You would have heard a lot in the press recently about the Prime Minster’s announcement to make it mandatory to have a Digital ID for Right to Work.
You may like to know that we are opposed to this measure.
Here’s why:
Liberty Should Never Need a Login
In Britain, your right to work isn’t granted by the state — it’s recognised by it.
Digital Right to Work checks already exist. Employers use Digital Verification Service (DVS) Providers to perform thousands checks every day. British citizens prove their right to work using passports, birth certificates, adoption certificates, or naturalisation certificates. Irish citizens use Irish passports and passport cards. Foreign nationals use the Government’s eVisa system. These are valid and long-established proofs of status.
A voluntary digital ID can absolutely help — it’s a more convenient way of doing things. If it also lets you digitally store your Right to Work credentials, references, qualifications, and CV, what’s not to like? It speeds up pre-employment screening, reduces fraud, and makes life easier for everyone.
Similarly, if Government required all employers to conduct digital Right to Work checks by 2029, that would also make sense — individuals could still choose the documents they use, just like now, and would have the option of additionally using a voluntary digital ID. It would further encourage employers to run their organisations more competently — like keeping proper accounts, maintaining employer’s insurance, and meeting basic standards such as paying a living wage.
But a mandatory Digital ID in order to work, that changes everything. It turns a tool of convenience into a licence — a system of control, with the risk of digital surveillance never far away, by any government, of any persuasion.
That’s both unworkable and undesirable — and risks a backlash of poll tax proportions, with deep roots in Britain’s own constitutional history.
The Constitution and the Common Law
A Licence to Work in the UK takes a measure that was designed for immigration and applies it to the whole population – removing the freedom of choice for a citizen to choose how they prove their Right to Work. But in history, when governments say, as they are effectively doing here, “If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear,” common law quietly answers, “If you’ve no cause to suspect, you’ve no right to interfere.” This is a central tenet of our unwritten constitution.
Let’s explain:
In the United Kingdom, Parliament is sovereign. It can legislate on any matter — even in peacetime — to limit or remove rights once held.
Unlike the United States, we have no single written constitution above Parliament. Instead, we have something older and more enduring — our culture: the traditions, moral codes, and common law that together form Britain’s unwritten constitution.
Common law — from the ancient soil of English law — stretches back more than 1,100 years. Alfred’s Book of Dooms (c. 890 AD) declared that justice must “do right to all men, rich and poor alike.” It was the first written expression of equality before the law — the seed of a moral tradition that still echoes repeatedly though the ages and is anchored British justice today.
For example, during the War of the Roses, Sir John Fortescue established a tenant of English law that protected the innocent, even at the cost of letting some guilty go free — because wrongful punishment, he said, was the greater sin.
Centuries later, during the European Enlightenment, Sir William Blackstone distilled that truth:
“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
That belief remains the heartbeat of British justice — fairness before expediency, protection before power.
These traditions run deep in our national conscience — they are our living history. And it has never ended well for kings or governments that challenged the cause of freedom.
So yes, Parliament may legislate — but it must still answer: to the courts, to conscience, and to the people.
Parliament is sovereign — but never absolute.
Just some of the times the law said no
Britain has faced this choice before — and each time, freedom found its voice.
Entick v Carrington (1765) — The Birth of Privacy
When government agents broke into John Entick’s home in 1762, ransacking his papers under a general warrant, the court disagreed. The judgment affirmed that the state is bound by law, not by its own will — that every act of public power must have clear legal authority.
Fast-forward to today, and the same truth still stands: Government should never hold a central database it can dip into at will to trace the details of someone’s life. Access to personal records must always be lawful, limited, and accountable — not automatic.
Willcock v Muckle (1951) — The Stand Against ID Cards
After the Second World War, Britain kept its wartime ID cards. But one man, Clarence Willcock, refused to show his. The court agreed — warning that “to turn law-abiding subjects into lawbreakers” was intolerable. The cards were soon abolished.
The message was simple: Identity must serve the citizen, not control them.
What’s at Stake in 2025
The proposed mandatory Right to Work ID risks repeating old mistakes — but this time, in digital form.
The Government is years away from delivery even if things go well. But to be honest, they’re not going well – already so soon.
The Prime Minister has called for a National Debate – not least because 3million people have signed a petition against. This is enough to cost the government the next election.
Consequently, we think the chances of these proposals becoming the law of the land are remote and, even if they did, are unlikely to survive a general election. After the 1951 election the new government abolished National ID Cards with the phrase ‘set the people free’.
But that does not mean we should be complacent. We must stay vigilant, keep the debate honest and informed, and make sure digital identity in Britain remains voluntary, inclusive, and rooted in public trust.
Its your data, your decision
But here lies the irony.
Government has already passed the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 — a landmark law designed to advance individual data rights, not restrict them.
It’s a world-class, forward-looking piece of legislation — a genuine success story that deserves celebration.
We’d like Government to talk about this more — and mandatory IDs less.
The Data Act gives people what they’ve always deserved: control over their own data.
It enables voluntary digital IDs and personal data portability across the economy — encouraging innovation, transparency, and secure data sharing. It empowers citizens to reuse verified information safely, while giving businesses the confidence to accept it.
If implemented as intended, it will unlock both opportunity and privacy:
-
Opportunity: helping people, if they want to, prove who they are, speed access to services and reduce administration and cost for everyone – generating up to £10billion in productivity savings alone.
-
Privacy: ensuring individuals, not institutions, decide how their data is used. It’s your data after all — and it should always be your decision where you store it an how you use it.
This is a much better cause for the Government to champion – and its their own legislation!
It turns the promise of liberty into digital practice – making voluntary digital identity and personal data sovereignty real for everyone.
A genuine innovation born from the principals of common law. That is an achievement – and the government should be proud about it. Let’s not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Click here to read the debate we want to see.
Where we stand
We don’t reject digital identity — we reject compulsory digital identity. There’s a difference.
We champion a voluntary, decentralised, citizen-led model — where people choose how they prove who they are, and their data stays under their control.
That’s the vision we’re building through SafeGuarden and Spotlite — digital systems that put people before process.
In our world, digital identity is a key, not a cage — a passport to opportunity, not a password to permission.
When designed around consent and transparency, digital identity can empower communities, unlock services, and restore trust. When imposed by force, it risks becoming another instrument of control.
The difference lies not in the technology — but in who it serves.
And for us, that answer will always be the citizen.
Because liberty doesn’t need a login — it just needs equality of opportunity, dignity, and cooperation.
