The Seasonal Worker scheme offers the UK’s growers access to 43,000 six-month visas. But the scheme is mired in controversy on every side
At last. After years of angst and uncertainty, a five-year Seasonal Worker Scheme (SWS) was announced by the Tory government in May this year, enabling the £5bn horticulture sector to grow the nation’s fruit & veg with confidence.
That was the theory, anyway. The deal was designed to give fresh produce growers access to 43,000 Seasonal Worker visas. And “for the first time in many, many years the horticultural sector has had sufficient workers to pick the crops”, says Jan-Willem Naerebout, director of Agri-HR, one of the government-approved recruiters, also known as sponsors, of the scheme. “There shouldn’t actually be any farms at all in the UK that will experience a shortage of workers next year, so I think that’s a fantastic delivery of the scheme.”
But the scheme has also been beset with issues: licences have been revoked; lawsuits are flying around; and ongoing human rights concerns have led to calls for higher pay – a prospect many growers view as ruinous not only to the scheme’s fortunes but the sector itself.
So who’s to blame? And how can the issues be resolved?
The first big problem is renewed uncertainty. The new Labour government has so far not even confirmed the five-year deal promised by the Conservatives in May. While Defra food security and rural affairs minister Daniel Zeichner insisted “this government recognises that food security is national security… [which] can only be achieved by supporting food and farming businesses” he’s also claimed “extending the Seasonal Worker visa route until 2025 gives growers and producers certainty, allowing them to plan ahead and secure the labour and skills they need to grow and thrive”.
So it’s back to square one. And growers are calling for a rolling five-year scheme to give them more certainty, and thus the ability to plan investment much further in the future.
“We’ve got a Labour government saying they want to grow the economy, they want us as businesses to invest and secure supply, and seasonal labour is the route to both of those objectives,” says Ali Capper, executive chair of British Apples & Pears. “But we need a scheme where there’s a long-term view.”
Of course, there’s a political agenda in play here. The initial SWS was a pilot to tide growers over as the market adjusted to the post-Brexit decline in labour supply.
And when the five-year deal was announced, it was in the expectation that the reliance on seasonal labour could not continue indefinitely, with Defra promising £50m in investment to help growers automate.
“We need a scheme where there’s a long-term view”
Ali Capper, executive chair of British Apples & Pears
But while the promise of improved automation and robotics could lead to “a reduction in the reliance on seasonal workers, it will never eliminate it”, says Naerebout. As to ‘pick your own’ – recruitment of a home-grown labour force to pick the fruit & veg – that’s “a complete pipe dream”, he adds.
Capper agrees: “It doesn’t matter whether you’re in the UK, America, Europe, New Zealand, Australia – across the globe, people that live in the most developed economies do not pick their own fruit & veg, full stop.”
Seasonal worker sponsors: who are they and where do they recruit from?
All employers and farms wanting to use labour recruited on the Seasonal Worker scheme need to recruit through a government-approved sponsor. In 2024, there were seven scheme operators. Ethero, which had its licence revoked in August, is not included in the below list due to its change in status.
All operators for 2024 were given an allowance of 7,500 workers each for horticulture and 1,000 each for the two scheme operators recruiting for poultry.
Agri-Hr, Herefordshire: Recruits in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan
Concordia UK, East Sussex: Recruits in Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Poland, Romania, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Tajikistan, South Africa, Bulgaria and Macedonia
Fruitful Jobs, Herefordshire: Recruits from Poland, Romania, Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Does not recruit from Pakistan, India, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Nepal, Bangladesh or anywhere within Africa.
Hops Labour Solutions, Herefordshire: Recruits from Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, North Macedonia, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan
Pro-Force, Kent: Recruits from Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Macedonia
RE People Ltd, Gloucestershire: Recruitment information not provided
Source: The Grocer
As well as a rolling agreement, some growers want visas to last nine months to stop them having to do multiple rounds of recruitment. Nick Marston, chairman of British Berry Growers, says that’s a “win-win”, as it lowers costs for growers, improves productivity as workers become better at the job and gives them an extended season to earn more money.
However, Naerebout says the six-month scheme is generally long enough because, while berries do have a longer season, there are many crops, including apples, that only last for a few months at most.
Additionally, “quite a lot of people don’t even do the six months, either by their own choice, or we can’t fill [the time]”, he adds.
Marston has also been vocal in his calls for trialling direct recruitment for growers that are licensed by the Gangmasters & Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA), because “they’re perfectly capable of recruiting directly”. They have the HR teams and other necessary infrastructure, he says. So this would “introduce a level of visibility both ways” and help improve satisfaction by making sure people are properly looked after.
However, there are concerns around exploitation without a third party present. Caroline Robinson, director of the NGO and helpline Worker Support Centre Scotland (WSCS), fears workers would be “stuck with that employer as their sponsor, and if there’s any problems, they’re too scared to raise issues”.
According to Defra’s latest Seasonal Worker Survey, 91% of respondents had a positive experience of seasonal work, and 95% expressed a desire to return to the UK through the Seasonal Worker visa route.
“I’m confident the vast majority of these workers enjoy a positive experience while on the scheme, and this is reflected in Defra’s own survey data,” says NFU horticulture and potatoes board chair Martin Emmett. However he is “never going to take the wellbeing of seasonal workers for granted. There’s always scope for improvement; the government and supply chain should be ready to listen to constructive criticism.”
A high returnee rate is a key objective for growers, as returning workers are more productive and they “won’t return if they feel they haven’t been treated and paid well”.
But there are fears around the accuracy of the government data. Kate Roberts, head of policy at Focus on Labour Exploitation (Flex), describes the Defra data as an “extreme outlier”.
“The explanation we can see is that the survey was disseminated to the workers by the scheme operators,” she says. “Workers are dependent on these operators; therefore there’s an inevitable risk that workers will suspect their responses could have negative impacts on future work prospects. Similarly, workers saying they would like to work on a UK farm again could be an indicator of not yet having earned enough to repay debt.”
Really struggling
Robinson agrees. The support centre has seen a significant increase in requests for assistance this year, showing people are “really struggling”.
She also feels Defra must now look behind what the data tells us. On healthcare, for example, of those that needed medical treatment, a third were unable to access it, which is “really disturbing”. Currently, there’s no legal requirement for farms to reach a certain employment standard to take workers on the SWS, and additional concerns have been raised around substandard accommodation on site and treatment of workers.
One worker told The Grocer that, while his treatment had always been positive, others had not been treated “humanely”. “I know of one person who suffered from hair loss due to constant stress from not being able to meet targets,” he adds.
Robinson also highlights worker rights. “There’s a real problem with dismissals” along with a “range of practical barriers for workers” such as language, internet access and lack of knowledge of which government department is responsible for what issue.
“There shouldn’t be any farms at all in the UK that will experience a shortage of workers”
Jan-Willem Naerebout, director of Agri-HR
Roberts also argues the “restrictive nature of the scheme” – including the limited time period, recruitment through a set number of sponsors, lack of ease of movement between farms, and rules set by farms regarding accommodation – means workers have a lack of options in a range of areas that impact their lives and multiple dependencies on their operator and employer.
They can also get into significant debt to come to the UK, whether through legal means like purchasing flights or when unscrupulous actors in their home countries take illegal fees for access to the scheme. Sponsors, including Naerebout’s, are trying to resolve this by only recruiting from countries they have an office in, rather than relying on third parties.
“But until there’s flexibility around the terms of the visa, and workers are not taking so much of the financial risk for the scheme, we will be moving the problems around rather than addressing them,” Roberts adds.
In their own words: a worker’s experience
“When I first learned about the programme in 2021, I was primarily interested in visiting the UK, and this programme gave me the opportunity to do so. I worked at two berry farms that season and would have returned to the second one if I had been invited.
“In 2022 and 2023, I returned with the goal of earning money and then returning home. I worked in the packaging department at a vegetable grower in England for six months where conditions were good and the relationship with workers was excellent. I earned up to £14,000 at this company in that six months. The following year, I worked at an apple grower, which was one of my favourite farms, but unfortunately, my operator Telpasc lost its licence, and the invitation was redirected to other sponsors and was rejected as the contract was too short.
“I also worked at a berry farm in that season where expectations were quite high, but staff, especially the caravan park manager, were excellent.
“Honestly, at all the farms where I worked, the relationships were good. However, I heard from other workers about some farms where the treatment was not very humane. Some workers were treated as if they were objects, especially those who didn’t speak English. I also heard about cases where supervisors on the fields would try to earn more by manipulating the amount of harvested fruit. For example, a worker was required to pick 18 boxes of strawberries in three hours, but the supervisor would write down 15, taking the money for the other boxes. Fortunately, I never encountered such situations.
“Sometimes I consider returning, but I also hesitate. My experience in the UK was generally positive, but there are a few things that could have improved it. I would definitely go back if the pay was based on hourly work rather than piecework. I have seen cases where piecework can harm a person’s psychological health, pushing them into depression because they cannot meet the set quotas. I know of one person who suffered from hair loss due to constant stress from not being able to meet targets. This needs to stop.
“Improving living conditions, such as having more comfortable and cleaner caravans, would also make the stay more enjoyable. It’s important that relationships between employees and supervisors remain respectful, without any abuse or manipulation. Additionally, having psychological support for workers would help, especially during difficult times.
“I was generally satisfied with the money I earned during the seasons and it was what I expected in terms of the effort put in, but the stress from piecework was sometimes overwhelming.”
Workers left in limbo
An additional issue arises with the policing of the scheme. There are many government departments involved, including the Home Office, Defra, local authorities and the GLAA – but none, Roberts explains, has overall responsibility, which “leads to gaps in addressing problems”.
One example came in August, when the Home Office revoked former sponsor Ethero’s seasonal worker licence, which the company said was due to being perceived as a threat to UK immigration rules. Ethero strongly denied the claims and said it has proven its case to UK Visas & Immigration. The operator is now suing the Home Office.
The removal of Ethero’s licence left many workers in limbo – unsure whether they had to leave the country or not – for six weeks while the government tried to find a new sponsor. A lot of this came down to “confusion about where workers were”, said an industry source, leading to poor communication, with workers receiving different advice from different stakeholders.
But this lack of government oversight is not just a problem for workers. Growers and sponsors are also frequently in the dark.
Naerebout says it’s “extremely challenging” to be a sponsor, as they’re held “accountable and responsible for absolutely everything that could potentially go wrong on those farms”, from health and safety to pay, standards of accommodation and more.
“We’re relied upon to do a lot of work that really should be done by the relevant authorities,” he explains. Like pay issues, which he thinks should be managed by HMRC.
Pay confusion
Pay is a particularly vexed issue. According to a Flex survey, most workers (76.6%) earn less than they were told they would. Plus, organisations say some of the risk around pay is obscured by scheme guidelines, with one prescribing 32 hours work a week at the national living wage. NGOs say this gives the impression that workers are guaranteed a minimum of 32 hours a week for six months, but in fact, as Naerebout points out, workers may only work for a few months due to work starting late or ending early.
“We’ve recently seen growing numbers of cases of non-payment of wages,” says Robinson. “Even if workers are receiving the required 32 hours pay, they should be paid for every hour they’re working [if they work more] and this should be proactively enforced. We can’t just accept there’s a second tier of workers, that are not entitled to full employment rights, including payment for hours worked. That’s a worrying development.”
Other controversies linked to pay include productivity targets (how much workers have to pick per hour), as well as lack of clarity at point of recruitment over accommodation costs, bills and other living expenses. That’s without taking into consideration the aforementioned debts many take on just to get into the country
On the other hand, says Capper: “When the scheme works correctly, even if the individual has had to make an investment in coming here to get a job, it more than pays back. It pays back in spades.” She references the many stories growers hear from former workers about the houses they have built, education they have paid for and businesses they have established back home.
Employer Pays Principle
But it doesn’t always work correctly. So auditors such as Sedex are looking to better protect workers through the Employer Pays Principle (EPP).
The idea is currently being investigated, with a feasibility study planned for 2025. EPP would require employers to take on the costs for bringing workers into the country. But the proposal has been widely criticised by the sector, mainly due to the cost it would ultimately add to food. Who would take that cost on? The industry predicts it would be about £1,500 per worker depending on their home country.
“If we look at the wafer-thin profitability of the berry industry now, that extra cost would sink the whole industry,” says Marston.
In apples the cost is similarly onerous: the equivalent of adding on 4p-5p per pack of six apples. Currently it’s not clear whether the retailers would accept a rise in cost or how else growers would pass this on.
“No other country today has an equivalent to the EPP baked into their cost of seasonal labour,” says Capper. “The danger in this is that we become the most expensive place in the world to grow and pick fruit & vegetables, and we become uncompetitive.”
Emmett agrees: “We must ensure we do not introduce a level of additional cost that makes the scheme no longer viable – that will be to the detriment of both seasonal workers and the whole supply chain.”
Capper suggests there are other ways growers could support workers who take on debt and leave before they can pay it back, such as a fund to which those who leave the scheme early could apply to have their debts cleared. “There are more pragmatic solutions than forcing up the price of food, because that’s what it’s going to do,” she says. And with it of course, retailers would import more produce.
“We must ensure we do not introduce a level of additional cost that makes the scheme no longer viable”
Martin Emmett, NFU horticulture and potatoes board chair
According to the BRC, retailers are working with Defra on the EPP feasibility study.
“This will be a vital step to improving our understanding of how EPP could be applied in practice to the [Seasonal Worker] scheme,” says Sophie De Salis, sustainability policy adviser at the British Retail Consortium.
“UK food retailers are committed to upholding high standards of welfare for all people who work in their supply chains, and strongly oppose the use of illicit recruitment fees paid by workers,” she adds.
But Robinson “really worries” about how this would work in the current system. “I think the employer pays principle is a great aspiration, but there has to be a large number of changes to the scheme to ensure this does not backfire on workers in higher risk workplaces,” she says, adding that tackling these costs at point of recruitment needs to be considered in conjunction with a full review of all issues within the scheme.
For the moment, it remains a theoretical idea and one the government is evaluating. The Grocer understands the study is being put out to tender and results will come through in 2025. Until then, there’s not much certainty for growers or workers. And certainty is precisely what’s needed for all stakeholders to preserve – and enhance – the nation’s food security.
What are other countries doing?
There are no countries getting their temporary migration programmes or versions of the Seasonal Worker scheme completely right, says Caroline Robinson, executive director of the Worker Support Centre, but there are some elements she suggests the UK government should look into.
“The thing we’ve been really trying to encourage the UK government to do is to look elsewhere to see what’s working and what’s not working,” she says. “While we have copied the concept of a scheme [from other countries] the government has not [always] looked at the mechanics. There is so much trial and error that’s gone on in other countries.”
Israel
Israel is one of these countries. In 2006, a Supreme Court judgment found the scheme was “unconstitutional because it embedded exploitation, so they did make quite a range of changes to the scheme” including the introduction of bilateral agreements. This introduction has helped address the issue of recruitment fees that UK workers are so vulnerable to. However, there are still issues of exploitation in the Israeli system.
Canada
Canada also makes use of bilateral agreements with other countries, which keeps workers safe as they are “quite closely monitored”, because the sending country has representatives in Canada. However, these agreements do not involve worker organisations, nor incorporate labour standards so do not go all the way in seeking to protect worker rights. The Canadian government is therefore looking into reforming the scheme, due in part to the exploitation risks posed to workers.
Spain
“There’s a collective agreement including trade unions that directly affects the conditions that workers have on the circular migration programme. It’s something that’s interesting, but there’s a disconnect between those trade unions at the table and seasonal migrant workers, which hampers this effort”.
South Korea
South Korea has an Employment Permit System that has been cited by some experts as an interesting example, as it involves tightly governed government-to-government recruitment, meaning the Korean authorities are involved in receiving workers and manage the identification of sending countries, including on grounds of recruitment risks. In cases of workplace abuses under this system, workers can go directly to the government in order to switch jobs, rather than being dependent on an abusive employer agreeing to release them. However, worker organisations in this scheme are seeking more of a role to ensure labour standards are met.
No comments yet