The Local Digital team is exploring bringing GOV.UK One Login to council services. As someone who’s spent decades working on government digital inclusion, my first thought wasn’t “brilliant innovation” but “who’s going to get left behind this time?”

Security theatre has no place in public services when the stakes are as low as reporting graffiti or checking bin collection days. Not every interaction needs a digital fortress.

The other day, my mother in the Netherlands called me in a state of confusion. She’d been trying to check when her next bin collection was scheduled, but the council website insisted she log in with her DigiD (the Dutch equivalent of GOV.UK One Login) before she could access this basic information.

“Why do I need to verify my identity to find out when they’ll collect my rubbish?” she asked, genuinely bewildered. “It’s not as if my bins contain state secrets.”

This perfectly illustrates the absurdity of applying high-security gateways to low-risk services. And now Local Digital is exploring how to bring GOV.UK One Login into British council services, potentially making this problem even more widespread.

The digital identity double-edged sword

One Login represents a genuine attempt to solve a real problem. The current authentication landscape in local government is undeniably fragmented. Residents often need separate accounts for council tax, housing benefit, bin collections, and library services, each with different logins, security requirements and user experiences.

There’s something to be said for consistency and familiarity in user interfaces. People generally prefer systems that work like other websites they use regularly, such as Amazon, Facebook or online banking. In that respect, extending GOV.UK One Login to council services could create welcome consistency.

When I worked on PwC’s “Engage” project, creating GOV.UK-inspired templates for local government websites, we found that users appreciated familiar design patterns. But we also discovered something concerning: most people don’t distinguish between national and local government online. They just see “the government.” Using One Login for both could reinforce this misconception, blurring important distinctions between central and local services.

But One Login comes with its own challenges. GDS’s own research highlights significant barriers for vulnerable groups:

• Children under 17 who lack a credit history
• UK citizens living abroad
• People with limited digital footprints
• Those without smartphones or email access

These aren’t edge cases. They represent significant portions of the population who often need council services most urgently. When I wrote the national drink spiking advice for Police.UK, we discovered that any friction at all dramatically reduced the likelihood of vulnerable people completing critical actions.

My 89-year-old mother’s verification nightmare

The gap between digital design and lived reality is something I’ve experienced personally through my elderly mother in the Netherlands. When she needs to access government services, the process becomes a comedy of errors that isn’t remotely funny.

She can’t take photos of her ID documents because she doesn’t own a smartphone. She can’t travel unassisted to a verification point because of mobility issues. She can’t reliably receive security codes via text message because her vision is poor.

Each “alternative” verification route assumes capabilities she doesn’t have. Each “accessibility” consideration misses the reality of her life. And this is in the Netherlands, where the digital identity system (DigiD) is actually more accessible than the UK’s current approach.

The final indignity? Being forced to use this complex verification system just to check when her bins will be collected. That’s not security, it’s bureaucratic absurdity.

If One Login were applied universally across council services, thousands of elderly residents like my mother would face these same barriers, but for even more essential local services.

Security theatre versus genuine access

What’s fundamentally wrong with extending One Login to all council services is the risk of applying disproportionate security requirements to basic information and simple transactions.

Does reporting graffiti really need the same level of identity verification as accessing tax records? Should checking bin collection days require a verified identity? Should filling in a pothole reporting form involve the same security as applying for housing benefit? Of course not.

“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'”

Yet time and again, I’ve seen security teams push for maximum verification across all services because it’s administratively simpler than creating nuanced approaches tailored to actual risk levels. It’s security theatre that creates real barriers to essential services.

When I developed the domestic violence reporting service for Police.UK, we deliberately created pathways that required minimal verification for initial support because we knew that barriers would prevent people in crisis from getting help.

The path to genuinely inclusive digital identity

Local Digital is doing the right thing with this discovery. They’ve consistently taken a thoughtful and collaborative approach to digital transformation in local government, and their Really Useful Days have been genuine spaces for innovation rather than just the usual slideware sessions. I’ve been following their work for years and have always been impressed by their commitment to understanding local needs before pushing technological solutions.

Their approach to exploring One Login adoption reflects this thoughtfulness. They’re asking important questions about feasibility, barriers and benefits before rushing to implementation. It’s exactly the sort of measured, research-first approach that I wish more digital transformation initiatives would take.

They need to:

Map verification needs against actual risk levels: Not every council service requires the same level of security. Reporting a pothole should be nearly frictionless, while accessing personal tax information naturally requires stronger verification.

Develop genuine offline alternatives: In GDS’s own documentation for One Login, they acknowledge that services must “provide another way for those users to access your service.” Those alternatives need proper funding and support, not treatment as second-class options.

Invest equally in digital and non-digital channels: The Post Office verification option for One Login assumes accessibility that doesn’t match reality for many rural communities. Local government needs solutions that come to residents, rather than forcing vulnerable people to travel to verification points.

Test with genuinely vulnerable users: Not just those who struggle with technology, but those with limited mobility, cognitive impairments, language barriers, and financial constraints. These aren’t edge cases; they’re core users of council services.

My honest assessment

As councils consider One Login adoption, they face a complex balancing act. The fragmented current landscape creates its own accessibility problems. Unifying authentication could genuinely improve user experience for many residents, particularly through interface familiarity.

But universal adoption risks creating a two-tier system: seamless service for the digitally confident, growing barriers for vulnerable residents.

The key is proportionality. By all means, use One Login for services where strong identity verification is necessary, such as housing applications, benefit claims, and tax matters. But maintain simpler, direct access routes for basic services and information where security risks are minimal or non-existent.

The question that should guide every decision isn’t “How do we implement this technology?” but “How do we ensure everyone can access essential services?” That’s the only question that matters when evaluating digital inclusion in government.

After four decades working in government digital transformation, I’ve learned that the gap between good research and effective implementation is where vulnerable users often fall through the cracks. Let’s make sure that doesn’t happen with One Login in local government.