There is a growing tension at the heart of adult social care in England and Wales. On one hand, international recruitment remains essential to sustaining the workforce. On the other, the regulatory environment governing that workforce has tightened dramatically creating a level of risk that many providers are only just beginning to fully understand.
On the 30th April, Kashif Majeed, Director at Aston Brooke Solicitors, set out a stark picture of where things stand today. With nearly three decades of experience dealing with the Home Office, and almost two decades working directly within social care, his message was clear: the rules haven’t just changed, the rules are now applied more strictly.
A system that cycles, but never resolves
For those who have been in the sector long enough, the current climate feels familiar. As Kashif reflected, the government’s approach to international recruitment in care tends to follow a pattern. Restrictions tighten, migration routes close, workforce shortages intensify, and then, eventually, the doors reopen again.
This cycle has been playing out for years. As far back as the late 2000s, providers faced the prospect of losing large numbers of overseas workers due to disputes over job roles and compliance under the work permit system. Legal challenges at the time led to transitional protections, but the underlying issue never disappeared.
Today, the sector is once again facing a similar moment. Proposed restrictions on overseas recruitment, combined with a long-standing narrative that the domestic workforce can fill the gap have resurfaced. Yet, as Kashif pointed out, this argument has been tested repeatedly over the past 15 to 20 years and has never fully delivered.
The fundamental question remains unanswered: if international recruitment is curtailed, where will the workforce come from?
A new era of enforcement
What has changed more significantly, however, is the way compliance is being enforced.
Historically, the Home Office would often take a more pragmatic approach to minor breaches. Providers might be given the opportunity to correct errors, improve processes, and demonstrate learning. That flexibility has now all but disappeared.
Today, enforcement is faster, more data-driven, and far less forgiving.
A key development has been the integration of HMRC payroll data with Home Office compliance systems. This means that discrepancies between what providers report and what is actually paid can be identified almost instantly. Where issues are found, action is often taken without warning.
In many cases, this has led directly to sponsor licence revocations sometimes for relatively small discrepancies. Kashif highlighted examples where even minor underpayments triggered enforcement action, with providers losing their licence despite subsequently correcting the issue. The message is very clear, there is no longer any margin for error.
The real risk: sponsor licence revocation
For providers employing overseas workers, the sponsor licence is the foundation of their workforce model. Losing it is not simply an administrative issue, it is an operational crisis.
Revocation can result in the immediate loss of staff, disruption to care delivery, and intervention from local authorities. In some cases, it can even lead to services being suspended.
What is particularly concerning is the speed at which this can now happen. Rather than progressing through staged enforcement, such as suspension followed by a period to respond, some cases are moving straight to revocation.
This shift reflects a broader policy context. While reducing net migration remains a political priority, the impact on sectors like social care is becoming increasingly visible. As Kashif suggested, enforcement activity in the sector may be influenced by this wider agenda, even where the consequences for care delivery are significant.
Where providers are going wrong
Despite the complexity of the system, many of the issues leading to enforcement action are surprisingly common and, in theory, avoidable.
One of the most significant risk areas is salary compliance. Providers must ensure that sponsored workers are paid in line with the thresholds set out in their Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS). This includes not only the hourly rate, but also the consistency of pay across pay periods.
Fluctuations caused by sick leave, reduced hours, or operational changes can quickly create problems if they are not properly reported. The expectation now is that any variation is recorded through the Sponsor Management System (SMS), even where it appears minor. Kashif emphasised, over-reporting is far safer than under-reporting.
Another common issue is the mismatch between job roles and the assigned Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code. For example, where a worker moves from a care role into a more senior or different position, simply updating the SMS is not sufficient. In many cases, a new CoS must be issued. Failing to do so can be interpreted as a breach of sponsorship duties.
Right to work checks also remain a persistent area of non-compliance. These must be completed before employment begins and must follow the correct Home Office processes. Retrospective checks or reliance on outdated methods can create immediate risk.
The growing complexity of workforce management
Beyond these specific issues, the broader challenge for providers is the increasing complexity of workforce management under the sponsorship system.
Operational realities such as fluctuating demand, staff availability, and individual circumstances do not always align neatly with regulatory requirements. For example, in domiciliary care, it is common for working hours to vary week by week. Under previous arrangements, these variations could often be averaged out over time. That flexibility has now been significantly reduced.
Providers must ensure that workers meet their contracted hours on a consistent basis, or that any deviations are formally recorded. This creates an additional administrative burden and increases the risk of inadvertent non-compliance.
Similarly, managing different categories of workers such as students, dependents, or supplementary workers requires careful documentation. Evidence must be maintained to demonstrate that each individual is working within the conditions of their visa.
None of these are not minor administrative tasks; they are core compliance requirements.
Mitigating risk in an unforgiving system
Given the current environment, the focus for providers must shift from reactive compliance to proactive risk management.
One practical strategy highlighted by Kashif is the structuring of sponsor licences across multiple entities. By separating licences, providers can limit the impact of enforcement action on the wider organisation. If one licence is affected, others may remain intact.
Regular compliance audits are also becoming essential. These should not be seen as optional or periodic exercises, but as a continuous process. Identifying and addressing issues before they are picked up by the Home Office can make the difference between maintaining and losing a licence.
Importantly, this includes aligning all elements of the employment framework contracts, payroll, and sponsorship documentation. Any inconsistency between these areas can trigger scrutiny.
Audit trails are equally critical. Providers must be able to demonstrate not only that they are compliant, but how they have maintained compliance over time.
A system under strain
Stepping back, the current situation raises broader questions about the sustainability of the system.
On one side, the sector is heavily reliant on international workers to meet demand. On the other, the regulatory environment governing those workers is becoming increasingly restrictive and punitive.
At the same time, operational pressures—such as funding constraints, workforce shortages, and rising demand continue to intensify.
This creates a difficult balance. Providers are expected to deliver high-quality care, maintain a stable workforce, and meet stringent compliance requirements, all within a system that offers little room for error.
What happens next?
Looking ahead, there are several areas of uncertainty. Delays in issuing Certificates of Sponsorship are already creating challenges for providers trying to recruit and retain staff. Compliance checks are becoming more frequent and more detailed, and the broader policy direction on migration remains unclear.
What is certain, however, is that compliance will remain a central issue for the sector. For providers, the priority must be to understand the risks, strengthen internal processes, and seek expert support where needed. The cost of getting it wrong is simply too high.
At the same time, there is a wider conversation to be had about how the system supports or undermines the delivery of care. If international workers are indeed the backbone of the sector, as many acknowledge, then the framework governing their employment must be both robust and workable.
At present, it is increasingly unclear whether that balance has been achieved.
Comments
Login/Register to leave a comment