A campaign backed by MPs, peers, bereavement organisations, and legal services representatives is pressing the government to recognise electronic wills, reviving a reform proposal that the Law Commission developed in 2025 but ministers have yet to place on a legislative timetable.

The My Last Wish campaign was launched by SafeKeep, a digital document and legacy storage provider. Its open letter argues that the Wills Act 1837 prevents people from using secure, authenticated electronic documents for a process that still generally requires writing, a signature, and the simultaneous presence of two witnesses.

Signatories include cross-party MPs, peers, Widowed and Young chief executive Stephanie Patrick, Accord Legal Services chief executive Sarah Williams, and SafeKeep co-founder Andrew Byres. The campaign says a large proportion of UK adults do not hold a valid will and argues that physical formalities create additional barriers for people who are housebound or seriously ill.

Estimates of will ownership vary considerably according to the survey sample, the age of respondents, and whether the question concerns any will or one that remains valid and current. The campaign’s claim that nearly 60% of adults have no will should therefore remain attributed rather than presented as a definitive national count.

The policy request has a stronger foundation than the campaign alone. The Law Commission recommended in May 2025 that electronic wills should become legally valid where they satisfy additional statutory requirements designed to preserve security and demonstrate a person’s intentions.

Its Modernising Wills Law report and draft bill covered electronic documents alongside testamentary capacity, undue influence, marriage, and the court’s power to recognise intentions where formal requirements had not been followed precisely. The government welcomed the report but said the proposals needed detailed examination.

Electronic formality still requires formality

Replacing paper with an electronic file does not settle how a valid digital will should work. A statutory framework must establish how identity is verified, how witnesses participate, how the final document is protected from alteration, how revocation is recorded, and which version prevails when paper and electronic records conflict.

Storage introduces another set of dependencies. Paper can be lost, damaged, hidden, or left unknown to executors, whereas a digital record can be copied, time stamped, and made discoverable to authorised people. The same record can become inaccessible when encryption keys are lost, a provider fails, an account is suspended, or relatives do not know which service holds it.

Any regulated system will therefore need continuity and portability arrangements. A person making a will should not depend indefinitely on one technology company remaining solvent, maintaining compatible software, and preserving its security practices for several decades.

Platforms may need standard export formats, independent custody, complete audit trails, and procedures for transferring records when a provider closes. Those controls are unglamorous, but a will may have to remain authentic and accessible long after the original software and devices have disappeared.

Fraud and undue influence remain central because digital convenience can conceal the circumstances in which a document was created. An online process may record identity evidence, device information, witness activity, and time more precisely than paper, yet those records do not necessarily show whether a person was coerced away from the camera or lacked capacity.

Remote witnessing may need additional protections or remain unsuitable in some cases. Technology can record what occurred on screen, but it cannot always establish who else was in the room or what pressure had been applied before the process began.

Digital exclusion cuts both ways. Electronic wills could improve access for people who cannot travel or arrange witnesses, while creating obstacles for those without appropriate devices, connectivity, confidence, or identity documents. Reform should add a valid route rather than make digital completion the only practical option.

SafeKeep has a commercial interest in a legal environment where more people store legacy documents online, although legislation would apply well beyond its platform. Storing a document on a secure service does not make it a valid will, and reform should avoid giving one type of provider control over access to the legal process.

The government’s February 2026 implementation report said it was still considering the Law Commission’s recommendations and offered no timetable. Electronic wills are therefore caught between a developed policy proposal and an uncertain parliamentary queue.

A durable framework would replace physical evidence such as ink, paper, simultaneous presence, and possession with technical and legal evidence capable of surviving bereavement, dispute, fraud, provider failure, and technological change. Until legislation establishes that framework, an electronic document may help a family understand someone’s wishes without carrying the legal authority needed to execute them.