Britain weighs compulsory digital ID cards as part of new right-to-work checks

London — Britain is weighing a move to make government-issued digital ID cards compulsory for all citizens, a proposal pushed by Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer to verify the legal right to live and work in the United Kingdom.

The plan, expected to be announced in a speech on Friday, would require anyone applying for a new job to present the digital ID to a prospective employer, who would then check it against a central database to confirm work entitlement. Supporters have dubbed the concept the "Brit card" as a way to clamp down on illegal immigration and illegal working, while critics argue the scheme could infringe on civil liberties. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has voiced support for the idea, saying a digital ID could help address factors that attract people to the UK and assist in enforcing other laws related to migration. "My long-term personal political view has always been in favour of ID cards," she said. "We do have to deal with the pull-factors that are making the UK a destination of choice for those that are on the move around the world. I want to make sure that we can clamp down on that. I think that a system of digital ID can also help with illegal working enforcement of other laws as well. I do think that that has a role to play for dealing with our migration."

The plan would, if pursued, require employers to verify the digital ID of new hires and would rely on a central register to confirm eligibility to work. It is described as a long-term policy that would go through consultation before any rollout. Prime Minister, whose aides have signaled some concerns about civil liberties, has reportedly not embraced the approach with enthusiasm, saying any move to compulsory identification would need to be carefully balanced against individual rights. The government has likened the measure to a tool used by many states to ensure that those in the country are legally permitted to work, but it also acknowledges the policy would entail substantial design and governance considerations.

Beyond Britain’s borders, the proposal sits alongside a broader, often controversial, global conversation about digital identity, surveillance, and the degree of government access to personal information. The plan comes amid long-running debates about migration and border controls, with critics warning that compulsory IDs could deepen state tracking and restrict freedoms even as governments seek to curb illicit activity.

The topic touches on a spectrum of international examples cited in policy discussions. In North Korea, Kim Jong Un’s regime has made identity documents compulsory for residents, with strict penalties for those who attempt to travel, relocate, or work without authorization. Amnesty International has drawn attention to severe penalties in some cases for those found violating border and work rules, including detention or harsher consequences in extreme circumstances. The North Korean model is cited by some opponents of compulsory national IDs as a warning about potential abuses of state power.

China’s Resident Identity Card is mandatory for people aged 16 and over, and the government has introduced broader data and identity frameworks tied to online activity and access controls. The country has also advanced systems that link online identities to real-world identification in ways that have prompted concerns about privacy and government monitoring. Iran requires an official ID for citizens and permanent residents aged 15 and older, with authorities able to request documentation in public interactions. There have been reports of detention or questioning in cases where individuals cannot produce ID on demand.

In Russia, internal passports or equivalent documents function as everyday identity papers for citizens aged 14 and over, with penalties for non-compliance including fines or detention and passport seizure in some cases. Belarus requires an internal ID for citizens from age 14, and while carrying a passport at all times is not mandated, having valid identification is necessary to prove who one is within the country. In Afghanistan under Taliban rule, debates over documentation for travel and residency have continued, with gender-related restrictions on identity features drawing international scrutiny and human rights concerns.

Rights advocates have warned that any move toward compulsory digital ID could narrow civil liberties if not accompanied by robust privacy protections, independent oversight, and clear limits on data sharing. Amnesty International and other groups have called for transparent governance, strong data-security standards, and explicit sunset provisions to prevent the drift toward pervasive surveillance.

For Labour, the plan is framed as a tool to verify workers’ rights and to address pull factors that policymakers say contribute to migration pressures. For the government, the challenge will be to design a system that is secure, privacy-protective, and proportionate — while explaining to the public how the central database would be governed, who would have access, and how data would be safeguarded against misuse. The Whitehall timetable indicates the proposal would undergo formal consultation before any legislative steps, with a public rollout contingent on parliamentary support and demonstrations of privacy safeguards and civil-liberties protections.

Analysts note that the policy’s political calculus will hinge on how convincingly supporters can argue that a digital ID is a practical tool for enforcement without becoming a tool for overreach. Critics say the risk is that such a system could become a default mechanism for state surveillance, chilling legitimate activity and complicating daily life for ordinary citizens. The current debate reflects a broader modern challenge: how to reconcile legitimate government objectives in security and immigration with fundamental rights and the need to protect personal data in a digital age.

As Friday’s speech approaches, officials say the government remains open to feedback and an iterative process that could shape a final policy position. In the meantime, the public, employers, and civil-society groups will be watching closely to see how the proposal evolves, how privacy safeguards would be implemented, and what checks will exist to prevent misuse of the central database. The overarching question remains whether a digital ID system, if carefully designed, could streamline work authorization while preserving individual rights, or whether it would overstep constitutional boundaries in ways that could erode trust in government institutions over time.