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.
Rules and requirements for employers
It therefore appears this rule is sensible in supporting workers to secure minimum guaranteed pay (see Chapter 5) and promoting responsible use of migrant labour among employers on the route. The NFU has called for a halt to such changes to allow for industry consultation, an assessment of the impacts and standards for fair implementation. Defra is working with the SWS Taskforce (composed of 50 members across a range of industry, retailer and non-profit stakeholders), to research and provide economic modelling on the ‘potential impacts [of an EPP] across the supply chain, as well as on consumers and workers’ by summer 2024. The Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme has short term (seasonal) placements for up to 9 months, or a multi-season placement up to 4 years with a visa condition attached which requires workers to return home for a minimum of 2 months every year.
- This means that we can offer unparalleled flexibility, offering translation and interpretation combinations such as Russian-Polish translation and Ukrainian-Russian interpretation.
- 7 scheme operators were announced for 2024, 6 of which cover horticulture and 2 poultry, although 1 scheme operator licence was reportedly under review at the time of writing.
- The agricultural sector’s reliance on migrant seasonal workers is, as we pointed out in 2018, unlike any other in the UK.
Engineering Excellence in 2024: Professional Language Solutions
The House of Lords report into the horticultural sector argues that this is a result of loss-leader pricing strategies in supermarkets which leads to poor grower returns within the horticultural sector. One could conclude from this that supermarkets should just charge more to improve growers’ margins and allow for the recruitment of domestic workers at higher wage rates; however, it is not as simple as that. UK producers compete with imports and, without further market intervention such as tariffs, an increase in the price of domestically produced food willlikely lead to consumers choosing imported food over ‘home-grown’. However, the occupational/industry-based comparison is not perfect, with these groupings including a variety of jobs beyond just seasonal work. At russian translation of installation drawings in the uk , a direct comparison between the hourly wages paid for seasonal work to those on the SWV and to others undertaking this work in the UK not on the route is not possible, limiting our ability to understand if SWS workers are being underpaid for the same work. For workers on the SWS, while mean hourly pay data exists, we do not have access to median pay or ranges, nor any breakdowns by occupation or industry to understand pay differences for different types of work better.
Further, farms’ contribution to areas is not limited to economic output and there would likely be additional social costs if there were to be closures. In 2013 for example, we heard from several partners that the presence of the seasonal workers also helps to maintain some rural services, for example bus and taxi services (MAC, 2013). The SWS can impact pay and conditions, both in the occupations included on the scheme and in the wider agriculture sector. For example, the 2022 SWS required workers to be paid £10.10 per hour, 6% above the prevailing National Living Wage (NLW).
The actual reported productive time gained from Seasonal Workers was usually much shorter than the visa length, especially so when workers stay less than the full 6 months. On the other hand, some employers said that the limited scheme length actually increased productivity as workers were incentivised to earn as much as possible in the 6- month period. Demand for labour varies greatly throughout the year in the agricultural and poultry industries due to the seasonality of produce.
Seasonal Workers had reported to certain employers that the mechanism for returning needs to be clearer. We endorse current commercial practice enabling employers to request returnees and encourage all providers to make this pathway as accessible as possible for employers and Seasonal Workers. We also suggest that in the event that the schemes cap is reached, returnees are given formal priority based on their increased productivity, and to ensure the least risk of exploitation on the route. Both employers and representative organisations told us that continued production was heavily dependent on the availability of the SWS. NFU commented that “if members were not able to use the SWV at all, many would reduce production and many would move out of production completely.” This was reiterated in several CfE responses with farmers saying that they would cease to exist or be closed in a matter of months. While this would have a small impact on UK-wide GDP, it is likely to have a specific impact on rural areas.
We do not think that migrants who have complied with all the rules of the scheme should be out of pocket. Considering that workers may spend far less time in the UK than their visa duration, IOM (CfE response) suggests that a minimum of 5 months or 22 weeks work should be guaranteed. Various workers’ rights groups have suggested that better employment guarantee safeguards should be put in place. Responses to our CfE included ideas such as compensation if the minimum period of work is not met or access to other types of work if seasonal work is insufficient. The fact that several large organisations we spoke to were covering further costs from employees as a way to gain a competitive edge in recruitment suggests that it may be feasible for some employers to contribute towards an overall EPP.
However, as argued by Calvin et al., (2022), the access to (relatively) cheap labour allowed by the SWS could itself become a barrier to automation. If farmers are not certain they will have an adequate workforce, they are more likely to purchase machinery that will replace labour to reduce the risk of crops going unharvested, assuming such machinery exists. These outcomes are consistent with economy-wide results reported by Lewis (2011), who finds that firms in areas which experienced high inflows of less-skilled immigrant workers adopted significantly less machinery per unit of output, despite having similar adoption plans initially. Contrastingly, the certainty provided by extending the SWS may allow risk-averse farmers to refrain from investing in such technology until such a time that it is proven.
Cited reasons for making transfer requests include seeking better pay/more hours (perhaps due to the crop); friends/families on other farms; travel; or welfare issues. The House of Lords review quoted Mark Spencer MP (previous Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries) on the importance of workers having certainty over their place of work. As discussed in the previous section, workers want to maximise their earnings and therefore it is not surprising that both workers themselves and employers told us they generally wanted as many hours as possible. In our analysis of the 2022 Defra Seasonal Workers survey (Table 2.1), 86% self-reported working on average more than 35 hours a week – most commonly this was either hours a week or hours, with 14% working over 50 hours a week. Around 10% of respondents to the 2022 Defra Seasonal Workers survey were unhappy with their hours (free text responses indicated this may be was due to a lack of hours rather than the reverse). On the other hand, too many hours could have a negative impact on workers such as being exhausted which is potentially dangerous.