
Home Office unaware how many might have overstayed skilled worker visa, MPs warn
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which examines the value for money of Government projects, said the Home Office had not analysed exit checks since the skilled worker visa route was introduced in 2020 under the Conservatives.
Some 1.18 million people applied to come to the UK on this route – to attract skilled workers in the wake of Brexit – between its launch in December of that year and the end of 2024.
Around 630,000 of those were dependants of the main visa applicant.
But the PAC said there is both a lack of knowledge around what people do when their visas expire and that the expansion of the route in 2022 to attract staff for the struggling social care sector led to the exploitation of some migrant workers.
Its report said there was 'widespread evidence of workers suffering debt bondage, working excessive hours and exploitative conditions', but adds there is 'no reliable data on the extent of abuses'.
It noted that the fact a person's right to remain in the UK is dependent on their employer under the sponsorship model means migrant workers are 'vulnerable to exploitation'.
Figures published earlier this year suggested thousands of care workers have come to the UK in recent years under sponsors whose licences were later revoked, in estimates suggesting the scale of exploitation in the system.
The Home Office said more than 470 sponsor licences in the care sector had been revoked between July 2022 and December 2024 in a crackdown on abuse and exploitation.
More than 39,000 workers were associated with those sponsors since October 2020, the department said.
In its report, published on Friday, the PAC said: 'The cross-government response to tackling the exploitation of migrant workers has been insufficient and, within this, the Home Office's response has been slow and ineffective.'
It also noted a lack of information around what happens to people when their visas expire, stating that the Home Office had said the only way it can tell if people are still in the country is to match its own data with airline passenger information.
The report said: 'The Home Office has not analysed exit checks since the route was introduced and does not know what proportion of people return to their home country after their visa has expired, and how many may be working illegally in the United Kingdom.'
Committee chairman Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said while the then-Tory government had 'moved swiftly to open up the visa system to help the social care system cope during the pandemic', the speed and volume of applications 'came at a painfully high cost – to the safety of workers from the depredations of labour market abuses, and the integrity of the system from people not following the rules'.
He added: 'There has long been mounting evidence of serious issues with the system, laid bare once again in our inquiry.
'And yet basic information, such as how many people on skilled worker visas have been modern slavery victims, and whether people leave the UK after their visas expire, seems to still not have been gathered by Government.'
Earlier this week legislation to end the recruitment of care workers from abroad was introduced to Parliament as part of a raft of immigration reforms.
The move has sparked concerns from the adult social care sector, with the GMB union describing the decision as 'potentially catastrophic' due to the reliance on migrant workers, with some 130,000 vacancies across England.
The Home Office believes there are 40,000 potential members of staff originally brought over by 'rogue' providers who could work in the sector while UK staff are trained up.
Sir Geoffrey warned that unless there is 'effective cross-government working, there is a risk that these changes will exacerbate challenges for the care sector'.
He said the Government must 'develop a deeper understanding of the role that immigration plays in sector workforce strategies, as well as how domestic workforce plans will help address skills shortages', warning that it 'no longer has the excuse of the global crisis caused by the pandemic if it operates this system on the fly, and without due care'.
Adis Sehic, policy manager at charity the Work Rights Centre, said the report 'unequivocally finds that the sponsorship system is making migrant workers vulnerable to exploitation because it ties workers to employers' and that the Home Office had 'simply relied on sponsors' goodwill to comply with immigration rules'.
He added: 'This report is yet more damning evidence that the principle of sponsorship, which ties migrant workers in the UK to their employer, is inherently unsafe for workers and, in our view, breaches their human rights.
'Structural reform of the sponsorship system must urgently be undertaken if this Government is to meaningfully uphold its commitments relating to employment and human rights.'
Among its recommendations, the PAC said the Home Office should work with relevant government bodies to 'establish an agreed response to tackling exploitation risks and consequences' and identify what data is needed, including 'how to better understand what happens to people at the end of their visa and the effectiveness of checks on sponsoring organisations'.
It said a clear method must be set out on assessing what happens when visas end, 'specifically what measures are in place or will be put in place to record when people leave the country'.
A Home Office spokesperson said: 'This report affirms again that the previous government's decision five years ago to relax visa controls on skilled workers helped to drive an unprecedented increase in the UK's level of net migration, with almost one million people coming here in 2023.
'We have rolled up our sleeves to fix the broken immigration system, suspending the highest total of skilled worker sponsor licences since records began in 2012, raising the skilled worker threshold back to degree level and ending overseas recruitment to the care sector.
'With our immigration White Paper we will deliver lower net migration, higher skills, backing British workers and repairing the public's trust.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Glasgow Times
38 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Judgment due in Palestine Action court bid for temporary block on terror ban
Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, is asking the court to temporarily block the Government from banning the group as a terrorist organisation before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. The move is to come into force at midnight after being approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords earlier this week, and would make membership and support for the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The Home Office is opposing bids to delay the ban from becoming law, and the potential launch of a legal challenge against the decision. Protesters outside the Royal Courts of Justice in central London (Lucy North/PA) At the end of a hearing on Friday, Mr Justice Chamberlain said he 'realistically' planned to give his decision after 5.30pm. Lawyers for Ms Ammori said that if the temporary block was not granted, a bid to appeal against that decision could be made on Friday evening. During the hearing, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, told the London court that this would be the first time a 'direct action civil disobedience group, which does not advocate for violence, has been sought to be proscribed as terrorists'. He added that his client had been 'inspired' by a long history of direct action in the UK, 'from the suffragettes to anti-apartheid activists, to Iraq war activists'. Quoting Ms Ammori, the barrister said that the group had 'never encouraged harm to any person at all' and that its goal 'is to put ourselves in the way of the military machine'. He continued: 'We ask you, in the first instance, to suspend until July 21 what we say is an ill-considered, discriminatory and authoritarian abuse of statutory power which is alien to the basic tradition of the common law and is contrary to the Human Rights Act.' The hearing later in July is expected to deal with whether Ms Ammori can bring a High Court challenge over the planned proscription. Mr Husain later said that to proscribe an organisation, the Home Secretary 'has got to believe that the organisation is concerned in terrorism'. Demonstrators banged drums outside the court (Lucy North/PA) Some 81 organisations are already proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Hamas, al Qaida and National Action. Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that if the ban came into effect the harm would be 'far-reaching', could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'. The barrister named Normal People author Sally Rooney, who lives abroad and 'fears the ramifications for her, for her work, for her books, for her programmes' if she shows support for Palestine Action. 'Is the Prime Minister going to denounce her, an Irish artist, as a supporter of a proscribed organisation?' 'Will that have ramifications for her with the BBC, etc?' Ms Ni Ghralaigh asked. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the High Court there was an 'insuperable hurdle' in the bid to temporarily block the ban of Palestine Action. The barrister also said that if a temporary block was granted, it would be a 'serious disfigurement of the statutory regime'. He said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Friday's hearing comes after an estimated £7 million worth of damage was caused to two Voyager planes at RAF Brize Norton on June 20, in an action claimed by Palestine Action. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, saying that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. Mr Justice Chamberlain said that an assessment on whether to ban the group had been made as early as March, and 'preceded' the incident at RAF Brize Norton. Four people were charged in connection with the incident.


Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Palestine Action loses bid to gain temporary block on government ban
Campaign group Palestine Action is set to be banned after a High Court judge refused to temporarily block it from being designated as a terror group. MPs overwhelmingly voted in favour of Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe the protest group under the Terrorism Act 2000 and Lords have backed the move. The law change, which adds Palestine Action to the list of banned organisations along with the likes of al Qaeda, ISIS and Hezbollah, is due to come into force at midnight. It makes membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, while even wearing a T-shirt or badge with the group's name on attracts a maximum six-month sentence. Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action after two Voyager aircraft were allegedly damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on 20 June, which police said caused around £7m worth of damage. But the High Court heard the decision had been taken before the incident and as early as March this year. Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, was seeking to bring a legal challenge against the Home Office with a hearing for permission to bring a judicial review set to take place later this month. Her lawyers applied for "interim relief" to temporarily block the legislation from coming into force, arguing the Irish author Sally Rooney, who wrote Normal People, was among supporters who fear the "ramifications". Around two hundred protestors gathered outside court in support of the group, with some waving Palestinian flags, wearing the keffiyeh scarf or holding placards and signs. Counter-protesters also arrived amid a heavy police presence. Raza Husain KC - one of 13 barristers inside a courtroom packed with journalists and members of the public - said his client Ms Ammori was inspired by the "long tradition" of direct action in the UK from suffragettes and activists protesting against apartheid and the Iraq war. "This is the first time in our history a direct action, civil disobedience group which does not advocate violence has sought to be proscribed as terrorists," he said. "We ask you to suspend, in the first instance until 21 July, what we say is an ill-considered, discriminatory, authoritarian abuse of statutory power that is alien to the basic tradition of common law and contrary to the Human Rights Act." Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, said, along with the hundreds of T-shirts in circulation, the red boiler suits associated with the group and even kaffiyehs could "arouse suspicion of membership". She said the ban would have a "chilling effect" on protest and free speech, criminalising "a huge range of behaviour", and having "severe and far reaching" consequences capable of impacting "vast numbers" of people across the UK and further afield. But Ben Watson KC, representing the government, said former members would still be free to express their views, and would not be treated any differently even if their protests involved direct action which is criminal. He argued a temporary block would be a "serious disfigurement of the statutory regime" and Palestine Action could challenge the home secretary's decision at a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. "The serious issue to be tried is met in full by the adequate alternative remedy that parliament has provided," he said. "Even if the court does conclude that there is some residual scope for judicial review… then we respectfully submit that the court needs to look at the bespoke regime that parliament has provided."

The National
an hour ago
- The National
Court bid to block Palestine Action terrorist ban fails
The Royal Courts of Justice in London heard the case on Friday morning, ahead of a potential legal challenge against the move. Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, is seeking to bring a legal challenge against the Home Office over Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe the group under the Terrorism Act 2000. The motion could become law as early as this weekend once it has been signed off by Cooper, which would make membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. READ MORE: LIVE – Palestine Action in court to challenge UK Government's terrorist ban The move was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million worth of damage. At a hearing on Friday, Justice Chamberlain decided not to grant 'interim relief' to Ammori, which would temporarily block the legislation from coming into effect at midnight on Saturday as currently planned. The hearing began at 10.30am at the Royal Courts of Justice, with a further hearing to decide whether Ammori will be given the green light to challenge the Government's decision expected to be held later in July. Ammori's legal team asked for the proscription order to be suspended until July 21. They also said that if the temporary block was not granted, a bid to appeal against that decision could be made on Friday evening. (Image: Lucy North/PA) At the hearing on Friday, Raza Husain KC, for Ammori, told the London court: 'This is the first time in our history that a direct action civil disobedience group, which does not advocate for violence, has been sought to be proscribed as terrorists.' The barrister said that his client had been 'inspired' by a long history of direct action in the UK, 'from the suffragettes, to anti-apartheid activists, to Iraq war activists'. Quoting Ammori, the barrister continued that the group had 'never encouraged harm to any person at all' and that its goal 'is to put ourselves in the way of the military machine'. He continued: 'We ask you, in the first instance, to suspend until July 21 what we say is an ill-considered, discriminatory and authoritarian abuse of statutory power which is alien to the basic tradition of the common law and is contrary to the Human Rights Act.' The barrister later said that the Home Office 'has still not sufficiently articulated or evidenced a national security reason that proscription should be brought into effect now'. READ MORE: Jeremy Corbyn confirms launch of new party - read the full statement Some 81 organisations are already proscribed under the Terrorism Act, including Hamas, al Qaida and National Action. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the High Court there was an 'insuperable hurdle' in the bid to temporarily block the ban of Palestine Action. The barrister also said that if a temporary block was granted, it would be a 'serious disfigurement of the statutory regime'. He said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Watson said: 'At its heart, it is a challenge to the proscription of the organisation … POAC is the forum of first resort.' He continued: 'Even if the court does conclude that there is some residual scope for judicial review … then we respectfully submit that the court needs to look at the bespoke regime that Parliament has provided.' Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident. They appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday after being charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage, under the Criminal Law Act 1977. They were remanded into custody and will appear at the Old Bailey on July 18.