UK backtracks on digital ID requirement for right to work

The UK government has backed down from making digital ID mandatory for proof of a right to work in the country, adding to confusion over the scheme's cost and purpose. In September last year, the government said that from 2029, digital ID would be mandatory for proving a person's right to work in the UK, but voluntary in other …

[breakfast]

Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

Little as I am inclined to give the government any credit, given their record so far, there have been a couple of big U-Turns in the last day or two (another one on their AI Copyright carve-outs) and I would much rather have a U-Turn on a bad policy than have the government pushing it through regardless. We saw too much of the latter over the last decade.

The ideal would be for them to come up with good policies in the first place, but clearly that is beyond their capabilities, so although these pivots are quite funny I hope we can avoid being too mean about them. The alternative would be worse.

[wolfetone]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

Agreed. I'd rather a U turn than ploughing head first in to a bad decision then flapping around trying to make it work.

[ChoHag]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

> I'd rather a U turn than ploughing head first in to a bad decision then flapping around trying to make it work.

But we're so GOOD at that!

[short a sandwich]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

We've become practiced at it. Which is a damning indictment of those doing the admin.

[nobody who matters]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

"I would much rather have a U-Turn on a bad policy than have the government pushing it through regardless. We saw too much of the latter over the last decade."

More like the last 3 decades I think - the majority of new legislation and amendments to existing legislation since the late 80s/early 90s has been added as a 'Statutory Instrument', which means decided by a committee and having had no wider discussion in Parliament.

Although I agree with you, this is only a partial U-turn on a small part of the proposals. The implementation of the wider scheme with all its enormous costs and security/privacy issues continues to be pursued :(

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

Think ‘the majority of legislation’ is wildly inaccurate.

Please evidences Even the shitshow that was Brexit was voted for.

[heyrick]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

An advisory referendum said that the people (who by and large have no idea what the EU actually does or how it works) didn't like the EU and they would prefer if the UK was out of it. What this actually meant and how it was to be achieved was never on the table, it just sort of turned into a quasi-religion (the sacrosanct "will of the people" [*]) with red lines and harsher and harsher interpretations because pandering to the Telegraph and Daily Mail meant so much more than talking to the EU.

You mean that shitshow? Yes, something was voted for, but how many people actually knew what?

* - I'm quite sure "the people" would like to pay less tax and retire at 60, shall we ask?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

So you agree the Brexit shitshow was indeed for by Parliament- though Rammed through scrutiny by that Fuckwit BoJo, despite the extensive impact. Thanks Lady Hales, Kier Starmer, Hillary Benn … amongst many others.

You can’t cure (wilful ignorance) and stupidity of electors or MP’s (though as a representative that’s kinda their job).

You can cure people who misrepresented evidence and bare faced lied by prosecuting them for Misconduct in a Public Office.

[short a sandwich]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

Yes Brexit was voted for as an advisory referendum as was the withdrawal agreement. Then there was then a huge amount of Henry VIII powers by statutory instrument. All the important detail stuff that left us with the current clusterfuck.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

"The ideal would be for them to come up with good policies in the first place"

Pre-election policies are designed to win elections. Post election policies have to deal with reality. Sometimes those objectives are mutually exclusive.

[breakfast]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

I don't know they even had many pre-election policies. I wasn't paying close attention to their manifesto but they seemed to mostly just be pointing at the Tories and saying "not that."

Ironic that by and large they have gone on to do more or less what the Tories would have done in a lot of regards. Especially as the policies in question are as dumb as a box of rocks or actively malign.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

"Ironic that by and large they have gone on to do more or less what the Tories would have done in a lot of regards."

Not ironic. Whoever won would have been constrained by the same realities which have been a quarter of a century in the making.

1. Brown* decided that the future could pay for present bribes to the voters and we are that future.

2. John Major's "bastards" then persuaded enough of the public that we'd be better off by cutting the surviving industry's home market to a fraction of what it was.

Between them that left us extremely vulnerable to external factors.

* Aided by low consumer goods price inflation due to shifting manufacture to China. And look where that got us.

[David Hicklin]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

> I don't know they even had many pre-election policies

They do try and put as much as possible into their manifestos because of the House of Lords - anything in that manifesto is said to be the "will of the people" and thus the Lords cannot block it, whereas anything thrown in mid-parliament does not carry that tag and the Lords can block it if they wish.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

Larry Fink must be fuming that his pet policy, nobody voted for, gets a bit diluted. But on the other hand, they are just thinning the wedge.

Don't worry, billionaires will enslave us one way or another.

Digital Shackle will eventually be mandatory.

[SundogUK]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

"Don't worry, billionaires will enslave us one way or another."

How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

They have more money than us and as long as money buys lawmakers, public opinion, and the courts, they will be allowed to do whatever they want and we won't be able to stop them.

This could be avoided by having sufficiently strong institutions that money couldn't buy those things, but no government is interested in building those because they're already clamped to the nipple of sweet hard cash, sucking like their little chubby bellies could never be filled.

[Extreme Aged Parent]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

Well said sir! my thought s exactly

[Fonant]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

By controlling the money.

They already do: the cost of living crisis isn't unsolvable, the ultra-rich could just pay a bit more in taxes. It's just that the ultra-rich benefit from people having to work multiple jobs for minimal pay. They like having more money than they can spend, it makes them feel important.

Until a revolution against the elites happens...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

UKGOV has very little control over money, which is why it's fucked. When Labour disconnected the Bank of England from government control they gave up the last actual power the government had.

The ultra rich could pay more in taxes, but you would need cast iron ways to prove their wealth exists...you can look at a super rich person and know they're super rich, but you can't prove how much they have, where it is and where it came from without a huge amount of resources to get there. Taxing the super rich a bit more, unfortunately, would cost more than it would bring it.

The problem isn't how much the super rich actually pay, the problem is keeping their money in the country...you don't raise more capital by taxing it, you raise more capital by incentivising it to stay put.

Other countries do this with long term investment tax breaks...the UK doesn't differentiate between a 1 year invest or a 100 year investment...it's the same rate of tax no matter what...this encourages short term investment, because risk increases with time...therefore, the shorter the time you invest, the less risky is it is...that risk needs to be offset with incentives to prevent short term investment...this is why countries like Germany have zero rated capital gains on long term investments.

You don't want rich people being taxed, you want them putting their money into investments that pay wages, create jobs, build things etc...especially in a world where the government is as incompetent as we've seen over the last 20 years. I would only want taxes raised if I could trust the government.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

"When Labour disconnected the Bank of England from government control they gave up the last actual power the government had."

Independent central banks are all too often the means of saving governments from their own folly. In this case they didn't quite achieve that. BoE was tied to aiming at a fallacious inflation index; fallacious partly because it ignored housing costs and partly because the non-housing element included the effects of off-shoring a lot of consumer good production to cheaper areas such as China.

Governments retain the power to set tax rates.

[David Hicklin]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

> The problem isn't how much the super rich actually pay, the problem is keeping their money in the country

The problem is getting them to spend it on the UK economy. "trickle down" quite simply does not work.

[DS999]

I think it just means they aren't telling you the real reasons

When the story constantly changes about WHY they want this, it is clear the stories are being used as an excuse to build up public sentiment in favor. Because there is a certain segment in favor of doing everything to restrict immigration they use that as an excuse.

The real reason they want digital ID is probably so they can say "papers please" and no one carrying a smartphone will have a good excuse why they can't show them. Whereas if it is a physical item most people won't carry that on them unless the law requires it - and a law requiring that makes it too obvious what the end goal is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I think it just means they aren't telling you the real reasons

I'll revert to reading books on my commute instead of audio books, save my el reg reading Ng for home or the office and rely on a Garmin for sat nav.

[Ken Hagan]

Re: I think it just means they aren't telling you the real reasons

"no one carrying a smartphone will have a good excuse why they can't show them"

The odds of a government sponsored app running on non-stock Android or another non-fruity phone OS are almost zero.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I think it just means they aren't telling you the real reasons

So are the odds for a government sponsored app running on a vanilla smartphone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

Government by (repeated) trial and error is failure by any measure.

It's not world leading or statesmanship or any of the other misinformation dreamt up by the professional, non-russian, British liars, I mean spin doctors.

Unfortunately, failure is the new success according to those in power. For the past decade and more.

[werdsmith]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

Nothing new about it, it’s the way it has always been.

Just wasn’t so obvious in the days before 24x7 online news and the whinging, baying clamour of millions of irrational inadequates on social media.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sometimes U-Turns are an improvement

Pretty pointless then. Just continue with existing schemes to allow Digital Passports and Digital Driving licences. Perhaps work hand in hand with Eire, EU/EEA, USA/Canada for common purpose/

Employers have wide access to rich ID Verification Servixes anyway so it’s not much of a loss. They just need to use them:

[Doctor Syntax]

"cash-strapped departments might struggle to justify their contribution."

Including undoubted contributions to mission creep.

[T Woolf]

Mission creep is inevitable. The government have only dropped the word 'mandatory' from their vile plan and that will definitely return once the IT systems are in place.

[Doctor Syntax]

"once the IT systems are in place"

So probably not this Parliament.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the next...

[Fonant]

I think the phrase was "once the IT systems are in place" not "once the IT systems are fully working"...

[David Hicklin]

"once the IT systems are in place"

Ah, so they looked at the escalating cost of hardware and realised that even some of the crazy cost estimates were going to fall short.

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, mission creep is not only inevitable but clearly intended! It was obvious from the beginning that the scope of its use would rapidly expand, but they misjudged the pushback even at their initial level, so have gone back a bit further to try to ensure that they can get it approved. As soon as they get legislation through to allow it, all 'voluntary' pretence will disappear and the purposes for which it must be used will rapidly expand.

[42656e4d203239]

O Rly?

>>Digital ID will make everyday life easier for people,

In what way?

Digital ID won't make my every day life any easier, in any respect. Various random events every few years - perhaps it will streamline the process but somehow I doubt it.

[stiine]

Re: O Rly?

For which people?

[42656e4d203239]

Re: O Rly?

>>For which people?

probably not the people who have to have the ID...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: O Rly?

People with irregular immigration status!

[TonyJ]

Re: O Rly?

You mean the ones without a National Insurance number? Or a Tax Code (UTR), or the already-required right to work documentation?

If people are already working illegally - or let's rephrase that: if employers are already utilising illegal labour then why would yet another ID document actually be of any use?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: O Rly?

Are you one of those people who thinks the "illegal immigration problem" is mostly fuelled by people arriving in rubber dinghies? You know the overwhelming majority of irregulars come into the UK on a valid visa, right? And once they are in ...

[TonyJ]

Re: O Rly?

"...Are you one of those people who thinks the "illegal immigration problem" is mostly fuelled by people arriving in rubber dinghies? You know the overwhelming majority of irregulars come into the UK on a valid visa, right? And once they are in ..."

Try as I might, I can't get the point you seem to be trying to make.

Someone comes in on a visa with the right to work - they will have the necessary paperwork.

Someone comes in on say a holiday visa with no right to work - they will not have the necessary paperwork.

My point (which at no point made reference to rubber dinghies - hell of a leap you made) stands - people who use illegal workers will continue to do so. Legal workers already have ways to prove they are just that - legal.

Do you understand that? Let me say it again for you - people who are legally allowed to work will have the necessary paperwork already.

Not everything has to be warped to fit your own twisted narratives. The point I made was hardly ambiguous. Or contentious.

I suggest trying to educate yourself more. Perhaps learn to read.

Although, the fact you responded anonymously, rather suggests to me that you are trolling, so this is my one and only response to you.

[Eric 9001]

Re: O Rly?

Proprietary software and SaaSS never makes anyone's life easier ever - rather it always makes everyone's lives harder.

Such is reliant on you having to pay for a mobile plan that supplies a high-speed and high-bandwidth internet connection that is always available and working, the server being up and the mobile device having charge (mobile devices usually now have terrible battery life due to all the spying that is done) - something that will cause regular failures and ensure that you cannot show ID.

A physical card, which doesn't rely on the internet, doesn't need power and therefore cannot fail is clearly much more convenient, but what would be far more convenient would be to eliminate the pointless in practice and privacy invasive act of issuing and requiring ID's (drivers licences and the like really could just be a certificate of competence).

[Anonymous Coward]

"The UK government has backed down from making digital ID mandatory for proof of a right to work in the country, adding to confusion over the scheme's cost and purpose."

The only people to be confused about its purpose are those believing the gov. Not just this one but the previous attempt too. The answer is ID cards, the problem is the latest fad to justify it. They are not intended to be there to control us, the purpose of the government is to serve us. If either side is confused about that it would suggest there is too much government

[R Soul]

Not quite. The current government knows the objective of Starmercards is to control us.* They believe intrusive and pervasive surveillance is in our best interests and they serve us by foisting this unwanted crap. They just can't come out and say that. Well not yet.

* Just after the Starmercard was announced and would only be used for checking new employees, various Starmer stooges started mumbling about using them for getting access to healthcare, welfare and so on. This was/is clearly part of the Home Office's Grand Design and would get rolled out as soon as enough people were forced to carry their Starmercard.

[BartyFartsLast]

I agree with much of that, but these are Blaircards, starmer wasn't even original enough to come up with these himself.

[Mark #255]

Please don't whitewash Blunkett out of this...

[Goodwin Sands]

You're right to remind us of Blunkett's involvement. But real villains are the senior civil servants & left wing think tanks that for years have been pushing for imposition of identify cards. Starmer is just the latest useful idiot they've sold the idea to.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or forget he takes backhanders (sorry consultancy fees) from companies selling ID card snake-oil.

[Anonymous Coward]

If a Blair policy is just a plugin for a Starmer solution can we at least refer to it as being downgraded with "BlairWare".

I like the idea of installing a FudBlocker to prevent BlairWare.

[Brewster's Angle Grinder]

As I follow it, they've not really backed down. They are not going to have a mandatory digital ID system. But the mandatory bit is the only thing that's changed.

They will still require a digital ID check for a right to work. And I don't think they've cancelled their digital ID scheme: and, really, they have no choice, because people without a passport or an driving licence will need something. And if, they are on benefits, it will have to be cheap or free.

[Mishak]

Yes

So they will now be spending £billions on a system that is not mandatory, and there will be no need to use it when open a claim for benefits.

Something urgently needs to be done. My previous house was swamped with paperwork related to fraudulent benefit claims for about 2 years after I moved in (related to the previous owner, I suspect). DWP were not able to flag the address as related to fraud "as that would also prevent legitimate claims".

[Chz]

Re: Yes

They don't have to make it a requirement to make it a requirement, if you know what I mean.

98% of people will end up with one within ten years because it will be a giant pain in the backside to not have one. It's not required to own a computer (even the one in your phone counts), but it's a massive ballache if you don't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Yes

Yeah, but I get to decide when I use a computer or a phone. I can switch them off. Nobody can refuse me entry somewhere if I choose not to have one.

Not quite the same thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Yes

That choice will go away once Starmercards get rolled out. Papers citizen!

[Chz]

Re: Yes

Uh yes, there are plenty of places that took covid as a chance to deny entry to anyone without an e-ticket. You may not go to gigs or nightclubs much, but you will be barred from entry without the ID of their choice - which is a very limited selection - and often an e-ticket that you must have a smartphone to use. Your dystopia already exists, and it's spreading.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Digital ID is sadly not dead, it's just been temporarily postponed.

Digital ID is one of the key pillars necessary for the digital prison and governments around the globe are in lock step over its implementation. Case in point, the Swiss were asked to vote for it for a second time last September having chosen the "wrong" option in the previous referendum. Sadly it passed with a 50.39% approval.

Meanwhile, the EU has eID which is ontrack for full implementation this year and India has the Aadhaar system. Various Far Eastern nations have their own equivalents, as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly so, it's just a cosmetic distraction. According to the BBC, Starmer explained, "there will be checks, they will be digital, and they will be mandatory." So you'll still need that digital biometric and all the other shit that was going to go on the card. It'll just be more of an arse to pull it all together for that digital job application. More of an S-dodge than a U-turn.

[Ken Hagan]

If they can make a an ID that is as well-authenticated as a passport for less money than a passport, I think a lot of passport holders will have a legitimate grievance.

If it isn't as good, well, maybe it isn't fit for purpose?

[Irongut]

> "Digital ID will make everyday life easier for people, ensuring public services are more personal, joined up, and effective, while also remaining inclusive."

No it fucking won't. Every time I have to use UK gov websites they have changed their login system since the last time, my old ID no longer works and I need to create a new one by some Byzantine process that gets worse every time. As a result of which I no longer try, which is most likely the point.

Proof of right to work? I WAS FUCKING BORN HERE AND IF YOU SPOKE TO ME YOU'D REALISE THAT FROM MY ACCCENT, DICTION AND VOCABULARY.

[Anonymous Coward]

My login to UK.gov was deleted after not being used for a year.

So ignore anything that claims it's important.

[Aladdin Sane]

I am shocked, shocked I tell thee

That this dumb idea lasted this long.

Now it's just going to be optionally dumb. Le sigh.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: I am shocked, shocked I tell you

I don't think I know you so addressing me as "thee" is inappropriate.

[Anonymous Coward]

alternative solution to the so called small boats issue

Reinstate pressganging

- dissaude people crossing by "irregular means" (despite the UK having done this to various other nations over the centuries)

- solve the Royal Navy staffing crisis

- rebrand them from invaders to patriots serving the crown and then when released from service - military veterans

- post rebrand then call out any naysayers by calling them small minded traitors and cowards

(Not serious )

[TimMaher]

Re: pressganging

And you get money in the bottom of your pint pot.

[CountCadaver]

Re: pressganging

and if we are going that far back - reinstate the napoleonic war tot - something like half a pint of rum or 8 pints of beer a day BUT you weren't permitted to be drunk.....

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: pressganging

"you weren't permitted to be drunk"

Of course not. It was the tot that was drunk.

[Pickle Rick]

Re: pressganging

> reinstate the napoleonic war tot

You mean like the Americans did? "Might is right! I'm sleepy. I want my prize! Wahwahwaaaa!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: alternative solution to the so called small boats issue

We don't even need to do that...we can simply deploy two our greatest weapons around the coast line. Brambles and wasps, these are really cheap, low maintenance and self sustaining...put a wide deep trench that can only be crossed by swimming in it in front of the brambles and wasp nests and fill it with jam and Dettol.

[Rahbut]

Re: alternative solution to the so called small boats issue

have you seen the price of Dettol?! :)

[ChoHag]

> The cost of the entire system will depend on what the system looks like

We need to make a thing.

What thing?

We don't know.

What will it do?

We don't know.

How much will it cost?

We don't know.

Does anybody want it?

Now that we do know! No, they do not. But think of the children immigrants welfare queens.

British government at its finest.

[Always Right Mostly]

All together now...

Kier Starmer is a wanker.

[Winkypop]

THEN:

The front fell off.

[JimmyPage]

Just for the record

I am quite happy to have a little ID card cf. a licence. Never had a problem with that going back to the 2000s.

I am totally and utterly opposed to any scheme which talks about "databases" and "connecting databases" etc etc etc as unwarranted overreach that is not within the capability of any UK government ever.

[Peter Gathercole]

Re: Just for the record

I don't really know what you are talking about unless it's a driving license, but be aware. There is a database behind the UK driving license, and the equivalent behind the passport system already keeps biometric information about you.

Connecting databases is something that is already done. I was working for the DVLA in the noughties when they started allowing you to use your passport photograph when you applied for a photo driving license. These had to be matched together, and at the time, I think you had to provide your passport number on the application for the photo driving license. And I'm pretty certain that your NI number is attached to both passport and driving license records, whether you provided it or not.

Recently, the UK government suggested that revoking your driving license if you fell behind with your taxes could be a thing (as well as giving HMRC the right to get your bank records without a warrant), so they are already gluing all of your disparate identities from multiple sources together.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Just for the record

You couldn't have worked for the DVLA. You can't spell licence correctly.

[Peter Gathercole]

Re: Just for the record

That's true, I wasn't actually working directly for the DVLA, I was with one of their commercial IT partners, who didn't actually have a spelling or grammar test on their jobs criteria.

If you look at my posts, there's many things I don't spell correctly! I just don't spell very well, and type even less well.

Actually, license was spelt correctly, but I was thinking in American (working too much in the IT industry).

[that one in the corner]

Re: Just for the record

> I was thinking in American

Nurse, two series of "Minder", stat. Keep the "Only fools" on standby. Did we get that shipment of "Boys from the black stuff"? We need to keep him balanced.

[Fr. Ted Crilly]

Re: Just for the record

Porridge, I Claudius, Secret Army. Steptoe & Son...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Just for the record

To death us do part and Love thy neighbour in the ICU

[Legb]

Re: Just for the record

The whole scheme of only issuing ID to those who can’t do something is bonkers. They are the people who will lie through their teeth that they have no ID as they can work. Prove they are illegal immigrants with a right to work, over ones with no right to work.

The passport office and DVLA already use a combined service the ‘identity office’ or some such title to interchange id information to ensure duplicate passports and DLs aren’t as easy to obtain this included biometric data.

But these systems are only relevant if you want to travel or drive. These are not mandatory.

What is mandatory is your national insurance number, issued historically before you turn 16 and in general this number goes with you through life. If you want to work in the UK and are a non-national then needing any form of ID would be counterintuitive as not needing any id would vindicate a non-national not declaring they had no digital ID as being a national and therefore a right to work.

The inland revenue are the controllers of who can pay income tax, earn benefits and so forth, they ‘must’ be closely tied to the immigration service and know who is legal and who isn’t?

Surely a simple merge, search and split the difference will return the list of who meet the requirement for this crazy ID? Failing that why aren’t all national insurance cards re-issued as digital ID with security initiated using authentication systems that gov.uk already thinks it has in place.

From a personal perspective I have been a law abiding citizen for my entire life, (except for speeding in the past!) and am happy to carry my driving license with me when I carry my wallet, it would be be easier to have one means of proving my ID via my phone, tablet or watch to the NHS, Police, or anyone else for that matter in due authority. It would be much simpler if all carried ID and only those who were unscrupulous in their intentions, illegal immigrants or criminals who wouldn’t carry their ID with them. No ID, but you have your phone(s) and you get taken away to prove your ID. Exactly as if the police don’t believe who you say you are after being asked to provide your name and address to them are already empowered to do.

The inconvenience is to the person being carted off to custody to prove their identity. If they prove you are who you said you were, I’m sure they will return you to where you were picked up/arrested, if not the custody officer will explain your rights to you once you have been interviewed and duly charged. E.g. have a nice walk!

My only objection is that Capita or one of the other overseas contractors are going to win this contract, And the budget will quadruple in cost and time to deliver, if they ever manage to get off their butts and deliver a working solution!

The money would be better spent extracting the UK from the European Court of Human Rights and returning people from whence they came as soon as they reach our shores and applying fines on carriers transporting non-nationals without correct papers, or indeed fining countries that repeatedly fail to protect their coast from illegals leaving through unconventional means for our shores. e.g. small boats.

That way we wouldn’t be paying over £500m per annum to France we would be suing them for each and every body that arrived in UK waters that didn’t declare a heightened threshold for asylum in the UK and was immediately deported within hours of their passing into UK waters or onto land.

Technology has it’s place but there are things we can do to protect our own shores and ensure the ECHR doesn’t have any say in our national sovereignty is a much safer way of protecting those who should be in our country and those who aren’t welcome. The only issue is someone in government needs to have a pair of dangly bits and our current supposed leader clearly doesn’t have anything between his ears or his legs!

[nobody who matters]

Re: Just for the record

"What is mandatory is your national insurance number, issued historically before you turn 16 and in general this number goes with you through life."

And the problem with using NI numbers is that for various reasons, some people have more than one NI number, and because of the vagaries of the way in which an NI number is arrived at, there are some numbers which may apply to more than one individual (and therefore require additional identity verification checks to separate those individuals). Plus, there are some people who don't have one at all (such as under 16s, which is important if you wish to have an identity document available for everyone, and not just those of working age).

[Peter Gathercole]

I've often though that a reliable, accurate and trustworthy way of proving ID (and just that) would be very useful, just as long as it was not mandatory.

Governments have been approaching it arse-about-face, however. Promise that it is, and will remain voluntary and free, and then build it and start making it genuinely useful for certain types of transaction (and by this, I don't mean making it difficult to live without one). It also needs to not have to rely on any device that requires continued expenditure to keep the ID active (like a smart phone), but could be enrolled into a digital wallet on a device like this if wanted.

So, anything that needs ID, like opening a bank account or other interaction with commercial or government services, keep the existing methods, but make it so that the new ID is all you need to cut that process short.

Make this a compelling reason to get one to really make life easier than it currently is, while still allowing people to live without one to live as they currently do, and people will take it up. Where this latest attempt failed was making it mandatory and reliant on having a smart phone, with no alternative, and where the last attempt failed was that it was not free.

But the problem is that governments do not really want to fork out cash on something that has only immediate benefit to the people. They wanted to use it to control, not to make life easier.

They could do a harmonised system where applying for a passport or driving license automatically generated a proof of ID, and then just worry about the small part of the population (which does exist) who will not apply for either of these. This makes it an addition to existing processes, which should really be quite cheap, and this will also reduce the scale of the exceptions.

In fact, they could probably bolt on an ID only system using subsets of the existing applications for driving licenses or passports, which only delivers ID and not either of the other two documents relatively easily, and without much fuss or new expense. Just scale the handling of the other two processes up a bit, and design subsets of the application forms to only contain the proof of ID components of the original processes. Places like the Post Office, that offer document checking services could bill the government directly for these ID only document checks, rather than keeping part of the fee that is charged for the other documents, and the cost of producing the ID proofs (probably plastic cards like the driving license) could be factored in to government spending relatively easily.

Let people take up ID only proofs voluntarily, and automatically issue them with the other documents people apply for, and I'm pretty certain that within 5 years, you would have approaching half of the adult population with a proof of ID (as passports and driving licenses expire). Anybody who gets one with a passport or driving license can ignore the ID if they want, just as long as there is enough info to check (like biometric passports) that they refer to the individual concerned to prevent theft. And, as said before, make the ID a positive thing, rather than penalising those who haven't got one.

[R Soul]

Bollocks! If someone has a passport or driving licence, why the fuck would they need a Starmercard or some other alleged proof of ID?

There is nothing positive to be said about introducing another proof of ID. Unless you're Crapita or Fushitsu or Palantir getting their snouts even deeper into the trough of taxpayer billions.

A proof of ID system (backed by biometrics?) is useless unless it's backed up by the mother of all databases that gets checked and logged every time the ID token is presented. That's an Orwellian nightmare. If that back-end infrastructure isn't in place and always tracking you everywhere 24x7, your Starmercard or Nigelcard will be useless security theatre.

[Peter Gathercole]

If you don't drive, and haven't needed to travel abroad (and don't feel like paying the money to get a passport that you don't need), then having some official documentation to help prove who you are could be very useful.

I have had two family members for whom getting one service or another was very difficult because they had neither driving licence nor passport.

A non-mandatory ID card, with enough biometrics on it to be used in isolation, but which does have a cryptographically provable validity would be useful. You're right, there would have to be some sort of database behind it, as there is with all information for all sorts of places, and that would probably include all of the information that is stored on the card. But with careful engineering, you could come up with a design where using local, non-connected devices, you could prove that the card was for the person carrying it (biometrics stored on the card), that it was issued by the government (signed certificate stored on the card), and was not tampered with (more problematic, but probably something like a signed checksum), all encrypted so it could not be easily tapmered with or read, without having to check in with the database (and you would probably want to be able to do this, because you don't want to be shipping the data behind the ID card around a network every time it is used). The one weakness is keeping the signing certificates secret. Most of the backend database could be stored many security layers away from any public network.

It could then be used to track you, but whenever someone takes an image of your driving licence or page of your passport (or an electronic scan of your passport), or records your car numberplate with ANPR cameras or from car park ticket machines, or you make a card payment, or you turn on your mobile phone, or any number of other things, you're being tracked, and it only takes a flick of the legislative pen or a judge issued warrent for the government to snaffle any information that does not pass to one of their systems.

As I said, it could be used just for ID purposes. And as I also said, a government would not want to do it without getting some benefit, which is where it breaks down.

[gryphon]

Scottish National Entitlement card has a lot of this actually.

Don't know about back-end databases but there must be some checking functionality built in since my kids can use it as a bus pass.

Think some councils also use it as a library card for kids and OAPs

[estril]

StarmerCard

"Bollocks! If someone has a passport or driving licence, why the fuck would they need a Starmercard or some other alleged proof of ID?"

I guess the card will be called CareCard and pronounced as KeirCard.

[Legb]

Re: StarmerCard

On medical grounds my driving license needs to be renewed every 36 months. It has been known for DVLA medical unit to take 22 months to renew my license!

Given this and that my driving license was my main proof of Id, during which time I could continue to drive while enquiries were underway however, for ID purposes my license wasn’t valid.

Therefore I ended up forking out just shy of £100 for a p1ssport not to travel but to prove who I am!

Surely we’re at a stage in technological evolution where having one digital footprint from the Government for passport, driving license and for those who choose not to have either of the aforementioned a straight digital NI card that we have in our phone at all times has to make for a wiser solution to overcome many issues that are being faced in society today?

Yes, there needs to be a means to scan the card, and verify it is legitimate as our criminal friends will soon identify all known weaknesses within it. So companies are unlikely to invest in dedicated secure ID scanners just so they can cover their butts for illegal employees.

These are likely to be the sort who will engage illegals as sub contractors with a dodgy invoice and who will be long gone before the VAT man discovers they are skimming 20% on top by using a hooky VAT number and refusing to pay any tax, NI or anything else by laundering their payment through various means. Sub-contractors are more than happy to pay a few percentage points to a card processing company and laundering outfit than pay their dues to the revenue. At which point we’ve funded the system only for it to generate the square root of sweet FA in revenue to go towards the running of whoever is creaming our money from Starmer and the useless chancellor he keeps in his pocket.

[nobody who matters]

Re: StarmerCard

Licence ;)

[Doctor Syntax]

"Promise that it is, and will remain voluntary and free"

And who would believe such a promise. The entire basis of TFA is a govt. U-turn.

[Doctor Syntax]

What is this identity thing anyway? Does it prove that you were that baby born to those parents on that date in that place on your birth certificate (which, by the way, is not proof of identity)? You only know because you were told that even if you were specifically told that. Does it prove that you are the person who received the qualifications on those certificates? (For some reason SWMBO seems to have included one of her sisters certificates along with her own - or at least a certificate in her sister's name.)

Just what does identity mean? I suspect any real ID scheme is going to founder as soon as it tries to work out an answer to that question.

[Peter Gathercole]

What is ID.

Very good point.

But identity is something that governments and society in general wants to know (after all, if you're a paedophile or mass rapist, changing your ID would be very useful!)

And I think that you would really like your bank to do some form of ID check before your bank account is emptied.

What is ID indeed!

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: What is ID.

In case of the bank:

For card present purchases the ID is possession of the card or possession of the card plus PIN.

For online purchases It's knowledge of a few short character strings from the card plus possession of a mobile phone whose mobile number corresponds with whatever the bank has currently been persuaded to accept as the account holder;s.

For online access to the account it's a user account ID, password and usually some form of PIN, possibly not the same as the card PIN, plus mobile phone as above. If you're lucky it's also knowledge of the answers to some security questions which the wise customer will ensure don't correspond with readily researchable facts.

In the olden days it was a face the customer's branch staff recognised. Tell that to kids these days and they'll not believe you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What is ID.

These have nothing to do with identity. They're about half-assed verification of access to the account. Which doesn't and can't prove the identity of who gets access. If you give someone your bank card and password, does that make them you when they go to the bank?

[David Hicklin]

Don't want to give them any ideas but they already do have a national card (note card - not "ID" card) and that is the NI number you get at 16. The back end database(s) must exist somewhere already.

Just make that a photo card like the driving license , re-inventing the wheel every time....

[Anonymous Coward]

Photo ID is the one that would actually get used.

And for some insane reason it's also required to vote now !

[that one in the corner]

I used to have a UK Government approved Digital ID

Required to access online services. I had to "pick a supplier" then give them all my details, passport number etc etc.

Then about a year later, the Post Office shut down their servers and my "secure id" just - vanished.

If *this* digital id comes about, any bets how long are they going it running?

It is really quite impressive just how much money, time and trouble - mostly the latter - can be thrown away simply by holding down the power button and counting off four seconds.*

* What, you think they'll have it running on anything more than a single tower PC?

[Goodwin Sands]

U turn or no U turn

Current govt's plans for DI aren't something I think worth worrying about. Labour will not be the next govt, so by 2029 at the latest they'll be out, and DI will not be in place by then. Reform look set to be the next govt and they've consistently promised to immediately scrap DI which means even if a miracle occurred and the govt somehow rolled out DI before 2029, with Reform's promise to scrap it, there'd be widespread mass refusal to use it.

I'm more concerned about all the other insane policies that the current govt are pushing to get out of the door before they are kicked out of the door - chagos, net zero / deindustrialisation, blasphemy, censorship, defence, eu, china, environment, and on and on and on.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: U turn or no U turn

Two things.

Firstly, I don't know that Reform is a shoe-in for the next government. It may be, but I think we could actually be heading for a hung parliament (mid term polls are terrifically inaccurate), and we will have to rely on a coalition to govern. Even if Reform was the major party, they would have their hands tied by whoever was in the coalition.

Secondly, Nigel Farrage and Reform have absolutely no idea about how to form a government and actually govern, despite having MPs who have moved from parties that have governed in the past, and would, I think, rapidly get bogged down in learning the minutiae of running the country (and countering the momentum of the Civil Service for all that it claims to be neutral). Like what was seen in the US, they would make grand headline gestures (DOGE anybody?), and then have to deal with the realities of living with the outcome of those decisions, so may end up putting off the implementation of some of their manifesto promises until they have their feet more securely under the table. This would be especially true if the ID system was passed as primary legisation, which would have to be revoked through parliament. The UK does not (AFAIK), have the concept of Executive Orders, except under some tightly defined scenarios where it is not possible to convene parliament (although Boris proroguing parliament to get Brexit through was a close thing, something I'll never forgive him for).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: U turn or no U turn

Reform have absolutely no idea about how to form a government

We've seen this with many of their promises from the local government elections. Where they got into power they quickly discovered that they actually have very little control, most expenditure is largely fixed anyway (with Social Care and Education consuming most of the budget); we've also seen a number of inexperienced councillors resigning having discovered just what's really involved. One suspects the same would happen if they took control of central government.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: U turn or no U turn

I don't think it would be quite the same if they got into government, they've captured quite a few experienced defectors at this stage.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: U turn or no U turn

Those clapped out nonentities and rejects were spectacularly bad/stupid/incompetent/useless when they were in government. That won't change if they ever returned to public office.

OTOH, they nicely fit right in to Nigel's freak show clown parade.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: U turn or no U turn

Those 'experienced defectors' are oxygen-stealing pond life that couldn't hope for a place on the B ark: Mad Nad, Jenkyns, Zahawi, etc. And now Jenrick. They were worse than useless when they were in BoJo's cabinet of numpties. There's no reason to expect them to be any better if they somehow get close to the front of the Farage clown parade.

[David Hicklin]

Re: U turn or no U turn

> Reform have absolutely no idea about how to form a government

There would be a right old bun fight over positions and who was in charge as well.

It would be amusing to see if not for the further damage the government could inflict on the UK - the economy staggers on despite the best efforts of many governments to derail it.

[R Soul]

The UK does not (AFAIK), have the concept of Executive Orders

It does. Lookup Statutory Instruments and Orders in Council, to pick just two.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The UK does not (AFAIK), have the concept of Executive Orders

Statutory instruments derive from primary legislation - normally the primary legislation delegates responsibility to a relevant secretary of state to implement the detail of whatever it is, which they do using one or more statutory instruments.

In other words, the primary legislation authorising the broad outline has to be got through parliament first - and if it's a contentious issue, and the scope for wide-ranging secondary legislation is in there, it's likely to face a lot ot scrutiny.

[David Hicklin]

Re: U turn or no U turn

> (although Boris proroguing parliament to get Brexit through was a close thing

I thought he did that as he had a minority (and rebellious at that) government and the opposition were starting to put their own stuff on parliaments agenda - he just wanted to stop them doing that and maybe derailing his beloved T May version of Brexit.

[R Soul]

Re: U turn or no U turn

You are badly mistaken on several counts.

The Home Office has been trying and trying to bring back ID cards ever since these were scrapped just after WW2. Their latest attempt will continue no matter who forms the next government. This has to be killed off for good: burn it with fire, wooden stake through the heart, etc.

Farage is a chancer who changes his opinion more often than he changes has underpants. He's not to believed or trusted. Even if he (and his job lot of incompetent nutters) had a coherent plan for government. Which of course he doesn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: U turn or no U turn

Whilst I agree that Farage is a bit a knobhead...I don't think most people that would vote for Reform are voting for Farage...most Reform votes will be protest votes...if Reform do get in, it'll be one and done. They won't have enough time to cause any serious irreversible damage...the other parties will certainly take note that Reform basically came out of nowhere and won and hopefully, and I genuinely hope this is the case, they won't take their positions for granted as much as have done the last 4+ decades...I'm not entirely naive though, I know the reality will likely look entirely different.

[David Hicklin]

Re: U turn or no U turn

> They won't have enough time to cause any serious irreversible damage

You sure? A cabbage springs to mind....

[Anonymous Coward]

This was always flawed from the start. Not just because it's a government IT contract, but the claim that it would prevent illegal working. It's already illegal to work if you don't have the right paperwork and employers already face severe penalties if they do employ someone they shouldn't. We have mandatory training at my place around recruitment as our company does not want to be on the wrong side of the law.

[Ochib]

Or you can do what JustEat etc do. Claim that your workers are self employed and therefore you don't need to check that they have the right to work in the UK. And since they are self employed they have the right to subcontract their job out to a third party. And if that third party doesn't have the right to work in the UK, it not your legal problem

[Boris the Cockroach]

Or go one better and and employ 50 contractors who all live at the same address with slight variations in name and get paid to the same bank account number.

or better still....... ban zero hour contracts

[Anonymous Coward]

Zero hour contracts are already effectively banned. Labour did that a while ago.

[nobody who matters]

Actually, no they are not banned. What has been done is enforce a change in the way they are allowed to be applied. Employees will have to be given a contract that properly reflects their regular hours of work where they are already on such a contract but still find themselves working regular hours each week.

Where employees wish to take advantage of the flexibility of irregular working hours and/or intermittent periods of work, they can still take work on a zero-hours basis as they have done previously. I am on zero-hours myself, and this will continue because the work that I do is seasonal/intermittent and the hours per day/per week will vary widely when I do have work.

[David Hicklin]

Where employees employers wish to take advantage of the flexibility of irregular working hours and/or intermittent periods of work, they can still take work on a zero-hours basis as they have done previously

There fixed it for you - just like the working time directive.

[TimMaher]

National Insurance number

You can’t get paid for work unless you have NI deducted… or you and your employer are crooks.

Just use that.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: National Insurance number

"or you and your employer are crooks"

That's the whole issue. (Although it's worth asking - do you have anyone cleaning your windows, clearing your gutters or any other cash in hand type job? If so, do you deduct NI from their payment and if not how do you know it's paid?)

The idea of a digital check or a digital ID is that it will make enforcement easier. It won't unless enforcement are checking up but as the problem exists it's clear enforcement aren't checking up and if they're not checking up it doesn't make any difference whether ID is by some new system, NI or anything else.

[The commentard formerly known as Mister_C]

Re: National Insurance number

"do you have anyone cleaning your windows, clearing your gutters or any other cash in hand type job?"

That's made me realise... Next time some scrote in a knackered van offers to clean my gutters or tidy the trees in the garden, I just need to ask to see proof of eligibility to work in the UK. There might be one or two who can but most will probably ask if I'm a nutter and walk away.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: National Insurance number

And how are you going to verify that proof? Unless you do that, the whole idea is a pointless exercise in futility.

[The commentard formerly known as Mister_C]

Re: National Insurance number

don't care. It's just a polite way of telling them to F off. My previous best option was to say "Don't ask me, ask the landlord", this one might be more fun.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: National Insurance number

"You can’t get paid for work unless you have NI deducted… or you and your employer are crooks."

Nope. You have to earn more than a certain amount (£120/week or theresabouts) before employee and employer NI is due.

[nobody who matters]

Re: National Insurance number

You are still assessed for NIC though, even if your pay that pay period is below the threshold. You just don't get anything deducted.

[tip pc]

they are just delaying it

UK backtracks on digital ID requirement for right to work

we all knew it'd run into issues & be late anyway.

Government are trying to regain some approval ratings by going slightly softer, it'll still be mandatory for many

We got this far without it, we will survive without it.

I can virtually guarantee that even if a party that says they will scrap it comes into power, it'll still be introduced.

As of jan 2026 the ruling parties in UK/USA/EUc have all done numerous things they promised they wouldn't do when campaigning for office, not little things but major things.

a reminder of Starmers victory speech where he promises to tread more lightly on our lives (6 min mark)

https://youtu.be/CeBF1SHstEY?t=236

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: they are just delaying it

"As of jan 2026 the ruling parties in UK/USA/EUc have all done numerous things they promised they wouldn't do when campaigning for office, not little things but major things."

Parties in government have to deal with reality - at least you hope they will although the US is conducting an experiment to test that. Parties campaigning make promises detached from reality.

[tip pc]

Starmer today in parliament said digital ID will be mandatory for working

https://youtu.be/mOK_tNoQEeU?t=76

Mr. Speaker, I'm determined to make it harder for people to work illegally in this country. And that's why there will be checks. They will be digital and they will be mandatory.

I'm sure some will make claims that that is not what he meant, but how do you do those checks without checking everyone? will only those with a certain hue be checked?

Will they import a bunch of ICE agents to do the non mandatory checks?

Starmer looked well lout of his depth today, he needs to go, I'm not sure the others in his camp are up to the job though.

Same statement applies to all the other politicians too.

I'm sure there are some outstanding MP's who do amazing things for their communities, weird how they never make it into cabinet or being PM though.

would be interesting to hear what none UK readers think of that video from the start,

at 1st I thought Starmers quip about the karma sutra was AI, especially in light if this stuff about banning x for images etc, seemed a completely unnecessary thing to put into a joke especially in parliament that was being televised live during the day & that young people have a chance of watching as a guardian may have it on.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Starmer today in parliament said digital ID will be mandatory for working

Employers are *already* supposed to check that people are permitted to work in the UK when they employ them. This means that you've got to check (by some means) whether someone is a British or Irish citizen, and if not, check that they have the correct work visa or residency permit (or whatever).

I would imagine that the average small firm has no idea how to go about these checks, and doesn't want to do so anyway, which (I imagine) is where the concept of the digital ID comes in.

[Goodwin Sands]

Re: Starmer today in parliament said digital ID will be mandatory for working

>there will be checks .. They will be digital .. they will be mandatory

Yup. That's what he said. But when he said digital he wasn't meaning the digital id we're discussing here. He was meaning anything digital such as evisas or biometric passports. A face saving remark I fancy to lessen his embarrassment under attack from Mrs Badenoch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Starmer today in parliament said digital ID will be mandatory for working

I'm sure the dudes who wash my car or cut my hair have all of their paperwork in order, because they're operating in really obvious locations - it's not as if it's impossible to work out where these illegal workers might be (if it really is such a massive problem).

It might be more effective to ban cash than introduce a compulsory ID.

[David Hicklin]

Re: Starmer today in parliament said digital ID will be mandatory for working

> I'm sure the dudes who wash my car or cut my hair have all of their paperwork in order, because they're operating in really obvious locations

A number got shut down here last year after visits by certain vehicles with blue flashing lights....I am sure many of them are illegal

Not sure banning cash will help as I don't think those "illiegals" have much of a life anyway, and cash more tolerant of power and IT outages.

[Zimmer]

The problem

..as I have always seen it with any 'Digital ' or any other official, unequivocal ID is that once it's accepted as the ONLY ID, the opportunity for fraud and mayhem will only be enhanced and increased.

Official ID sir? No further checks necessary.... Was that a new Bank Account you wanted ? An unsecured loan? etc. etc. (it's bad enough now, I know, but at least everything currently should be viewed with suspicion and relevant further checks? Govt. official ID ? pass friend ... no need for any more checks..

No official ID? Your ID 'cloned'/abused by some miscreant ? Data adjusted/stolen/deleted from the database - the one and only database ( I'm sure I'm writing this amongst sysadmins, programmers, etc. )

Have Fujitsu tendered already?)

The FRAUD - you are dealing with miscreants. The MAYHEM will be the bane of the innocent (as always). That's my view of the problem..

[Tron]

We already have National Insurance numbers.

We don't need anything more than that.

We had optional ISP blocks for those with kids and mobile blocks and didn't need anything more than that, but the uniparty forced the OSA on us.

Labour (and the Tories) will be crucified at the local elections in May. Both parties will be in panic mode, electing new leaders directly after that.

If they don't ditch the policies that they want to force on us, Labour will be erased from power at the next election.

[Chz]

Re: We already have National Insurance numbers.

Ah, the arrogance of someone who's always worked for a living.

No, everyone does not have an NI number. And I'm not talking about the homeless, either. I think you'll find the number of adults who have no driving licence, no passport, and no NI number and still have a (semi) permanent address to be surprisingly large. It's not a huge percentage of the population, but even single digit percentages of 70 million adds up. There is also a reasonable need for children to have some form of ID in the 21st century, and that adds several million to the list.

That doesn't mean that *this* scheme is the answer, but a blanket statement of "We have NI, and that's good enough" doesn't fly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: We already have National Insurance numbers.

"There is also a reasonable need for children to have some form of ID in the 21st century"

No. There isn't. They're children FFS. Or maybe you think they should get tattooed barcodes or implanted with RFID chips at birth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: We already have National Insurance numbers.

This.

[Chz]

Re: We already have National Insurance numbers.

You'd almost think there aren't birth certificates, though they're rubbish as ID for historical reasons. Changing that wouldn't affect everyone who's already been born, so not a useful exercise.

You're not a Freeman, are you? Your average child has been added to at least a dozen different official databases by the time they reach majority. That ship has sailed. The problem is that they don't get any benefit from that, and it's useless as ID. ID, as identification, is bloody useful for everyone. It's what successive governments keep trying to tie it to that's the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: We already have National Insurance numbers.

Actually, everyone born in the UK has an NI number. It's harder to not have one than it is to have one. It's pretty easy to lose it if you're clumsy though.

NI numbers are automatically issued when you turn 16 if you were born in the UK and/or your parents claimed child benefit. Having no NI number does not disproportionately affect the poor / long term unemployed.

The only people that don't have NI numbers are people that weren't born here or people that moved here when they were kids that had parents that didn't claim child benefit.

Not knowing what your NI number is, is not the same not having one. Just because someone doesn't know what their NI number is, doesn't mean they don't have one.

There are people that can't retrieve their NI number after losing it because they can't prove who they are, but there are processes that exist to resolve this. You need only set foot in a job centre or a citizens advice bureau to kick start that.

The problems that exist for some folks are not the NI system itself, the problem as with any such system is awareness.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: We already have National Insurance numbers.

"There are people that can't retrieve their NI number after losing it because they can't prove who they are"

To be pedantic, they can't prove they're the person to whom the NI number was issued.

Visitors who have word visas and citizens of the Republic of Ireland are also allowed to work in the UK. Do they get issued with NI numbers? Checks for eligibility would be the visa or the Irish passport so NI numbers wouldn't be needed for that but would they be needed for taxation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: We already have National Insurance numbers.

I can be pedantic too...

"word visas"

Did you mean "work visa" ?

Yeah your passport and visa is for eligibility checks, but the employer can't put you on the books without your NI number...it is used for national insurance and taxation purposes. National insurance is not the same as income tax...but the system (as far as I understand it) is combined. HMRC is responsible for both as far as I know.

Your visa etc gives you the right to be here, but your NI number is required in order for someone to be able to hire you (legitimately). Even if you work for yourself legitimately (even if it's cash in hand) you still need an NI number to go along with your self assessment tax return...a person essentially cannot legally earn money in the UK without an NI number.

That said, there is nothing stopping you flying in, getting a work visa, setting up Uber, linking it to your overseas bank account at home and not declaring it. Even worse, there is nothing stopping one person doing this and sharing the same work visa amongst a group of immigrants wanting to do Uber, Deliveroo, Taxi work etc...it's not uncommon for one person from certain countries to share their driving license, passport, work visa etc amongst several of his friends, family etc...sounds outlandish, but it happens more often than you might think...it's most rampant within taxi firms to be fair.

This is the kind of immigration that people have a problem with as well as the boats...

I used to run a logistics company (which meant quite a few jobs that immigrants tend to apply for, the dodgy ones tend to go for simple work with night shifts that don't have any specific skill requirements) and the sheer number of immigrants that would apply for jobs using their brothers or their dads passport etc was shocking...in one example, I had two people show up for interviews at two different times on the same day and they both tried to use the same driving license that wasn't even issued to them...the even had basically the same cookie cutter CV...the effort put in to try and disguise it was fucking low...which tells me that they must get away with it more often than we'd like to think.

[nobody who matters]

Re: We already have National Insurance numbers.

".....in one example, I had two people show up for interviews at two different times on the same day and they both tried to use the same driving license that wasn't even issued to them...the effort put in to try and disguise it was fucking low...which tells me that they must get away with it more often than we'd like to think..."

That doesn't surprise me really - over the course of my 45 years in the workplace, I have been for numerous interviews for jobs (all of which would have involved driving vehicles or machines on the public highway), and I have only ever shown my driving licence during one interview! - the foreman joked that the boss only wanted to look at it because he hadn't seen a clean one for a long time :)

I have only had two jobs where sight of my driving licence was requested - both times after I had started the job.

I know two farmers who were caught out when employees were involved in an RTC - one was a farm manager, the other a lorry driver; neither had a driving licence, the manager was part way through a lengthy driving ban, the lorry driver had never held an HGV licence to start with!

I suspect your two applicants were surprised to come up against an interviewer who asked to see their licence.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: We already have National Insurance numbers.

Irish citizens (who have the automatic right to live and work in the UK) need to get an NI number if they choose to work in the UK, according to:

https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/national-insurance-numbers

Quote from the beginning of the page:

"You will need a National Insurance Number if you live in the United Kingdom (UK), have the right to work in the UK and you’re working, looking for work, or have an offer to start work."

[Chz]

Re: We already have National Insurance numbers.

"Actually, everyone born in the UK has an NI number. It's harder to not have one than it is to have one. It's pretty easy to lose it if you're clumsy though."

First statement provably false, as a quick check of past newspaper articles will show. I'd agree with the second though - it is hard.

I suppose the 16% of the population not born here don't count? I didn't have a problem getting an NI number, but I was young, educated, and quite employable.

Done right, digital identity would mean sharing less information, not more. Think about proving your age as an example. Your passport or driving license does this with your date of birth, but that's a key piece of personal information. If I was buying a knife or some pornography online, then an "over 18" check through your digital identity provider would only give a yes or no. It would limit the information you share.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: We already have National Insurance numbers.

Are you trolling? I doubt anyone could really be that stupid.

Whenever you buy a knife or porn or booze or fags or.... and flash your Starmercard, your digital identity provider might very well only give the retailer a yes or no. But the rest of the transaction details will be logged forever and tagged to your entries in Starmer's mother of all databases. Where Palantir/Crapita/Musk/google/etc will monetise it. And you can't opt-out.

This is sort of already happening in Norway (and Sweden?). You can only buy booze from state-run shops - apart from beer - where you have to show your ID card. The government tracks what you buy, how much, when and how often. If the government think you've bought their definition of too much, they stage an intervention. IIUC that involves doctors, shrinks, social workers and cops. The government can even tell your employer you have an alcohol problem.

BTW you think digital identity could be done right. Decades of government IT fuckups should tell you why Starmercards can't possibly hope to be done right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: We already have National Insurance numbers.

Unfortunately, even erasing Labour won't reverse things like the OSA...it's a wet dream for both extremes of the political spectrum.

I don't think it will ever be reversed.

Not even Reform has come forward and said they'll scrap it.

[Mr. Flibble]

Re: We already have National Insurance numbers.

They did:

https://www.ft.com/content/886ee83a-02ab-48b6-b557-857a38f30c1d

I wouldn't trust them to deliver on it though....

[Rahbut]

Re: We already have National Insurance numbers.

I don't want to be "that guy" but it looks like we're going to use NHS numbers (and their regional variants) for public services etc, since they're given out by GPs to "everyone" and would be required for school, social care etc. and would remove the right to "opt out" of certain types of monitoring, because "safeguarding".

(see Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 - specifically the use of a Single Unique Identifier (SUI))

There's legislation going through for that right now and it has nothing to do with Digital ID, which would appear to be a smoke screen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite surprising...

...given Labour seems to have a real hard on for oppressive draconian measures these days.

I'm amazed they haven't suggested tattooing babies with barcodes already.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Quite surprising...

These days? They tried it last time as well.

[_wojtek]

non-Brit perspective

as a non Brit lurking from the outside I find British resistance to any sort of national ID... interesting. I think most European counties have some sort of national IDs already (usually with biometric data in chip) and it indeed makes life easier.

Just yesterday I wanted to open Revolut (UK fintech, sic!) account, because BBVA turned out to be deep in the middle ages when it comes to accounts in different currencies (the support can't give you information whether they offer it or not and you have to go go the local branch and talk with your executive...) and I was able to get up and running with Revolut by snapping 2 photos of the ID, scanning it's chip and taking a selfie. (banks make a fotocopies of the ID either way). I kinda can't imagine the process in the UK...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: non-Brit perspective

That's exactly what Revolut are doing in the UK.

Though it's stupid security theatre that has little to do with actual identity. Revolut's doing this as a box-ticking exercise to satisfy the finance sector's the Know Your Customer bollocks. Which it's required to do if Revolut's to get a banking licence. Scanning a fake ID would pass that test. Revolut has no way of verifying if that ID was genuine or if it held valid data. But boxes have been ticked and everyone can all sleep more easily. Allegedly.

It's the same story for conventional banks, solicitors, pension companies, etc who are required to do KYC box-ticking. Though they generally do this with paper rather than electronic documentation.

BTW, most European countries have "dumb" ID cards that by design can't be verified in real time or are tied to a 24x7 database. They learned the hard way that pervasive state surveillance of the whole population was a Very Bad Thing and to be avoided at all costs.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: non-Brit perspective

This goes to the issue I raised earlier. What's identity?

In a lot of cases it's producing a utility bill in the name and address you're claiming (getting harder in the case of paperless billing). I had a couple of clients. One had a long history of personalised security printing and took secure waste* destruction very seriously. The other got into that line as well. One of their contracts was to produce my water bills. I visited them one day and noticed blank water bill stationery trailing out of a waste container in the yard. No need to mock up a bill in the graphics S/W of yur choice, just nick a bit of that and print a bill on the genuine article.

* That included unused base print stationery which might have been run through as a header or trailer.

[_wojtek]

Re: non-Brit perspective

@anonymous

actually due to EU regulations all national ID after 2021 are issued with biometric data.

Before that verificaition was done on site - you showed your ID, persom attending you verified the ID and compared with your face and proceeded with the rest. nowadays it's... the same actually. Biometric data could be used for something more demanding or online verification (where gebuity of the plastic ID harder to verify)...

@Godwin

I'm perfectly familiar with that. I simply stated that this perspective is simply intereting / amusing :)

(I would say that "don't fix what isn't broken" also applies a lot to Brits :) )

[Goodwin Sands]

Re: non-Brit perspective

@_wojtek

>I find British resistance to any sort of national ID... interesting

Does the old maxim perhaps explain it?

"In the UK everything which is not forbidden is allowed, on the Continent everything which is not allowed is forbidden."

We have two very diff legal systems. But whether it is the law molding the people or the people molding the law I do not know - though I guess what is happening now ie Britons objecting loudly to a new law requiring DI is an example of the people molding the law.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: non-Brit perspective

Perhaps "different traditions" is the expression.

[David Hicklin]

Re: non-Brit perspective

> I find British resistance to any sort of national ID... interesting

Its because we know that any system by the UK government would be late, over budget, not do what they promised and be a total fuck up. And probably aborted 80% of they way through.

Hopefully that makes it a bit clearer for you.