Melissa Sorenson, Executive Director of the Professional Background Screening Association (PBSA) offers a different perspective on the Government’s changes.
The Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) is right to highlight the practical implications of the new Right to Work regime. Any significant compliance change creates additional work and businesses will understandably want reassurance that they are not being asked to duplicate checks unnecessarily or take responsibility for matters entirely outside their control. But the bigger issue is why these changes have been introduced in the first place.
The way people work has changed enormously. Organisations now access talent through recruitment agencies, subcontractors, casual worker arrangements, outsourced service providers and digital platforms. Yet compliance processes have not always evolved at the same pace. The result is that responsibility for establishing someone’s Right to Work can become fragmented across a labour supply chain with different organisations assuming that another party has completed the necessary checks.
As of October 1st, the Right to Work framework extends beyond traditional employment to a wider range of working arrangements, including certain worker contracts, individual subcontractors and online matching services. That is a material change but it reflects the fact that illegal working risk does not disappear simply because an individual is engaged through a different contractual model.
The statutory framework also gives organisations a clear incentive to know where responsibility sits. Prescribed checks can establish a statutory excuse against a civil penalty, so clarity over who completes the check, how it is recorded and whether follow-up is required is operationally important. For me, the key principle is proportionality.
Background screening should always be proportionate to the role, the risk and the relationship between the parties involved. Right to Work should be no different. The answer should not be to create layers of repetitive checking simply for the sake of process. Instead, organisations need clear visibility of who is carrying out work on their behalf, who is responsible for verification, what evidence exists and how they can obtain assurance that the process has been completed correctly.
Frameworks can change
That is also why I would not view the current framework as static. Regulation in this area will need to be assessed as businesses, recruiters, screening providers and government see how it works in practice. Guidance may need clarification. Processes may need streamlining. Technology may remove unnecessary duplication. There is an important role for industry bodies, including the REC, in identifying where implementation creates unintended consequences.
However, the underlying compliance gap should not be ignored. If businesses already had complete visibility and consistent accountability across complex labour supply chains, there would be less pressure for change. In reality, fragmented responsibility has created areas where individuals can fall between processes. A wider compliance framework is one way of addressing that problem, provided it is applied sensibly and does not encourage businesses to treat certain candidates unfairly simply because their immigration status requires additional verification.
The REC has raised a legitimate concern that heavier sanctions could make some employers more risk averse. That is precisely why good process matters. A candidate whose status requires an additional check should not be considered a greater recruitment risk simply because the verification route is different. Robust screening should enable organisations to make confident, consistent decisions, not create barriers for people who have a lawful Right to Work.
The practical response for employers is therefore not panic or unnecessary duplication. It is governance. Businesses should understand their labour supply chains, define responsibilities contractually, establish appropriate audit rights, make sure suppliers follow consistent processes and ensure that follow-up checks take place where an individual has time-limited status. Procurement, HR, legal, operations and compliance all have a role.
Right to Work is increasingly a workforce governance issue rather than an isolated onboarding task. The new regime will undoubtedly need refinement as organisations begin operating under it. The priority now should be to make the system clear, proportionate and workable while closing the gaps that allowed responsibility to become blurred in the first place.
