Research and analysis

Employer awareness of, and self-reported compliance with, Right to Work checks

Published 1 April 2025

Research report prepared for the Home Office by Verian.

Research conducted September 2024.

1. Key findings

1.1 Context

Right to Work checks, this research and its methodology

All employers in the UK have the responsibility of conducting Right to Work checks when deciding to employ someone, to ensure only those who are legally entitled to work in the UK can access employment, as well as to establish a statutory excuse against penalties incurred for illegal working. This research, carried out by Verian on behalf of the Home Office, sought to understand how employers’ understanding, implementation of checks, and decision making, affected compliance with regulations. To answer these research questions Verian conducted a quantitative mixed mode survey (telephone and online) with 2,152 businesses, as well as 30 follow-up in-depth qualitative interviews.

1.2 Findings

Employers understood basic Right to Work check requirements but lacked knowledge of key details and incorrect responses were widespread

Most employers (89%) understood that all employers in the UK are responsible for carrying out checks. In addition, almost all (96%) knew that holding a UK or Irish passport proved an employee’s right to work and checked the right details in documents when performing checks. However, some employers, particularly those hiring agency workers, incorrectly said that third parties or employees themselves are responsible for checks. Others gave incorrect answer choices on the acceptable documents to prove right to work, and were unsure about when to recheck documents, particularly those in the construction industry and small employers.

Most employers were clear on the key details to check for when looking at documents as part of a manual check. But record keeping and rechecking documents were mechanisms where employers had a lower-level understanding, indicating a greater risk of non-compliance. This lack of understanding was more acute amongst micro and small employers.

Smaller employers, those hiring agency or zero-hours workers, and those in the construction industry are potentially at greater risk of non-compliance

Micro and smaller employers answered some key compliance questions incorrectly more so than larger employers. Sixty-two per cent of micro and small employers said that a driving licence could be accepted for a check, while just 42% of medium and large employers said the same. Thirty-seven per cent of micro and small employers said they kept digital identity service provider (IDSP) records for just the length of employment rather than the full length of employment plus 2 years, compared with 21% of medium and large employers.

A high proportion (81%) of those employers using agency workers said that recruitment agencies were responsible for conducting checks. Employers that hired zero-hours workers were modelled to be at a significantly increased risk of non-compliance by answering one of the key compliance questions incorrectly. These data points indicate a potentially increased risk of non-compliance for employers hiring agency or zero-hours workers.

Seventy per cent of employers in the construction industry said they accepted a driving licence as part of a check. Forty-one per cent of construction sector employers also said they believed illegal working was common in their sector, the highest across all sectors.

Employers varied their use of key Right to Work mechanisms depending on their business size, sector and use of agency/zero-hours workers

Seventy-nine per cent of employers carried out checks manually, while 37% used the Home Office online service and 23% used identity service providers (IDSPs). Employers using agency or zero-hours workers commonly used manual checks, as did medium or large employers. Most employers conduct checks before their employees sign a contract (81%) or before they start work (80%).

Employers were concerned about preventing illegal working, avoiding penalties and complying with regulations, and were confident they were conducting checks correctly

Mostly employers conducted checks to prevent illegal working (93%) and to comply with regulations (92%), whilst their main concerns were preventing illegal working (91%), avoiding a penalty (88%) and doing the right thing (87%). Despite noted uncertainty around exact requirements, 89% of employers were confident they were conducting checks correctly. The research revealed no evidence of discrimination resulting from performing Right to Work checks. As such, the motivations for employers when carrying out checks align with the overarching aims of the policy.

Employers had little direct experience of illegal working or Right to Work check enforcement, although many did have some awareness of potential penalties that could be issued, and some thought illegal working was common

Seventy-two per cent of employers thought illegal working in their sector was uncommon and one in 5 said it was common (21%). Employers in the construction (41%) and accommodation and food service (39%) sectors frequently reported that illegal working was common.

Many employers had heard of potential penalties, particularly fines (59%) and criminal convictions (57%), but nearly all said they had no experience of enforcement (98%).

Hiring zero-hours workers, lower awareness of penalties and using checklists during Right to Work checks are potential drivers of non-compliant behaviour

Most employers (80%) answered at least one compliance question incorrectly, meaning they were at risk of potentially non-compliant behaviour. When modelled, key factors that were most likely to indicate answering one of these compliance questions incorrectly and being at risk of non-compliance were employing zero-hours contract workers, knowledge of penalties, and using checklists when conducting checks.

Those employers hiring zero-hours workers were more likely to carry out manual checks, be in the accommodation and food service or human health and social work sectors, and to say that bank statements or utility bills could be accepted as part of a check.

One of the key risk factors for employers’ non-compliance was a lack of understanding beyond the basic requirements for compliance with most aspects of Right to Work checks.

Micro and small employers were also potentially at risk of non-compliance. This was mainly due to not having the necessary training systems in place, as well as the responsibility for checks falling on the employer or owner rather than a HR specialist or other team leader.

The Home Office website was a key information source for employers, suggesting there is an opportunity to expand online services and potentially improve compliance

The Home Office website was the main source of information for nearly all employers (89%). In addition, the Home Office employer support systems received positive feedback, especially the online checking service. Broadening the usage of this system could simplify checks and increase compliance levels.

2. Introduction to Right to Work checks

This chapter outlines the Right to Work policy and its background, as well as how Right to Work checks should be carried out and the consequences for non-compliance.

2.1 Policy overview and background

All employers have a responsibility to prevent those without lawful immigration status from working in the UK. The Home Office Right to Work policy is designed to prevent illegal working from not having legitimate immigration status by mandating that all employers in the UK conduct simple Right to Work checks before employing someone, thus ensuring they only hire those with the right to work in the UK. The policy is further designed to ensure that the individual has the right to do the work in question, such as working within hour or sector restrictions specified in their visa.

The policy has the broader aim of protecting job opportunities for those who are legally allowed to work in the UK, to combat illegal immigration, to combat abusive and exploitative employers, and to promote fairness in the labour market.

An employer needs to consider 3 key steps when carrying out a Right to Work check:

1. Checking documents to ensure an employee has the right to work.
2. Keeping records of relevant documents.
3. Following up checks for employees with a time-limited right to work.

Right to Work has undergone the following changes in recent years:

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, temporary changes allowed employers to perform checks via video calls and to accept scanned documents. This process ended on 30 September 2022.

From April 2022, a digital Right to Work check system was introduced, which allowed employers to partner with digital IDSPs to verify a potential employee’s Right to Work status if they are British or Irish citizens. Employers have been able to use the Home Office’s online checking system since 2019 for those with an immigration status that can be checked online.

The maximum civil penalty increased from a maximum of £20,000 to £60,000 for each illegal worker in February 2024 (during quantitative fieldwork)^{[footnote 1]}.

From June 2024, checks for European Economic Area (EEA) citizens and their non-EEA family members with pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme only need to be conducted at the start of employment with no need for follow-up checks.

Biometric residency permits (BRPs) will no longer be issued from 1 January 2025. BRP holders with visas expiring after 31 December 2024 are required to prove their status digitally via the Home Office UK Visas and Immigration platform.

2.2 How checks can be carried out

All employers in the UK must carry out Right to Work checks for every employee. There are 3 ways they can do this:

A manual Right to Work check:

• can be used for all employees
• employers must physically examine the original documents provided by the prospective employee; acceptable documents include passport, birth certificate and official evidence of name/national insurance number from a government agency or a previous employer
• employers must make clear copies of the documents and record the date they made the check
• employers should check that the documents are genuine, belong to the person presenting them, and that they allow the individual to perform the work in question

An online Right to Work check using the Home Office’s online checking service:

• this service supports checks for a range of foreign nationals depending on the type of immigration documentation they have been issued with
• the employee must provide a share code generated through the Home Office online service
• employers enter the share code and the employee’s date of birth on the Home Office website to view the individual’s Right to Work status
• employers must retain a copy of the response provided by the online service as evidence they have conducted the check

An IDSP carries out the check on the employer’s behalf:

• can be used for British and Irish citizens who hold a valid passport
• the IDSP verifies the employee’s identity and Right to Work status using digital methods, which may include checking the validity of the passport against government records
• the IDSP provides the employer with a confirmation of the individual’s right to work
• employers must retain a copy of the digital verification provided by the IDSP as proof of compliance

If an employer does not carry out a Right to Work check using one of these methods, they risk non-compliance and potentially hiring illegal workers who do not have the right to work in the UK.

2.3 Consequences of non-compliance and penalties

Employers in the UK can face various penalties and consequences for not carrying out Right to Work checks correctly. These can be severe and impact both the financial and operational aspects of a business.

• if found to have employed someone without the right to work in the UK, the employer can be fined up to £60,000 per illegal worker; this is a civil penalty
• employers can face a criminal conviction with the possibility of a prison sentence and an unlimited fine
• organisations found employing illegal workers can be shut down temporarily or permanently
• company directors can be disqualified from acting as a director
• if an employer holds a sponsorship licence to employ foreign workers, failure to comply with Right to Work checks can lead to the revocation or suspension of this licence
• earnings from illegal working can be seized by the government
• work related licences, for instance in the late-night sector, or private taxi hire, can be reviewed if illegal working is discovered

By ensuring proper Right to Work checks are conducted, employers can avoid these significant penalties and maintain a lawful and compliant workforce.

3. Introduction to the research

This chapter introduces the context and objectives for the research, as well as the methodological approach taken to answer the key research questions.

3.1 Research context and objectives

Right to Work checks are a key component of the government’s strategy to combat illegal working, and to minimise the threat of exploitative working practices. The Home Office has commissioned a series of research projects to help understand business planning and practice regarding employment. These projects will inform the department’s approach to measures regulating access to work. This research in particular looks to explore evidence gaps revealed in the compliant environment literature review carried out following the Windrush Lessons Learned Review. It seeks to understand how employers’ knowledge, implementation and decision-making affects compliance with the Right to Work check regulations.

There were 4 key research objectives for this project:

1. Assess employer understanding and implementation of Right to Work checks: The research aimed to measure employers’ awareness and knowledge of the scheme, and how it is carried out. It also aimed to identify variation in experiences across different types of businesses to determine risk factors for non-compliance.
2. Assess the effectiveness of the different mechanisms: The research explored how employers deal with practical processes (employee engagement, checking documents and keeping records), and the extent to which potential liability for a civil penalty enables compliance or deters non-compliance.
3. Generate evidence on behaviours and decision-making: The research identified factors that influence behaviours, and how; and explored any unintended consequences of the scheme’s procedures. It unpicked behaviours, and the decision-making around those behaviours, to fully understand motivators when carrying out checks.
4. Understand the risks of non-compliance: The research aimed to better understand the risks of non-compliance; capture data on how employers handle Right to Work checks to generate evidence on the nature of non-compliance; and understand which Right to Work mechanisms are being implemented incorrectly.

3.2 Research methodology

Verian used both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies to achieve the above research objectives. Across the whole project, a sample of employers was drawn from the Inter-Departmental Business Register (IDBR). The IDBR sample included data on business size (1 to 9, 10 to 49, 40 to 99 or 100 or more employees) and sector (based on UK SIC 2007 categories).

Verian drew the sample to ensure they could analyse the desired target population thoroughly. The sample population was defined as active businesses at the enterprise level that had one or more employees, were in the private sector, and were from most industry sections. The following industry sections were excluded:

• mining and quarrying
• electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply
• water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities
• public administration and defence
• activities of households as employers
• activities of extraterritorial organisations

Throughout the research process, the Individual, Social, Material (ISM) model was used to help identify potential drivers and key factors influencing behaviour in complying with Right to Work checks. This model categorises influences of behaviour into individual, social and material factors. Individual factors could include personal habits, emotions, or beliefs; social factors could include norms, institutions or sense of role; and material factors could include rules, regulations, infrastructure and technologies that impact behaviour.

The ISM model guided questionnaire design for the quantitative survey and topic guide design for the qualitative interviews.

3.2.1 Quantitative survey

Verian conducted a quantitative survey of UK employers, with questions that covered details about the organisation, awareness and understanding of checks, how the organisation managed checks, awareness and views on penalties, and sources of knowledge regarding checks.

Verian sent letters to a stratified sample of UK employers giving them the opportunity to complete an online CAWI (computer assisted web interviewing) survey, or a CATI (computer assisted telephone interview) over the phone.

The sample for the survey was designed to ensure that standalone analysis could be carried out for the following key subgroups:

Business size:

• micro (1 to 9 employees)
• small (10 to 49 employees)
• medium (50 to 99 employees)
• large (100 or more employees)

Sector (UK SIC 2007):

• agriculture, forestry and fishing
• manufacturing
• construction
• wholesale and retail
• transportation and storage
• accommodation and food storage
• information and communication
• administrative and support services
• human health and social work

In order to achieve this standalone analysis, Verian oversampled businesses with 50 to 99 and 100 or more employees, and businesses in the agriculture, forestry and fishing, transportation and storage, information and communication, and human health and social work activities sectors.

Oversampling these sectors and sizes of businesses involved contacting a higher number of these businesses than reflects their proportion within the business population. This ensures that business sectors and sizes that are smaller in proportion can still be analysed with a sufficient base size. Survey weights were then applied to the final data to ensure that the sample of completed interviews reflected as closely as possible the targeted population of UK businesses.

In total 2,152 employers were interviewed as part of the quantitative fieldwork between December 2023 and April 2024; of these 388 were CAWI interviews and 1,764 were CATI interviews.

In the analysis phase of the research, key drivers analysis was carried out, using logistic regression to understand how different employer characteristics may impact the risk of non-compliance with Right to Work check regulations. The appendix contains further detail on this.

3.2.2 Qualitative follow-up interviews

Following the quantitative survey, Verian conducted 30 follow-up qualitative in-depth interviews with employers who opted into additional research when completing the quantitative survey.

Verian sampled qualitative participants on a range of criteria relating to employer firmographics as well as survey responses. These included the sector, size of employer, hiring experiences and practices when carrying out checks.

Verian used qualitative depth interviews to further explore the reasons behind survey responses and to give a deeper and broader understanding of the experiences, motivations and behaviours of employers when conducting Right to Work checks.

4. Overview of the sample population and how they carry out checks

This chapter outlines firmographic and employment practice details of the sampled population. The data covered in this chapter will be used as the basis for analysis in future chapters, where the implications for firmographics and employment practices on compliance with Right to Work checks will be explored further.

4.1 Size and sector of employers surveyed

For the employers surveyed in the quantitative phase of the research, Verian sourced information on employer size and sector from IDBR sample information. Percentages for the size and sector of employers in this section reflect that the data has been weighted to the population of UK employers.

The size of the employers ranged from 1 to over 100 employees. Almost all employers were micro employers with 1 to 9 employees (88%), or small employers with 10 to 49 employees (10%). One per cent were medium-sized with 50 to 99 employees and 1% were large employers with 100 or more employees.

The data represents a wide range of sectors, with the most common being professional, scientific and technical activities (17%), wholesale and retail trade (16%) and construction (14%); see Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1.

These figures are closely aligned with the proportions seen in the target population of UK businesses. This is due to survey weights being applied on size and sector of business to ensure that the survey data reflects the target population of UK businesses.

Figure 4.1: Employer sectors (% of all respondents)

Source: Sample information drawn from Inter-Departmental Business Register.

Base: All respondents (n=2,152).

Table 4.1: Employer sectors (% of all respondents)

Sector	% of respondents
Professional, scientific and technical activities	17%
Wholesale and retail trade	16%
Construction	14%
Administrative and support service activities	9%
Information and communication	8%
Accommodation and food service activities	7%
Manufacturing	5%
Transportation and storage	4%
Real estate activities	4%
Human health and social work activities	4%
Agriculture, forestry and fishing	3%
Financial and insurance activities	2%
Education	2%
Arts, entertainment and recreation	2%
Other	3%

Source: Sample information drawn from Inter-Departmental Business Register.

Base: All respondents (n=2,152).

4.2 The types of workers employed and their nationality

Via a question that allows multiple responses, 83% of employers reported hiring full-time employees, with 63% employing part-time workers. Self-employed workers were used by 32%, while freelancers accounted for 20%. Smaller percentages were seen for apprentices (15%), zero-hours or minimum-hour contracted workers (14%), agency workers (8%), temporary seasonal workers (7%) and gig-economy/platform workers (1%). Additionally, 4% of employers used other types of workers; see Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: Types of worker used (% of all respondents)

Source: B9. Which of the following types of worker does your business currently use? (Multiple responses permitted).

Base: All respondents (n=2,152).

In the qualitative interviews, some participants mentioned that their business employed different types of employees for different roles. For example, one employer in the transportation and storage sector mentioned that warehouse workers were hired through an agency, while those who work in the main office were full-time employees.

Almost all (98%) medium or large employers (50 or more employees) employed full-time employees, a significantly higher proportion than micro or small employers (1 to 49 employees; 83%). A higher proportion of medium or large employers also employed other sorts of workers or employees compared with micro or small employers, perhaps reflecting the different functions or specialist teams they contain within one business:

• part-time employees (88% versus 62%)
• apprentices (44% versus 14%)
• zero-hours or minimum-hour contracted workers (39% versus 14%)
• agency workers (40% versus 7%)
• temporary seasonal workers (19% versus 7%)

This is supported by the qualitative interviews, where some medium and large employers, for instance in the construction sector, said they employ full-time and part-time staff in their head office, but employ apprentices, zero-hour and agency workers for manual or off-site work.

The use of temporary seasonal workers, zero-hours workers and agency workers varied by sector:

• employers in the agriculture, forestry and fishing (31%) and accommodation and food service activities (19%) sectors tended to hire temporary seasonal workers more frequently than those in other sectors (average 6%)
• employers in the accommodation and food service (46%) and human health and social work activities (32%) sectors hired zero-hours workers more frequently than those in other sectors (average 11%)
• employers in the administrative and support service activities (17%) and human health and social work activities (22%) sectors hired agency workers more frequently than those in other sectors (average 6%)

Employers were also asked about the nationalities of their workforce in another question which allowed multiple responses. The majority (95%) employed British nationals, 27% employed EU, EEA, or Swiss nationals, and 23% hired workers from other parts of the world. Additionally, 13% employed Irish nationals. Only 1% were unsure, while no one preferred not to disclose; see Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3: Nationality of employees (% of all respondents)

Source: B11. Which of the following nationalities do you currently employ? (Multiple responses permitted).

Base: All respondents (n=2,152).

Employers who hired agency workers reported employing EU, EEA, or Swiss nationals (69%) or rest of the world nationals (55%) more often than those who hired employees directly (24% and 21% respectively).

Among those who hired EU, EEA, Swiss, or non-EU nationals, 91% employed individuals with continuous Right to Work status in the UK. Additionally, 20% hired workers on time-limited visas, 12% employed people on student visas, and 11% employed individuals applying from overseas who required sponsorship.

4.3 The impact of nationality on hiring decisions

In the follow-up qualitative interviews, employers were asked whether the Right to Work check requirements impacted their hiring decisions. Employers often said that factors such as nationality and visa type did not impact their decision to recruit someone as long as they had the right to work, as they find carrying out necessary checks easy.

Employers saw Right to Work checks as an essential part of the hiring process and conducted them regardless of employee nationality. Employers viewed other factors, such as work experience, skills and “match” to the company, as much more important for making hiring decisions compared to the Right to Work check requirements.

“[Right to Work checks] are part and parcel of the interviewing and final stage, so if they’ve not got through we don’t hire that person, so it’s sort of academic, it’s just like “can you drive”, and if it’s not filled correctly, it doesn’t proceed.”

Manufacturing sector, 1 to 9 employees, does not employ EU or rest of world nationals

“We’re never just going to discriminate against anyone if they had the right skills and would do all the necessary checks and stuff, no, it’s not really a factor in recruiting.”

Construction sector, 1 to 9 employees, does not employ EU or rest of world nationals

“If I had 2 people applying for the job, and one was already a UK citizen and one was not, and had all the relevant stuff, I would be looking at the best fit for the job; the Right to Work part of it would be irrelevant.”

Health and social work sector, 100 or more employees, employs rest of world nationals

4.4 At what stage employers carry out checks

The qualitative interviews explored the employment journey and where Right to Work checks fit in, beginning from when the employer decides to recruit for a role to employment. This was broken down into 5 stages; see Figure 4.4 below.

1. Deciding to recruit: Employers decide to recruit based on business vacancies (for example, when an employee resigns) or business need (such as an increase in demand). Employers said that Right to Work checks are not considered at all during this stage.
2. Advertising the role: The job advertising process differs by business size and sector. For example, smaller employers said they use word of mouth or family and friends to hire employees. Some employers said they mention a need for Right to Work status on the job specification or job board post.
3. Deciding who to hire: Right to Work checks typically do not impact hiring decisions. Employers said that factors such as skills, experience and team fit are the most important when deciding who to hire.
4. Post-hire process: Some employers conduct Right to Work checks at the interview stage, and others after the job offer stage. Some employers said they conducted checks later on in the process (that is, when employment commenced) for British nationals. A few employers also mentioned combining Right to Work checks with other checks as the documents checked are similar, for example, DBS checks.
5. Employment: Employers often said they do not conduct follow-up checks unless employees have a temporary right to work. These employers said that they set calendar reminders or have automated processes to notify them when an employee’s temporary right to work is ending soon. They would then check with the employee whether they have a new share code or visa so they can continue employment. In general, employers were unclear on how long they should keep records, regardless of the mechanism used (manual, IDSP or Home Office check).

Figure 4.4: Employment journey

Source: 30 qualitative interviews.

When surveyed, most employers said they carried out checks either before signing a contract or before starting work, in line with guidance. This question allowed multiple responses, so some employers may conduct checks at multiple stages:

• 81% of employers conduct checks before the employee signs a contract and 80% before they start work
• 54% said they conduct checks before an existing employee’s temporary right to work comes to an end
• 39% said they conduct checks before they interview a potential employee (see Figure 4.5)

Figure 4.5: When checks are carried out (% of all respondents)

Source: C4. When does your employer conduct formal Right to Work checks?

Base: All respondents (n=2,152) (Multiple responses permitted).

Similarly, in the qualitative interviews, employers mentioned conducting checks further along in the process, usually at the offer stage or on the employee’s first day. Some mentioned there is a risk of candidates not showing up to interviews, so conducting checks before this stage would be futile.

“It’s only when you decide right ok, we’ll give this guy a go, then, with the job offer… now need your Right to Work documents, which are your NI number, your passport, and your driving licence”

Manufacturing sector, 1 to 9 employees

Medium or large employers reported conducting checks before an employee starts work (93%) or before an existing employee’s temporary right to work ends (70%) more frequently than micro or small employers (80% and 54%, respectively). This suggests small and micro employers do not have a great understanding of what is required of follow-up checks.

Employers who hire agency or zero-hours/minimum-hour contracted workers reported conducting checks before a temporary right to work comes to an end (68% and 66% respectively) more frequently than those who hire full-time employees (55%). Those who employ workers on time-limited visas (76%) or student visas (70%) conducted checks more often before a temporary right to work ends than those who hire workers with a continuous right to work in the UK as part of their workforce (57%), likely as follow-up checks are not needed for the latter group.

Employers of EU, EEA, Swiss or rest of the world nationals more often said they conduct checks before the employee starts work (84%) than those who only employ British or Irish nationals (78%).

These differences may be explained by differing hiring methods. For example, in the qualitative interviews, employers who used agency workers said the agency completed checks before the employer is presented with the candidate. Employers who do not use agency workers said the checks are conducted later, at the job offer or ‘first day’ stage.

“Obviously they’ve gone through the initial Right to Work check, and then we take them on the understanding that we have a photocopy of their passport, we have the documentation that says the Home Office says… as I say I see multiple documents when it’s different countries.”

Transportation and storage sector, 50 to 99 employees, employs agency workers

4.5 Who at the organisation conducts checks

Most employers (83%) reported the business owner, director or another partner conducted the Right to Work checks. Following this, 35% relied on their human resources or another internal team for these checks. External recruitment or staffing agencies were used by 25% of employers, while 20% mentioned HMRC, and 19% cited either the Home Office or line managers. Additionally, 11% used IDSPs, 10% relied on regional or site managers, and 7% used other methods. This question was multiple choice to allow accurate answers from employers for whom multiple people conduct checks; see Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Who conducts Right to Work checks for the employer by size (% of all respondents)

Who conducts Right to Work checks	% of all respondents	% of micro or small employers (1 to 49 employees)	% of medium or large employers (50 or more employees)
The business owner, director, or other partner	83%	84%	24%
Human resources team, or other specific internal team	35%	34%	93%
External recruitment or staffing agencies	25%	25%	36%
HMRC	20%	21%	15%
Home Office	19%	19%	23%
Line managers	11%	18%	38%
IDSP	10%	11%	17%
Regional/site managers	7%	7%	19%
Other	1%	1%	6%
Don’t know	1%	1%	0%
Prefer not to say	1%	1%	0%

Source: D2. Who conducts Right to Work checks for your business?

Base: All respondents (n=2,152).

However, there were key differences in who respondents said conducts the checks based on the size of the employer. Micro and small employers reported that the business owner, director or partner conducted checks (84%) at a higher rate compared to medium or large employers (24%).

Medium and large employers more often said the following conduct checks for their organisation compared with micro or small employers:

• a HR team, or other specific internal team (93% versus 34%)
• an external agency (36% versus 25%)
• line managers (38% versus 18%)
• an IDSP (17% versus 11%)
• regional or site managers (19% versus 9%)

These findings possibly reflect that medium and large employers are more likely to have established HR teams, line management systems, and site managers. Larger employers may also outsource services more readily, in this case using external agencies and IDSPs. This was supported in the qualitative interviews when some employers mentioned that who conducts checks varies depending on the role. For instance, workers hired through an agency might have their checks completed by the agency and confirmed by the employer.

Employers who hire agency workers reported that checks are conducted by external recruitment or staffing agencies more frequently than those who employ full-time employees (50% and 26%, respectively), which supports the finding from the qualitative interviews that for some who use agencies, there is an expectation that the agency will conduct the checks.

Interestingly, in the qualitative interviews, some employers that hire agency workers said that even though the agency conducts Right to Work checks, they repeat the checks or ask for evidence. Some of these employers said this was because the responsibility ultimately falls on them, as the employer.

“When it comes to this kind of thing I make sure that whatever the agency has pulled in from that applicant, that I get it sent”

Wholesale and retail trade sector, 10 to 49 employees

Those who hire EU, EEA, Swiss, or rest of the world nationals reported that checks are more likely to be conducted by a HR or other team than employers who hire only British or Irish nationals (46% versus 29%), as well as HMRC (24% versus 18%), the Home Office (25% versus 16%), line managers (27% versus 13%), and regional or site managers (15% versus 6%). This could reflect the findings that large employers more often reported using these mechanisms, as when compared with micro or small employers, larger proportions of medium and large employers hired EU, EEA, Swiss (79% versus 26%) or rest of the world nationals (66% versus 22%).

4.6 The types of checks carried out by employers

A question which allowed multiple answers asked whether employers conducted manual checks, used the Home Office service or used an IDSP. The majority (79%) said they conducted manual checks, while 37% used the Home Office service. Just 23% said they used an IDSP to conduct checks and 8% said they used another approach; see Figure 4.6 below.

As per the Home Office guidance, manual checks can be completed for all employees (except for BRP holders who must use the Home Office service), while IDSPs can only be used for British or Irish nationals and the Home Office digital checking service can only be used for EU, Swiss or rest of the world nationals.

Figure 4.6: Right to Work check approach (% of all respondents)

Source: D8. Which of these approaches has your business used when carrying out Right to Work checks? (Multiple responses permitted).

Base: All respondents (n=2,152).

The above findings align similarly with the proportions of employers surveyed that employed British nationals (95%), foreign nationals (50%) and Irish nationals (13%), as those who hire British workers carry out manual checks, while employers of foreign nationals carry out checks using the Home Office digital checking system or IDSPs.

Medium and large employers more often said that they used the following compared with micro and small employers:

• manual checks (93% medium and large employers versus 78% micro and small employers)
• the Home Office service (71% versus 36%)
• an IDSP (33% versus 22%)

Larger proportions of micro and small employers compared with medium and large employers said they did not know which approach their business used (8% versus 1%) or refused the question (4% versus 0%).

The type of workers which employers use affects employers’ likelihood of both conducting manual checks and using the Home Office service. Employers who employed agency workers (92%) and workers on a zero-hour contract (92%) more often said they conducted manual checks than those who employed full-time employees (79%). Those who employ agency workers (62%), zero-hours workers (53%) and temporary workers (56%) more often said they use the Home Office online checking service than employers with full-time employees (37%). The latter is perhaps explained by the fact that employers of these groups were more likely to employ EU, EEA, Swiss or rest of the world nationals, and the Home Office service is for these nationalities.

Those in the transportation and storage (58%) and administrative and support service activities (52%) more often used the Home Office service than other sectors (average 34%). Again, this could be explained by these sectors being more likely to hire EU, EEA or Swiss nationals, as the Home Office service is for these nationalities.

Employers in the transportation and storage (42%) and education (56%) sectors more frequently reported using an IDSP than other sectors (average 21%). However, these sectors were not more likely to hire British or Irish nationals (who IDSPs are used for) than other sectors, so it is unclear why they were more likely to use IDSPs.

In the qualitative interviews, some employers in the transportation and storage or administrative and support service activities sectors said that the Home Office share code system is just as easy and efficient as conducting manual checks. Some also mentioned conducting manual checks alongside the Home Office checks as a precaution.

“The only issue is, if you know what you’re doing, [the Home Office service] is easy to use, but you need to be sure you’re using it correctly, and as I said they have changed the wording now to make that a lot clearer but it wasn’t clear before.”

Health and social work sector, 50 to 99 employees

“I would say that if you use a digital [Right to Work check], it’s a stronger way that you can’t say you haven’t done it properly. So it’s a safer way to do it.”

Professional, scientific, and technical sector, 50 to 99 employees

“[We check documents manually as well as using share codes] because obviously you have to match up to make sure they actually look like the person on there.”

Transportation and storage sector, 10 to 49 employees

4.7 Section summary

In line with the Home Office guidance, a majority of the employers surveyed said they carried out checks before the employee signs a contract or before they start work.

Who at the organisation was responsible for conducting checks varied depending on the size of the organisation. With smaller employers, the owner was responsible for carrying out checks, whereas HR departments or other specialists tended to be responsible at larger organisations. In addition, those that hired agency workers were more likely to outsource Right to Work checks to a third party.

Manual checks are the most common form of check carried out by employers, which is in line with expectations as manual checks can be used for employees of all nationalities, compared to other checks which are restricted depending on the nationality or visa status of the employee.

5. Employers’ views on roles and responsibilities

This chapter looks at employers’ own views on their roles and responsibilities when carrying out checks, including the reasons that employers gave for carrying out checks, their concerns, and confidence in conducting checks correctly.

Employers stated a range of reasons for carrying out checks and various concerns they account for when conducting checks with preventing illegal working, avoiding penalties and complying with government regulations being key motivations.

When asked how confident they were when conducting checks, most employers said they were either somewhat or very confident, despite the inaccuracies in responses seen in chapter 6 of this report.

5.1 Employers’ reasons for carrying out checks

In the quantitative survey, all employers were asked why they carried out Right to Work checks and were provided with a list of responses to choose from, where they could choose multiple responses. Most employers gave responses that were in line with the stated aims of the policy. The majority of employers said they conducted checks to ensure they were not hiring illegal workers (93%) and to comply with government regulation (92%). Other reasons that employers selected were to check a new employee is who they say they are (86%), to avoid receiving any sanctions (83%), to comply with their business’s policies and procedures (83%), and to check a new employee has the right experience (47%); see Figure 5.1 below.

Figure 5.1: Why employers carry out checks (% of all respondents, top 6 reasons)

Source: C3. Why does your employer carry out Right to Work checks? (Multiple responses permitted).

Base: All respondents (n = 2,152).

Of those who did not say they carry out checks to ensure they are not hiring illegal workers, 46% said they conduct checks to comply with government regulations. A third (33%) said they conduct checks to check a new employee is who they say they are, 23% said to comply with the business’s policies and procedures, 18% said to check the employee’s experience, 16% said to avoid sanctions, and 9% said to check employee background. 8% said there was another reason they carry out checks.

Employers gave similar reasons for carrying out checks in the qualitative interviews. When first asked why employers need to carry out Right to Work checks, initial associations were to ensure they were only employing those who had a legal right to work in the UK. It was rarer for an employer to directly link this with the possibility of a penalty without prompting.

“Making sure that we’re not employing somebody that doesn’t have the right to work in the UK, that is, somebody on holiday or someone that’s come into the country illegally.”

Manufacturing sector, 1 to 9 employees

“[We conduct checks] to make sure that people aren’t over here on student visas or a tourist visa, that they actually have the right to work here so that we don’t get illegal immigrants.”

Accommodation and food services sector, 1 to 9 employees

“Just check everything’s up to date so you don’t get fined… We can carry them out just so we’re complying, really. So we’re not missing anything.”

Communications sector, 1 to 9 employees

5.2 Employers’ main concerns when carrying out checks

In the quantitative survey, employers were also asked what their main concerns were when carrying out checks in a question where employers could select multiple answers. These reflected some of their reasons for conducting checks, as discussed above. Most employers (91%) said preventing illegal working was one of their main concerns when carrying out checks. This was followed by making sure no penalties are incurred (88%), doing the right thing (87%), protecting those who depend on your business (79%), and making sure your customers know your business follows the rules (75%); see Figure 5.2 below.

Figure 5.2: Employers’ main concerns when carrying out checks (% of all respondents)

Source: D16. When you carry out Right to Work checks, what are your main concerns? (Multiple responses permitted).

Base: All respondents (n = 2,152).

All employers in the transportation and storage sector (100%) said one of their main concerns was preventing illegal working. Similarly, 95% of those in the administrative and support service sector said this was a main concern. This is compared with 91% of other sectors, on average.

When asked whether penalties influence compliance with Right to Work checks in the qualitative interviews, employers mentioned further concerns that would arise from receiving a penalty, including damage to company reputation, profits and employees (see also section 7.2):

“Reputation-wise, you don’t want to be the company that’s been taking illegal employees, it doesn’t feel like a good headline.”

Professional, scientific and technical activities sector, 50 to 99 employees

5.3 Employers’ confidence in carrying out checks correctly

After being asked about how they conduct Right to Work checks, employers were asked how confident they were that they were carrying out checks correctly. Amongst most employers, there was a high level of stated confidence in carrying out checks correctly. Fifty-two per cent of employers were very confident that they were carrying out checks correctly and 36% were somewhat confident. Only 4% of employers said they were not very confident, and 2% said they were not at all confident; see Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.3: employers’ confidence in carrying out checks correctly (% of all respondents)

Source: D17. When carrying out Right to Work checks, how confident are you that you/your colleagues are carrying out the checks correctly?

Base: All respondents (n = 2,152).

These high levels of confidence were reflected in the qualitative interviews, and employers described several factors that could contribute to high confidence. For instance, some employers using third parties such as recruitment agencies were confident they would do all the necessary Right to Work checks on their behalf:

“I don’t look over [the agency’s] shoulder… they know what I expect and they also have ethics and criteria they have to abide by, and they wouldn’t be offering me people that are illegal.”

Wholesale and retail trade sector, 10 to 49 employees

Similarly, some employers using HR companies said they feel confident because they use an external HR specialist and expect them to have the correct and most up-to-date guidance.

“I’d go to our HR company… when I know somebody who deals with it on a daily basis and they’re always checking regulations and checking for updates… I know that if I go to them and talk to them, I know that I’m understanding it correctly.”

Administrative and support services sector, 50 to 99 employees

Those working in regulated industries had confidence in their ability to comply with regulation more broadly:

“We are used to being regulated, it’s something that’s embedded in our systems.”

Education sector, 10 to 49 employees

One employer also mentioned that having confirmation from the Home Office digital system made them confident that they were following the correct process:

“When I receive the confirmation from the Home Office [share code system] I know I’m doing the right thing.”

Administrative and support services sector, 10 to 49 employees

A significantly larger proportion of medium or large employers (98%) said they felt confident their business was carrying out checks correctly compared with micro or small employers (89%). This is driven by a significantly higher proportion of medium or large employers saying they feel ‘very confident’ compared with micro or small employers (70% and 52% respectively).

Of those who employ foreign nationals, 94% said they felt confident, a significantly higher proportion than those who only employ British or Irish nationals (85%). This group more often said they felt ‘very confident’ (59%) compared with those who only employ British or Irish nationals (48%).

In terms of sector, the highest proportion saying they felt confident was seen in the transportation and storage sector (97%). Those in the wholesale and retail trade (81%) and manufacturing (82%) had the lowest proportions of confident employers.

However, employers’ confidence was not always reflected in their understanding of requirements. As is explored in chapter 6 below, many employers were uncertain on key requirements for compliance when carrying out checks.

5.4 Section summary

The reasons that employers gave for carrying out checks align with the aims of the scheme, in particular ensuring that employers are not hiring illegal workers and to ensure compliance with government regulations. Similarly, concerns that employers had when conducting checks were related to preventing illegal working and wanting to carry out checks correctly. Eighty-eight per cent of employers were confident they were carrying out checks correctly; however, as the following section will reveal, this confidence may be misplaced for some employers where there was a lack of understanding about the specifics of regulations.

6. Employers’ understanding of requirements and implications for compliance

This chapter looks at employers’ understanding of the requirements to correctly carry out checks, which types of employers answered questions incorrectly more frequently, and what might drive employers to answer questions incorrectly.

Employers were asked a series of questions relating to what is required of UK employers when conducting checks. While employers had some knowledge and understanding of key compliance questions, such as what documents could be accepted and who should carry out checks, many lacked a deep understanding of the policy and provided incorrect responses.

Understanding of these key compliance questions was modelled using advanced analysis and key factors that were revealed to indicate potential non-compliant behaviour included hiring zero-hours workers and knowledge of penalties.

6.1 Who employers think has a responsibility for checks

Employers were asked who has a responsibility to conduct Right to Work checks in a question that allowed multiple responses. Most employers were correctly aware they were responsible for carrying out checks, with 89% saying that all employers in the UK had a responsibility to carry them out. However, 62% thought that recruitment agencies had this responsibility, 48% said it was the Home Office, 46% said employees themselves, 64% said it was employers of non-UK nationals and just over 2 in 5 (44%) said subcontractors. Only 4% chose the ‘other’ answer option; see Figure 6.1.

Figure 6.1: Who employers think has a responsibility for checks (% of all respondents)

Source: C2. Who has a responsibility to carry out Right to Work checks? (Multiple responses permitted).

Base: All respondents (n=2,152).

Of those who did not say all employers have the responsibility (which is incorrect), 34% said that employers of non-UK nationals do, 33% said recruitment agencies, 27% said employees themselves have a responsibility and 24% said the Home Office.

In the qualitative interviews, some respondents said they believed Right to Work checks were specifically for non-UK nationals and some thought they were not required for UK nationals. However, these employers often mentioned checking passports of UK nationals but were unaware that this constituted a Right to Work check.

“We use them in particular for migrants… to determine whether they have a Right to Work check, whether it’s in date, and particularly whether they have employment currently elsewhere.”

Health and social work activities sector, 50 to 99 employees, employs EU and rest of the world nationals

Medium or large employers more frequently said all employers in the UK have a responsibility to carry out checks than micro or small employers (96% versus 89%).

A large proportion of employers of agency workers said that recruitment agencies have a responsibility to conduct checks (81%), significantly higher than those who employ full-time employees (64%). Those who hire EU, EEA or Swiss nationals also more often said agencies have a responsibility (69%) than those who only employ British or Irish nationals (61%).

6.2 Which documents employers think can be accepted

Employers who conducted manual checks were asked which documents could be accepted to prove someone’s right to work in the UK. Almost all employers (96%) knew that a UK or Irish passport can be accepted. 77% said a National Insurance number can be accepted, 53% cited an EU, EEA or Swiss passport or national identity card and 39% said a rest of the world passport could be accepted.

As a rest of the world passport can only be accepted as part of a check when stamped to show it is exempt from immigration control, it is possible that some respondents did not select this option due to a passport itself (without necessary additional stamp) not being acceptable.

A substantial proportion wrongly stated that driving licences (62%) or bank statements and utility bills (47%) could be accepted; see Figure 6.2. This suggests that employers understand only some of the documentation requirements.

Figure 6.2: Which documents employers believe can be accepted to prove someone’s right to work (% of all respondents who conduct manual checks, top 6 responses)

Source: D9. Which documents can be accepted to prove someone’s right to work in the UK? (Multiple responses permitted).

Base: All respondents who carry out manual checks (n=1,690).

In the follow-up interviews, some respondents also mentioned checking bills and driving licences, although this was usually alongside other documents.

“We just check that we’ve got the National Insurance number and we check references. I don’t know if I’m missing something in the onboarding process. I suppose if someone said they had not been in the country for very long we would check with the Home Office and stuff to see if they have the right to work. But yeah, we just check, references, National Insurance number, tax bills and that sort of thing.”

Construction sector, 1 to 9 employees, does not employ EU or rest of the world nationals

Some respondents also mentioned combining Right to Work checks with other checks such as a DBS check, as they have similar requirements. Some of these employers only made this connection between checks when prompted during interview. This uncertainty indicates a risk of potential non-compliance and not carrying out Right to Work checks correctly if guidance for DBS checks is conflated with guidance for Right to Work checks.

“Before anyone works we do a DBS check on them anyway, so we’re asking for 5 years’ history of addresses, we’re already seeing the relevant identification such as passports, driving licences, so if it is an international that’s recently come over we’ve already got the share code which will then evidence that, we’re got the BRP… we’ve got their nationality passport which is used to complete the DBS, so the checks are done at that stage of the DBS.” -

Health and social work sector, 100 or more employees, employs rest of the world nationals

Employers in the manufacturing, construction and wholesale and retail trade sectors more often said they accept incorrect documents, such as driving licences, to prove right to work (69%, 70% and 72% respectively). In the qualitative interviews, some employers in these sectors mentioned checking driving licences as part of the Right to Work check because their employees need to drive for the work they do, suggesting they are incorrectly recalling this as part of the Right to Work process.

Those who only employ British or Irish nationals more frequently said a driving licence could be accepted than those who only employ EU or rest of the world nationals (67% versus 55%). Micro and small employers also more often cited a UK driving licence (62%) compared with medium or large employers (42%). This finding is perhaps explained by micro and small employers being more likely to employ only British or Irish nationals.

Employers more often incorrectly said that a bank statement or utility bill could be accepted if they were a micro or small employer (47%) compared with medium and large employers (32%).

Those who employ zero-hours workers incorrectly stated that a bank statement or utility bill can be accepted as part of a check more often (54%) than those who hired full-time employees (46%).

6.3 Employers’ understanding of how to check documents

For employers who conducted manual checks, the survey asked what they checked when checking documents in another question that allowed multiple answers. Almost all employers said they checked documents in a way that is consistent with ensuring somebody has the right to work, including checking the name is the same as the employee (98%), that the documents are genuine (97%) and that the person is allowed to do the sort of the work the employer wants them for (88%). Alongside this, employers also cited other reasons not necessary for Right to Work checks, such as having the correct qualifications (77%), and 7% chose the ‘Other’ option; see Figure 6.3.

Figure 6.3: What employers check in documents (% of all respondents who conduct manual checks)

Source: D11. When your employer checks documents manually which of the following do they check? (Multiple responses permitted).

Base: All respondents who carry out manual checks (n=1,690).

Micro or small employers more often answered incorrectly by saying they check the person has the right qualifications than medium or large employers (77% versus 66%). This option was also more often selected among employers in the construction (85%), wholesale and retail trade (82%), transportation and storage (88%), and human health and social work activities (87%) sectors compared with other sectors (average 73%).

Employers were subsequently asked what they look at when checking documents through a question that allowed multiple responses. Most (97%) said photographs and the person’s appearance, expiry dates (97%), dates of birth (95%), credibility of the document (95%), explanation for any differences in names (91%), 88% said work restrictions and 7% said ‘other’; see Figure 6.4.

Figure 6.4: What employers look at when checking documents (% of all respondents who conduct manual checks)

Source: D12. What do you look at when checking documents? (Multiple responses permitted).

Base: All respondents who carry out manual checks (n=1,690).

In the qualitative interviews, respondents demonstrated that they understood what needed to be checked. Respondents mentioned checking photographs, document numbers, and expiry dates.

“[We check photographs] because obviously you have to match up to make sure they actually look like the person on there.” -

Transportation and storage employer, 10 to 49 employees, employs EU and rest of world nationals

6.4 Employers’ knowledge of check requirements

Employers who conduct manual checks were asked about their knowledge of what is required of them as part of the Right to Work check process via a question that allowed multiple responses. Over 9 in 10 said to check documents (95%) or ask employees to provide the original documents to be checked (92%). Slightly lower proportions said to keep secure records of document copies (89%), make clear copies (87%), or carry out follow-up checks if the employee’s right to work is time limited (85%).

This suggests that 15% of employers would not know they should conduct follow-up checks for those with a temporary right to work, 13% would not know to make clear copies of documents, 11% would not know to keep secure records, 8% would not know to ask for original documents, and 5% would not check documents. These employers are potentially at risk of non-compliance with Right to Work check regulations or would not have the necessary documents to establish a statutory excuse.

Sixty-four per cent incorrectly said that it is required to recheck all employees’ documents every 5 years (see Figure 6.5), further demonstrating a level of uncertainty amongst many employers about exact regulations for carrying out manual checks.

Figure 6.5: What employers think is required as part of checks (% of all respondents who conduct manual checks)

Source: D10. Which of the following is required of employers as part of Right to Work checks? (Multiple responses permitted).

Base: All respondents who carry out manual checks (n=1,690).

Employers who employ EU, EEA, Swiss or rest of the world nationals more frequently said it was required to recheck all employees’ documents every 5 years than those who only employ British or Irish nationals (68% versus 61%). It may be those employing EU, EEA, Swiss or rest of world nationals are more likely to be hiring employees with time-limited right to work, and hence are more aware of the requirement to repeat checks than those with less experience of hiring those with time limited status. Employers who conduct manual checks selected this incorrect answer less often (64%) than those who use an IDSP (77%) or the Home Office service (74%), indicating that those who outsourced checks may be more likely to answer questions relating to manual checks incorrectly.

6.5 Employers’ understanding of record-keeping requirements

Of the surveyed employers who use IDSPs to conduct checks, few could give the correct answer for how long records should be kept. Twenty-four per cent said they keep a record of the check for the correct length of time (the entire length of employment plus an additional 2 years). A similar proportion said they keep records for longer than this (27%), a higher proportion said just for the entire length of employment (36%), while 3% said for 6 months following completion of the check and 5% said one year following completion; see Figure 6.6.

Figure 6.6: How long records are kept for (% of all respondents who use an IDSP)

Source: D14. When using an Identity Service Provider to check a potential or existing employee’s documents, how long do you keep a record of the check?

Base: All respondents who use IDSPs (n=542).

The qualitative findings showed some employers were unclear on the specifics of record keeping requirements records, with answers on requirements of record keeping for documentation varying from the length of employment to 7 years post-termination of employment.

“My boss has got a thing about 7 years - so everything stays for 7 years on the premises, then after 7 years he takes them home, I don’t think he even gets rid of them after that, he just stores the older stuff at home.”

Manufacturing sector, 1 to 9 employees

Respondents mentioned combining Right to Work checks with other employment checks, such as DBS checks, which potentially results in non-compliance with Right to Work check requirements and explains the confusion around what is required.

“We don’t keep copies of passports, we only keep the DBS [number]… to keep the DBS check you need to have proved that you’ve got passport, birth certificate, a residence, where you’re living, for example, so that basically encompasses any of the other checks that I would need to have done, as far as I’m aware.”

Education sector, 50 to 99 employees

Micro and small employers more frequently incorrectly said they kept records for the length of employment (37%) compared with medium and large employers (21%). Medium and large employers more often said they keep records for longer than needed (the length of employment plus more than 2 years; 38%) compared with micro and small employers (27%).

Employers who only employ British or Irish nationals more frequently said they keep records for just the length of employment (44%) than those who hire EU, EEA, Swiss, or rest of the world nationals (27%). The latter group more frequently stated they keep records for more than 2 years post-termination of employment (38% versus 18%). These findings are perhaps connected to the above findings on business size, since medium and large employers are more likely to hire non-British nationals than micro and small employers.

6.6 How easy or difficult employees find it to supply information for checks

Employers were asked how easy or difficult they think employees found it to supply the necessary information for Right to Work checks. The majority had the view that it was easy for employees; 77% said employees find it easy to supply information, with 37% saying ‘very easy’ and 40% ‘moderately easy’. Just 11% said employees find supplying information difficult, with 10% saying ‘moderately difficult’, 1% saying ‘very difficult’ and 11% saying they did not know; see Figure 6.7.

Figure 6.7: How easy/difficult employers think employees find it to supply information (% of all respondents)

Source: D15. How easy or difficult do employees find it to supply necessary information for Right to Work checks?

Base: All respondents (n=2,152).

The following groups of employers more often said employees found it easy (very or somewhat):

• medium or large employers (90%) versus micro or small employers (77%)
• those in the transportation and storage (89%) or administrative and support services (86%) sectors versus wholesale and retail trade (68%), professional, scientific and technical activities (71%), and manufacturing (76%)
• those who employ agency workers (89%) or zero-hours or minimum-hour contracted workers (85%) versus full-time employees (77%)
• those who employ rest of the world nationals (82%) versus only British or Irish nationals (75%)

6.7 Drivers of non-compliance

As has been demonstrated in this chapter, while many respondents selected the correct answer choice for questions relating to compliance, a substantial proportion of employers gave incorrect responses to key questions.

Giving an incorrect answer choice to a key compliance-related question indicates a lack of knowledge of how to comply with checks, and potentially indicates that an employer may be at greater risk of non-compliance.

In order to understand what could drive non-compliant behaviour among employers and what factors may influence whether an employer is compliant or not, a model was developed using survey data on responses to these key compliance questions.

Of all employers surveyed, 80% answered at least one of the compliance questions incorrectly and were therefore at risk of non-compliance. This is broken down as follows:

• 11% did not say all employers in the UK had a responsibility to carry out Right to Work checks
• 51% said they would accept a driving licence or bank statement
• 64% said employers were required to recheck all employee documents every 5 years
• 12% did not check documents correctly
• 17% of all employers used IDSPs and did not keep records for the correct length of time

Advanced analysis tested many different potential factors, including business characteristics and practices, for whether they impacted an employer’s likelihood to answer one of these key compliance questions incorrectly and therefore be at risk of non-compliance.

Employers that hired zero-hours workers were only aware of one or 2 of the potential penalties for hiring illegal workers, and those that used a checklist to ensure checks were being carried out correctly were all significantly more likely to answer a compliance question incorrectly and therefore be potentially at risk of non-compliance.

A more detailed explanation of this model for understanding drivers of potential non-compliant behaviour can be found in the appendix (chapter 9.3).

6.8 Section summary

There was widespread understanding amongst employers surveyed that all employers in the UK had a responsibility to perform checks (89%). However, a substantial proportion said agencies or other third parties were responsible for carrying out checks. Those employers that hired agency workers were more likely to say that recruitment agencies were responsible for checks.

Most employers understood the correct documentation that could be accepted as part of a check, including a UK passport, but a significant proportion incorrectly thought that a driving licence (62%) or a bank statement or utility bill (47%) could be accepted. The proportion of employers who gave an incorrect response on documentation was higher in the manufacturing, construction and wholesale and retail trade sectors, or for micro or small employers.

There was further uncertainty for some employers in understanding whether documents had to be rechecked with 64% incorrectly saying documents had to be rechecked every 5 years. In addition, only 24% of employers using IDSPs said that relevant documents had to be kept for the length of employment plus an additional 2 years. Micro or small employers were more likely to say documents should only be kept during employment.

Verian developed a model to understand which potential risk factors made an employer more likely to answer one of these key compliance questions incorrectly and therefore be at risk of non-compliance. Key factors identified were whether the employer hired zero-hours workers, if they were only aware of one or 2 potential penalties for noncompliance, and if they used a checklist to ensure checks were performed correctly.

7. Sources of knowledge and improved compliance

This chapter will look at where employers look for information relating to Right to Work checks, how they keep up to date on any changes in regulation and how they ensure that those carrying out checks in the business are aware of any new changes in regulation.

7.1 Where employers go for information on checks

Employers said they tended to use the Home Office as a source of information on Right to Work checks. When asked where they would go to find information in a question that allowed multiple responses, 89% said they would use the Home Office website. This was followed by accessing information from professional trade bodies or trade organisations (61%), professional services firms (59%), other Home Office communications (54%), radio/TV/newspaper/social media (16%), and friends or family (14%); see Figure 7.1.

Figure 7.1: Where employers go for general information on Right to Work checks (% of all respondents, top 6 responses)

Source: E2. Where would you find general information about Right to Work checks? (Multiple responses permitted).

Base: All respondents (n=2,152).

The variety of sources used was reflected in the qualitative interviews, with employers citing a range of sources they would use to find information. However, the key source mentioned across interviews was the Home Office or GOV.UK website.

“My staple is the UK government website. So anything legislation that’s my go-to.”

Transportation and storage sector, 50 to 99 employees

“I’m a CIPD member… they’re usually just linked to the Home Office or the government website… So I usually use that because it’s a membership I pay for.”

Wholesale and retail trade sector, 50 to 99 employees

Employers with 100 or more employees more often said they go to professional services firms than micro employers (69% versus 59%).

Employers with 1 to 9 employees more often said they go to friends and family for information than larger employers (15% versus 2%). Some smaller employers referenced friends and family working in HR or the Home Office when asked who they would go to for guidance on checks.

“I’d probably give an HR director that I know a call.”

Wholesale and retail trade sector, 10 to 49 employees

Those working in education (91%), construction (71%), and professional, scientific and technical activities (71%) more frequently said they look to professional bodies or trade organisations for information than those working in multiple sectors, including information and communication (36%).

7.2 Knowledge of change to regulations

The Home Office website publishes any changes to Right to Work regulation. There have been several updates to the regulations in recent years, including:

• in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, temporary changes allowed employers to perform checks via video calls and to accept scanned documents; this was no longer an option for employers from 1 October 2022
• from April 2022, a digital Right to Work check system was introduced, which allowed employers to partner with IDSPs to verify a potential employee’s Right to Work status if they are British or Irish citizens; for foreign nationals, employers can use the Home Office’s online checking system
• the maximum civil penalty increased from £20,000 to £60,000 for each illegal worker in February 2024 (during quantitative fieldwork)
• from June 2024, checks for EEA citizens and their non-EEA family members with pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme only need to be conducted at the start of employment with no need for follow-up checks
• announcement that BRPs will no longer be issued from 1 January 2025; BRP holders with visas expiring after 31 December 2024 are required to prove their status digitally via the Home Office UK Visas and Immigration platform

In the quantitative survey, employers were asked when they had last heard about any changes in Right to Work regulation. The most recent change employers had heard about would have varied depending on the date they completed the fieldwork. However, changes take place regularly and so it would be expected that a substantial proportion of respondents would have heard about a change within the recent past.

Despite recent changes, 38% of employers had not heard about any change of rules to Right to Work checks. Only 17% of employers had last heard about any changes within the last 6 months; 18% had last heard about changes within the last 6 to 12 months; 13% had last heard about changes in the last one to 2 years; 7% had last heard about changes in the last 2 to 5 years; and 2% had last heard about changes more than 5 years ago; see Figure 7.2.

Figure 7.2: When employers had last heard about a change to Right to Work checks (% of all respondents)

Source: E4. When did you last hear about a change of rules for Right to Work checks?

Base: All respondents (n=2,152).

The qualitative interviews reflected this lack of awareness, where many employers were unaware of any recent changes to Right to Work checks. When they were, they tended to be unsure about the detail of the change; for example, getting the amount of the fine wrong.

“A few months back… the fines have just moved up to £20,000 per person”

Construction sector, 100 or more employees

Several employers mentioned they had signed up to Home Office communications. While one employer had heard about recent changes, such as the end of physical BRPs at the end of 2024, another was unaware of any recent regulatory changes. Signing up to Home Office updates made them feel more confident they were up to date.

“… if there was any changes for Right to Work checks I would expect it would be live on the SMS Home Office message board.”

Health and social work sector, 100 or more employees

One employer also highlighted that they wanted the Home Office to reach out proactively to employers about changes in regulation to help them stay up to date.

“I’ve only heard of stuff through [my professional services firm], I’ve not had anything from the Home Office… I’ve not seen anything in the press as far as I’m aware… I’ve not seen anything on socials or anything like that… the government want people to do X Y Z, then they need to let everybody know.”

Agriculture, forestry and fishing sector, 10 to 49 employees

Forty-one per cent of employers with 100+ employees were aware of Right to Work changes in the last 6 months, compared to just 16% of employers with 1 to 9 employees. Again, larger employers have more resources at their disposal to keep up to date with regulations than micro employers, including the use of professional services firms (see Figure 7.1) or an HR team conducting checks (see section 4.2).

Those hiring EU and rest of the world nationals referenced having heard about a change in the last 6 months more often compared with those hiring only British or Irish nationals (28% versus 11%). This could be because businesses who hire EU and rest of the world nationals use professional services firms for guidance on Right to Work more often than those who only hire British or Irish (65% versus 55%) and share updates of any changes to Right to Work check regulation via email more often (55% versus 42%).

Those using the Home Office system to conduct Right to Work checks more frequently said they had heard about a change in the last 6 months than those conducting manual checks (28% versus 19%). This could be linked to the end of physical BRPs at the end of 2024, which one employer mentioned in the depth interviews:

“I do have a bit of a concern… that the government is getting rid of the BRPs from 31 December 2024… up to now for Right to Work [checks], I’ve been using the BRPs… to check on things, so I’m just thinking what am I going to do now if they’re not going to give BRPs anymore?”

Human health and social work sector, 100 or more employers

7.3 How employers ensure checks are carried out correctly

When asked how employers ensure those completing Right to Work checks are aware of the latest regulations in a question allowing multiple answers, 72% said they use a company checklist for each new starter. This was followed by a formal company policy (63%), a designated company lead who carries out all Right to Work checks (52%), sharing information by email when knowledge is updated (47%), regular training sessions (41%), third parties conducting Right to Work checks on their behalf (26%), and practical information on company intranet (25%); see Figure 7.3.

Figure 7.3: How employers ensure those carrying out Right to Work checks are aware of the latest regulations (% of all respondents)

Source: D7. How does your employer make sure that all those completing Right to Work checks are aware of the latest regulations? (Multiple responses permitted).

Base: All respondents (n=2,152).

Employers with 100 or more employees had a range of measures in place to keep up to date with Right to Work check regulations, such as a company checklist for each new starter (90% versus 70%) and a formal company policy (79% versus 61%), at higher rates than employers with 1 to 9 employees.

7.4 Usage of Home Office service helplines

Only 15% of employers surveyed said they had used the Home Office helpline to aid in conducting Right to Work checks in the last 12 months. Of those who had used the service, 67% said it was either fairly or very easy to use. Most employers interviewed during the qualitative phase of research did not refer to using the service, but one employer said it was useful when they needed to clarify information that they found confusing on the Home Office website.

“I mean sometimes it’s quite confusing on the [Home Office/Government] website, but there is a contact number where I’ve spoken to people before just to get a bit of firm clarification on stuff.”

Transportation and storage sector, 10 to 49 employees

7.5 Usage of Home Office digital checking

Thirty-seven per cent of employers had used the Home Office digital checking system to verify the right to work of foreign nationals. In the qualitative interviews, employers often spoke positively about the system, with many preferring digital confirmation that they had completed Right to Work checks.

“When I receive the confirmation from the Home Office [share code system] I know I’m doing the right thing.”

Administrative and support services sector, 10 to 49 employees

Several employers also mentioned that most foreign nationals were already aware they had to provide a share code for the Right to Work check, so could provide the necessary information quickly.

“Because employees know [share codes are] part of the Right to Work check they do it quickly.”

Administrative and support services sector, 50 to 99 employees

Conversely, one employer highlighted that the move to a fully digital Right to Work check system may cause issues for her employees who have struggled with other transitions to digital processes in the past.

“We’ve got still quite a lot of staff that are not really into doing much on computers. I put wage slips online a couple of years ago and that caused mayhem. I think generally the current staff I’ve got would be happy just to give me the passport every so often if I needed it than go online and do something and I’ll probably have to sit and coach through.”

Wholesale and retail trade sector, 50 to 99 employees

In the quantitative survey, employers more often said they have used the Home Office digital service if they:

• had 100 or more employees compared to 1 to 9 employees (78% versus 34%)
• hired agency workers (62%), zero-hours or minimum contracted hours (53%), gig-economy/platform workers (70%) or temporary seasonal workers (56%) compared with full time employees (37%).

Employers within these subgroups also more often said they hired EU and rest of the world nationals, which may explain the difference in adoption.

7.6 Section summary

Most employers (89%) used the Home Office website as a source of information for Right to Work checks. Thirty-seven per cent of employers said they used the Home Office digital checking system when carrying out checks and employers spoke positively about the system in qualitative follow-up interviews.

Knowledge amongst employers of changing regulations relating to checks was shown to be limited with few (17%) having heard about any changes in regulations in the last 6 months; however, this figure was higher amongst larger employers with 100 or more employees (41%). To ensure employers carrying out checks were doing so in line with regulations, the most common approach given was a company checklist (72%).

8. Employers’ views on compliance and penalties

This chapter will explore employers’ views on how compliant other employers in their sector are with requirements, as well as knowledge of penalties for non-compliance. Employers were also asked if they had had any experience of enforcement activities as a letter, visit, or civil penalty, and finally whether they thought the overall Right to Work scheme was effective at preventing illegal working.

8.1 Employers’ views on illegal working in their sector

Surveyed employers were asked how common they thought illegal working was in their sector. Seventy-two per cent of employers said they thought it was either very or fairly uncommon, 43% said it was very uncommon and 29% said that it was fairly uncommon. However, a substantial proportion, 21%, thought that illegal working was either very or fairly common in their sector. Fifteen per cent of employers said it was fairly common and 7% said it was very common. Six per cent of employers did not know how common or uncommon illegal working was in their sector; see Figure 8.1.

Figure 8.1: Who believes illegal working is common in their sector (% of all respondents)

Source: F2. Do you believe illegal working in your sector is…?

Base: All respondents (n=2,152).

Employers in the construction (41%) and accommodation and food services (39%) sectors believed that illegal working was common more often than those in the information and communication (9%) and human health and social work activities (13%) sectors. These sector-level differences were also seen in the qualitative interviews, with those in regulated industries such as human health and social care thinking illegal working was less likely to happen.

“We are extremely heavily regulated so if we take a step wrong there [including with Right to Work checks] it can have major repercussions.”

Human health and social work activities sector, 50 to 99 employees

Employers tended to associate illegal working with common perceptions about their sector or broader stereotypes, rather than specific examples of illegal working in their sector.

“In the hotel and catering sector, there’s a lot of foreign restaurants that use foreign workers… they have a reputation for getting people in on student visas and then using them to work, but I don’t have any personal experience… but I think it’s probably rife in the catering, hospitality and catering industry.”

Accommodation and food services activities sector, 1 to 9 employees

“I know about nail bars and that kind of place… there’s a lot of people from abroad who may not be legally able to work here… that’s just from a video I watched.”

Information and communication sector, 10 to 49 employees

Employers had mixed opinions on the nature of illegal working that they believed took place in their sector. Some viewed it as a result of bad actors who were deliberately breaking the rules for financial gain:

“Unscrupulous companies have under their sponsor licence been bringing people over in the guise that they have work for them and in addition charging them money.”

Human health and social work sector, 50 to 99 employees

Others saw illegal working as an accident that could be driven by a lack of awareness and resources to keep up to date with regulation:

“I would say it’s probably more by accident because they don’t follow the news or they don’t have any HR advisors…they don’t know that they’re supposed to do it.”

Agriculture, forestry and fishing sector, 10 to 49 employees

Several employers also mentioned that illegal working could be driven by a need for some employers to continue to hire workers despite shortages in their sectors. While some employers accept these shortages, others may be less stringent with Right to Work checks as a result.

“I wouldn’t have said [illegal working] was either [accidental or purposeful], I would have said it’s just how it seems to work - when you want people at short notice… so long as there’s a warm bum on a seat that’s fine…”

Manufacturing sector, 1 to 9 employees

Employers who hired workers from the EU or the rest of the world perceived illegal working as common in their sector more frequently than those who hired only British or Irish nationals (26% versus 18%). One employer mentioned they have hired foreign nationals who were previously employed at other companies but knew nothing about Right to Work checks or share codes.

8.2 Awareness of and views on penalties

Employers were presented with a list of possible penalties for not complying with checks and asked about which ones they were aware in a question that allowed multiple responses. The majority of employers (80%) had heard of at least one penalty for non-compliance with Right to Work checks. Employers most often recalled a fine^{[footnote 2]} (59%) and a criminal conviction, with the possibility of a prison sentence and unlimited fine (57%). This was followed by the employer being disqualified as a company director (44%); closure of their business (41%), the employer becoming unable to sponsor migrants (35%), a review of work-related licences (33%), and earnings from illegal working being seized by the government. Eighteen per cent had not heard of any of the listed penalties; see Figure 8.2.

Figure 8.2: Who had heard about the following penalties (% of all respondents)

Source: F3. Which of the penalties for employers have you heard about before?

Base: All respondents (n=2,152).

In the qualitative interviews, employers were asked if they were aware of any penalties without being provided a list of options. Employers could remember some information relating to penalties but tended to struggle with specific details. Fines were commonly mentioned, although figures given ranged from £1,000 to £60,000 and employers frequently admitted they were guessing. While some mentioned the fines alone as being enough of a deterrent, some employers focused more on the consequences of those fines on their organisation and its employees:

“[Right to Work checks are] really important because of the monumental fine that you’ll get if you employ somebody you shouldn’t.”

Transportation and storage sector, 50 to 99 employees

“Although we’re a business, it’s a family-owned one, and one of the things that the shareholders are more interested in than anything is… are staff jobs safe, so there is an expectation at that level that the company will be doing everything in a way that ensured that the staff that are working here’s jobs are safe, and if we don’t follow government rules… that puts the company in a very bad position.”

Manufacturing sector, 50 to 99 employees

“If you get raided, the whole company grinds to a halt for the time that they’re on site, so nothing gets done, so it’s not just £50,000, it’s also a full day’s loss of production, or 2 days.”

(Manufacturing sector, 1 to 9 employees)

Employers with 1 to 9 employees were less aware of several potential penalties for non-compliance compared with those with 100 or more employees, including a criminal conviction with the possibility of a prison sentence and unlimited fine (56% versus 73%), business closure (40% versus 53%), and the inability to sponsor migrants (34% versus 62%). One in 5 (20%) micro employers had not heard of the penalties listed, compared with 2% of those with 100 or more employees.

Smaller employers’ lack of awareness of penalties was also apparent in the depth interviews. Several smaller employers were very confident that the penalties did not apply to them because they thought they were doing everything correctly, so had no awareness of them:

“I have no idea what [the penalties] might be, because right to work and the application process and the checklist… have never crossed my desk [because we work with recruitment agencies]… it’s a subconscious thing because we know what we’re doing.”

Wholesale and retail trade sector, 10 to 49 employees

“[The fines] are not relevant to us… it’s not something I would be worried about because we do it anyway.”

Human health and social work activities sector, 10 to 49 employees

Employers who hired EU or rest of the world nationals were more aware of certain penalties compared to those who only hired British or Irish nationals, including fines (67% versus 54%) and the potential to become unable to sponsor migrants (45% versus 29%). This may be linked to those who only hire British or Irish nationals having a lower level of awareness regarding Right to Work check requirements more generally, as seen in chapter 6.

8.3 Employers’ experiences of enforcement activities

Nearly all (98%) employers surveyed said they had not experienced any enforcement activities, whether as a letter, visit, or civil penalty from the Home Office. One per cent of employers said they had experienced enforcement, with a further 1% saying prefer not to say. Of the small number who had experienced enforcement (n=21), 11 respondents had received an unannounced visit and 14 had received a letter. No one admitted to receiving a civil penalty.

Many employers interviewed did not have any experience of enforcement activities. Of those who did, their experiences were positive, and none admitted to being discovered to be non-compliant.

“We had 2 guys come in, they were just doing some random checks… they came in and looked at our process spreadsheets, for example, and just said yep, it looks like you know what you’re doing… I was a bit surprised to see them, but they were very pleasant.”

Transportation and storage sector, 10 to 49 employees

One employer commented that their lack of experience of enforcement activities made them question the implications of non-compliance:

“In 4 years I’ve never had anyone coming to check that I do it properly or if anyone is illegal so I guess… if someone don’t [sic] do it properly, no one would check.”

Professional, scientific and technical activities sector, 50 to 99 employees

That a small proportion of participants have experienced enforcement activity is as expected. This is due to enforcement activity being intelligence driven and focused on those who are suspected to be non-compliant, whereas the organisations included in this research have been selected according to the sample design.

8.4 Employers’ views on effectiveness of enforcement

Three-quarters (75%) of employers said the current Right to Work scheme is either somewhat or very effective at preventing employers from hiring illegal workers, with 49% thinking they were “somewhat effective”, one in 4 (26%) thinking they were “very effective”, 9% thinking that the scheme was “not very effective”, 3% said it was “not at all effective” and 12% did not know how to respond; see Figure 8.3.

Figure 8.3: Who thinks the current Right to Work scheme is effective (% of all respondents)

Source: F12. Taking into account Right to Work checks and penalties for non-compliance, how effective do you think the Right to Work scheme is at preventing employers from hiring illegal workers?

Base: All respondents (n=2,152).

Employers interpreted this question in several ways in the depth interviews. Of those who said they were effective, employers commented on whether checks prevented anyone who did not have the correct documents from beginning work, or for Home Office digital checks, how effective the technology was that underpinned Right to Work checks:

“No one goes on the payroll unless they have Right to Work documents… they’ve got my authority to send the individual home to get their Right to Work documents.”

Construction sector, 100 or more employees

“We normally get a copy of the actual code itself and so there’s no errors in terms of inputting the wrong information… it’s effective and it’s instant… so it’s pretty good.”

Transportation and storage sector, 10 to 49 employees

There were others who said that because illegal working persists despite the current Right to Work check scheme, they thought checks were not effective. One employer highlighted that for some employers, the financial benefits of employing workers illegally outweighed any perceived risks of non-compliance:

“I think most of the time [Right to Work checks are] not done well, I think an awful lot of people break the law because they can employ people at a very low cost.”

Real estate sector, 1 to 9 employees

In the quantitative survey, employers considered checks to be more effective if they:

• worked for an organisation with 100 or more employees versus 1 to 9 employees (92% versus 73%)
• hired agency workers (89%) or temporary seasonal workers (85%), compared to full-time employees (74%) or freelancers (71%)
• worked in transportation and storage (86%), compared to agriculture, forestry and fishing (68%), manufacturing (69%), and construction (71%); note that employers in the construction sector often perceive illegal working as common, which may explain why they consider checks to be less effective compared to others

8.5 Section summary

Most employers (72%) said that they thought illegal working in their sector was not common; however, 22% said it was very or somewhat common. Employers in the Construction (41%) and Accommodation and food services (39%) sectors believed that illegal working was common, more than in other sectors.

While most (80%) employers had heard of at least one potential penalty for hiring illegal workers, and three-quarters (75%) felt that the Right to Work check scheme was effective at preventing illegal working, few of the employers surveyed had any experience of enforcement.

9. Appendix

9.1 Reporting conventions

The following points should be considered when reading this report:

• percentages for single-response questions do not always add up to exactly 100% due to the effect of rounding
• the sum of 2 or more percentages do not always equal the sum of the integers due to the effect of rounding
• all differences reported are statistically significant to the 95% confidence level which means we can be 95% confident that the differences observed are genuine differences and have not just occurred by chance

Verbatim quotes from the qualitative depth interviews are used throughout the report to bring key findings to life. Quotes are attributed with some key details of the employer quoted including the sector and size of business, and in certain cases other relevant information about the business where necessary to provide additional context.

Findings from the qualitative research are not representative and generalisable to the overall employer population in a statistical sense, but provide deeper understanding of the views, experiences and perceptions of employers.

To ensure that the report is fully accessible, including for those using screen readers, all charted data has either been included in the report text, or the chart data has been replicated in a table.

9.2 Weighting

Weights were generated using 2 steps – design weighting, followed by raking. Details about both steps are provided below in order.

9.3 Deriving design weights

Stratified sampling was applied to 60 cells/strata formed by interlocking industry sectors (15 UK SIC 2007 Sections) and number of employees (4 bands: 1 to 9 / 10 to 49 / 50 to 99 / 100 or more). Sampling probabilities were varied between strata to allow for robust standalone analysis of larger businesses and of key industry sections. The design weighting stage compensates for the unequal sampling probabilities.

The sampling probability was calculated by dividing the population size of each stratum by the total number of businesses sampled from each corresponding stratum. The population size of each stratum comes from the Inter-Departmental Business Register (IDBR) (dated October 2023).

Note that when forming the strata for computing the sampling probabilities, the industry sector was obtained from IDBR, whereas the number of employees was based on information provided by respondents within the survey. The questionnaire answer was used for the number of employees because the business size recorded on IDBR can be out of date and the respondents’ provided business size should be treated as the most up-to-date information.

The design weight for each respondent was then calculated by inversing the sampling probability.

9.4 Compensating for non-response

Given that not every business responded to the survey, a further stage of weighting was used to compensate for systematic nonresponse. The design weight was used as the input, and the raking algorithm was then used to ensure the sample profile matched the population profile at the margins. The weighting used 2 variables:

• UK SIC 2007 Industry sectors (15 categories: A, C, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, P, Q, R, S)
• number of employees (4 categories: 1 to 9, 10 to 49, 50 to 99, 100 or more)

As previously, the industry sector was obtained from IDBR, and the number of employees was based on the answer provided in the questionnaire.

9.5 Design effects

The overall design effect^{[footnote 3]} taking into account the impact of the weighting is 2.77, and the overall effective sample size is estimated to be circa 775. This design effect is relatively high, but this is primarily due to the sample design, as mid-size and large businesses were boosted substantially to allow for robust analysis by business size. Weight trimming was trialled, but it led to an imbalanced sample profile and a very minor reduction in the design effect. Therefore, the untrimmed weight is used.

The estimated effective sample size and the associated design effect for each business size are shown in Table 9.1 below:

Table 9.1: Design effect by business size

Business size (based on questionnaire)	Achieved n	Design effect	Effective n
1-9	821	1.34	c.610
10-49	554	1.21	c.460
50-99	353	1.19	c.295
100+	424	1.22	c.345

Table 9.2 shows the design effect and effective sample size for key industry sectors.

Table 9.2: Design effect by sector

Sector (based on sample frame)	Achieved n	Design effect	Effective n
A Agriculture, forestry and fishing	100	1.50	c.65
C Manufacturing	286	2.53	c.110
F Construction	167	1.90	c.85
G Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles	387	1.53	c.250
H Transportation and storage	118	2.96	c.40
J Information and communication	86	2.30	c.35
K Financial and insurance activities	21	1.93	c.10
L Real estate activities	38	1.51	c.25
M Professional, scientific and technical activities	144	1.78	c.80
N Administrative and support service activities	211	2.39	c.85
P Education	21	2.76	c.5
Q Human health and social work activities	315	3.24	c.95
R Arts, entertainment and recreation	15	1.86	c.5
S Other service activities	41	1.16	c.35

9.6 Key Drivers Analysis

To understand exactly what was driving non-compliant behaviour among employers and what factors may influence whether an employer is compliant, Verian developed a model using survey data. Key factors that were revealed to indicate potential non-compliant behaviour included hiring zero-hours workers and knowledge of penalties.

9.7 Overview of Key Drivers Analysis and building a model for non-compliant behaviour

Key Drivers Analysis (KDA) uses logistic regression to understand the importance of various factors (predictor variables) in determining a specified outcome of interest (the outcome variable).

This research used a KDA to develop a model to try to understand the relative importance of factors in determining whether a business may be non-compliant with Right to Work check regulations, and therefore more at risk of hiring illegal workers.

9.8 The outcome variable measuring potential non-compliance

As the survey contained no single variable that indicates whether a business is compliant with Right to Work checks, Verian created a proxy for compliance from employers’ answers to key questions about compliance.

As shown in chapter 6, many respondents selected the correct answer choice on questions relating to compliance. However, a substantial proportion of employers also gave incorrect responses on questions such as who had a responsibility to check documents and which documents could be accepted.

If an employer were to answer any of the key compliance-related questions incorrectly, this made them at risk of non-compliance. Therefore, a composite variable was created to capture those employers who answered a compliance question incorrectly.

The composite variable comprised several survey questions relating to employers’ knowledge of Right to Work check regulations. This outcome variable can be used as a proxy for being at risk of non-compliance. Cases were flagged as being at risk of being non-compliant if they answered any of the composite questions incorrectly. These questions included knowledge of who is responsible for carrying out checks, which documents could be accepted as part of a check, procedures when carrying out checks, regularity of checks and record-keeping practices^{[footnote 4]}.

Of all employers surveyed, 80% answered at least one of the compliance questions incorrectly and were therefore at risk of non-compliance. This is broken down as follows:

• 11% did not say all employers in the UK had a responsibility to carry out Right to Work checks
• 51% said they would accept a driving licence or bank statement
• 64% said employers were required to recheck all employee documents every 5 years
• 12% did not check documents correctly
• 17% of all employers used IDSPs and did not keep records for the correct length of time

9.9 Potential predictor variables and individual, social and material factors

An extensive range of potential predictor variables were tested based on our hypotheses as to what may drive non-compliance. These included factors such as the business sector, recruitment methods, their sources of information when carrying out checks, employment practices and knowledge of penalties for non-compliance.

Variables tested and whether they are individual, social or material factors:

Individual	Social	Material
Motivations for carrying out checks	Sources of information about checks	Sector
Main concerns when carrying out checks	Types of worker employed (agency workers, zero-hour workers, for instance)	Number of sites in the employer
Knowledge of penalties	Recruitment methods	Difficulty in filling vacancies at the employer
	Nationality of employees	Number of employees hired in past 12 months
	Method of keeping up to date	Employee visa types
	Perceptions of sector illegal working
	Perceived effectiveness of checks

9.10 Key drivers of potential non-compliance

After having carried out KDA and testing all of the above potential predictor variables, a few key predictors were shown to have a significant impact on the outcome variable and therefore potentially indicate a higher risk of non-compliance.

Those employers that hired zero-hours workers had a 72% likelihood of answering one of the key compliance questions wrong and therefore be at risk of non-compliance compared to a baseline measure of 46%, demonstrating a 26 percentage point increase in potential non-compliance amongst this type of employer (72% to 46%). Employers that had heard of only one or 2 of the possible penalties for hiring illegal workers were also more likely to be at risk of non-compliance, seeing a 17 and 15 percentage point increase, respectively. Employers whose organisation used a checklist to ensure compliance were also more likely to be at risk of non-compliance, seeing a 12 point increase in risk of non-compliance.

Significant drivers of potential non-compliance

Predictor variable	Impact on potential non-compliance (percentage points)
Hires zero-hours workers	+ 26
Heard of one penalty	+ 17
Heard of 2 penalties	+15
Organisation uses checklist to ensure compliance	+12

Source: Key Drivers Analysis of survey data.

9.11 Quantitative survey questionnaire

B: About the business

ASK ALL / TEXT SCREEN

B1. The following questions are about your business, its employees and general recruitment practices

ASK ALL / SINGLE CODE

B2. Approximately, how many employees are currently on your payroll in the UK, across all sites?

Please include all full time and part time staff, please do not include partners, owners, self-employed or agency staff

READ IF NECESSARY. SINGLE CODE

1. 0 [Terminate interview]
2. 1-4
3. 5-9
4. 10-19
5. 20-49
6. 50-99
7. 100 or more
8. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know
9. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say

ASK ALL / SINGLE CODE

B3. How many sites does your business have in the UK? READ IF NECESSARY. SINGLE CODE

IF NECESSARY: Sites refers to all physical structures occupied by the business, do not include remote worker locations

IF NECESSARY: If you are not sure, please provide a best estimate

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3-5
4. 6-10
5. 11-20
6. 21 or more
7. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know
8. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say

ASK ALL / SINGLE CODE

B4. Approximately, how many employees has your business hired in the past 12 months? Please include all who have been hired including if they are no longer employed READ IF NECESSARY. SINGLE CODE

1. 0
2. 1-4
3. 5-9
4. 10-19
5. 20-49
6. 50-99
7. 100 or more
8. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know
9. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say

ASK ALL / NUMERIC

B5. How many vacancies, if any, do you currently have at your business?

1. [Free text]
2. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know
3. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say

ASK IF B5 = 2 / SINGLE CODE

B6. Can you provide a best estimate?

1. 0
2. 1-4
3. 5-9
4. 10-19
5. 20-49
6. 50-99
7. 100 or more
8. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know
9. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say

ASK ALL / SINGLE CODE / RANDOM REVERSE CHOICES

B8. Typically, how easy or difficult does your business find it to fill vacancies? READ OUT. SINGLE CODE. RANDOM REVERSE CHOICES.

1. Very difficult
2. Moderately difficult
3. Moderately easy
4. Very easy
5. It varies depending on the vacancy [DO NOT ROTATE]
6. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [DO NOT ROTATE]
7. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [DO NOT ROTATE]

ASK ALL / MULTI CODE

B9. Which of the following types of worker does your business currently use? Please choose all that apply READ OUT. MULTI CODE

1. Full-time employees
2. Part-time employees
3. Self-employed workers
4. Freelancer
5. Agency workers
6. Zero-hours or minimum-hour contracted workers
7. Gig-economy/platform workers
8. Apprentices
9. Temporary seasonal workers
10. Other [SPECIFY]
11. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [EXCLUSIVE]
12. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [EXCLUSIVE]

ASK IF B4 = 2-7 / MULTI CODE

B10. Which of the following hiring methods have you used in the past 12 months? Please choose all that apply READ OUT. MULTI CODE

1. Advertised role externally (e.g. job boards, recruitment websites, company website)
2. Advertised role internally within the business
3. Recruitment agent
4. Temporary employment agency
5. Word of mouth
6. Friends or family
7. Social Media (e.g. LinkedIn, Facebook, X)
8. Other [SPECIFY] ­
9. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [EXCLUSIVE]
10. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [EXCLUSIVE]

ASK ALL/ MULTI CODE

B11. Which of the following nationalities do you currently employ? Please choose all that apply READ OUT. MULTI CODE

1. British nationals
2. Irish nationals
3. EU, EEA, or Swiss nationals IF NECESSARY: EEA includes the EU, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein)
4. Rest of the world nationals (not UK, Ireland, EU, EEA or Swiss)
5. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [EXCLUSIVE]
6. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [EXCLUSIVE]

ASK IF B11 = 3 or 4 / MULTI CODE

B12. Which of the following do you currently employ? Please choose all that apply READ OUT. MULTI CODE

1. People with continuous right to work in the UK (e.g. indefinite leave to remain)
2. People on time-limited work visas
3. People on student visas
4. People applying from overseas who require sponsorship
5. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [EXCLUSIVE]
6. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [EXCLUSIVE]

C: Awareness and understanding of right to work checks

ASK ALL / TEXT SCREEN

C1. The following questions are about your understanding of checks carried out by employers when hiring new employees known as right to work checks.

ASK ALL / MULTI CODE / RANDOM ROTATE CHOICES

C2. Who has a responsibility to carry out right to work checks? Please choose all that apply READ OUT. MULTI CODE.

1. All employers in the UK
2. Employers of non-UK nationals
3. Home office
4. Employees themselves
5. Recruitment agencies
6. Subcontractors
7. Other [SPECIFY] [DO NOT ROTATE]
8. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]
9. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]

ASK ALL / MULTI CODE / RANDOM ROTATE CHOICES

C3. Why does your business carry out right to work checks? Please choose all that apply READ OUT. MULTI CODE.

1. To ensure we aren’t hiring illegal workers
2. To comply with government regulations
3. To comply with our business’s policies and procedures
4. To check a new employee is who they say they are
5. To check a new employee has the right experience
6. To avoid receiving any sanctions by not complying with right to work checks
7. Other [SPECIFY] [DO NOT ROTATE]
8. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]
9. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]

ASK ALL / MULTI CODE

C4. When does your business conduct formal Right to work checks? Please choose all that apply READ OUT. MULTI CODE

1. Before we interview a potential employee
2. Before the employee signs a contract
3. Before the employee starts work
4. Before an existing employee’s temporary right to work comes to an end
5. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]
6. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]

D. How businesses manage right to work checks

ASK ALL / TEXT SCREEN

D1. The following questions are about right to work checks and how they are conducted at your business.

ASK ALL / MULTI CODE

D2. Who conducts right to work checks for your business? Please choose all that apply READ OUT. MULTI CODE

1. The business owner, director or other partner
2. Human Resources team, or other specific internal team
3. Line managers
4. Regional/site managers
5. External recruitment or staffing agencies
6. Home Office
7. HMRC
8. IDSP (Digital Identity Service Provider)
9. Other [SPECIFY]
10. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [EXCLUSIVE]
11. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [EXCLUSIVE]

ASK ALL / SINGLE CODE / RANDOM REVERSE CHOICES

D3. Are you responsible for carrying out formal right to work checks at your business? READ OUT. SINGLE CODE.

1. Yes, for all staff
2. Yes, for some staff
3. No
4. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [DO NOT ROTATE]
5. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [DO NOT ROTATE]

ASK IF D2 = 8 / NUMERIC

D6. Approximately how much does each right to work check cost when using an IDSP(Digital Identity Service Provider) to conduct the check?

1. [FREE TEXT]
2. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know
3. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say

ASK ALL / MULTI CODE / RANDOM ROTATE CHOICES

D7. How does your business make sure that all those completing right to work checks are aware of the latest regulations? Please choose all that apply. READ OUT. MULTI CODE.

1. Regular training sessions
2. Sharing information by email when knowledge is updated
3. Practical information on company intranet
4. Formal company policy
5. Company checklist to complete for each new starter
6. Designated company lead carries out all right to work checks
7. Third parties conduct right to work checks on our behalf
8. Other [SPECIFY] [DO NOT ROTATE]
9. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]
10. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]

ASK ALL / MULTI CODE / RANDOM ROTATE CHOICES

D8. Which of these approaches has your business used when carrying out right to work checks? Please choose all that apply. READ OUT. MULTI CODE.

1. Manually checking a potential or existing employee’s documents in person
2. Using an Identity Service Provider to check a potential or existing employee’s documents
3. A Home Office online right to work check
4. Other [SPECIFY] [DO NOT ROTATE]
5. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]
6. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]

ASK IF D8=1 [CONDUCTS MANUAL CHECKS] / MULTI CODE / RANDOM ROTATE CHOICES (SHOW 1,5,6 IN ORDER)

D9. Which documents can be accepted to prove someone’s right to work in the UK? Please choose all that apply READ OUT. MULTI CODE.

IF NECESSARY: Please include any documentation that you might accept as part of the right to work checks, for all potential employees

1. UK or Irish passport
2. UK driving licence
3. National insurance number
4. Bank statement/utility bill/phone bill with UK address
5. EU, EEA/Swiss passport or national identity card
6. Rest of the world passport (Not British, Irish, EEA or Swiss)
7. Other [SPECIFY] [DO NOT ROTATE]
8. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]
9. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]

ASK IF D8=1 [CONDUCTS MANUAL CHECKS] / MULTI CODE / RANDOM ROTATE CHOICES

D10. Which of the following is required of employers as part of right to work checks? Please choose all that apply READ OUT. MULTI CODE.

1. Ask employees to provide original documents to be checked
2. Check documents
3. Make clear copies of documents
4. Keep secure records of document copies
5. Carry out follow-up checks if employee’s right to work is time limited
6. Recheck all employees’ documents every five years.
7. Other [SPECIFY] [DO NOT ROTATE]
8. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]
9. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]

ASK IF D8=1 [CONDUCTS MANUAL CHECKS] / MULTI CODE / RANDOM ROTATE CHOICES

D11. When your business checks documents manually which of the following do they check? Please choose all that apply READ OUT. MULTI CODE.

1. Documents are genuine
2. The name on the document is the same as the employee
3. The person presenting the documents is allowed to do the sort of work you want to employ them in
4. The person presenting the documents has the correct qualifications for the role
5. Other [SPECIFY] [DO NOT ROTATE]
6. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]
7. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]

ASK IF D8=1 [CONDUCTS MANUAL CHECKS] / MULTI CODE / RANDOM ROTATE CHOICES

D12. What do you look at when checking documents? Please choose all that apply READ OUT. MULTI CODE. RANDOM ROTATE CHOICES

1. Photographs and the person’s appearance
2. Dates of birth
3. Expiry dates
4. Any work restrictions
5. Credibility of the documentation
6. Explanation for any differences in names across documents
7. Other [SPECIFY] [DO NOT ROTATE]
8. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]
9. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]

ASK IF D8=2 [IDSP CONDUCTS CHECKS] / SINGLE CODE

D14. When using an Identity Service Provider to check a potential or existing employee’s documents, how long do you keep a record of the check? READ OUT. SINGLE CODE

1. For 6 months after the check has been complete
2. For 1 year after the check has been complete
3. For the entire length of time of the employment
4. For the entire length of time of the employment plus an additional 2 years
5. For the entire length of time of the employment plus more than 2 years
6. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [DO NOT ROTATE]
7. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [DO NOT ROTATE]

ASK ALL / SINGLE CODE / RANDOM REVERSE CHOICES

D15. How easy or difficult do employees find it to supply necessary information for right to work checks? READ OUT. SINGLE CODE.

1. Very difficult
2. Moderately difficult
3. Moderately easy
4. Very easy
5. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [DO NOT ROTATE]
6. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [DO NOT ROTATE]

ASK ALL / MULTI CODE / RANDOM ROTATE CHOICES

D16. When you carry out right to work checks, what are your main concerns? Please choose all that apply READ OUT. MULTI CODE.

1. Making sure you / your employer does not incur any penalties, financial or otherwise
2. Making sure your customers know your business follows the rules
3. Preventing illegal working
4. Protecting those who depend on your business
5. Doing the right thing
6. Other [SPECIFY] [DO NOT ROTATE]
7. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [DO NOT ROTATE]
8. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [DO NOT ROTATE]

ASK ALL / SINGLE CODE / RANDOM REVERSE CHOICES

D17. When carrying out right to work checks, how confident are you that ## IF D3=1, 2 ## you are carrying out the checks correctly? ## IF D3=3,4,5 ## your colleagues are carrying out the checks correctly? READ OUT. SINGLE CODE.

1. Not at all confident
2. Not very confident
3. Somewhat confident
4. Very confident
5. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [DO NOT ROTATE]
6. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [DO NOT ROTATE]

E. Sources of knowledge about right to work checks

ASK ALL / TEXT SCREEN

E1. The following questions are related to your understanding of Home Office right to work checks and where you go for information about right to work checks.

ASK ALL / MULTI CODE / RANDOM ROTATE CHOICES

E2. Where would you find general information about right to work checks? Please choose all that apply READ OUT. MULTI CODE.

1. Home Office website
2. Other Home Office communications
3. Friends or family
4. Professional body or trade organisation
5. Professional services firms (e.g. lawyers or consultants)
6. Radio/ TV / Newspaper / Social Media
7. Other [SPECIFY] [DO NOT ROTATE]
8. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]
9. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]

ASK ALL / SINGLE CODE /

E4. When did you last hear about a change of rules for right to work checks? READ IF NECESSARY. SINGLE CODE.

1. In the last six months
2. In the last year but not the last six months
3. In the past two years but not the last year
4. In the past five years but not the last 2 years
5. More than five years ago
6. I haven’t heard about any change of rules for right to work checks
7. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know
8. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say

ASK ALL / SINGLE CODE / RANDOM REVERSE CHOICES

E7. Have you used a Home Office service or helpline to aid with conducting right to work checks in the last 12 months? READ OUT. SINGLE CODE.

1. Yes
2. No
3. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [DO NOT ROTATE]
4. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [DO NOT ROTATE]

ASK IF E7 =1 [USED HOME OFFICE] / SINGLE CODE / RANDOM REVERSE CHOICES

E8. How easy to follow is the Home Office’s guidance? READ OUT. SINGLE CODE.

1. Very difficult
2. Fairly difficult
3. Neither easy nor difficult
4. Fairly easy
5. Very easy
6. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [DO NOT ROTATE]
7. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [DO NOT ROTATE]

F. Views on checks and compliance

ASK ALL / TEXT SCREEN

F1. The next questions are related to your views on complying with Home Office right to work checks

ASK ALL / SINGLE CODE / RANDOM REVERSE CHOICES

F2. Do you believe illegal working in your sector is…? READ OUT. SINGLE CODE.

1. Very uncommon
2. Fairly uncommon
3. Fairly common
4. Very common
5. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [DO NOT ROTATE]
6. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [DO NOT ROTATE]

ASK ALL / MULTI CODE / RANDOM ROTATE CHOICES

F3. If employers are found to be employing someone illegally and have not carried out right to work checks correctly, they may be penalised. Which of the penalties for employers have you heard about before? Please choose all that apply READ OUT. MULTI CODE.

1. A fine of up to £20/60,000 for each illegal worker
2. A criminal conviction, with the possibility of a prison sentence and unlimited fine
3. Closure of their business
4. Employer is disqualified as a company director
5. Employer becomes unable to sponsor migrants
6. Earnings from the illegal working seized by the government
7. Review of work-related licences e.g. in late-night sector, private vehicle and taxi sector
8. None of these [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]
9. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]
10. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [EXCLUSIVE] [DO NOT ROTATE]

ASK IF F3 = ANY 1-7 / SINGLE CODE / RANDOM REVERSE CHOICES

F4. Do you think these penalties are proportionate to the offence of employing someone illegally and having not carried out right to work checks correctly? READ OUT. SINGLE CODE.

1. Yes
2. No
3. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [DO NOT ROTATE]
4. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [DO NOT ROTATE]

ASK ALL / SINGLE CODE / RANDOM REVERSE CHOICES /

F13. Have you ever received an unannounced visit, a letter or a civil penalty from the Home Office on the basis of an employee not having the right to work? READ OUT. SINGLE CODE.

IF NECESSARY: Consider all previous places of work, as well as at your current place of work

1. Yes
2. No
3. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [DO NOT ROTATE]
4. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [DO NOT ROTATE]

ASK IF F13 = 1 / MULTI CODE / SHOW F15 AND F15 ON SAME SCREEN

F14. Which have you received, as a result of an employee not having the right to work? READ IF NECESSARY. SINGLE CODE.

1. An unannounced visit from the Home Office
2. A letter from the Home Office
3. A civil penalty from the Home Office
4. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [DO NOT ROTATE]
5. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [DO NOT ROTATE]

ASK IF F13 = 1 / MULTI CODE / SHOW F6 AND F7 ON SAME SCREEN

F15. Did you receive this at your current place of work or in a previous place of employment? READ OUT. SINGLE CODE.
IF NECESSARY: These are communications on behalf of the Home Office

1. At my current place of work
2. At a previous place of work
3. I have received one of these at my current work, and a previous place of work
4. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [DO NOT ROTATE]
5. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [DO NOT ROTATE]

ASK ALL / SINGLE CODE / RANDOM REVERSE CHOICES

F16. Taking into account Right to Work checks and penalties for non-compliance, how effective do you think the right to work scheme is at preventing employers from hiring illegal workers? READ OUT. SINGLE CODE.

1. Very effective
2. Somewhat effective
3. Not very effective
4. Not at all effective
5. DO NOT READ OUT: Don’t know [DO NOT ROTATE]
6. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say [DO NOT ROTATE]

G. Individual demographics

ASK ALL / TEXT SCREEN

G1. Thank you for taking the time to take this survey. We now have some final questions about your role in the business.

ASK ALL / SINGLE CODE

G2. Which of the following best describes your job role? READ OUT. SINGLE CODE

1. Business owner/partner
2. CEO/COO/CFO
3. Senior management
4. HR Manager
5. Other [SPECIFY]
6. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say

ASK ALL / SINGLE CODE

G3. How long have you been working in this role? READ IF NECESSARY. SINGLE CODE

1. Less than one year
2. Between one and two years
3. Between two and five years
4. Between five and ten years
5. More than ten years
6. DO NOT READ OUT: Refused/prefer not to say

ASK ALL / SINGLE CODE

G4. The Home Office may be conducting some further research on these topics in the future. Would you be happy for someone from Verian or a representative working on behalf of Verian to re-contact you and invite you to participate in this research in the next 12 months? READ OUT. SINGLE CODE

1. Yes
2. No

ASK IF CATI / ASK IF G4=1 / SINGLE CODE

G5. And could I just check, is [phone number] the best number to call you on regarding future research?

1. Yes
2. No [SPECIFY]
3. Refused

ASK IF CAWI / ASK IF G4 =1 / NUMERIC/ SINGLE CODE

G6. What is the best phone number to call you regarding future research?

1. [Free text]
2. Prefer not to say

1. This refers to repeat breaches. First breach penalty went up from £15,000 to £45,000 ↩

2. Part-way through the quantitative fieldwork, the maximum fine per illegal worker was increased from £20k to £60k. The figure in this response option was updated accordingly during fieldwork. ↩

3. The design effects were calculated as (1 + cov(W)2) – where cov(W) is the coefficient of variation of the weights. ↩

4. The following questions were used to create the composite outcome variable: C2, D9, D10, D11, D14. The full text of the questionnaire is available in appendix 9.11. ↩