Expanded Right-To-Work Scheme 2026: What UK Airlines and Aviation Contractors Need to Know

Changes to the UK Right to Work (RtW) Scheme are expected to take effect from 1 October 2026, potentially bringing a wider range of organisations and contractual arrangements within scope of the RtW Scheme and civil penalty liability.

For airlines and aviation contractors, the changes could create new compliance requirements across workforce and subcontracting arrangements.

The current RtW Scheme requires an employer with a direct contractual relationship to complete a prescribed check before employment starts and retain evidence of that check to establish a statutory excuse against civil penalty liability if illegal working is later identified. 

The core checking routes remain: a manual document-based check, a Home Office online check using the worker’s share code, which is required for individuals with an eVisa, or a digital check using a registered Right to Work Digital Verification Service Provider (RtW DVSP), where permitted. 

What is changing?

The Home Office published a draft updated Employer’s Guide to RtW checks on 16 July 2026, due to come into force on 1 October 2026. The draft reflects two distinct changes.

1. 1. 1. Expanded definition of “employer” 

For RtW Scheme purposes, the definition of employer” will extend beyond traditional employment to organisations engaging individuals under a worker’s contract, engaging individual subcontractors or operating an online matching service that provides details of individual service providers to potential clients or customers.

The organisation within this expanded definition must carry out the prescribed RtW check before work begins. 

2. Extended liability 

Separately, civil penalty liability may extend beyond the direct employer where work or services are delivered through a qualifying contractual chain, an online matching service facilitates an engagement or an individual’s contract permits substitution. 

The direct employer remains responsible for the prescribed RtW check. However, an organisation within scope of extended liability must meet the prescribed requirements applicable to its contractual arrangements to establish its own statutory excuse. 

Extended liability does not apply to a client, customer or end-user purchasing work or services for its own operations. For airlines, ordinary procurement for their own operations should therefore be distinguished from arrangements where an airline or group entity provides services onwards to a third party and subcontracts delivery. 

No retrospective checking requirement has been announced. The draft guide states that civil penalty liability for newly in-scope employment may arise where that employment commenced on or after 1 October 2026, but it does not clearly resolve whether the date of an upstream contract affects extended liability. Existing supplier contracts should therefore be reviewed rather than assumed to be outside scope. 

Why is this relevant to airlines?

Airport operations depend on supply chains covering ground and baggage handling, aircraft cleaning, line maintenance support, airside catering, lounge services, crew transport, passenger assistance and disruption support. 

Many such services will be purchased for an airline’s own operations and may fall within the end-user exclusion. Risk is more likely where the airline or a group entity provides services onwards to another party, directly engages newly in-scope individuals, or permits individual substitution. 

When might an airline be exposed?

An airline may face increased compliance risk where it:

• • • is contracted to provide work or services to a third party and subcontracts all or part of them; 
    • uses a qualifying online matching service arrangement; 
    • directly engages individuals under worker’s contracts or as individual subcontractors; 
    • permits an individual to substitute their work or services; or 
    • cannot evidence that the applicable prescribed requirements operated in practice. 

What should airlines build into contracts and processes?

Where a qualifying contractual chain is in scope, a written statement must be in place before work starts. It should: 

• • • require prescribed RtW checks on individuals performing the relevant work or services; 
    • prohibit further subcontracting without prior written consent and require equivalent downstream obligations; 
    • permit audits of compliance; 
    • allow enforcement action where illegal working is identified, and a statutory excuse has not been established; and 
    • require co-operation with Home Office investigations, including information about the contractual chain and organisations involved. 

Contracts alone are not sufficient. Airlines should retain proportionate evidence that the controls operate effectively in practice.

Substitution and identity verification 

Where an individual’s contract permits substitution, every substitute must undergo a prescribed RtW check before starting. Responsibility cannot be delegated to the original worker, and no substitute should perform work until their RtW has been verified.

The employer should also maintain substitution controls throughout the engagement. These should include contractual enforcement provisions where the employer or worker knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that a substitute is working illegally.

Employers should also retain records of authorised substitutions, including who performed the work, when the work was undertaken, the checks completed and any action taken in response to unauthorised substitution or suspected illegal working.

Identity verification must confirm, throughout the period of work, that the person carrying out the work is the person whose RtW was checked. Existing airside passes, identity cards, biometric or attendance systems, training, qualification or licence records may support this requirement if the airline takes reasonable steps to verify that those systems are effective.

The draft guide also recommends identity re-verification at least once in any 24-hour period or shift of work. Depending on the operating model and risk, this may be completed at the start of a shift or activity, or when a worker is assigned a new task, service or role. Equivalent controls may be used where they provide the same reasonable ongoing assurance.

Airline-specific examples of extended liability risk

The following examples illustrate situations in which extended liability could arise for airlines and aviation businesses.

 

Suggested actions before 1 October 2026 

• • • Map relevant workers, suppliers, subcontracting chains and substitution arrangements. 
    • Distinguish services purchased for the airline’s own operations from services provided onwards to third parties. 
    • Review existing and new contracts against the prescribed requirements. 
    • Test that subcontracting, audit, enforcement and identity controls operate in practice. 
    • Train HR, procurement and contract owners on the distinction between direct RtW responsibility and extended liability. 
    • Revisit the position when the final Code and Employer’s Guide are published. 

Need to know more?

To learn more about UK airline immigration, visit Fragomen’s UK immigration services page or contact Adam Hickling at [email protected].  

This blog was published on 2 September, 2026, and may be subject to change. Updates may occur as policies evolve. To stay informed on the latest immigration news and analysis, please subscribe to our alerts and follow Fragomen on  LinkedIn, Facebook and Instagram.