Should we have a universal ID card?

[DoubleLemon]

People coming here illegally working cash in hand will continue to do so after this nonsense is introduced. ID won’t fix this. Also, how do you know what this “app” will be doing in the background on your phone? Tracking movement, looking at your apps, messages etc? The list goes on. If anyone thinks this will solely be used for proof of eligibility to work needs to give their head a wobble. Rolling out this scheme to combat illegal immigration is nonsense. It won’t fix it. It’s an incredibly underhand way to eventually steal control over our lives. Not now, not in 5 or 10 years, but it’ll come. If you are happy to sign up then crack on, but it’ll be a cold day in hell before I comply with this.

You are thinking this is a like for like replacement to the mess of proving your identity. we have a hodge podge of I'd systems in the Uk all can be forged and there's no consistency to what if document will be acceptable. people struggle to provide identification regularly for things like bank accounts as they may rent a room. have no passport or licence. they are stuffed.

hmrc regularly mismatch people with data they are given as there is a good chance someone else meets most if not all the same information. the difference could be down to the ni number but the organisation collecting a debt and putting an attachment of earnings didn't ask or require it. so hmrc sometimes get it wrong.

it's a nightmare to fix.

I see it working like this:
payroll software will be updated to check the status of the worker from the key generated by the Id card live. this would then stop them being run in payroll and make hmrc aware. (we already automatically confirm things like tax amount for cis employees with HMRC with the UTR Number)

cash in hand is still a problem but that can be addressed with additional tools. Just eat etc (where there seems to be a lot of people working who don't have the right) will be sorted instantly. As they are automated - you cant pay them cash in hand so the payroll will not be able to be processed for those workers. Those that are classed as self employed will also have the check on the software used.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Oct 2025 ==

To start with, it is ONLY for those seeking a new job, if you are not in that bracket, you dont need one, we are told it will 'stop' the boats ! However an MP did say in an interviewm before backtracking a bit, that it will form the bedrock of further intergration

It doesn't work unless its universal - if there is an alternative way of confirming your identity (like the old methods - they are regularly fraudulent documents) then that will still be used. It will replace the other menthids for most if not all purposes. Simplifying everything as you wont need to check if they accept item a but not item b.


Mobile devices have a chip specifically designed for sensitive data and its encrypted. Its used for biometric data storage and payment card storage. a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Trusted_Platform_Module

All these chips work in slightly different ways. In Google's new Pixel phones, Titan M is an actual physical chip that's separate from the phone's normal CPU.

With Apple's Secure Enclave and ARM's TrustZone, the Secure Enclave or TrustZone is not technically a different "chip." Instead, it's a separate, isolated processor built into the device's main system-on-a-chip. While it's built-in, it still has a separate processor and area of memory. Think of it as a chip inside the main chip.

Either way---whether it's Titan M, Secure Enclave, or TrustZone---the chip is a separate "coprocessor." It has its own special area of memory and runs its own operating system. It's completely isolated from everything else.

In other words, even if your entire Android or iOS operating system was compromised by malware and that malware had access to everything, it wouldn't be able to access the contents of the secure area.

Your Smartphone Has a Special Security Chip. Here's How It Works

Google's new Pixel 3 phones have a "Titan M" security chip.

www.howtogeek.com

 

[Ediswan]

To start with, it is ONLY for those seeking a new job, if you are not in that bracket, you dont need one

Has it been stated that this will only apply to new jobs, not also those already in a job when the scheme starts ?

 

[1D54]

Has it been stated that this will only apply to new jobs, not also those already in a job when the scheme starts ?

I signed the petition and got an update yesterday with what the government said and it is only people applying for a new job that will be required to show digital ID.

 

[LAX54]

I signed the petition and got an update yesterday with what the government said and it is only people applying for a new job that will be required to show digital ID.

Think the media were jumping conclusions, followed by S.M ? Digital ID, & Mandatory, and said it was for everything, but even the Governement said it was purely for someone wanting to get a job, but of course it will evolve in a very short time to something more involved.
BUT of course it will have little or no effect on someone being employed 'off the books'

 

[AM9]

One thing is sure, that if it is established in law during this government's tenure, imagine what Reform (or some other populist party) would do, - they would I suggest keep the law as it is currently being promoted, but dare not extend its use for some of the suggestions here as that would frighten all the conspiracy theorists within their supporters.

 

[Pete_uk]

I can see it down the line being needed to buy over the counter medication- for your own safety of course.

Then there's various substances you can buy at a DIY shop which can be processed to produce other tertoristic stuff.

Etc

 

[gabrielhj07]

Why is the phrase 'conspiracy theory' being used as a simple write-off for any number of concerns people might raise? All it does it show inability to explain one's support for this scheme without being childish.

 

[styles]

You are thinking this is a like for like replacement to the mess of proving your identity.

Well it won't be a replacement for this so that's not a good start.

we have a hodge podge of I'd systems in the Uk

Adding yet another won't fix this.

all can be forged

So can citizen ID cards

and there's no consistency to what if document will be acceptable

Somewhat. There are some documents which are universally accepted like British passports, and others which are patchy like PASS cards. A new ID card won't change that - it'll just be a new card given a similar status to a passport.

people struggle to provide identification regularly for things like bank accounts as they may rent a room. have no passport or licence. they are stuffed.

This hasn't been the case for years. HSBC for example offer bank accounts to people with little proof of identification and no permanent address.

While I appreciate an absolutely tiny minority may be excluded by this, it is by choice - they are able to get ID in the same way they'll be able to get a national ID card.

hmrc regularly mismatch people with data they are given as there is a good chance someone else meets most if not all the same information. the difference could be down to the ni number but the organisation collecting a debt and putting an attachment of earnings didn't ask or require it. so hmrc sometimes get it wrong.

I'm sorry but apart from this being an exceptional edge case, which will inevitably be settled by the alleged debtor proving their identity by some other means, a national ID card scheme does little to prevent this. A national insurance number like you say should've already prevented it. If the government can't even match NI numbers with debtors correctly they probably shouldn't be trusted to run a mandatory online ID card scheme.

it's a nightmare to fix.

It is. A mandatory ID card is however not the solution.

I see it working like this:
payroll software will be updated to check the status of the worker from the key generated by the Id card live.

A bit like a National Insurance number then.

this would then stop them being run in payroll and make hmrc aware. (we already automatically confirm things like tax amount for cis employees with HMRC with the UTR Number)

Yes so the people who pay cash in hand and don't check NI numbers will continue to pay cash in hand and not check national ID numbers.

cash in hand is still a problem but that can be addressed with additional tools. Just eat etc (where there seems to be a lot of people working who don't have the right) will be sorted instantly.

How will it be sorted instantly?

Bear in mind that with Just Eat etc, half the reason then courier company reduces outgoings is by classifying their workers as self employed, or not employees. To do this, they need to retain a right to substitution, otherwise it's a clear employment situation. At this point Just Eat lose control over identity verification because all of their riders are legally permitted to provide substitutes.

To fix this problem, we don't need a new ID, we need to crack down on companies saying their workers are 'self employed' when they're not. The government messed it up with IR35 rules but in some ways they had the right policy objective.

As they are automated - you cant pay them cash in hand

You can absolutely pay your Just Eat substitutes cash in hand.

so the payroll will not be able to be processed for those workers. Those that are classed as self employed will also have the check on the software used.

They are all self employed, but this arrangement requires the ability to provide (appropriate) substitutes. Otherwise it's inside IR35 and you're taxed to the hills.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Oct 2025 ==


It doesn't work unless its universal - if there is an alternative way of confirming your identity (like the old methods - they are regularly fraudulent documents)

As above, if you can make forged UK passports you can make forged UK ID cards.

then that will still be used. It will replace the other menthids for most if not all purposes. Simplifying everything as you wont need to check if they accept item a but not item b.

It's not simplifying though. It's complicating.

Mobile devices have a chip specifically designed for sensitive data and its encrypted. Its used for biometric data storage and payment card storage. a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Trusted_Platform_Module

Apart from ignoring that not everybody has a modern smartphone, TPM is there to prevent the tampering of local storage. It doesn't guarantee local storage hasn't been tampered. GCHQ, the FSB, NSA, etc will have an exploit for this (or a way around it) before mandatory ID by mobile is even rolled out.

You can also guarantee that efforts to break TPM will increase at least a hundred fold if this is the primary mode of verification.

Your Smartphone Has a Special Security Chip. Here's How It Works

Google's new Pixel 3 phones have a "Titan M" security chip.

www.howtogeek.com

If you're relying on this for your super secret activity then I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[Cowley]

Ok everyone. We’re 19 pages into this discussion so I’ve edited the opening post to add a poll.

Please submit a choice and let’s see what we’re all thinking.

Right. Moderator hat off and placed back in the cupboard of many things…

Just as a general punter, I’ve read the responses in this thread and I haven’t contributed until now because I’m not quite sure how I feel about it. I have however appreciated some of the well thought out arguments from people on either side of the debate.

My tick will currently be in the “I’m not sure” box (happy be convinced either way though).

I’ve deliberately kept it to just the three choices I’ve given, as it’ll get too unwieldy otherwise. Once you start thinking about all the options you could put into a poll you soon realise that it’s probably best to keep it fairly straightforward.

Over and out and over to you.

 

[Bayum]

We carry around a licence card, so why not digital ID?

 

[AlterEgo]

We carry around a licence card, so why not digital ID?

What licence card do we carry around?

 

[Falcon1200]

We carry around a licence card

What do you mean by 'licence card'?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What licence card do we carry around?

Many people including me carry their driving licence but you don't have to.

 

[sor]

An example of how digital ID could actually help: https://www.theverge.com/news/792032/discord-customer-service-data-breach-hack

One of Discord’s third-party customer service providers was compromised by an “unauthorized party,” the company says. The unauthorized party gained access to “information from a limited number of users who had contacted Discord through our Customer Support and/or Trust & Safety teams” and aimed to “extort a financial ransom from Discord.” The unauthorized party “did not gain access to Discord directly.”

Data potentially accessed by the hack includes things like names, usernames, emails, and the last four digits of credit card numbers. The unauthorized party also accessed a “small number” of images of government IDs from “users who had appealed an age determination.” Full credit card numbers and passwords were not impacted by the breach, Discord says.

This is precisely why our obsession with using birth certs, passports and driving licences is such a problem. Since it seems age verification is not going away, imagine how useful it would be if Discord could instead hook into some government online system where the absolute bare minimum of information is exchanged. No pointless middlemen, no storage of data that can't be easily replaced if it is leaked, and no risk of trying to use photoshopped or fraudulent ID.

Somewhat. There are some documents which are universally accepted like British passports, and others which are patchy like PASS cards. A new ID card won't change that - it'll just be a new card given a similar status to a passport.

And can replace a lot of those, so we could end up with an overall reduction in paperwork, which makes verification simpler too.

As above, if you can make forged UK passports you can make forged UK ID cards.

It is possible to make forged passports that dupe employers (see the recent story of a chip shop owner being fined) but the embedded chip, containing a digital copy of your photo and other details, would be another matter as that relies on digital certificates that are issued and controlled by the passport agency. If someone's able to overcome that then the government has a monumental security breach on their hands. I believe the Blair-era ID card had the same chip and that is why it was permitted for EU travel.

Apart from ignoring that not everybody has a modern smartphone, TPM is there to prevent the tampering of local storage. It doesn't guarantee local storage hasn't been tampered. GCHQ, the FSB, NSA, etc will have an exploit for this (or a way around it) before mandatory ID by mobile is even rolled out.

You can also guarantee that efforts to break TPM will increase at least a hundred fold if this is the primary mode of verification.

If you're relying on this for your super secret activity then I have a bridge to sell you.

They obviously meant a "secure element" such as those on any Apple device and Android smartphone SoC. These already contain information that would be of very high value to an attacker, such as Apple or Google Pay card details, so no doubt a lot of effort has already gone into breaking them. Governments already allow driving licences to be stored on phones in this way (and IIRC the UK gov already announced this separately to any digital ID plans). The US government apparently thinks it is secure enough to store a copy of a US passport and allow it to be used for domestic travel.

 

[DustyBin]

We shall disagree on this but it wasn't a "so called crisis". It was an actual crisis. Luckily, not as bad as it could have been. Next time............

This scam covid based thinking easily ( sadly far too easily) leads to conspiracy. it is a real worry how easily these crankisms link together and seem to pull people into a logical black hole.

Apologies for the late response, but for what it’s worth I accepted at the time (i.e. March 2020) that we were facing a crisis and I was pretty much supportive of the initial response. With hindsight I think it was wrong but that’s, well, with hindsight. The real issue for me was/is the extent of the subsequent misguided and highly damaging state overreach, which I believe would have been worse had the government had more effective tools at their disposal. At the time we had a relatively right-wing libertarian government as well of course…

Back to current events, I see the government have responded to the petition in such a way as to compound people’s concerns!

 

[zero]

There are a few things I really don't understand about this proposal. If it's about right-to-work checks, why do individuals need a card and why does it need to be on a phone?

All non-British/Irish citizens who can work in the UK will have either a valid visa, or EU status. These are held on a government database (eVisas). Most individuals must now have an eVisa account in order to check their own UK immigration status, because physical visas (or the ID Cards(!) for Foreign Nationals which were called BRPs, but previously called ICFNs) are no longer issued.

When travelling to the UK, immigration officers use this system to permit entry and travel providers are meant to check it before allowing travel (not sure how far this has been implemented in practice). Things like ILR and right of abode are not strictly visas, but can be treated as visas by this system.

Why couldn't employers use this government database, which remember, already exists, to check work rights? This is how employers in Australia do it, by entering the prospective employee's (foreign) passport number and name into a government portal which returns the visa conditions associated with that passport number.

Notably, it is not actually necessary for employers to see the actual passport, nor for the passport to even be in date, since the passport number just functions as a database key to the relevant record.

If someone manages to defraud the UK into granting a valid work visa on a fake foreign passport, more power to them.

For verification, the database could return a photo of the prospective employee - or given that using selfies seems to now be the accepted method to verify one's ID for banks - why couldn't it be employers who are required to have a smartphone app, and take a photo of the prospective employee which is compared with the photo in the government database?

Obviously British and Irish citizens would not have a current visa record that could be verified online. But surely the passport office has a record of all current passports, so employers could be given access to verify British passports this way (an agreement would be needed with the Irish government to allow something for Irish citizens).

Using my proposed app for employers to take photos of employees would not be required for British citizens who present their physical passport, but it could be allowed as an option for those who don't. Going a bit further, if someone doesn't have any plans to travel, they wouldn't actually need a physical passport but only a record locator to allow employers to find them on the passport database, and a way to update their record if they don't want a physical passport for an extended period.

I would not have a problem with the above being the "digital ID" system. What I don't see is why individuals need to have their passport (or whatever it is) on an app on their own phone.

As above, if you can make forged UK passports you can make forged UK ID cards.

With my "digital" system, forging a UK ID would require access to the UK government database rather than just making a fake app.

While I appreciate an absolutely tiny minority may be excluded by this, it is by choice - they are able to get ID in the same way they'll be able to get a national ID card.

An argument I keep seeing on other forums in favour of "digital ID" is that it will "make life easier" for British people who can't get passports. What I can't understand is if they are unable to get a passport for any reason other than the high cost, what makes them think they will be able to get a "digital ID" any more easily?

Any checks for a new form of ID surely need to be at least as stringent as the checks for a passport, otherwise it would no longer make any sense to use a passport as ID.

If it's just about the cost, reduce the price to £5 or make passports free for those in financial hardship.

 

[Ediswan]

An argument I keep seeing on other forums in favour of "digital ID" is that it will "make life easier" for British people who can't get passports. What I can't understand is if they are unable to get a passport for any reason other than the high cost, what makes them think they will be able to get a "digital ID" any more easily?

Courts sometimes require people to surrender their passport.

 

[sor]

An argument I keep seeing on other forums in favour of "digital ID" is that it will "make life easier" for British people who can't get passports. What I can't understand is if they are unable to get a passport for any reason other than the high cost, what makes them think they will be able to get a "digital ID" any more easily?

Any checks for a new form of ID surely need to be at least as stringent as the checks for a passport, otherwise it would no longer make any sense to use a passport as ID.

If it's just about the cost, reduce the price to £5 or make passports free for those in financial hardship.

The cost of the passport is justified through the idea that you'll "spend" that much in consular services during the lifetime of the passport. That is why it costs the same to renew. Of course that's nonsense unless you are "Lord Miles", though he's probably been subsidised by thousands of passport holders. The government already knows who you are, and despite the ludicrous (arguably manufactured) backlash to this system all they are really doing is providing a new means of making it publicly useful.

Even with your idea of lowering the cost of a passport, this is still an extremely faffy approach with multiple different government issued documents all being used for the same purpose. There is a lot of merit in having one system that works for everyone regardless of whether or not they are a citizen.

 

[DoubleLemon]

A bit like a National Insurance number then.

How many times- an NI Number is just an account number to show you have contributed to your entitlement to a state pension it is not and has never been an ID number and these can be shared easily / are not actually required to run a payroll as not everyone has an NI number but can work. But you wont listen to anyone who has 20 years experience with the HMRC and implementing legislation for payroll as you know better. No point in even bothering.

 

[styles]

How many times- an NI Number is just an account number to show you have contributed to your entitlement to a state pension it is not and has never been an ID number and these can be shared easily / are not actually required to run a payroll as not everyone has an NI number but can work. But you wont listen to anyone who has 20 years experience with the HMRC and implementing legislation for payroll as you know better. No point in even bothering.

You've selected one sentence out of a long post and taken it out of context.

I didn't say an NI number is ID. I was specifically responding to your point about inputting it into payroll software. In that post I responded to I believe every part of the post in full, not in isolated snippets.

NI is not ID, yes, great.

 

[Bikeman78]

The government has misled, lied to, gaslighted and played divide and rule with the British public to such an extent that many people are now extremely suspicious of what governments, especially those with globalist tendencies, are up to.

Plenty of the pandemic 'conspiracy theories' are now demonstrably points of fact, to the point where debate is now practically redundant. Unfortunately, 'buyer remorse' is such that many people are so far in denial that it's too difficult to engage and they would just rather pretend that nothing ever happened during 2019-2021.

Agreed. After the relentless negative bull**** during that period, I'm unlikely to trust those in power again.

 

[ninja-lewis]

There are a few things I really don't understand about this proposal. If it's about right-to-work checks, why do individuals need a card and why does it need to be on a phone?

All non-British/Irish citizens who can work in the UK will have either a valid visa, or EU status. These are held on a government database (eVisas). Most individuals must now have an eVisa account in order to check their own UK immigration status, because physical visas (or the ID Cards(!) for Foreign Nationals which were called BRPs, but previously called ICFNs) are no longer issued.

When travelling to the UK, immigration officers use this system to permit entry and travel providers are meant to check it before allowing travel (not sure how far this has been implemented in practice). Things like ILR and right of abode are not strictly visas, but can be treated as visas by this system.

Why couldn't employers use this government database, which remember, already exists, to check work rights? This is how employers in Australia do it, by entering the prospective employee's (foreign) passport number and name into a government portal which returns the visa conditions associated with that passport number.

Notably, it is not actually necessary for employers to see the actual passport, nor for the passport to even be in date, since the passport number just functions as a database key to the relevant record.

If someone manages to defraud the UK into granting a valid work visa on a fake foreign passport, more power to them.

For verification, the database could return a photo of the prospective employee - or given that using selfies seems to now be the accepted method to verify one's ID for banks - why couldn't it be employers who are required to have a smartphone app, and take a photo of the prospective employee which is compared with the photo in the government database?

Obviously British and Irish citizens would not have a current visa record that could be verified online. But surely the passport office has a record of all current passports, so employers could be given access to verify British passports this way (an agreement would be needed with the Irish government to allow something for Irish citizens).

Using my proposed app for employers to take photos of employees would not be required for British citizens who present their physical passport, but it could be allowed as an option for those who don't. Going a bit further, if someone doesn't have any plans to travel, they wouldn't actually need a physical passport but only a record locator to allow employers to find them on the passport database, and a way to update their record if they don't want a physical passport for an extended period.

I would not have a problem with the above being the "digital ID" system. What I don't see is why individuals need to have their passport (or whatever it is) on an app on their own phone.


With my "digital" system, forging a UK ID would require access to the UK government database rather than just making a fake app.


An argument I keep seeing on other forums in favour of "digital ID" is that it will "make life easier" for British people who can't get passports. What I can't understand is if they are unable to get a passport for any reason other than the high cost, what makes them think they will be able to get a "digital ID" any more easily?

Any checks for a new form of ID surely need to be at least as stringent as the checks for a passport, otherwise it would no longer make any sense to use a passport as ID.

If it's just about the cost, reduce the price to £5 or make passports free for those in financial hardship.

Having the digital ID on your own phone is far more secure. It doesn't require an internet connection. It's protected by your on device biometric authentication (FaceID/TouchID and Android equivalents). You could control what information is shared, for example by only offering to share "Has UK Right to Work" attributes, or "Is over 18" for age checks. It prevents the other party from using a fake app or just their camera to secretly capture your photo/details.

Whereas in your proposed approach, you have to give them your passport number and your photo without control over what information they then see in the results. The counterparty would have to retain more data to demonstrate the person presenting the ID was in fact the person in the ID vs relying on the results of a handshake between their app's question and your app's biometrically approved answer.

The former is also more flexible as apps can be built upon the digital identity and attributes trust framework for any need rather than relying on a government creating apps for a limited range of use cases.

How the government's new digital ID will work

And why I've changed my mind on ID cards

takes.jamesomalley.co.uk

 

[Razorblades]

For reasons best known to itself, the present administration is now evaluating roll-out of this magic scheme to 13 year olds.

Could one of the enthusiastic proponents please explain how this is a good idea, and what problem it's tackling, because it's not illegal immigration or getting a job.

 

[gabrielhj07]

For reasons best known to itself, the present administration is now evaluating roll-out of this magic scheme to 13 year olds.

Could one of the enthusiastic proponents please explain how this is a good idea, and what problem it's tackling, because it's not illegal immigration or getting a job.

And so the mission creep begins! First it’s illegal working, then it’s consolidating ‘government services’, next it’ll be (even more) online censorship under the guise of ‘protecting children’ or something. See the Online Safety Act for details. I’d better watch what I say lest I be accused of spreading conspiracy theories!

 

[Bletchleyite]

For reasons best known to itself, the present administration is now evaluating roll-out of this magic scheme to 13 year olds.

Could one of the enthusiastic proponents please explain how this is a good idea, and what problem it's tackling, because it's not illegal immigration or getting a job.

Age 13 is the youngest at which one can take paid employment (though fairly restrictively - just stuff like paper rounds). That's why that age is in the discussion.

 

[bleeder4]

Having the digital ID on your own phone is far more secure. It doesn't require an internet connection. It's protected by your on device biometric authentication (FaceID/TouchID and Android equivalents). You could control what information is shared, for example by only offering to share "Has UK Right to Work" attributes, or "Is over 18" for age checks. It prevents the other party from using a fake app or just their camera to secretly capture your photo/details.

Whereas in your proposed approach, you have to give them your passport number and your photo without control over what information they then see in the results. The counterparty would have to retain more data to demonstrate the person presenting the ID was in fact the person in the ID vs relying on the results of a handshake between their app's question and your app's biometrically approved answer.

The former is also more flexible as apps can be built upon the digital identity and attributes trust framework for any need rather than relying on a government creating apps for a limited range of use cases.

How the government's new digital ID will work

And why I've changed my mind on ID cards

takes.jamesomalley.co.uk

I don't think it will be on your own phone though will it? It will be accessed from your phone, but it will be stored on a server on the Internet somewhere. I think today's news about Discord shows the dangers of such a scheme.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't think it will be on your own phone though will it? It will be accessed from your phone, but it will be stored on a server on the Internet somewhere.

The card will be actually on your phone and as has been explained it doesn't need an internet connection.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Age 13 is the youngest at which one can take paid employment (though fairly restrictively - just stuff like paper rounds). That's why that age is in the discussion.

How much illegal working takes place between the ages of 13 & 17? If this is a concern of the government, then Yvette Cooper did well not to mention it in her interview earlier.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

And so the mission creep begins! First it’s illegal working, then it’s consolidating ‘government services’, next it’ll be (even more) online censorship under the guise of ‘protecting children’ or something. See the Online Safety Act for details. I’d better watch what I say lest I be accused of spreading conspiracy theories!

Mission creep before they've even started the sham consultation, and despite the petition opposing the scheme currently standing at a bit over 2.8 million. The Government couldn't make their utter contempt any clearer if they tried!

 

[Cloud Strife]

Obviously British and Irish citizens would not have a current visa record that could be verified online. But surely the passport office has a record of all current passports, so employers could be given access to verify British passports this way (an agreement would be needed with the Irish government to allow something for Irish citizens).

This is the problem: the UK doesn't know who actually has the right to work and who doesn't have the right to work in the UK. The current system is very easily cheated, not least because there's a myriad of documents out there. Irish citizens don't need to have a passport to work in the UK, and for instance, there are plenty of people living in Northern Ireland who don't have passports, who identify as Irish citizens and so on.

I would not have a problem with the above being the "digital ID" system. What I don't see is why individuals need to have their passport (or whatever it is) on an app on their own phone.

So, this is where you're getting into realms of complexity. You still need to register every single British and Irish citizen living in the UK in some way, and instead of giving them a benefit (a single digital ID that proves your identity beyond any and all doubt), you're moving to a system where an employer needs to take pictures of people just to establish that they're allowed to work.

But thinking outside the box: perhaps one option here is that anyone who doesn't want a digital ID can opt for using an app on the employer's device instead, which would collect their photograph and fingerprints and verify it against information held by the government. So, you can either have the digital ID on your phone, or you can rely on others collecting data and verifying it instead. This achieves pretty much the same goal, removes the compulsion aspect and yet allows us to know exactly who is and who isn't allowed to work.

Would you agree to this?

An argument I keep seeing on other forums in favour of "digital ID" is that it will "make life easier" for British people who can't get passports. What I can't understand is if they are unable to get a passport for any reason other than the high cost, what makes them think they will be able to get a "digital ID" any more easily?

The devil is in the detail. What should be done is for anyone to be able to sort out the digital ID at their local council in person, just like it's done in many European countries. If it's going to involve some ridiculous complicated system involving only being able to sort it via an appointment six months in advance at a handful of offices, the system is doomed to failure.

There is a lot of merit in having one system that works for everyone regardless of whether or not they are a citizen.

Not least because it avoids any and all doubts. An employer needs to understand one single universal app, not a multitude of documents that might or might not be faked. Would any of us really blink an eyelid at an Aussie or an American producing a UK birth certificate and utility bills, claiming to be a British citizen? Nope. We'd assume they'd emigrated as kids, nothing more.