On 14 October 2026, the UK government launched a consultation, Make Work Pay: employment status reform and protections for the self-employed. It seeks views on various proposals for reform of the employment status framework. The consultation considers proposals including placing less emphasis on personal service when determining worker status, improving compliance with the employment status framework, and strengthening protections for the self-employed.
Background and context
In the UK, an individual’s employment status determines which statutory employment rights an individual has and what responsibilities the employer owes them. Broadly, the law recognises three categories for employment rights: employees, limb (b) workers and the self-employed. The consultation deals only with the status framework for employment rights. The separate framework for tax is outside its scope.
The government acknowledges that the world of work has changed significantly, with technology, new working patterns and the growth of the gig economy reshaping employment. The current framework, however, is hard for individuals to work through and failure to determine employment status can mean that an individual is not aware of the protections that they are entitled to. Establishing status can require an understanding of both legislation and a large body of complex case law. The burden of bringing a tribunal claim to establish status also falls on the individual.
Overview of the proposals
The consultation has three chapters:
- Placing less emphasis on personal service . One of the key tests to determine an individual’s employment status is whether they provide ‘personal service’ and the government is concerned that some businesses make use of broad substitution clauses, which can have the effect of making it difficult for the individuals to meet the personal service test even where significant control is being exerted over how they conduct their work. The government’s starting point is that someone under significant control should not lose core employment rights just because they fail the personal service test. Its main proposal would change the second step of the limb (b) worker test which considers personal service, so that it asks whether the individual personally provides services and/or is under a significant level of direction or control. An individual could then be found self-employed at step 2 only if neither factor is present. Personal service would be reconsidered at step 3 which considers whether the individual is carrying on a business or profession on their own account.
- Improving compliance with the status framework: The government proposes a presumption of worker status at tribunal. This would reverse the burden of proof, so the engager would have to show that the individual is not a limb (b) worker. It would be modelled on section 28(1) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and would apply to all rights that flow from limb (b) worker status such as holiday pay etc. The government also proposes that repeatedly failing to recognise employment status should count as an aggravating factor under section 12A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. This could lead to an additional penalty of between £100 and £20,000 per claim.
- Strengthening protections for the self-employed. The government is exploring three possible additional protections: a new right to a written statement, extended blacklisting protections, and wider health and safety protections. One way of delivering these would be to extend the meaning of “worker” for each specific right only, as already happens for whistleblowing under section 43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Key areas of the consultation
The government is asking for views on various proposals, including the following:
- Personal service and substitution. Should failing the personal service test on its own stop someone being a limb (b) worker? What role should a contractual right of substitution play? Should more weight go to whether the individual actually performs the work personally?
- Follow-through and terminology. Should any change to the definition also be made in the Working Time Regulations 1998, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and other related legislation? Should “limb (b) worker” be renamed?
- The presumption of worker status. What are the risks? Should conditions, such as evidence of direction and control have to be met before the reversed burden applies?
- Repeat misclassification. Would “broadly similar facts” in a later claim be enough to count as an aggravating factor?
- Enforcement. How could the Fair Work Agency’s civil proceedings and legal assistance powers be used to determine status?
- Written statements for the self-employed. Questions cover the proposed contents of such a statement and who should be in scope. They also cover possible qualifying criteria based on how long the engagement lasts or the value of the contract. Where a written contract already contains the key information, no separate statement would be needed.
- Blacklisting and health and safety. Should blacklisting protections be extended to the self-employed? Should non-employees in any trade union be able to act as safety representatives under the 1977 Regulations?
What this means for employers
If the proposals go ahead there would be a change for engagers in classification of workers. Under the reversed burden, an engager would have to prove that an individual is not a worker. Broad substitution clauses would also carry less weight where the engager exercises significant control. The proposals also signal more scrutiny across the whole workforce. Organisations that engage self-employed contractors should also be ready for new documentation duties if the written statement right is introduced.
Responses must be submitted by 11:55 pm on 8 January 2027.
Recent Comments