Both theaccommodation standards and how these are to be monitored and enforced should be clarified As per scheme operator guidance, when issues impacting the safety or wellbeing of a worker are identified, operators need to remedy the issue immediately or transfer the worker Many employers felt overall that organisational issues occurring on the SWS were rooted in a lack of understanding between Home Office and seasonal sectors This perception was expressed as a complaint that there had been little to no consultation with employers and unions While the transfer system can be logistically difficult for employers, it is important in providing a competitive market where workers can choose where to go, including based on hours available A large vegetable and salad producer prefers to have returnee workers at the start of their season when they are busiest
History and aims of the scheme
As referenced in the previous government’s food strategy, being part of a global food system improves our food security by diversifying our supply sources, giving us access to products that cannot be produced domestically and allowing comparative advantage to provide us with cheaper products A balance is therefore needed where we support enough of our domestic industry so that we are not dependent on other places, whilst also not subsidising unproductive domestic production and missing out on a variety of fruit and vegetables as well as the potential gains from comparative advantage The Seasonal Worker Scheme was closed in 2014 following MAC advice that EU expansion was likely to provide sufficient seasonal labour in the short term, and that continuance would representpreferential treatment for the horticulture sector After the UK’s vote to leave the European Union in 2016 and in response to concerns within the farming industry in anticipation of the ending of FoM, in 2018 the previous government announced a pilot scheme to bring 2,500 workers from outside the EEA to work on UK farms for up to 6 months In 2023, visa numbers were issued earlier, and scheme operators, employers and representativeorganisations all said this had improved employers’ ability to plan ahead
Government documents
At the same time, since 2019 total employment of seasonal, casual or gang labour has been consistent In other words, since its reintroduction, the SWS has substituted for workers with other statuses, such as EU citizens who arrived under FoM The MAC’s EEA report 2018 set out the logic behind the reintroduction of a Seasonal Worker Scheme alongside a recommendation that otherwise, sector-based schemes should be avoided and that any future Seasonal Agricultural Worker Scheme SAWS should ensure upward pressure on wages A new version of SAWS called the Seasonal Worker Scheme SWS was subsequently piloted in 2019
However, because of the extent of use of the SWS it is clear that the scheme does have the potential to impact them and hence policy makers should ensure the scheme is designed to ensure this impact is positive It is concerning that the scheme’s hourly wages are below UK wide averages, and, as we advised in 2013,there are benefits to the scheme paying a higher minimum wage limiting wage depression and worker exploitation, perhaps along the lines of US AEWRs This would necessitate collecting better hourlywage data in order to decide the structure of such a minimum wage which could be set at an occupation, industry or scheme wide level, to set these levels with accuracy and monitor the impact Working conditions should also be closely monitored as we discuss in Chapter 5 to ensure workers are not being exploited, with implications for the domestic workforce
In common with other work routes, workers are required to demonstrate that they have personal savings of £1,270 in order to ensure that they can support themselves in the UK initially The SWS allows scheme operators to act as a guarantor for a Seasonal Worker for their first month, thereby meeting this financial visa requirement Often in practise they are happy to do this because they know the workers are going into employment
Making this a formal requirement for all employers could, however, have consequences for certain employers’ use of the scheme Some small non-users indicated that the cost of the scheme had already influenced them not to participate, requiring employers to pay higher costs may further discourage smaller businesses from using the scheme and may make access to seasonal labour unviable for some employers Employers responding to our CfE reported mixed levels of retention, with some saying workers had stayed the full length of their visa, and others reporting dropout rates of up to 50 Employers reported across the CfE and interviews that those employees who had left early had done so for a wide range of reasons, including the nature of work or work available, health problems or family sickness, and having earned enough Employers reported that many employees who chose to leave early do so during their first few weeks of employment or are dismissed at this stage due to lower productivity rates However, scheme operators indicated that if this happens, they will try to find the worker alternative work
- Respondents reported that this had also been facilitated by the Home Office confirming the scheme at an earlier stage for 2023 and 2024
- This is particularly the case for turkey producers and horticultural employers growing only/mainly one type of crop
- Some employers had said that the scheme does not include all the roles within their organisation that they would like to recruit Seasonal Workers for
- Whilst there are clear benefits to the workforce in terms of improved pay, there have been criticisms in recent years of the level at which the AEWR is set
Some of these did note see Chapter 3, that while automation was augmenting labour, the technology is largely assistive and not substitutive, and so they expect to need Seasonal Workers for the foreseeable future However, others reported that they would be reluctant to invest in automation alongside other large-scale capital investments without confirmation of the future of the SWS, or similar This is in line with the Defra 2022 Automation in Horticulture review which recommended that “the length of any future schemes should ideally match the period preceding the feasible mass-adoption of automation technology” Evidence from representative bodies also suggests retention rates have further improved in 2023 The NFU indicated in their response to our CfE that surveyed members had reported fewer workers leaving site in 2023 versus 2022 Efforts employers said they were making to improve retention included providing decent accommodation, welfare officers and facilities such as free laundry, wi-fi and recreation areas, with many of these facilities being evident on site visits
Inclusion of poultry occupations on the SWS is especially tied into a singular demand point at Christmas Any amendment to the scheme based on supporting extended periods of production, both in horticulture and poultry, would call into question why other industries experiencing labour supply issues are not being supported by the scheme For example, some organisations in the fishing sector are lobbying the government to be included on the SWS and we received one response to our CfE from a fishing processing employer who argued that seasonal fishing should be eligible
GLAA may take action against the farm when there is a modern slavery offence occurring at a site located within England and Wales Any failure on the part of the ASO to act on identified issues could lead to the SWT suspending or revoking their licence to date no sanctions have been imposed on any ASO as a result of issues identified on farms During 2023, 125 farms out of around 500 around 25 were visited by UKVI enforcement teams, including interviewing 1,116 migrants on the route representing around 34 of Seasonal Workers On https//notesio/wbkgV of these inspections UKVI staff are accompanied by GLAA staff who check safeguarding, complaints and information provisions From interviews with scheme providers, employers, and Seasonal Workers, it appears that there are a number of reasons why requested transfers might not happen in practice For example, there may not be any vacancies at the target farm; or the worker may be close enough to the end of their visa for training and starting on a new type of work not to be viable employees typically take a few weeks to get up to speed, as discussed further in Chapter 4
The high-risknature of the SWS, involving language barriers and rural locality, makes a direct recruitment model risky Of the organisations participating in the research or responding to our CfE some paid additional costs on behalf of workers; most commonly employees’ travel in the UK, accommodation, and visa costs, although most required Seasonal Workers to be wholly or partly responsible These employers said they had tried to increase the competitiveness of their job offers by subsidising meals, travel to site and accommodation Poultry production employers were most likely to say they were paying large extra costs – including travel to and from the UK – to improve the attractiveness of the industry Focus on Labour Exploitation FLEX also noted this behaviour occurring in response to the reduced earning potential on the shorter visa