.jpg)
A major U-turn on digital ID and the right to work
The UK government has quietly dropped its controversial plan to make digital ID mandatory for proving the right to work, marking a significant shift from its earlier, tougher stance. While digital right-to-work checks will still be required, workers will not be forced to hold or present a digital ID. Instead, traditional documents like passports will remain valid.
The change, first reported by the BBC, signals a rethink of a policy that had sparked political backlash, civil liberty concerns, and questions about cost and effectiveness.
What was the original digital ID plan?
When the policy was announced last year, the government framed mandatory digital ID as a tool to crack down on illegal working and immigration abuse. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer was explicit at the time, telling an audience:
“You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID. It’s as simple as that.”
Under that proposal, workers would have been required to use a government-backed digital identity system to prove their eligibility for employment.
That approach has now been abandoned.
What’s the policy now?
Under the revised plan:
Digital right-to-work checks will still be mandatory
Digital ID itself will not be compulsory
Workers can continue using physical documents, such as passports
The focus of the digital ID programme is shifting away from employment checks
According to government sources, the scheme will now be broader in scope, aiming to improve access to public services, rather than being narrowly focused on immigration enforcement.
Government says digital ID is about public services, not control
Speaking earlier this week at an Institute for Government conference, Darren Jones, the minister overseeing the rollout, described digital ID as part of a wider modernization effort.
He said the system would serve as:
“A route to the digital transformation of customer-facing public services.”
Jones also confirmed that a public consultation will be launched very shortly, adding that he expects public opinion on digital ID to improve significantly over the next year.
READ NEXT: LMIA Processing Set to Resume in More Canadian Cities in Early 2026
Political reaction: applause, criticism, and sarcasm
The reversal has drawn sharp reactions across the political spectrum:
Conservatives
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch welcomed the decision bluntly, saying:
“Good riddance. It was a terrible policy anyway.”
She described Labour’s move as yet “another U-turn.”
Liberal Democrats
The Liberal Democrats said the scheme was “doomed to failure” from the outset. Cabinet Office spokesperson Lisa Smart argued that the billions of pounds earmarked for digital ID should instead be spent on:
The NHS
Frontline policing
She joked that:
“No 10 must be bulk ordering motion sickness tablets at this rate to cope with all their U-turns.”
Reform UK
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage called the move:
“A victory for individual liberty against a ghastly, authoritarian government.”
He added that Reform UK would scrap digital ID entirely.
Green Party
Green Party co-leader Zack Polanski also welcomed the shift, posting on X:
“The government have U-turned on ID cards. Good.”
Why this matters beyond the UK
For readers in Canada and other countries watching digital ID debates, the UK’s reversal highlights a growing global tension:
Governments want digital efficiency and fraud prevention
Citizens worry about privacy, cost, and state overreach
The UK experience shows how quickly digital identity policies can become politically toxic if public trust isn’t secured first.
READ NEXT: Canada’s New Citizenship Law Could Open Doors for Second Passports
Final thoughts: digital ID isn’t dead, but it’s been rebranded
This isn’t the end of digital ID in the UK, far from it. Instead, it’s a strategic retreat from compulsion toward persuasion. The government is betting that by linking digital ID to convenience and better public services, rather than employment enforcement, resistance will soften.
Whether that gamble pays off will depend on transparency, safeguards, and public buy-in lessons that policymakers worldwide, including in Canada, would be wise to note.
Disclaimer:
This article is a rewritten, original interpretation of publicly reported information for informational and commentary purposes only. It does not represent official government policy, legal advice, or endorsement of any political position.