Right to Work Checks Are Changing on 1 October. Is Your Construction Workforce Covered?

If your business relies on subcontractors, agency workers, freelancers or self-employed operatives, new legislation coming into force on 1 October 2026 could significantly change your right to work responsibilities.

 

The changes introduced by Section 48 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 expand right to work obligations beyond traditional employment and into much of the UK's contingent labour market.

For construction firms, electrical contractors, mechanical installers, groundworkers, facilities management companies and other labour-intensive businesses, this is potentially one of the most significant workforce compliance changes in recent years.

And while construction may be among the most affected sectors, any organisation using contractors, freelancers, agency workers or outsourced labour should be paying attention.

Why construction businesses should pay particular attention

For many SMEs, right to work checks have traditionally been viewed as an employment issue. The challenge is that construction doesn't always operate like a traditional employment model. Projects often rely on:

•              CIS subcontractors

•              Labour-only subcontractors

•              Temporary site operatives

•              Agency workers

•              Specialist freelancers

•              Short-notice replacements

•              Additional workers supplied by existing operatives

These arrangements are common across the industry, but they can create compliance blind spots if businesses don't know exactly who is arriving on site and who is responsible for checking their right to work.

The Home Office has signalled that it will focus on the reality of working arrangements rather than simply how individuals are described contractually. A worker labelled "self-employed" may still fall within scope depending on the circumstances.

The site manager problem

Consider this common scenario.

A project is behind programme. A subcontractor calls to say they're sending two additional operatives to site tomorrow morning. Historically, many businesses may simply have accepted the additional labour and got on with the job.

From 1 October, that approach could expose businesses to increased risk if nobody has confirmed the right to work status of the individuals actually carrying out the work.

The same applies when:

• Agency workers arrive on site

• A subcontractor sends a substitute

• Additional labour is introduced mid-project

• Freelancers start work before formal onboarding is completed

Responsibility doesn't always sit where you think it does

One of the biggest misconceptions surrounding right to work compliance is that somebody else in the supply chain has already dealt with it. The October changes are designed to strengthen accountability across labour supply chains. Businesses cannot automatically assume that agencies, subcontractors or intermediaries have completed all necessary checks.

For SMEs, this means asking tougher questions:

• Who supplied this worker?

• Who completed the check?

• Is there evidence?

• What happens if a substitute arrives?

If those questions can't be answered quickly and confidently, now is the time to review your processes.

The potential cost of getting it wrong

The penalties remain substantial. Businesses can face civil penalties of up to £60,000 per illegal worker where they cannot establish the appropriate compliance position. For a small construction firm operating on tight margins, a single breach could have serious financial and reputational consequences. This makes right to work compliance more than a HR issue. It becomes a commercial risk, a procurement risk and a project delivery risk.

Five questions every business should ask before 1 October

1. Do we know every worker who is operating under our control?

Not just employees. Think about CIS workers, Subcontractors, Agency staff, Freelancers and Temporary labour

2. Can additional workers start on site without approval?

If site teams can accept labour without a formal onboarding process, there may be increased compliance exposure.

3. Are site managers aware of the new rules?

Many compliance failures occur on the ground rather than in head office. Supervisors, project managers and logistics teams need to understand the importance of checking who arrives on site.

4. Do our subcontractor agreements address right to work responsibilities?

Contracts and supplier arrangements should be reviewed as part of any wider compliance exercise.

5. Is our onboarding process fast enough?

The reality is that many SMEs use flexible labour because projects move quickly. The right technology and onboarding processes can help businesses remain compliant without slowing recruitment or site mobilisation.

It's not just a construction issue

Although construction businesses may feel the impact most acutely, the changes will also affect organisations in any sector. Any business that uses non-employed labour should review its processes before October. Warehousing and logistics, Facilities management, Security, Hospitality, Property maintenance, Healthcare support services, Engineering and manufacturing sectors are all particularly exposed.

Time to Act

Workforce compliance is becoming increasingly complex, particularly for businesses that rely on contractors, subcontractors and flexible labour. Streamlined worker onboarding, accurate workforce record-keeping and accurate data management are all essential steps. As right to work obligations expand, having clear processes and accurate worker data will be more important than ever.

For construction and labour-intensive businesses, the October 2026 changes are not simply another HR update. They represent a fundamental shift in how right to work compliance applies to industry workforce models.

If workers can arrive on your site, project or workplace through subcontractors, agencies or flexible labour arrangements, now is the time to understand where responsibility sits and whether your processes are robust enough to cope. Because after 1 October, "we thought someone else had checked" is unlikely to be a defence worth relying on.