A worker should be able to leave abusive employment without their immigration position becoming another means of control.
For someone on a sponsored visa, leaving can involve much more than finding another job. Income, housing and plans for a family’s future may depend on what happens to their permission to remain in the UK.
A new provision, effective from 8 October 2026, allows certain Skilled Workers recognised as victims of modern slavery to have their work conditions changed.
At Knightsbridge, we welcome this protection. Its value will depend on whether workers can understand it, access it and demonstrate their revised rights to a new employer. The period before formal recognition also deserves attention.
What the new Skilled Worker rule changes
Under paragraph SW 18.3 of Appendix Skilled Worker, an eligible person can have the restrictions linking their work to sponsorship amended. The resulting permission can allow employment with another employer, self-employment and voluntary work. Work as a professional sportsperson, including as a sports coach, remains excluded.
Home Office sponsor guidance confirms that this flexibility lasts for the remaining period of the person’s Skilled Worker permission. It can therefore open up work beyond employers able to offer sponsorship.
That matters because a worker escaping exploitation needs a realistic way to earn a living. Requiring them to find another sponsored role before they can support themselves may leave very few immediate options.
The reform gives qualifying workers a wider choice of employment. In our view, that choice can reduce the power an abusive employer exercises through dependence on a particular job.
Who qualifies for the new protection?
The eligibility threshold is specific. The person must have been referred into the National Referral Mechanism, or NRM, and received a positive Conclusive Grounds decision during their most recent permission. That timing requirement needs checking against the worker’s immigration history.
The NRM is the process used to identify and support potential victims of modern slavery. It involves an initial Reasonable Grounds decision and a later Conclusive Grounds decision, following further consideration of the case. These are distinct stages.
Reporting exploitation, entering the NRM or receiving a positive Reasonable Grounds decision does not, by itself, satisfy the new rule’s Conclusive Grounds requirement.
This distinction should be explained carefully. Someone may need urgent protection while their case is still being considered. Being unable to use this particular provision at that stage does not make their situation less serious.
It also means that the announcement should not be treated as a general right for every sponsored worker to move freely between employers. Outside this protection, the usual Skilled Worker visa requirements remain relevant. Changing employer normally requires a new Certificate of Sponsorship and an application to update permission.
Recognition and amended work conditions are separate questions
There is a practical detail in the legal wording that deserves attention: the rule permits the Home Office to amend work conditions. It should not be read as though every existing immigration record changes automatically when a positive decision arrives.
Our practical view is that a worker should obtain confirmation of the amended conditions before relying on the wider right to work. Their immigration record, decision correspondence and the evidence available to a prospective employer need to tell a consistent story.
Otherwise, a person may receive a job offer but struggle to demonstrate that they can accept it. A reform intended to create independence could become difficult to use at the recruitment stage.
The Home Office should make that transition clear. Workers and advisers need to know how the amendment is recorded, how any discrepancy can be resolved and what evidence a new employer should check.
Recognition, changed conditions and a successful right to work check need to connect in practice. Expecting someone recovering from exploitation to resolve uncertainty between those stages would weaken the protection.
The visa expiry date still matters
The new flexibility concerns work during the remainder of existing permission. It does not itself extend that permission. The Home Office’s explanatory memorandum expressly describes the protection by reference to the time already remaining.
The amount of useful time will therefore vary. Someone with a substantial period left may have space to find stable work and make longer-term plans. Someone approaching expiry may need urgent specialist advice alongside help finding employment.
The amendment also leaves the no access to public funds condition in SW 18.2(a) unchanged. Wider work rights should not be mistaken for a general entitlement to benefits.
Nor should anyone assume that freedom to take a different job settles the requirements for a future extension or settlement application. Those questions need separate assessment against the rules and circumstances applicable at the time.
Good advice should connect immediate protection with the next immigration deadline. Helping someone start a new job is valuable; ensuring they understand what happens when their permission ends is equally necessary.
Support cannot wait for the final decision
The most difficult period may come before a worker receives the recognition needed to use the new provision.
A person considering disclosure may need safe accommodation, help understanding their options and a way to meet essential expenses. The prospect of broader work rights later does not answer those immediate needs.
In England and Wales, referrals into the NRM are made by designated first responder organisations, including local authorities, police and specified charities. Adult referral requires informed consent. Support can be available before a Conclusive Grounds decision, with provision depending on the person’s circumstances and stage in the process.
These arrangements matter to how the new protection works. If a person cannot safely reach the point of recognition, a stronger entitlement afterwards may offer little practical reassurance.
Our view is that the reform should be assessed alongside access to support, the clarity of referral arrangements and the speed of decisions. The relevant question is whether someone can move from disclosure to safety and sustainable employment.
Workers should not interpret the Conclusive Grounds requirement as a reason to remain in danger while waiting. Specialist support should be sought promptly. The government’s modern slavery reporting guidance explains how people who are not first responders can seek help or report concerns.
New employers need a clear route to lawful recruitment
The reform also needs to be understood by employers willing to recruit someone whose conditions have changed.
A new employer must carry out the appropriate right to work check and establish that the person has permission for the proposed work. Where an online check is used, the check should be completed through the employer service using the applicant’s share code.
Our guidance on right to work checks explains the wider compliance principles.
In practice, recruitment staff should understand that an amended permission may differ from the conditions they usually associate with a Skilled Worker visa. Familiarity with the ordinary route must not become an assumption that sponsorship is always required.
Employers should also handle the person’s circumstances sensitively. A right to work process should establish the immigration permission relevant to the appointment. It should not become an unnecessary demand for a detailed account of traumatic experiences.
Clear Home Office records and well-informed recruitment teams would make the new freedom easier to use.
What workers and advisers should establish first
For an individual case, the useful starting point is a short, accurate chronology: when permission was granted, when it expires, when the NRM decision was made and what the Home Office has said about work conditions.
Any correspondence about cancellation or the sponsor’s position should be considered alongside those records. An assumption based on the original visa expiry date may miss a later decision.
Where it is safe to do so, records of pay, promised hours, recruitment payments and threats can help a specialist understand what has happened. Gathering documents should not delay seeking safety or support.
The immediate priorities will differ. One person may need help accessing the recognition process. Another may already have the relevant decision but need their work conditions clarified. A third may face an approaching immigration deadline.
Treating all three as an ordinary change of employer enquiry would overlook what actually needs to be resolved.
Our view: protection must lead to practical independence
We welcome a system that gives recognised victims more control over where and how they work.
Its success should be measured through outcomes: workers reaching safety, understanding their status, securing lawful employment and planning beyond the end of their existing permission.
Effective action against abusive employers also matters. Protecting a worker and addressing the conduct that caused the harm should reinforce each other.
The new rule provides an important opportunity to reduce dependence on an abusive sponsor. Clear administration and accessible support will determine how much difference it makes.
For help identifying the appropriate next step, Request a Case Assessment. Knightsbridge can establish whether an enquiry falls within its authorised scope; modern slavery, protection and complex status issues may require referral to a suitably qualified specialist.
