Following the UK Government’s announcement of the Digital Identity scheme in September 2025, a number of surveys have explored public opinion surrounding the initiative.
Most publicly available research is quantitative, and predominantly focuses on the proportion of the UK population that supports or opposes the Digital ID scheme. Yet it is difficult to know from surveys what understanding respondents have of the Digital Identity scheme, how much variation there is in respondent understanding and how closely this aligns to the current specifics of the scheme. Quantitative research methods do not allow for a detailed exploration of this or the “why” underpinning public support or opposition against the scheme.
To gain a deeper context, Hippo has published a qualitative research report exploring public understanding and attitudes toward the initiative. While quantitative tracking has shown a gradual decline in public support, this study utilises in-depth interviews to provide deeper context behind these shifts in sentiment.
Bridging the awareness gap
A central finding of the research is a generally low familiarity with the specific details of the scheme among participants. This lack of awareness often led to misconceptions regarding the intended scope. Key areas of confusion included:
- Document replacement: Many participants presumed the digital ID would replace physical documents like passports and driving licenses.
- Data centralisation: There were widespread fears that the scheme would create a centralised store of citizen data, enabling the tracking of individuals and creating a target for bad actors and hackers.
- Scope of access: Some participants believed the ID would immediately grant access to local council and health services, moving beyond the central government focus currently announced.
The “need” and value proposition
The study highlights a significant challenge in communicating the scheme’s value to individual citizens. While participants acknowledged that a digital ID could streamline access to government services, notably replacing the need for physical documents like utility bills, they struggled to identify a compelling personal need for the tool and conflated government and council services when considering benefits.
Cynicism was also noted among those who perceived the scheme as benefiting the state more than the citizen. Furthermore, the government’s association of the digital ID with reducing illegal migration was often dismissed as “political pandering”, which for some, reduced overall trust in the sincerity of the scheme. Though, it will be interesting to see how the Government’s recent change in steer regarding the mandatory use of Digital Identity for right to work checks impacts public perception on this point in the future.
Security, convenience, and trust
Security remains the primary “deal-breaker” for successful adoption of digital IDs. While the convenience of a mobile apps and digital wallets was viewed as a positive, it was frequently outweighed by concerns regarding:
- Device security: The implications of losing a mobile phone containing one’s identity.
- Cyber threats: Fears of hacking and large-scale data leaks.
- Digital exclusion: Concerns that a smartphone-reliant system might alienate older or vulnerable user groups.
Interestingly, despite regular use of private sector wallets (e.g., Apple or Google Pay), the majority of participants expressed a preference for a government-issued wallet. This preference is rooted in a fundamental mistrust of “big tech” regarding data usage and the belief that the government is ultimately more accountable to UK citizens to keep their data safe and use it appropriately.
Future outlook
By the end of the research sessions, participants remained divided on their comfort levels with the scheme. However, the process of discussing personal implications, rather than high-level concepts, increased their interest in following the scheme’s progression.
While further qualitative research is needed, and should continue to be repeated to offer context to quantitative sentiment tracking, the report offers practical insights to support the successful adoption of the Digital ID scheme as an optional identifier for government digital services. It’s clear that greater transparency regarding data security, clarity surrounding the long-term goals of the scheme, and ensuring clear alternatives exist for those who are digitally excluded will be key.
