MPs agree that work sponsorship system needs reform in key Westminster debate
Yesterday, MPs came together in a key Westminster Hall debate to call for reform of the work-sponsorship system which is leading to the widespread exploitation of migrant workers. The debate focused on the potential merits of the government backing a “Certificate of Common Sponsorship”, which would change the UK’s work migration system to give workers more flexibility to leave exploitative work situations. Most importantly, it would redress the power imbalance between workers and employers inherent in sponsorship.
Following a briefing from the Work Rights Centre, MPs from various parties acknowledged the terrible situations faced by many migrant workers in the social care sector. Below, we set out the key remarks, the government’s response and where we can expect the debate to turn to next.
What is a Certificate of Common Sponsorship?
Backed by trade union Unison, a Certificate of Common Sponsorship is a proposed reform of the work sponsorship system that would allow migrant healthcare workers to switch employers within the sector without putting their visa status at risk. The reform would make this possible by breaking the tie of sponsorship between a worker and an individual employer. Instead, workers would be sponsored under the umbrella of the health and social care sectors more widely, allowing them to freely change employment.
This potential reform has attracted growing support in recent months. An Early Day Motion tabled by Labour MP Neil Duncan-Jordan on 3 December 2024 has already attracted 36 signatures from parliamentarians across different political parties. The Motion states that the dependency on a single employer created by sponsorship results in a significant power imbalance, contributing to potentially exploitative and unsafe working conditions. It also mentions that a Certificate of Common Sponsorship could be used as part of an overall drive to reform the social care sector.
Widespread support for work visa reform
There was a common thread throughout the discussion that the current system of work sponsorship was inherently flawed. Opening the debate, Neil Duncan-Jordan outlined how sponsorship was preventing workers from speaking up about bad practices:
Workers are fearful of raising concerns about employment practices, because they know that the same employers can remove their visa sponsorship. Unscrupulous employers can use the threat of removal to a care worker’s home country to victimise migrant workers who whistleblow or complain about their treatment.
The system was also noted as being difficult for workers to find alternative employment. Citing our research, Carla Denyer mentioned that only 5% of workers who had tried to switch sponsors were successful in the 60-day time frame that workers have after they leave their existing employment.
MPs shared shocking examples of how the work-sponsorship system had been weaponised by rogue employers in the social care sector to abuse migrant workers. Neil Duncan-Jordan outlined how one employer had billed staff £65 an hour for meeting and greeting new employees at the airport when they arrived in the UK.
Jayne Kirkham also noted concerns in her constituency around shift patterns and hours - one constituent described being away for 17 hours, only to have worked for less than five hours due to the nature of their shifts. Staff had also described being threatened about taking days off, and the expectation that migrant workers would always have to work on bank holidays such as Christmas day.
It was also noted that, whilst the government had introduced different packages of reform to try and deal with the scale of migrant worker exploitation in the sector, these reforms had been unsuccessful at getting to the heart of the problem. Neil Duncan-Jordan outlined:
Government interventions to address these issues have failed thus far. In 2023, the then Government announced that care providers could only sponsor migrant workers if they were undertaking activities regulated by the CQC, but this failed to recognise that many registered companies were already exploiting their workers. In 2024, a rematching programme to help workers find another sponsored role when things went wrong was symbolic of acting after the problem had arisen, rather than seeking to change the structure of the system. Although welcome, stricter licensing requirements and greater sanctions do not address the fundamental power imbalance at the heart of the employee sponsorship system.
Backing the call for greater worker flexibility, MPs were supportive of the Certificate of Common Sponsorship reform and the potential benefits it could bring. For example, Labour’s Steve Witherden mentioned that:
The introduction of a Certificate of Common Sponsorship would enable migrant workers to change employers freely without facing the burden of additional immigration fees, the risk of being unemployed within the 60-day period or jeopardising their visa status.
The DUP's Health Spokesperson Jim Shannon also made the point that a Certificate of Common Sponsorship would reduce the administrative burden currently faced by both migrant workers and those businesses sponsoring them, and that the benefits of this system could be expanded to different areas including seasonal work:
Seasonal workers are needed quickly, and there should be an easier and more streamlined way for them to access sponsorship, to be gainfully employed and to be able to move through employment. That is why I supported the hon. Member in his call for reform of the tier 2 visa system and the introduction of a certificate of common sponsorship.
The government’s response
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Minister for Migration and Citizenship Seema Malhotra did not offer a ringing endorsement of the Certificate of Common Sponsorship proposal.
Much of the government’s response was focused on what measures were currently in place to tackle the exploitation of workers and to support them in moving employment. This included nods to the Home Office applying the genuine vacancy test in the social care sector with more rigour, the Department of Health and Social Care’s (DHSC) rematching programme for migrant workers affected by sponsor licence revocation and recent changes to increase compliance action on sponsors breaking employment laws.
There were, however, a number of important statements by the minister which are worth highlighting:
-
The government admitted that sponsorship can be problematic for workers. The Minister mentioned that “the government recognise that the requirement to be sponsored and the worker’s reliance on their sponsor can, in some circumstances, make it more difficult for sponsored workers to change their employer”. As far as we are aware, this is the first admission of its kind by the government. It is an important recognition that the system of work-sponsorship itself can be problematic because of the dynamic it creates between workers and rogue employers.
-
More employment protections are likely to be embedded in the immigration system. The Minister mentioned that “visa and employment laws will be brought into closer alignment” and that the “Home Office will ensure that the new protections set out in the [Employment Rights] Bill and the work of the flagship Fair Work Agency are integrated into the sponsorship framework”.
-
The scope of DHSC’s rematching programme is wider than first thought. The Minister encouraged workers whose sponsor was not yet subject to Home Office compliance action in the form of licence revocation to come forward to their regional hub for support. It was also confirmed that for care workers who do come forward for rematching to other sponsored employment in the sector, the Home Office will waive priority service fees for those applications.
What next?
Given the passage of the Employment Rights Bill and the fact that reports of exploitation in the care sector are still emerging, these issues and calls for reform are unlikely to go away any time soon.
Importantly, the Minister confirmed that she will be meeting with Unison to discuss the Certificate of Common Sponsorship proposal further and to obtain wider insights on issues facing workers. It was also confirmed that the Minister would be meeting counterparts from DHSC and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to discuss how the three departments can come together to work more collaboratively on these issues.
We will be continuing to advocate for reform of the work-sponsorship system so that migrant workers are better protected and are able to leave exploitative employment in a way that does not risk their immigration status or their livelihoods.
Read our research on the UK's immigration system

The forgotten third: Migrant workers' views on improving conditions in England's adult social care sector
Finding that migrant care workers are suffering persistent employment rights breaches, but are dissuaded from reporting, we present recommendations for sector-level and immigration reform.
Read moreRead more
The systemic drivers of migrant worker exploitation in the UK
We identify the work-sponsorship system adopted after Brexit, combined with weak labour enforcement, as the driving force behind increasing reports of migrant worker exploitation in Britain.
Read moreRead morePlease donate
To support the Work Rights Centre in our efforts to assist migrant workers please consider making a donation