Permission to Stay, But No Freedom to Work: The Missing Protection for Displaced Care Workers

The Home Office has now formally written into its published guidance something that had already been operating in practice: certain care workers and senior care workers should not have their immigration permission cancelled simply because their employer’s sponsor licence has been revoked.

That clarification is important.

But it does not resolve the much bigger practical problem facing displaced care workers.

On 14 September 2026, the Home Office updated its Cancellation and Curtailment of Permission guidance. It now expressly states that where a person holds Skilled Worker or Health and Care Worker permission as a care worker under SOC 6135/6145 or senior care worker under SOC 6136/6146, their permission must not be cancelled where the sole reason would be revocation of their sponsor’s licence. The arrangement is described as temporary and subject to regular review.

This should not, however, be understood as an entirely new policy. In September 2025 the Home Office had already told Parliament that standard cancellation activity for affected care workers had been temporarily paused to give them an opportunity to obtain alternative employment. What is significant now is that the position has finally been expressly placed in published caseworker guidance.

That transparency is welcome.

But there remains a serious gap.

You may be allowed to remain in the UK, but how are you supposed to survive?

A Skilled Worker’s permission remains tied principally to the job for which they were sponsored.

The Immigration Rules state that work is generally permitted only in the sponsored job, subject to specified exceptions. Supplementary employment is possible in qualifying circumstances, but ordinarily requires the worker to continue working in the job for which they were sponsored.

Government guidance specifically tells Health and Care Worker visa holders that if they want to move employers, the new employer must hold an appropriate sponsor licence, issue a Certificate of Sponsorship and the worker must apply to update their visa.

So we can end up with a very difficult situation.

A care worker’s employer loses its sponsor licence.

The Home Office says:

“We will not cancel your visa merely because the sponsor licence has been revoked.”

But that does not mean:

“You may now freely work full-time for another legitimate care provider.”

Those are two very different things.

The immigration permission survives. The income may not.

This distinction matters enormously.

Many displaced workers have lost the job on which their household income depended. Yet Skilled Worker permission carries a no recourse to public funds condition.

So what happens during the months in which someone is trying to secure another licensed sponsor?

How do they pay their rent?

How do they buy food?

How do they pay electricity and heating bills?

How do they support children?

How do they continue meeting car payments, transport costs and other ordinary household commitments?

These are not abstract questions.

The Government itself acknowledges that sponsor non-compliance and exploitation have left thousands of displaced international care workers without employment. It has allocated up to £7.5 million for 2026-27 to regional partnerships intended to help affected workers move into new ethical sponsored employment.

Parliamentary scrutiny has also recorded evidence of displaced care workers experiencing financial precarity, homelessness and destitution. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted concerns that some affected workers were living in adverse circumstances, while evidence to Parliament from the Work Rights Centre described prolonged involuntary unemployment and under-employment causing serious financial hardship.

The Government has recognised the problem. The question is whether the immigration solution goes far enough.

These workers are already here

There is an additional policy consideration.

The Government has ended new overseas recruitment for care workers and senior care workers, while retaining transitional arrangements for some people already in the UK until 2028.

At the same time, care providers may still have vacancies.

And there is already a pool of experienced care workers living lawfully in the UK who may be ready and willing to work but whose immigration permission remains connected to a sponsor that has lost its licence.

The Government itself has been funding regional partnerships specifically to match displaced workers with new employers.

We believe the next conversation therefore needs to be about mobility within the care sector.

What Tulia is asking the Government to consider

Our proposal is not that displaced workers should receive an unrestricted right to work throughout the UK labour market.

It is narrower.

Where a care worker or senior care worker is affected solely because their sponsor’s licence has been revoked, we are asking the Home Office to consider granting that individual a temporary sector-wide right to work in adult social care.

In practical terms, that could allow an affected worker to take employment with another legitimate, appropriately regulated care provider while securing a longer-term immigration solution.

Safeguards could still apply. For example, the arrangement could be limited to affected SOC 6135 and 6136 workers; employment in England could be restricted to appropriately CQC-regulated providers; the Home Office could require notification of the new employment; and the permission could operate for a defined transitional period.

The precise mechanism is ultimately a matter for Government.

But the principle deserves serious consideration.

Protecting immigration status is not the same as protecting somebody from destitution

Stopping automatic cancellation is an important protection.

But a visa that allows somebody to remain physically in the country while preventing them from readily replacing the income they have lost can leave them in an extremely precarious position.

These workers did not revoke their employer’s licence.

Many did not cause the sponsor’s compliance failures.

Some may themselves have been victims of the very exploitation that ultimately led to enforcement action against the sponsor. The Government has acknowledged significant non-compliance and exploitation within the sector.

There must therefore be a discussion about what happens between sponsor revocation and successful re-sponsorship.

Our position at Tulia is straightforward:

If the Government is going to protect displaced care workers from visa cancellation while they search for another sponsor, it should also examine whether they can be given a temporary, lawful route to work within the care sector during that period.

Otherwise, we risk protecting their immigration permission on paper while leaving families without sufficient means to live.