The Migration Advisory Committee has now published published its review into the Seasonal Worker Scheme Visa.
The MAC concluded there is a clear need for a SWS in the short-to-medium term to maintain current levels of domestic food production. They argue this will provide certainty to businesses who operate in a sector unusually reliant on migrant labour, given the lack of domestic workers and the seasonal and rural nature of the work.
They also note that if the new government wishes to reduce the reliance on migrant labour whilst maintaining domestic food production and supporting rural economies in the long-term, then it must ensure there are appropriate policies and an environment for encouraging automation of these roles.
The MAC have outlined 5 recommendations structured around 5 broad ‘umbrella’ themes:
Provide certainty around the future of the scheme
- Confirm the future of the Seasonal Worker Scheme (SWS): We recommend that they do so each year in order to provide additional certainty – effectively meaning that users would have 5 years’ notice if the scheme were to be closed.
Methodology: We recommend that the Home Office makes clear the methodology that is used to calculate any planned reduction in visa numbers, and of any use of monitoring to measure both the wider impacts of increased automation and tapered visa numbers.- Eligibility of route: Eligible roles on the Seasonal Worker Scheme to remain the same
Allow for a more flexible visa
Greater flexibility would enable employers to plan more efficiently and for workers to maximise their earnings without adding complexity to the route. MAC recommend:
Shortening the ‘cooling-off’ period – current scheme rules stipulate that a horticultural Seasonal Worker can work for a maximum period of 6 months in the UK in any 12-month period. Reducing this ‘cooling-off’ period to 3 months would allow experienced workers to return to the UK more.
Allowing Seasonal Workers to work 6 months in any calendar year – this would allow Seasonal Workers to return to the UK more quickly if there is employer demand in industries where seasonal production can extend beyond 6 months, or where there is a short gap between growing seasons.
Fairer work and pay for workers
Pay: MAC support increasing wages for migrant Seasonal Workers to limit exploitation, prevent the undercutting of domestic workers and incentivise automation, among other potential benefits.
Data collection: Alongside detailed seasonal work pay data, better wage information at the industry and occupation level for the sector would inform the structure of any framework (whether minimum pay would be set at the occupation, industry or scheme wide level for
example) and support the monitoring of the impact of these policies and any unintended
consequences. We recommend that this information is collated and made available to government departments.
Tax Refunds: An improved refund process could be achieved within existing mechanisms, such as the presentation of accurate and timely information to workers prior to arrival in the UK, and signposting to proven and legitimate tax recovery services by scheme operators. HMRC should also consider potential ways of addressing and processing tax refunds.
A Guaranteed number of weeks' Work: We suggest further user consultation to better understand barriers to implementation and any risk this may potentially pose to the amount of work available to workers (through either ending placements early or avoidance of short-season crops).
Minimum number of Week's Salary: We recommend a minimum of 2 months’ pay as an additional protection to cover the costs currently borne by workers in coming to the UK such as visas and flights, with an exemption where there are extenuating circumstances (for example, dismissal for poor performance.
Tighten, communicate and enforce employee rights
Enforcement: To reduce gaps in enforcement on the scheme we recommend that the GLAA should have statutory powers to visit farms as part of their compliance work with operators, rather than only when modern slavery issues arise.
Collaboration: In the absence of a single enforcement body for the UK’s entire labour market we recommend closer collaboration and a more coordinated approach between the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA), UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) and other bodies involved in seasonal worker welfare, with a published set of responsibilities for each.
More information for workers: we recommend that information covering employment rights and responsibilities be reissued both at recruitment and arrival in the workers own language.
Data: Audits should be treated separately. We recommend that there be a streamlining of the data collection process involved in compliance, in particular grouping together some of the audit processes carried out by scheme operators and supermarkets. This would also help to reduce the administrative burden faced by employers, in particular those working with multiple operators.
Give consideration to the Employer Pays Principle
Support for EEP: We support that further work is needed to investigate how this might work in practice for workers, employers and consumers, and how the associated costs could and should be shared along the supply chain. As part of the consideration of the form any such model should take, we would need to factor in other agreed aspects of the scheme such as a minimum number of weeks, whether operators can be encouraged to set up a loan scheme to support workers’ initial costs, and whether with these additions the visa presents enough of a return on investment for workers that some up-front costs are justified.
On the SWS Taskforce EPP feasibility study: MAC look forward to the results of this review. However, in order for any study to have a tangible impact it must be conducted in a timely manner; they recommend that the sector agree a timeframe to present its EPP proposals, and in turn that rolling confirmation of the scheme past this point be dependent on this having been met.
BRC reflections:
BRC submitted evidence to the MAC inquiry and we support the recommendations outlined by the MAC. BRC would have liked more consideration into due diligence requirements when recruiting from new source countries but welcome the alignment with the John Shropshire Review recommendations.