The government has declared that by the end of this Parliament, digital ID will be compulsory for Right to Work checks. Officials claim this will modernise the procedure, decrease fraud, and simplify matters for employers. On the surface, this appears to be progress.
Beneath the shiny headlines lies a harder truth: for individuals with sight loss, this may become a significant obstacle to securing employment. If a person cannot access the system, they cannot demonstrate their right to work. And without proof of that right, obtaining a job becomes impossible.
This is not a matter of efficiency. It’s a form of exclusion.
The Right to Work check is not a trivial administrative task. It’s the legal obligation that every employer must fulfil before hiring someone. Without this verification, a person has no legal eligibility for employment.
By making digital ID the only mandatory option for this process, the government is placing one of the most essential aspects of adulthood – the ability to work, behind a digital barrier. If that barrier is not accessible, individuals with sight loss risk being completely excluded from the job market.
This is not just a theoretical concern. It’s a real threat to autonomy, financial stability, and equality.
Accessibility isn’t guaranteed – government communications emphasise that “inclusion” is at the core of the design. We’ve heard such claims before. But unless individuals with sight loss are involved in testing from the very beginning, accessibility is likely to be overlooked.
Compatibility with screen readers, voice navigation, and alternatives to facial recognition must be integrated from the start; otherwise, individuals will fail the system and not due to a lack of right to work, but because the technology isn’t designed with their needs in mind.
Lack of genuine alternatives – the announcement indicates that face-to-face assistance and options for those without smartphones will be available. This sounds good in theory. However, in practice, “support” often results in needing to go to a physical place, depending on someone else, or experiencing longer wait times to verify what others can accomplish instantly.
Unless paper and in-person checks remain as lasting, equitable options, digital ID will create a divide and a swift and easy process for some while being slow and demeaning for others.
Threats to privacy and independence – when applications lack accessibility, individuals with sight loss are compelled to seek assistance from others. This often requires sharing sensitive personal information such as ID numbers, security codes, and even biometrics just to navigate the process. Independence is compromised, and privacy is jeopardised.
No one should be required to disclose their personal identity information to others simply because the system is ineffective for them.
The gradual expansion – the government has indicated that digital ID will eventually simplify access to driving licenses, childcare, welfare, and tax accounts. Once the infrastructure is established, the urge to implement it everywhere will be immense.
Right to Work is merely the first battleground. If this rollout occurs without ensuring accessibility, the same barriers will emerge throughout all aspects of daily living – from accessing benefits to verifying one’s identity in future services.
If digital ID is to be required for Right to Work, several essential safeguards must be established.
Accessibility should be integrated from the beginning – every phase of design needs to be tested with individuals with sight loss, rather than added on after receiving feedback.
Permanent offline options – paper documents and face-to-face checks must continue to be accessible on an equal footing. A “digital only” model is not acceptable.
Independent monitoring and evaluation – the government must release information regarding accessibility issues, complaints, and the number of individuals who are denied employment due to the system’s inadequacies.
Legal options for recourse – if an individual misses a job opportunity due to inaccessible digital ID, there should be clear pathways to contest the situation and seek redress.
Explicit limitations on usage – legislation must define the areas in which digital ID can be required, preventing it from unnecessarily extending into every aspect of life.
Digital ID is presented as a step forward. However, a step forward that excludes people with disabilities from employment is not a genuine advancement, it is a setback disguised as progress.
The government faces a decision. It can either establish a system that equitably opens opportunities for all or create one that prevents those unable to use a touchscreen or align a camera for facial recognition from accessing jobs.
Accessibility is not an act of generosity. It’s not a luxury. It makes the difference between having the opportunity to work and facing social exclusion.
Digital ID will shape the future workforce in the UK. The question is straightforward: will it serve as a gateway to inclusion, or will it act as an obstacle to opportunities?
Nearly 2 million people in the UK live with sight loss, and millions more experience eye strain or visual difficulties that affect how they interact with digital content. Yet many websites remain difficult to navigate with missing image descriptions, poor colour contrast, or confusing layouts that exclude users.
Vision for Access was born from lived experience. As someone registered as partially sighted, Mark founded the organisation to turn frustration into purpose — helping businesses, charities, and public bodies make accessibility a foundation, not an afterthought.