those who struggle most with accessing government services.

Let’s turn to the citizen-facing system to explore this question further.

GOV.UK One Login: The government digital inclusion challenge for citizens

The GOV.UK One Login initiative represents an attempt to solve one of the most persistent challenges in digital government: creating a unified, secure way for citizens to prove their identity and access services.

According to GDS publications, its mission statement is clear and ambitious – “to make it easy for everyone to access government services” – which is at the heart of any meaningful government digital inclusion strategy.

As of November 2024, the GOV.UK One Login has been implemented across 50 government services, with plans to expand to over 100 services by 2025. Over 3.8 million people have successfully verified their identity through the One Login system.

From the publicly available information, what’s encouraging is the depth of user research underpinning this work. Since April 2021, the team has reportedly conducted over 150 research rounds involving more than 2,000 participants, building a substantial evidence base about people’s lived experiences with digital identity verification.

The prototype screenshots and documentation show careful design consideration, with attention to different user journeys and potential failure points.

The visual language is clean and accessible, following established GOV.UK patterns that prioritise clarity and simplicity.

According to official documentation, the system currently offers three routes for users to prove their identity:

• Using the GOV.UK ID Check app
• Answering security questions in a browser
• A combination of online verification and visiting a Post Office

What I find particularly telling is GDS’s own candid acknowledgement of the system’s current limitations.

They explicitly state that “GOV.UK One Login only lets users prove their identity using certain documents or information” and that “certain sections of the user journey can only be completed online. This means it does not work for everyone yet”.

Most impressive in the published findings is the team’s commitment to understanding government digital inclusion barriers at scale.

Their 2023 user segmentation survey revealed specific groups who will struggle with the current implementation:

• Children under 17 (who lack credit history and government digital footprints)
• UK citizens living abroad (limited to app verification with chipped passports)
• Non-UK citizens living in the UK (success depends on their time in country and documentation)
• Non-UK citizens living overseas (limited to app verification with chipped passports)
• Users with small digital or financial footprints (challenging to verify through security questions)

According to GDS, these findings have directly informed their roadmap, with active exploration of solutions for access to identification, mobile usage without phone numbers, lack of email access and support for increasing digital confidence.

This evidence-based approach to improving government digital inclusion represents promising practice in service design, if it ultimately translates into accessible implementation.

Real-world barriers: Government digital inclusion challenges in practice

Looking at the official flow diagrams for One Login reveals a system with multiple verification pathways, from ID Check app journeys to document checks on the web and Post Office verification. The UK government has partnered with the Post Office to provide in-person identity verification services, ensuring that individuals with lower digital skills can access public services.

While this variety of routes appears comprehensive on paper, my experience with vulnerable users highlights potential gaps between these technical journeys and lived reality. These are gaps that complicate genuine government digital inclusion.

The fundamental barrier is that all routes currently require some digital gateway. Even the Post Office option begins with online steps and requires email access.

In GDS’s own documentation, they acknowledge that services with large numbers of users who struggle with these requirements “need to provide another way for those users to access your service”, essentially admitting that One Login itself isn’t yet truly inclusive.

The Post Office verification option, while valuable, assumes reasonable proximity to these increasingly scarce facilities. For many elderly or disabled people, particularly in rural areas, reaching a Post Office may involve significant cost and effort.

My 89-year-old mother, for example, would need to spend money on taxis to and from her nearest post office. Not only does she not know who to take photos of her passport and driving licence, she does not possess a phone with a camera. As ever, she’d have to rely on other people to help her.

The flow diagrams show multiple digital steps before and after the Post Office visit, creating a journey that’s neither fully digital nor fully offline, a crucial consideration for effective government digital inclusion strategies.

In my consultancy work with vulnerable users, I’ve repeatedly encountered this reality gap between digital design assumptions and lived experiences.

When a service requires travelling to a physical location, the designers often fail to consider that most post offices have closed, leaving many communities without reasonable access. What’s presented as an “alternative channel” becomes, in practice, an exclusionary barrier.

Similarly, understanding inclusion barriers is just the first step. Implementing truly accessible alternatives requires sustained commitment and resources.

The finding that 42% of 13-17 year olds have difficulty completing online tasks and need help from friends and family highlights how technical solutions alone won’t bridge the digital divide.

Most concerning is that these diagrams reveal a complex, multi-step process even in the “simplest” journey. Each stage represents a potential drop-off point where vulnerable users might abandon the process entirely.

The system appears to prioritise security and verification rigour over ease of completion. This is a defensible trade-off, but one with significant implications for government digital inclusion.

Learning from international comparisons: Alternative approaches to government digital inclusion

The challenges facing GOV.UK One Login are brought into sharper relief when compared with my direct experience with the Dutch government’s digital identity system, as I detailed in my previous “Triple Locked-out” article.

Having left the Netherlands in 1995, I’ve maintained close ties with the country, including helping my elderly mother navigate their digital government services remotely.

This firsthand experience managing someone else’s digital identity has given me unique insights into how verification systems can either empower or exclude vulnerable users, a central consideration in government digital inclusion.

The Dutch system – called DigiD – was introduced in 2003 and has been mandatory for electronic tax submissions since 2006. It integrates both digital and physical channels with notable effectiveness. Citizens can begin their application online and receive a verification letter with an activation code to their registered address within days.

This approach means many don’t need to visit any physical location – the system comes to them rather than requiring travel to a specific verification point – demonstrating a user-centred approach to government digital inclusion. Dutch citizens who live abroad can apply for and use DigiD to access services, something that it not an option with GOV.UK One Login.

For those unable to use the standard route, the Dutch system offers in-person alternatives at municipal offices and local community centres, which are more numerous and accessible than post offices in the UK today. This geographic distribution means most citizens have reasonable access to face-to-face support without prohibitive travel costs.

Perhaps most notably, the Dutch system doesn’t rely exclusively on credit history or mobile phone contracts for verification, making it more accessible to young people and those with limited financial histories. Instead, DigiD is linked to the Dutch national identification number (BSN).

The focus on residence registration rather than financial footprint creates fewer barriers for those without established credit. This is an important lesson for government digital inclusion strategies globally. However, DigiD has experienced security incidents, such as phishing websites and fraud attempts involving activation codes.

Through my mother’s experience, I’ve seen both the strengths and limitations of this approach. When she needed to access pension services, the verification process accommodated her limited digital skills without requiring distant travel. This is something that would be nearly impossible with the UK’s reliance on increasingly scarce Post Office locations.

Yet even this more accessible system created moments of frustration and exclusion that highlighted the persistent challenges in digital identity verification.

Transparency and testing: Who evaluates government digital inclusion?

One Login presents a unique challenge from an evaluation perspective. GDS has chosen to restrict prototype access to government departments while publishing their research findings openly. This approach reflects valid security concerns while still sharing valuable insights about inclusion barriers.

Their September 2024 blog post about user segmentation, for instance, provides transparent data about who struggles most with digital identification. This reflects a thoughtful middle ground: protecting sensitive aspects of the system while openly discussing inclusion challenges and planned solutions.

The One Login team’s publication of detailed findings about young people’s barriers demonstrates a commitment to transparency about who might be excluded and why – essential for advancing government digital inclusion.

However, the decision to limit testing to those with government email addresses means independent experts like myself cannot evaluate how well the theoretical design addresses real-world inclusion challenges.

While understanding security concerns, this restriction limits the diversity of perspectives that could identify critical barriers before full implementation. This potentially hampers optimal government digital inclusion outcomes.

Government digital inclusion principles: Learning from both initiatives

Looking at both Assist AI and GOV.UK One Login side by side offers insights into how government approaches digital innovation.

While they serve different audiences – staff versus citizens – both reflect evolving attitudes toward user research, inclusion, and practical implementation in the broader landscape of government digital inclusion.

The One Login team’s approach to understanding inclusion barriers through segmentation research shows particular promise. Their identification of specific user groups who will struggle with verification – from young people to those with limited digital footprints – demonstrates a level of nuanced understanding that’s often missing from government digital inclusion projects.

The flow diagrams for different verification journeys reveal both thoughtful user experience design and potential bottlenecks. The diagrams show a system that attempts to accommodate different verification needs but still fundamentally requires digital capabilities at some point in the journey.

For truly inclusive government digital services, several principles emerge from this analysis:

1. Research must translate to implementation: The impressive research behind One Login must be matched by equally thoughtful implementation that addresses the practical barriers identified. GDS’s own recommendation that services provide alternative access routes for excluded users suggests they recognise the system isn’t yet complete for comprehensive government digital inclusion.

2. Physical infrastructure matters: Digital services cannot be designed in isolation from physical infrastructure realities, such as post office closures or broadband access limitations. The Post Office verification journey assumes a convenience and accessibility that doesn’t match reality for many communities.

3. Alternative channels need equal investment: Non-digital alternatives often receive less funding and attention than their digital counterparts, creating second-class experiences for those who need them most. The flow diagrams reveal significantly more investment in the digital journeys than in truly accessible alternatives.

4. Cross-border learning is valuable: The Dutch approach to digital identity offers valuable lessons for the UK, particularly in how verification can come to citizens rather than requiring citizens to travel – an important principle for effective government digital inclusion.

5. Independent evaluation strengthens systems: While security considerations are valid, finding ways to include independent experts in testing would strengthen One Login’s approach to inclusion.

Measuring government digital inclusion success

As the UK government continues to invest in digital transformation, both internally through tools like Assist AI and externally through citizen-facing systems like GOV.UK One Login, the real measure of success must be inclusivity in practice, not just in theory. This is the true benchmark of government digital inclusion.

The evidence-based approach and extensive research behind One Login shows promising awareness of inclusion challenges. But my decades of experience have taught me that the gap between good research and effective implementation is where vulnerable users often fall through the cracks in government digital inclusion efforts.

For digital identification systems in particular, success means not just serving the digitally confident majority but ensuring that everyone – from teenagers without credit histories to elderly people with limited mobility – can verify their identity without undue burden.

This requires not just good design but holistic thinking about physical infrastructure, support networks, and offline alternatives to achieve meaningful government digital inclusion.

As these systems continue to develop, I’ll be watching closely to see whether the thoughtful research translates into truly inclusive implementation.

The path to digital government that works for everyone requires ongoing vigilance, continuous refinement, and a commitment to measuring what matters most: can everyone who needs a service actually access it? That’s the ultimate question for government digital inclusion.