The Proposal: Digital ID in the UK

Balancing Security, Privacy, and Accessibility in the UK’s New Digital ID System

In September 2025, the UK government announced a plan to introduce a mandatory digital ID for citizens and legal residents. The digital ID would be required for Right to Work checks (i.e. employers will have to verify that someone is legally allowed to work) by the end of the current Parliament.

The ID would be stored in a “wallet” via the gov.uk app (a “gov.uk wallet”) and used to streamline access to government services, linking to tax records, welfare, childcare, driving licence, etc. The government claims that the ID will be provided free of charge to those eligible.

Importantly, the proposal states that people would not necessarily be asked to carry or present a physical ID in daily life; the digital credential would suffice for official checks. For those who cannot use a smartphone or prefer not to, the government says a physical card will be made available.

This plan revives a long-running debate in UK politics, since identity card schemes (notably the Identity Cards Act 2006) were previously introduced and later repealed.

Why Introduce a Digital ID? (Stated Goals & Motivations)

Here are the key rationales the government gives (and the criticisms or counterpoints) for introducing the digital ID system:

Government / Official Justifications

Prevent illegal working
By making it harder to falsify identity or immigration status, the government hopes to reduce “underground economy” employment and limit the “pull factor” for illegal migration.
Streamline public services
The digital ID could simplify or automate verification processes for government services: tax, welfare, driving licences, childcare, local authority services, etc.
Reduce identity fraud and forgery
A modern, cryptographically secured digital credential could (in theory) reduce reliance on paper documents that are easier to forge.
Integrate government systems / digital governance
The ID acts as a “common key” across multiple systems, reducing duplication and complexity of identity verification.
Political signal & border control
The move is clearly tied to the broader agenda of immigration enforcement. The government frames it as demonstrating control and showing that illegal migrants cannot easily slip into work.

Criticisms & Doubts about the Rationale

Does it hit the target? Critics argue that those operating outside lawful systems (e.g. cash-in-hand, informal work) will not necessarily comply; requiring digital ID doesn’t eliminate exploitation or illegal employment.
Privacy & surveillance concerns: centralizing identity data and linking many services raises the risk of abuse, surveillance, or data breaches.
Digital exclusion/inequality: many may be left behind (elderly, homeless, people without smartphones, etc.).
Cost, complexity, security risks — building and securing such a system is nontrivial and expensive. T

Pros & Cons of a Digital ID System

Here’s a structured comparison of potential advantages and disadvantages.

Pros (Advantages / Potential Benefits)	Cons (Risks / Drawbacks / Challenges)
Efficiency & convenience: avoids repeating identity checks; faster access to services	Privacy & surveillance risk: data misuse, mission creep, profile tracking
Does not automatically eliminate the black-market economy	Single point of failure: if the system is compromised, major damage
Cybersecurity threat: system could be hacked, credentials stolen, and identity theft	Clearer legality: employers have a standard way to verify “right to work”
Does not automatically eliminate the black-market economy	Exclusion / digital divide: not everyone can or will use digital tools
Deterrent to illegal working (in theory)	Does not automatically eliminate black-market economy
Lower administrative burden in some cases: fewer paper checks, manual processing	Cost: infrastructure, security, audits, legal framework, maintenance
Greater consistency of identity verification: uniform standards	Implementation challenges: rollout, errors, fraud, appeals

How It Might (or Might Not) Help People Without Smartphones or With Disabilities

One of your key concerns is: what about people who cannot or do not use smartphones, or who have disabilities preventing them from using digital systems? Below is a list of considerations and potential accommodations (some speculative, since details are not yet fully confirmed):

Key Considerations / Accommodations for Non-Smartphone Users or People with Disabilities

Physical card alternative
The government has said that for those who cannot use smartphones or prefer not to, a physical card version will be provided (free of charge).
Assisted / in-person registration & support
People could be enrolled via help centres, local authority offices, post offices, etc., especially for those with disabilities or lacking digital access.
Accessible interface design
The digital wallet app must (ideally) be designed with accessibility in mind: screen readers, high-contrast, alternative interfaces (voice, tactile). This is critical to avoid exclusion.
Offline / low-tech fallback
For those in areas with no connectivity, there should be a fallback, as an example, presenting the physical card or an alternative printed certificate.
Exemptions or accommodations
Certain groups (severely disabled, cognitively impaired) might be exempt or have special verification pathways (e.g. representative’s access).
Multiple proof routes
Allow existing paper or analogue identity documents (passport, birth certificate, utility bills) for certain contexts or as transitional modes.
Appeal and dispute mechanisms
Systems for challenging errors or reissuing ID if lost, especially for vulnerable persons who might struggle with digital procedures.
Outreach & training
Programs to help digital literacy among older or marginalized communities so they’re not left behind.

However, none of the announced plans yet publicly guarantee full equity of access, and critics warn that digital exclusion may become a serious fault of the system.

So while the intention to provide a physical alternative exists, the real test will be in implementation, resourcing, support, and design.

The Employment / Renting Paradox: “Show residency / ID to rent, so why digital ID for work?”

You rightly point out a tension: renting property already often requires proof of residency, identity, and legal status. The government’s rationale for digital ID is to ensure employers can verify identity/immigration status, but there are critiques about whether this addresses the real problems. Let’s unpack this.

Rental / Proof of Residency

Landlords in England are required to carry out “Right to Rent” checks to check that tenants have legal status to reside in the UK (immigration status). This is embedded in the Immigration Act 2014.
Landlords who fail to perform these checks can face civil penalties.
Supporters of digital ID might argue it simplifies or standardises these checks across landlords and employers.

Employment Checks & Right to Work

Employers are already legally obligated to verify the “Right to Work” of prospective employees, typically by inspecting passports, biometric residence permits, or other documented proof.
Under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (Section 15), employers can face civil penalties or criminal sanctions for hiring people without the right to work.
The digital ID is proposed to become a standard, authenticated method for employers to perform these checks more reliably.

Digital ID doesn’t change the fundamental dilemma: if someone cannot show proof of identity or status, they can’t legally work, digital or physical. So, enforcing a digital ID rule does not by itself fix the problem of people without documents; it simply changes the format. Moreover, many illegal or exploited workers are hired in cash-in-hand, off the books, bypassing formal checks altogether.

Illegal Migration, Exploitation, and Enforcement

You also asked about how this intersects with illegal migration and exploitation by employers and landlords.

Exploitation & cash-in-hand work

It’s well known that some individuals who lack formal ID or legal status are nonetheless employed informally (cash in hand), often in low-wage sectors, vulnerable to exploitation (no protections, no tax, no oversight).
A digital ID regime may make it more difficult for such workers to enter the formal labour market, but it cannot by itself eliminate these hidden arrangements. Critics argue that those who are already operating illegally won’t voluntarily adopt the system.

Legal consequences of hiring/renting to illegal migrants

Employers
If an employer knowingly (or with “reasonable cause to believe”) hires someone without the legal right to work, they can face up to 5 years in prison and unlimited fines.
In civil terms, they can be fined up to £60,000 per illegal worker in many cases (depending on repeat offences).
The names of penalized businesses may be publicly published.
Landlords / letting agents
Under the Right to Rent regime and related laws (e.g. part of the Immigration Act 2014), landlords who rent to persons without lawful status (without performing checks) face civil penalties.
Fines for landlords have been sharply increased. In 2023, the government announced that fines would be tripled: up to £5,000 per lodger or £10,000 per occupier for first offences; repeat offences up to £10,000 / £20,000.

Thus, from a legal standpoint, there are strong penalties already in place to discourage illegal hiring or illegal renting.

Security, Privacy, and Systemic Risks

Any large-scale digital identity scheme carries significant risks. Below are some of the main concerns:

Data breach/hacking
If the central identity infrastructure is compromised, large volumes of personal data, identity, immigration status, and biometric information could be exposed.
Function creep/mission creep
Over time, governments or third parties might expand what the ID is used for (surveillance, tracking, profiling) beyond the original intent.
False positives/errors
Mistakes in identity matching could wrongly deny people services or employment. Vulnerable individuals might suffer from system errors.
Centralization of power
The state (or its contractors) becomes a gatekeeper to identity and access; this raises concerns about accountability and oversight.
Digital exclusion
Those without digital access, or who struggle with technology, may be disadvantaged, reinforcing inequality.
Reliance on technology
System outages, errors, or dependencies (e.g. connectivity, device failure) could deny people access to vital services or proof of right to work.
Interoperability and standardization
Ensuring the system works reliably across agencies, local authorities, private employers, and third parties is complex and risky.

Does It Help the Underprivileged / Non-Digital Users? And Is It Fair?

As noted, the presence of a physical card alternative is a positive sign, but its sufficiency is not guaranteed. The devil will be in the details of design, resourcing, and outreach.

A truly inclusive digital ID system would need:

generous transitional arrangements,
robust appeals and corrections,
support for people with disabilities,
free in-person enrollment and assistance,
protections against exclusion,
equitable fallback routes (paper, analogue).

If these are not built in, there is a real risk that vulnerable groups (elderly, disabled, homeless, digitally excluded) will suffer.

Summary & Reflection

The UK’s proposed digital ID is a major shift in how identity and legal status may be verified, particularly for employment checks.
The government argues it will reduce illegal working, streamline services, reduce fraud, and integrate systems.
Yet the proposal raises serious challenges around privacy, cybersecurity, exclusion, cost, and whether it truly addresses the existing exploitation of undocumented workers.
For people without smartphones or with disabilities, accommodations (physical cards, accessibility design, in-person support) are promised, but effectiveness will depend on implementation.
The tension you identified is real: requiring a digital ID for employment doesn’t solve the fundamental problem of people lacking identity or documents.
The legal framework already punishes employers or landlords who knowingly engage illegal migrants, so the digital ID is an additional enforcement tool, not a replacement for those laws.
The risks, in data security, system integrity, and equality of access, are significant, and robust safeguards will be essential.