Right to Work Has Changed: The Challenge for Public Sector Employers Is Proportionate Implementation

By Melissa Sorenson, Executive Director, Professional Background Screening Association (PBSA)

The expansion of Right to Work legislation in October 2026 places additional responsibilities on organisations operating across increasingly complex labour supply chains. For public-sector employers, compliance is not optional, nor is it new. But as local authorities, NHS trusts and government departments rely on recruitment agencies, contractors and outsourced service providers, the challenge is ensuring that the new requirements are implemented consistently, proportionately and without unnecessary duplication.

The Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) has rightly highlighted the practical implications of the changes, particularly where responsibility for checks extends beyond the direct employer. These concerns deserve attention, not because the legislation itself is unnecessary, but because effective implementation matters just as much as the rules themselves.

The way people work has changed enormously, including across the public sector. Organisations increasingly access talent through recruitment agencies, subcontractors, temporary worker arrangements and outsourced services. Yet compliance processes have not always evolved at the same pace. Responsibility for establishing someone’s Right to Work can become fragmented across a labour supply chain, with different organisations assuming another party has completed the necessary checks.

The changes introduced on 1 October 2026 extend Right to Work obligations beyond traditional employment to additional working arrangements, including certain workers and individual subcontractors. This reflects the reality that illegal working risks do not disappear simply because someone is engaged through a different contractual model. For public-sector employers, the priority must be understanding where legal responsibility sits, ensuring the appropriate checks are completed and maintaining the necessary records and oversight.

The key principle, in my view, is proportionality. Background screening should always reflect the role, the risks involved and the relationship between the parties. Right to Work compliance should be approached with the same consideration. This does not mean reducing checks or overlooking legal obligations. It means establishing clear responsibilities and processes that meet statutory requirements without introducing unnecessary administrative complexity.

For example, where a public-sector organisation engages workers through an agency or contractor, the relevant parties must understand their respective obligations rather than assume responsibility rests elsewhere. Clear contractual arrangements, effective communication and appropriate oversight can help prevent gaps in compliance. I would not view the current framework as static. As employers, recruitment providers and government gain experience of the expanded requirements, there may be opportunities to clarify guidance, streamline processes and use technology to reduce administrative burdens while maintaining compliance.

The REC has also raised concerns that stronger sanctions could make employers more risk averse. This is particularly important in a public-sector environment where fair recruitment and equal opportunity are fundamental considerations. Candidates whose immigration status requires additional verification should not be regarded as presenting greater recruitment risks simply because their checking process differs. Effective screening should support fair, confident recruitment decisions rather than create unnecessary barriers for people legally entitled to work.

Ultimately, the practical response for public-sector employers is stronger governance, not unnecessary duplication. Procurement, HR, legal and operational teams all have a role in understanding labour supply chains, establishing responsibilities and ensuring appropriate checks are completed.

Right to Work is increasingly a wider workforce governance issue rather than simply an onboarding requirement. For public-sector employers, the challenge is not whether to comply, but how to do so effectively, fairly and proportionately while maintaining accountability across an increasingly complex workforce.