Reform’s latest proposal on illegal working is certainly headline grabbing: imprison company directors and fine businesses up to 10% of global turnover where illegal workers are found. The attraction of such a policy is obvious; the practical and legal consequences are far less straightforward.
Whatever one thinks of the politics, the suggestion that employers are somehow operating in a consequence-free environment is difficult to reconcile with the Home Office’s own figures. In 2025, employers faced more than £130 million in illegal working civil penalties. That is before taking into account sponsor licence action, public naming and shaming, business disruption, director disqualification risks and possible criminal prosecution in serious cases. So before we reach for even harsher penalties, there is a legitimate question as to whether the issue is really a lack of powers, or whether this is political theatre dressed up as enforcement policy.
The most significant aspect of Reform UK’s proposal is not the size of the fines. It is the suggestion that directors could be held personally and criminally liable, regardless of whether they knew the worker lacked permission to work.
Currently, there is an important distinction in UK law between an employer who knowingly employs an illegal worker and an employer who unknowingly employs an illegal worker and failed to carry out compliant right to work checks. The first may face criminal prosecution. The second generally faces civil penalties.
That distinction exists for good reason. Criminal liability has traditionally required some degree of knowledge, intention, recklessness or culpability. Reform UK’s proposal appears to move towards a form of strict liability, whereby an employer could face imprisonment simply because an illegal worker was found within the business, even if there was no knowledge or deliberate wrongdoing.
Get in touch
As an immigration lawyer, I find that proposition deeply concerning.
Right to work checks are not infallible. Employers routinely encounter sophisticated fraud, identity theft, document abuse and increasingly complex working arrangements. Even employers with robust compliance processes can find themselves caught out by individuals who deliberately seek to circumvent immigration controls.
That is precisely why the statutory excuse exists. The Home Office recognises that employers cannot realistically be expected to police the immigration system themselves. Instead, employers are required to follow prescribed checking processes. If they do so correctly, they are protected from civil liability even if an employee later turns out not to have permission to work.
A system that threatens imprisonment regardless of knowledge or compliance would fundamentally alter that balance. Instead of targeting rogue employers who deliberately exploit illegal labour, it risks capturing businesses that have genuinely attempted to do the right thing.
Over the last decade, successive governments have increasingly relied on employers, landlords, banks, universities and other private organisations to act as frontline immigration enforcement officers.
Right to work checks, right to rent checks, sponsor duties and reporting obligations all place substantial compliance burdens on businesses. The Government’s forthcoming expansion of right to work obligations from October 2026 continues that trend, bringing additional working arrangements into scope as part of wider efforts to tackle illegal working.
Whilst employers undoubtedly have a role to play, we should be cautious about shifting ever more responsibility away from the state.
Immigration control is, ultimately, a government function.
Employers can verify documents, conduct prescribed checks and maintain records. They cannot investigate immigration histories, monitor border compliance, track overstayers, or identify organised criminal networks. Those responsibilities properly sit with the Home Office and immigration enforcement authorities.
If illegal working is a symptom of weaknesses elsewhere in the system, it seems unfair to place the entirety of the burden and potentially criminal liability, on businesses that are several steps removed from the problem.
It is easy to understand the political appeal of being seen to crack down on illegal working. Most responsible employers support robust enforcement against businesses that deliberately exploit vulnerable workers or seek unfair competitive advantage through non-compliance. Few would defend those knowingly profiting from illegal labour.
However, good immigration policy requires nuance. There is a world of difference between an employer that deliberately ignores immigration law and an employer that becomes the victim of fraud despite implementing appropriate systems and controls.
The current framework recognises that distinction. Reform UK’s proposals risk blurring it.
Finally, there is a human consequence too. When penalties become this severe, some employers may not take more care; they may simply take fewer chances on people whose immigration status looks or feels complicated.
In my view, the issue is not whether employers should take responsibility for preventing illegal working. They already do. The issue is whether it is fair, or effective, to expect them to carry the consequences of failures in the wider immigration system.
The content of this page is a summary of the law in force at the date of publication and is not exhaustive, nor does it contain definitive advice. Specialist legal advice should be sought in relation to any queries that may arise.
Contact us today
Whatever your legal needs, our wide ranging expertise is here to support you and your business, so let’s start your legal journey today and get you in touch with the right lawyer to get you started.
Get in touch
For general enquiries, please complete this form and we will direct your message to the most appropriate person.