Responses to the MAC consultation on the impact on the UK labour market of the UK’s exit from the European Union.

Agriculture, forestry and fishing (SIC 1-3)

March 2018

Contents

Responses available via the MAC website 3

AJ and CI Snell 4

Angus Growers 10

Boxford Sussex Farms Ltd 16

British Poultry Council 28

CLA 31

Clyde Fishermen’s Association 40

Confor 43

Countryside Alliance 46

Horticultural Trades Association 50

Kettle Produce Ltd 53

Laurence J Betts Ltd 57

National Association of Agricultural Contractors 61

NFU Scotland 65

Southalls of Norchard 75

West Sussex Growers Association 77

Whiting & Hammond 79

Wyevale Nurseries 81

Flixton Mushrooms 85

Hayloft Plants 86

Orchard Lodge Farm 89

Roughway Farm 90

Walsh Mushrooms 91

Responses available via the MAC website

1. Associated British Foods Plc

2. Concordia

3. DEFRA

4. East of Scotland Growers

5. English Apples and Pears Ltd

6. Fresh Produce

7. G’s Fresh

8. McGill and Co fishing industry

9. National Farmers’ Union

10. Place UK

11. Seafish

12. Supply of British Labour to Seasonal Horticulture

13. Wilkin and Sons

AJ and CI Snell

Preliminary Report from AJ & CI Snell to the Migration Advisory Committee

October 2017

This report responds to queries raised by Steven Earl of the Migration Advisory

Committee as part of the investigation into UK immigration requirements. It argues

that AJ & CI Snell does not rely on cheap labour but does rely on the continued

provision of seasonal workers from the EU.

1. The farm should offer higher wages to attract UK workers

At above minimum wage, the compensation structure for an employee working the

full 48-hour, 6-day week at AJ & CI Snell is as follows: £338 weekly earnings; 1.25

times the hourly rate as overtime beyond 48 hours and additional performance pay,

based on quality, quantity and speed of picking. This is in addition to on-site

accommodation, holiday and sick pay, and organised trips to supermarkets and

areas of interest. The farm also employs a full-time welfare and accommodation

manager who oversees general wellbeing. The farm’s remuneration structure for

seasonal workers is transparent and easily-accessible online (see

http://www.ajandcisnell.co.uk/work-for-us/seasonal-jobs-at-aj-and-ci-snell/the-

job.aspx). At no point in the recruitment process are pay or working conditions

occluded to exploit applicants. The farm also works hard to introduce other good

working practices, for example ensuring that 50% of seasonal workers are female.

Taking these factors into consideration, it would be wrong to say that the farm relies

on cheap labour.

Furthermore, efforts to hire locally point to the nature of the work, not pay, as the

problem for UK workers. Shown below, the farm actively encourages UK residents to

apply for seasonal work on its website. It has used its social media presence to

strengthen its market position and attract talent, and has partnered with schools and

universities to offer farm visits; all with the intention of educating young British people

and encouraging them to pursue a career in agriculture. Despite these extensive

efforts, only 1 in 250 applications for each seasonal job on the farm are from UK

residents. Given that many other businesses – ranging from supermarkets to

hospitality – pay less than the compensation outlined above, it is likely that the

physically-demanding nature of work on soft fruit farms is unattractive to UK

residents.

There have been several successful UK hires in the past, including an Assistant

Quality Manager who returned for three years and who is currently studying for his

MA at University, but there have also been a disproportionate number of British

workers arriving to the field late, having a negative attitude and generally

underperforming. These issues were found to delay the whole operation and created

a negative atmosphere for those who were determined to work hard. From the last

exercise to recruit UK-based glasshouse workers, 12 were needed, four were offered

a job following application, only two arrived for work on the first day and all had given

up work by the Thursday of the first week. There is no possibility for a business to

survive when the availability of local labour is such. There is a geographic dislocation

between areas of higher unemployment and areas with horticultural work

opportunities, and, combined with a reluctance on the part of UK workers to take up

seasonal positions, results in dependency on EU labour.

Furthermore, pointing to a factor that may be critical in many similar cases, estimates

suggest that there are not enough UK workers to fulfil job requirements. UK

unemployment is currently low at 4.3% and competition for workers is likely to

worsen as the population ages; perhaps partly explaining why there are so few

applications per job. Given that other sectors also rely on EEA migrants to function –

for example hospitality where 60,000 new EU workers are needed each year to fill

vacancies (The British Hospitality Association, 2017) – competition for employees is

going to be high.

In short, the farm takes lengths to encourage British people to interview for jobs and

offers chances wherever interest is shown, but applications from UK residents are

lacking and productivity has often fallen upon British workers entering the field. More

broadly, economic growth is strongly correlated with productivity and, at the time of

writing, UK productivity is 0.3% lower than it was a year ago, and has declined most

quickly in high-value industries like manufacturing and agriculture. It is therefore

imperative that every effort is taken to maximise output per worker in agriculture, and

at AJ & CI Snell this has been best demonstrated by EU migrants. Raising pay is

unlikely to provide enough of an incentive to engender the same productivity in

British workers.

1.1 The profit margin for soft fruit farmers is shrinking

There are other supply-side factors that make it untenable for the farm to increase

wages. As set out in a report by British Summer Fruits this year, costs are increasing

because of inflation and fuel prices whilst prices for soft fruit have stagnated since

1996. Soft fruit farmers have been suffering from diminished profit margins for some

time, and an increase in labour costs in conjunction with rising oil prices would likely

result in the closure of AJ & CI Snell in the long term. As will be explained in section

2.2, these costs have been offset through innovation in technology in the pack-house

but this has been exhausted as far as possible. There are very few avenues left

through which to reduce costs.

2. What would the impact be on the UK if seasonal workers were banned?

This October, the Financial Times headlined warnings by the National Farmers’

Union that a labour shortage from the EU has already resulted in rotting fruit which

had to be disposed of. If seasonal workers are disbarred, then produce will not be

harvested. Several solutions have been proposed as alternatives, outlined below,

which we would argue are inadequate responses.

2.1 In that case, we could import food instead

The University of Aberdeen published research in 2016 that found 50% of food in the

UK was imported, the negative effects of which are important: 64% of the associated

greenhouse gas impact now lies abroad, saddling developing countries with the

burden; by the mid-2040s, it is predicted that the UK will only be able to produce

enough food to feed 53% of its population as it reaches 70 million; and British

consumers would become vulnerable to price spikes on global commodities markets.

From defaulting on Britain’s responsibility to meet carbon emissions targets to low-

income families suffering disproportionately from rising food prices, increasing the

percentage of food imported is not a sustainable alternative; consumer access to

fairly-priced, safe and nutritious food would be severely compromised. Soft fruit

represents 22% of all consumer fruit purchases in the UK (source: Kantar) and

therefore any change in price and quality would have wide-reaching effects for the

UK population. Rising prices have already become a reality. In June 2017, we saw

inflation of +13.6% in soft fruit prices which was well above the inflation rate of 2.6%

at that time (Foodservice Price Index, 2017). The tariffs on EU imports are yet to be

decided, and could be substantial in the event of a ‘no deal’ Brexit. Coupled with a

weak Sterling, the price for consumers would be very high. In fact, it has been

estimated that the loss of seasonal labour supply could lead to price inflation of 35-

50% for soft fruit from current prices.

Health and pressure on public goods

The population’s health depends on fresh fruit to maintain bodily defences and

disease. Importing fruit and vegetables from outside the EU could expose UK

consumers to lax foreign food and farming regulations. Keeping farming within the

UK would be in the interests of the British public and would alleviate pressure on

NHS resources by maintaining good health.

Impact on the UK economy

Furthermore, given that the UK already has the largest current account deficit as a

percentage of GDP among G7 economies at -4.6%, to worsen this through

unnecessary food imports would be irresponsible. If farmers relocated their

operations to the EU, the UK government would lose out on revenue from

corporation tax, employee tax and national insurance payments from the sector.

Food prices are also a known driver of higher inflation, which could have negative

effects if wages stagnate (as they have begun to). Therefore, we would expect to

see a triple-hit from tax revenue losses, import tariffs and rising inflation.

British soft fruit growers also sustain several high-profile, hugely profitable

multinational corporations. Approximately 60% of strawberries are sold in

supermarkets – the remainder supply food and drink companies. One of AJ & CI

Snell’s largest customers is Suntory Ribena, alongside Innocent Smoothies and

hundreds of local businesses across Herefordshire and the wholesale markets in the

West Midlands and South Wales. To cut-off the UK supply of soft fruit would have a

knock-on effect on prices for many other products for British consumers, and may

even force these corporations to relocate elsewhere in Europe in search of

alternative suppliers. Again, this would result in a considerable loss of employment

and tax revenue for the government.

2.2 Robotic Harvesting

The Resolution Foundation has suggested that it would be sensible for farms to plug

the gap left by tightened immigration controls with investment in machinery and

robotics. The farm has already sought to lower the labour requirement per tonne of

production by bringing in polytunnels, table-top picking structures, substrate-based

systems, more hardy varieties of soft fruit and extensive mechanisation of pack-

house operations. As an example of one of these initiatives, substrate-based

strawberry systems require 120 hours of labour per tonne compared to 160 hours for

traditional soil-based production.

However, research from Harper Adams, Lincoln University and Dogtooth

Technologies (Cambridge-based technology start-up) found that commercially-viable

mechanisation of soft fruit picking is very unlikely to happen within the next 10-15

years. Given the deadline for a resolution of immigration issues is 2021, this is not a

useful line of enquiry. In the event it is developed, it is estimated that it will only

replace 45% of all seasonal labour costs. With present progress, mechanisation will

only reduce the labour need by 1,319 workers for 2020. This is only 5% of the annual

requirement and 29,776 workers would still be required.

2.3 Why not source workers from the Commonwealth?

Finding workers from the Commonwealth instead would be very difficult.

Commonwealth countries are large land masses with vast agricultural industries and

very small populations. Australia desperately recruits British gap year students to fill

its agricultural worker positions in return for free travel once their work has been

completed demonstrating its shortage of domestic farm workers. The weak Sterling

makes it even less likely that workers from the Commonwealth will be attracted to

UK seasonal work, compared with their comparatively strong currencies.

4. Are EU migrant workers putting pressure on resources?

Labour is seasonal, so most workers only stay for the duration of the picking

(between 6-9 months). 95-97% of workers return home when their work on the farm

ends. The farm’s seasonal workers are also fit, able-bodied people who do not put

pressure on the NHS, schools or housing, but whom make a net contribution through

taxes and consumption spending in the local economy. During the 2017 season less

than 2% of the farm’s workforce needed any support from the NHS and no

hospitalisation of any employees was required. The most common requirement was

for minor dental treatment which is paid for at the point of care. The farm also

provides weekly transport to a nearby ASDA, supporting the store and all the

associated workforce.

In a wider sense, as the population ages, the UK age dependency ratio is expected

to rise by 25% by 2030. The influx of working-age migrants paying taxes helps fund

this increasing proportion of over 65s in the UK. To cut off this source of revenue at

the time it is most needed will put additional strain and possibly necessitate a tax

increase for UK residents and businesses.

5. Summary and solutions

The government recently announced that net migration could fall to “the tens of

thousands”. Given that 28,960 workers are needed for soft fruit farming alone (see

The Anderson Report, British Summer Fruits), this prediction is worrying for those in

the soft fruit industry.

5.2 Proposed solution

The farm agrees with the National Farmers’ Union that a special visa system for

seasonal workers on farms would be appropriate. Contrary to popular belief, this

would be applied to only a very small percentage of total farm workers:

Number of agricultural

workers

Percentage of total

UK-born 328,000 85%

EU-born 30,000 8%

Non-EU-born 27,000 7%

It is estimated that 97% of these EU-born workers are employed on soft fruit farms.

Soft fruit farms are responsible businesses that take measures to ensure minimal

impact on public goods from imported EU workers.

A final consideration is one often not considered and comes from the perspective of

the migrant workers themselves. With a weak Sterling and political uncertainty on the

status of EU migrant workers, it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract Eastern

Europeans to the UK for farm work. In the aforementioned Financial Times article,

labour shortages this summer were triggered by the Sterling’s diminished value and

disinterest amongst Eastern European migrants when their remittances would

amount to more if they worked in the Eurozone.

Angus Growers

Angus Growers is a Scottish Producer Organisation with 18 members, mostly in

Eastern Scotland, producing over 12,000 tonnes of soft fruit with a farm gate value of

over £46 million in 2017, over 95% being sold as fresh fruit through the major

supermarkets, other retail outlets and farm shops.

This response gives answers to the points in the Call for Evidence. The soft fruit

industry is dependent on a source of seasonal labour as is shown in the answers

below. Angus Growers will need 4,500 seasonal staff in 2018, we have made

numerous attempts to employ more local people to do our seasonal work but for

many reasons, including insufficient availability of local labour and a benefits system

which discourages short term work by those who are available, find that we have no

option but to rely on migrant workers to get the work done.

• Please provide evidence on the characteristics (e.g. types of jobs migrants

perform; skill levels, etc.) of EEA migrants in your particular sector/local

area/region.

• Fruit Pickers and packhouse staff –skilled manual workers, require attention to detail,

physical fitness and willingness to live on the farm to be available for early starts

before public transport is working.

• Farm workers – skilled machinery operation and crop husbandry work

• Supervisors and Quality Control checkers – supervisory, law, hygiene and quality

checking and enforcement

How do these differ from UK workers?

There are EEA migrants available for work

And from non-EEA workers?

Only availability

To what extent are EEA migrants seasonal: 4,100 or 100%.

Part-time: 0

Agency-workers: 30%

Temporary: 100%

Short-term assignments: 0

Intra-company transfers: 0

Self-employed: 0

What information do you have on their skill levels?

They are trained for their jobs on the farm when they arrive, those who return

for another season and are competent are promoted as their skills develop,

some becoming highly skilled crop husbandry or packing line technicians or

supervisors.

To what extent do these differ from UK workers and non-EEA workers?

There is little difference except for language skills; the migrants are likely to

be multilingual whereas UK workers only speak English

Are there any relevant sources of evidence, beyond the usual range of official

statistics that would allow the MAC to get a more detailed view of the current

patterns of EEA migration, especially over the last year?

All our farms have detailed employment records, we would welcome a visit

from the MAC to our farms should they wish.

Have the patterns of EEA migration changed over time?

Yes, through the requirements of SAWS to the present situation, with the

numbers increasing to match requirements.

What evidence do you have showing your employment of EEA migrants since

2000?

Farm employment records, 2016 labour profile shown below:

Angus Growers and Member Farm Fruit Enterprise Employees

2016 season

Full Time Permanent Employees Number UK nationals 63 28.0%

EEA nationals full time UK residents 160 71.1%

Non EEA nationals 2 0.9%

Total Full Time 225

Seasonal Employees UK nationals 11 0.3%

EEA nationals full time UK residents 39 0.9%

EEA nationals temporary UK

residence 4032 98.1%

Non EEA nationals 30 0.7%

Total Seasonal 4112

Total UK nationals 74 1.7%

EEA nationals full time UK residents 199 4.6%

EEA nationals temporary UK

residence 4032 93.0%

Non EEA nationals 32 0.7%

Total 4337

And after the Brexit referendum?

We have been 15% short in 2017 with recruited EEA staff failing to arrive,

leaving early and lack of availability from agencies to fill subsequent

shortages. In 2016 we had all the employees we needed. In 2017 some

people who had agreed to come did not arrive, others left early when they

realised the value of the Pound against the Euro meant they were not earning

as much as they expected.

For example one farm was short of 15 employees out of a requirement for 70

for 21 days at the peak of the season, meaning approximately 8,000 kg of

raspberries worth £48,000 were not picked.

Are these trends different for UK workers and non-EEA workers?

Too few UK (0.3% of seasonal workers) and non-EEA (0.7%) workers to

compare.

• Have you conducted any analysis on the future trends of EEA migration, in

particular in the absence of immigration controls?

Impossible to do without Brexit terms being known, EEA workers leaving at

the end of 2017 season are uncertain of future work in the UK and are talking

of working in EEA countries in 2018 and 2019. For instance Polish workers

are already being offered work in Germany with potential for promotion and no

Euro exchange rate worries.

• Have you made any assessment of the impact of a possible reduction in the

availability of EEA migrants (whether occurring naturally or through policy) as

part of your workforce?

Yes

What impact would a reduction in EEA migration have on your sector/local

area/region?

Disastrous, half of our production costs are labour and 95% of our labour is

from the EEA, without sufficient workers soft fruit production for the fresh

market is not possible.

How will your business/sector/area/region cope?

Without time to recruit a new labour supply and sympathetic regulations it will

not cope.

Would the impacts be different if reductions in migration took place amongst

non-EEA migrants?

Yes, as there are currently insignificant numbers, under 1%, if an increase in

migration of non EEA migrants was to be allowed a system to allow this needs

to be announced immediately to allow such people to be found and recruited

then the procedures to allow them to work here designed and enabled in

plenty of time.

If EEA migrants are not to be available for any reason, either for immigration

regulatory reasons or because the UK is no longer attractive to them, we

would need an increase in non-EEA staff rather than worry about the effect of

a reduction in their numbers.

Have you made any contingency plans?

It is difficult to make plans without knowing what will be possible in the future,

we are working with MPs, MSPs and Ministers to raise awareness of the

desperate situation and find a way to access seasonal staff.

Some growers have reduced the areas of new crops they will plant in 2018

and more are saying they will not plant new crops in 2019 unless their

confidence improves.

Recruitment Practices, Training & Skills

Please provide evidence on the methods of recruitment used to employ EEA

migrants.

Personal contact with existing workers, agencies

Do these methods differ from those used to employ UK and non-EEA

workers?

No, although Job Centres and local advertisements also tried for UK staff

What impact does this have on UK workers?

None, any suitable UK workers applying for work are employed.

Have these methods changed following the Brexit referendum?

No, methods of recruitment have not changed but probably will once future

labour sources are known, however employers are having to offer more

incentive to encourage migrants to travel, such as subsidising travel and

accommodation costs.

Do recruitment practices differ by skill-type and occupation?

No

What are the advantages and disadvantages of employing EEA workers?

EEA workers are available and have a good work ethic, they are prepared to

live on farm and are prepared to take responsibility in returned for enhanced

pay.

The disadvantage is that if there is insufficient work here, or better paying

work elsewhere they will leave at short notice or not come here at all.

Have these changed following the Brexit referendum result?

No, but the disadvantages have become more apparent

To what extent has EEA and non-EEA migration affected the skills and training

of the UK workers?

The availability of migrant labour has enabled the soft fruit industry to develop

allowing UK workers and academics who want to work in the industry develop

skills and knowledge, which would not have been possible without this

availability of labour.

How involved are universities and training providers in ensuring that the UK

workforce has the skills needed to fill key roles/roles in high demand in your

sector?

Minimal involvement in specific skills but provide good graduates able to

develop specific skill sets needed. There is currently a shortage of suitably

qualified agronomy graduates.

Do you have plans to increase this involvement in the future?

We prefer to train our own workforce, using training providers for specific

skills.

All we want from universities is to provide graduates with training in scientific

thinking, basic agricultural and agronomy theory in all subjects and most

importantly the ability to learn and apply scientific principles to practical

situations.

At a post graduate level we already work closely with research institutions and

will continue to do this.

How well aware are you of current UK migration policies for non-EEA

migrants?

Well enough, this source of labour is not currently available in sufficient

numbers able to meet our needs.

If new immigration policies restrict the numbers of low-skilled migrants who

can come to work in the UK, which forms of migration into low-skilled work

should be prioritised? For example, the current shortage occupation list

applies to high skilled occupations; do you think this should be expanded to

cover lower skill levels?

Seasonal migration should be allowed to meet identified needs at all skill

levels identified. A specific list is likely to be too restrictive in the situation

following Brexit when the inability to source labour to fill requirements at short

notice may cause major problems for food supply and company survival.

Economic, Social and Fiscal Impacts

What are the economic, social and fiscal costs and benefits of EEA migration

to the UK economy?

In the soft fruit sector it is entirely beneficial; the EEA workers enable Scottish

farmers to benefit from the demand for fresh soft fruit, bringing money,

employment opportunities for locals and tax income to rural areas. While here

the EEA migrants buy food and other supplies from local shops.

What are the impacts of EEA migrants on the labour market?

EEA Migrants provide work for UK workers by filling roles where there are

insufficient UK workers or jobs UK workers cannot/do not want to fill; if the

migrants were not there neither would the work be there for UK workers in

other parts of the food chain.

Prices,

EEA migrants keep food prices down by enabling large scale horticulture in

UK.

Net fiscal impacts e.g. taxes paid by migrants;

Tax on their earnings which would not otherwise be paid.

Benefits they receive

Very little, only health care for illness and injury

Productivity, investment, innovation and general competitiveness of UK

industry?

The Scottish soft fruit industry in its current form and scale would not exist

without them

Do these differ from the impact of non-EEA migrants?

We don’t employ enough non EEA migrants to be able to compare

Do these impacts differ at national, regional or local level?

We only operate at a local level

Do these impacts vary by sector and occupation?

We can only speak for Scottish soft fruit.

Do these impacts vary by skill level (high-skilled, medium-skilled, and low-

skilled workers)?

No, we need a complete team comprising all skill levels to operate the

business.

Boxford Sussex Farms Ltd

MAC Call for Evidence - Brexit and the need for Seasonal Labour - a new SAWS

(Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme) for Horticulture

I am writing on behalf of Boxford (Suffolk) Farms Ltd (fruit growers since 1935), and

Peake Fruit Ltd (which is a fruit storage, packing and marketing company) and our

other local fruit grower suppliers. We are major employers of both UK permanent

workers and non-UK permanent and seasonal workers and we are very concerned

about the impact of Brexit going forward and the need to employ people to harvest

and perform vital husbandry tasks required to produce UK fruit. Possible solutions

could be:

• A visa (work permit) scheme which allows restricted access to labour from anywhere in the world for seasonal roles. This would be for a specific job, for a specified time period, which allows workers to return to their country of origin at the end of this period

• A scheme for longer term permanent positions. This could work alongside a visa scheme if the requirement is for skilled agricultural workers and to underpin a possible skills shortage in the UK horticulture

You would be very welcome to visit our farms and packhouse, to see for yourself our

reliance on foreign workers and the need for Government to ensure a suitable scheme

is in place post Brexit. We urge you to make ours and the industry’s case, your top

priority. Until we are certain that we will be able to harvest our crops, we are not able

to make any future investments in our businesses. Trees and plants need to be

ordered at least 2 years in advance and therefore it is urgent that decisions, or at least

assurances, that something will be done, are made now. We have thousands of plants

on order and £1000s of investment in the pipeline for future expansion of UK food

production and all is in jeopardy.

Not only is the future of UK horticulture, and the thousands of UK people employed,

at stake but also the associated industries that support Horticulture. In 2012, we, along

with the rest of the industry, submitted a huge amount of information to the Migration

Advisory Committee on the effects if SAWS was scrapped. Inexplicably the

Government chose to ignore this, taking the view that SAWS would be replaced by

Bulgarian and Romanian immigrant workers. Many of the things that we said would

happen, such as increased immigration, transpired; however the industry has

managed, until now.

With Brexit, and its possible ramifications on EU labour movement, it is imperative that

we have an alternative source of seasonal labour and that a similar scheme be

reintroduced.

The availability up until now of a plentiful supply of seasonal labour has given

confidence and certainty to horticultural businesses to expand, recruit more fulltime

UK workers and spend money on innovation and research. This has led to an increase

in UK produced fruit and veg, (131% for soft fruit and 27% for orchard fruits in the last

20 years), better food security and ability to feed a growing population, reduction of

imports and better balance of payments. Our world-leading fruit production systems

are at the forefront of modern technological and agronomical advances. UK Food

supply is a very efficient, low margin/high volume business, which it has to be to avoid

food inflation and remain competitive in a world market. If there are no seasonal

workers at all then UK grown fruit and veg will simply cease to be produced.

The arguments:

It is important not to confuse seasonal migration for harvest work with

immigration - SAWS helped provide British Jobs and income:

The SAWS scheme provided seasonal manual work for 6 decades, it did not replace

viable permanent jobs or careers for jobseekers in the UK – in fact supervisory,

managerial, packing and processing roles were created as a result of this labour force.

It was a transparent and very well-run scheme.

It is a hard sell to say that in order to protect British jobs we must rely on foreign labour,

but this is the case – and rest assured, the rest of our international competitors fully

understand what a vital part a healthy horticultural sector plays in the rural and wider

community.

Our group of businesses currently employ 300+ seasonal workers – this allows us to

employ 283 full time UK staff. In addition, we market our produce via Orchardworld

who employ 20 F/T staff, and Berrygardens who employ over 100 F/T staff, all 3 of

these businesses employ across the skills spectrum. There are 100's of businesses

such as ours doing a similar thing for soft and top fruit alone, multiply this across all

horticulture and the food industry and you can see the knock-on effect on UK jobs -

and this is before you take into account our retail customers and our logistics networks.

The seasonal workers we employ have many protections and our retail customers are

highly vigilant about employment standards and ethical trading in their supply chain.

It is worth noting that the amount of money that these people earn over 6 months can

have a life changing equivalence in their home country. In recent years it is true to say

that a very large proportion of the money earned (anecdotally 50%) is spent in the UK

economy anyway which in some rural locations is very important to the local economy.

UK Competitiveness

Food supply is a very efficient, low margin/high volume business, which it has to be to

avoid food inflation and remain competitive in a world market. Manual harvest work is

not seen as an attractive option or a viable career in more economically developed

countries.

Typically, we experience a decrease in picking speed of 25% when using labour from

the wealthier EU and western countries, which means, with low skilled husbandry and

harvesting labour as our major expense – UK produced food will go up in price, we will

be uncompetitive and sales will diminish. The worse-case scenario is of course that if

there are no seasonal workers at all then UK grown fruit and veg will simply cease to

be produced.

Unfortunately, when we have recently tried to employ UK residents, they have picked

at ½ the speed. This is simply even less viable. However, an equally damaging issue

is the attendance and reliability. Inevitably if a UK worker does not like the job then

they will return home never to return again – this can happen after 1 day’s induction,

2 days’ work or weeks or months work.

Recruiting through Job Centres has also proved unsatisfactory as applicants sign up

and then don’t turn up to work or if they do, after spending time on training, they leave

after a few hours.

UK workers may not want to work outside of normal hours for all sorts of valid reasons

and will return home after 5pm, or not be prepared to start early if the crop and weather

dictate, or perhaps not turn up at weekends, whether the crop has been harvested or

not. However, our crops fluctuate with the season and weather and need to be picked

at the crucial time. This is a logistical and administrative nightmare.

The UK has very good and strict labour laws but the knock-on effect of this level of

unreliability and staff turnover means hours of wasted induction, training, disciplinary,

administration and payroll hours that is much better spent growing a high value and

quality crop - meanwhile the crop does not get harvested. A resident workforce away

from home has no other pressures; they are here to earn money in a fixed period of

time (and have a life experience while they are here), these factors mean that we have

a motivated, willing, flexible and reactive workforce who we can train and look after to

harvest our hard-earned crops for the season.

A well-run SAWS-type scheme, sourcing from outside the EU reduces

immigration, sourcing solely from within the EU will increase migration:

A quota system such as SAWS, that ties workers to farm work, works better to prevent

immigration than a free system where workers are free to work anywhere. The issue

we had with EU nationals, when SAWS was abolished, was that they were free to seek

employment throughout the EU and farms were a staging post which provided a base

and a job from where they could seek permanent employment elsewhere. A tied

workforce brought in to specifically work on farms (transferring between them if

necessary) but unable to seek employment outside of these schemes ensures that

there is minimal opportunity to convert seasonal migration into immigration.

In summary:

We must reintroduce a very similar system which does not give our growers additional

and unnecessary financial burdens. We must sensitively explain the benefits to the

public and Government and resist the falsehood that it takes jobs from UK jobless. A

SAWS scheme would safeguard jobs and add value to the food industry that, if it did

not exist, post-Brexit would just be replaced by a tide of money flowing out of the UK

to those countries that do produce efficiently and understand properly the economic

and social argument.

For example, our EU competitors are facing the same labour shortages; however their

governments, such as Germany, Slovakia and Portugal, have granted permits to bring

in workers on a temporary basis from the Ukraine, Serbia, Moldavia and Thailand to

solve their problem.

We urgently require a Seasonal Workers Permit scheme open to all comers from

outside and within the EU. The ideal solution to our industry and for the wider

economic and social reasons already discussed, a replacement scheme should widen

SAW's to countries such as Ukraine, Belarus, China, Asia, etc.

A lack of seasonal workers in Horticulture:

• May herald the end to UK produced fruit and veg

• Is a threat to UK food security and self-sufficiency

• Is inflationary to consumers

• Effects UK competitiveness

• Undermines many UK horticultural and associated businesses and will reduce

UK employment

• Burdens 1000's of UK SME (farming businesses) with unacceptable levels of

cost and administration

• Will result in more imported fruit from abroad - effect trade balance

• Jeopardises UK horticultural jobs and a vibrant yet marginal industry

• Potentially increases food miles and environmental damage from less regulated

sources world wide

MAC Call for Evidence – responses from Boxford (Suffolk) Farms, and its marketing and packing subsidiary Peake Fruit, and The Stoke by Nayland Hotel, Golf and Spa Key message: We urgently need a flexible SAWs scheme for both EEA and non-EEA workers to be in place by May 2018, in order to continue the three-fold growth and expansion of our businesses (£6m to £18m t/o) that we have been able to achieve over the last 13 years - mainly due to the availability of a reliable, flexible, resident and appropriately skilled seasonal workforce. This has not only increased the employment of permanent workers in our businesses by 160% - of which 65% (170) are UK workers - but has also resulted in a 500% increase in our supply of home grown UK fruits to meet growing consumer demand. On our farms, we pick over 150 million pieces of fruit by hand each year – we need the workforce to do this. The old SAWs scheme would be easy to resurrect – workers would return home at the end of each period, with no impact on immigration numbers, housing, education or the NHS, and only benefits to public finances and the consumer. EEA Migration Trends

• Please provide evidence on the characteristics (e.g. types of jobs migrants perform; skill levels, etc) of EEA migrants in your particular sector/local area/ region. How do these differ from UK workers? And from non-EEA workers? In our Horticulture businesses EEA migrants perform 2 types of jobs: 1) Seasonal work - Harvest & Husbandry work – 100% EEA seasonal - 300 people – low skill 2) Permanent work – production, line work, supervisory work, middle management mostly medium skill – 27 at Farm (66% of perm workers) and 92 in packhouse (80% of perm workers). Of these permanent workers, approx. 10% are high skilled, senior managers.

All UK workers are permanent full time - 14 at Farm (34% of perm workers) 24 in packhouse (20% of perm workers) – supervisors, middle and senior managers. We have 1 non-EEA worker – highly skilled, senior manager. In our Hospitality business, 223 UK permanent workers (87%) rely on 29 (11%) EEA permanent workers, for housekeeping/cleaning/kitchen/waiting jobs etc.,(lower skilled jobs) to support the whole business. There are also 3 (1%) non-EEA workers. The 448 EEA migrant workers make up over 60% of our total workforce (735) in all businesses, of which 33% are permanent and 67% are seasonal. Of our 435 permanent workers, 65% are UK workers and 34% are EEA workers, with 1% being non-EEA workers. See attached table for further details.

• To what extent are EEA migrants seasonal; part-time; agency-workers; temporary; short-term assignments; intra-company transfers; self-employed? What information do you have on their skill levels? To what extent do these differ from UK workers and non-EEA workers See answers above. Most EEA migrants are seasonal 67%, and 33% are permanent. For a few weeks a year (approx. 8 weeks) in our peak periods in the packhouse, we use EEA Agency staff – av at peak times 24 people – 5% of total EEA migrant workforce. No Part time, No temporary, No Short term assignments, No intra-company transfers, No self employed

• Are there any relevant sources of evidence, beyond the usual range of official statistics, that would allow the MAC to get a more detailed view of the current patterns of EEA migration, especially over the last year NFU Labour Briefing Paper 24th Oct 2017 – “Securing access to agriculture and horticulture’s workforce” - attached NFU Labour Provider Survey Results - July 2017 - attached https://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-news/drop-in-seasonal-workers-leaves-some-farms-critically-short/ British Summer Fruits Seasonal Labour Report - June 2017 http://www.britishsummerfruits.co.uk/media/TheAndersonReport.pdf British Summer Fruits report – “How Brexit could crush out soft fruit industry” – June 2017 http://www.britishsummerfruits.co.uk/media/HowBrexit.pdf English Apples & Pears Andersons Seasonal Labour Report – October 2017 Key Messages: http://www.englishapplesandpears.co.uk/pdf_word/EAP%20Andersons%20Report%20-%20Key%20Message%20&%20Executive%20Summary%20(1).pdf Full Report: http://www.englishapplesandpears.co.uk/pdf_word/EAP%20Andersons%20Report%20(1).pdf British Growers Association – Annual Labour Survey showing 75-80,000 workers required, also: http://www.britishgrowers.org/news/item/fresh-produce-could-be-left-unharvested-if-labour-solution-is-not-found/ EFRA Committee Report – Feeding the Nation: labour constraints – oral evidence 8th Feb 2017 http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/ab33de3d-7124-4325-ae85-7bc281b61b17

AHDB Submission: https://ahdb.org.uk/news/documents/AHDB-HoC_Select_Committee_evidence_on_Labour.pdf Commons Select Committee – Brexit’s impact on the UK labour market examined – 18th Jan 2017 http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/news-parliament-2015/brexit-impact-uk-labour-market-16-17/ Previous evidence presented to the MAC by our companies during 2012 – available on request. British Hospitality Association announces first post-Brexit sector skills strategy: http://www.bha.org.uk/hospitality-tourism-industry-announces-first-post-brexit-sector-skills-strategy-2/ KPMG report – Labour Migration in the Hospitality Sector – citing that an additional 60,000 EU workers are required each year to allow for further UK industry growth, in addition to the 200,000 workers already required. http://dip9shwvohtcn.cloudfront.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/BHA-EU-migration-final-report-170518-public-vSTC.pdf

• Have the patterns of EEA migration changed over time? What evidence do you have showing your employment of EEA migrants since 2000? And after the Brexit referendum? Are these trends different for UK workers and non-EEA workers? Seasonal – no UK workers, no change EEA – 2000 – 2004 All EEA and Non EEA workers all on SAWS workcards 2004 – 2008 A8 free movement, all others EEA and Non EEA alike still SAWS 2008 – 2013 A8 free movement, Bulgaria and Romania SAWS, Non EEA now banned 2013 – Present day All EEA free movement, no other Non EEA workers allowed From 2004 onwards saw the biggest expansion of our fruit production business due to the easier access to EEA workers. However, after 2013, with no SAWS scheme, there was a higher turnover of workers due to them being allowed to leave farms and seek work in other sectors. After the referendum, applications from EEA workers dropped by about 10% and there were more early leavers - mainly due to devaluation of Sterling, but also draw on workers from other EU countries where uncertainty is much less. The productivity of EEA workers has also dropped resulting in more workers required and longer hours worked to cover the same tasks = higher costs.

• Have you conducted any analysis on the future trends of EEA migration, in particular in the absence of immigration controls?

Not really but in the absence of immigration controls there was a higher influx of migrants as they were allowed to work anywhere and were not limited by their workcards and residence on particular farms. The historical facts are; by about 2008 the original A8 started to dwindle, this is now happening with Bulgaria and Romania - there are fewer workers available – this may be affected in part by Brexit and value of £ but does not explain all – in essence the dwindling Romanians and Bulgarians would still have happened as did the A8, due to the improving economies in Eastern Europe and so now we need to cast wider than the EU as we won’t be able to recruit enough people from there in future which is why we will need a worldwide SAWS scheme for both EEA and non-EEA workers.

• Have you made any assessment of the impact of a possible reduction in the availability of EEA migrants (whether occurring naturally or through policy) as part of your workforce? What impact would a reduction in EEA migration have on your sector/local area/region? How will your business/sector/area/region cope? Would the impacts be different if reductions in migration took place amongst non-EEA migrants? Have you made any contingency plans? Seasonal migrant labour is essential for our industry. A reduction in EEA migrant labour in the absence of any other source of migrant labour would be catastrophic – we would be forced out of business. With no seasonal migrant labour, the knock-on effect would be loss of business to other local businesses that supply our business and the food supply chain in general. UK production of fruit & veg would cease and all would have to be imported at higher prices to the consumer, and detriment to the environment. We don’t have Non EEA migrants at the moment however we would see an improvement in productivity if the likes of Belarussians and Ukrainians were allowed back (as prior to 2008). It is difficult to make contingency plans when we have no idea what options we will have available to us.

Recruitment Practices, Training & Skills

• Please provide evidence on the methods of recruitment used to employ EEA migrants. Do these methods differ from those used to employ UK and non-EEA workers? What impact does this have on UK workers? Have these methods changed following the Brexit referendum? All seasonal work is advertised both locally, in job centres, adverts in local media, and with our labour recruiters, of circa 350 seasonal staff through the books annually only about 3 – 5 UK workers apply, and none of them stay. There is no impact on UK workers as the figures in the paragraph above show. We are in a rural area with less than 2% unemployment. We cannot get ANY UK workers to do this work, despite trying, as is shown in the following example: In 2009 when we were short of labour, due to non-EEA workers no longer being allowed via SAWS, we were unable to pick our raspberry crop. We were featured

on local BBC TV news and 15 UK workers contacted us to come and work. 5 actually turned up, 3 lasted a morning, 1 lasted a day and 1 lasted a week. No changes so far since Brexit – except concern on the part of the EEA seasonal workers as to what will happen post March 2019. We are considering what steps we will have to take next season to try and secure enough workers.

• Do recruitment practices differ by skill-type and occupation? Seasonal workers are mainly recruited thorough licenced recruiters (HOPS, Concordia etc), posters in local villages, on-line job adverts, email and word of mouth. Full time, higher skilled posts are generally recruited via websites, recruitment agencies and industry media.

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of employing EEA workers? Have these changed following the Brexit referendum result? Advantages of employing EEA workers are: - availability/certainty of the numbers required - residency on farm for timeliness - willingness and ability to do the type of work - higher productivity – although this is dropping off – hence the need for non-

EEA workers. Disadvantages are sometimes the language barrier. After the referendum, we have struggled to get enough people, applications from EEA workers dropped by about 10% and there were more early leavers - mainly due to devaluation of Sterling, but also draw on workers from other EU countries where uncertainty is much less. The productivity of EEA workers has also dropped resulting in more workers required and longer hours worked to cover the same tasks = higher costs. Some husbandry jobs have not been completed in the required timescales.

• To what extent has EEA and non-EEA migration affected the skills and training of the UK workers? By having both EEA and Non EEA migration, our businesses have grown and thrived and this has meant that, across our businesses we have created 170 more UK permanent jobs over the last 13 years as we have expanded - these jobs would not be there if we had not been able to recruit EEA and Non EEA workers.

• How involved are universities and training providers in ensuring that the UK workforce has the skills needed to fill key roles/roles in high demand in your sector? Do you have plans to increase this involvement in the future? University and training providers are not appropriate for the recruitment and training of temporary seasonal workers for low skilled work. However, there is always a need for permanent higher skilled workers in management/technical roles in our sector and we welcome any improvement in Government support for this in teaching institutions in the future. There is

particularly a need for first-line management, production supervisory and QA skills – which are not currently catered for in colleges – there are no recognised courses or apprenticeships for these skills.

• How well aware are you of current UK migration policies for non-EEA migrants? If new immigration policies restrict the numbers of low-skilled migrants who can come to work in the UK, which forms of migration into low-skilled work should be prioritised? For example, the current shortage occupation list2 applies to high skilled occupations; do you think this should be expanded to cover lower skill levels? Possibly, and also for medium skill levels - but recruiting on a tougher, work permit-based system (rather than resurrection of a SAWS scheme) would be too expensive and time consuming. It would need to be a much simpler and quicker process due to the numbers involved – SAWS is the perfect solution – having been perfected and refined over the 60+ years from 1948 to 2013. On the shortage occupation list, non-EEA migrants at present are only available to designated industries and for higher skill level recruitment requiring a sponsor. There is also a definite need for medium skilled agricultural workers for longer term permanent positions. (See suggestion for last question). Low-skilled migrants are needed in our sector as both the seasonal nature and low skilled work mean that is not suitable or sought after by UK workers seeking full time employment. There should be a work card or similar easy system for seasonal workers in agriculture and horticulture. The NFU put it very succinctly in their recent briefing paper of 24th Oct 2017:

NFU Asks:

• We want a clear and unambiguous commitment from Government that farmers and growers will have access to sufficient numbers of permanent and seasonal workers from outside of the UK where necessary after the UK leaves the EU.

• Government should set out its preferred approach to a new immigration system, which caters for both permanent and seasonal workers in agriculture, after we leave the EU as soon as possible. This should involve extensive consultation with industries particularly reliant on overseas labour, such as agriculture and horticulture.

• The Immigration Bill must recognise the crucial importance of migration for certain sectors of the UK economy, both low and high skilled, and be based on a realistic expectation of the ability and availability of UK workers to fill the jobs currently carried out by EU migrant workers.

• A suite of visa and/ or work permit schemes that offer employers flexible, low cost solutions for recruiting overseas workers into agriculture, whether for permanent or seasonal jobs, with minimum burdens to process applications.

Economic, Social and Fiscal Impacts

• What are the economic, social and fiscal costs and benefits of EEA migration to the UK economy? What are the impacts of EEA migrants on the labour market, prices, public services, net fiscal impacts (e.g. taxes paid by migrants; benefits they receive), productivity, investment, innovation and general competitiveness of UK industry? The benefits of seasonal migrant labour are many: - No pressure on housing – we house them on farm, - No pressure on the NHS - typically young healthy workers with very little need

for healthcare, - No pressure on the education system – no children come with them. - No pressure on the road infrastructure as by living on site there is no

commuting traffic. - They pay Tax and NI but make little if no fiscal demands on the State, - They typically spend approximately 50% of what they earn in the local

economy. The availability up until now of a plentiful supply of seasonal labour has given confidence and certainty to horticultural businesses to expand, recruit more fulltime UK workers and spend money on innovation and research. This has led to an increase in UK produced fruit and veg,(131% for soft fruit and 27% for orchard fruits in the last 20 years), better food security and ability to feed a growing population, reduction of imports and better balance of payments. Our world-leading fruit production systems are at the forefront of modern technological and agronomical advances. UK Food supply is a very efficient, low margin/high volume business, which it has to be to avoid food inflation and remain competitive in a world market. If there are no seasonal workers at all then UK grown fruit and veg will simply cease to be produced.

• Do these differ from the impact of non-EEA migrants? There is no difference of Non EEA migrants – the above would still apply.

• Do these impacts differ at national, regional or local level? For Horticulture, I would argue that there is no difference at national, regional or local level

• Do these impacts vary by sector and occupation? In this evidence presented, we are mainly referring to the horticulture sector.

• Do these impacts vary by skill level (high-skilled, medium-skilled, and low-skilled workers)? In the instance of Seasonal workers, they are and will always be seasonal and low skilled so all of the above applies.

High skilled workers already have a route to employment in the UK and relative to the numbers of seasonal staff required their numbers are very low and so have a lower impact. Medium skilled workers are a potential problem as with a temporary seasonal workcard system we would have the harvesting staff available, however a lot of our junior and supervisory staff are EEA workers and this is where we have a problem recruiting UK workers to fill these full time vacancies, so a relaxed system of allowing either EEA or Non EEA migrants to fill full time vacancies would be necessary (maybe a ratio based quota, based on how many seasonal staff a business employs – there is a linked ratio between seasonal staff numbers and supervisory / junior management staff required). So for example, 12 pickers require 1 supervisor so 300 pickers would require up to 25 medium skilled supervisors.

British Poultry Council

EEA Workers in the UK – a consultation

1. This is a submission by the British Poultry Council (BPC) in response to the MAC consultation into EEA Workers in the UK. We welcome the opportunity to respond to this important inquiry, which is of great relevance and interest to the BPC. This short paper aims to explain the role of migrant labour in the context of the poultry meat sector.

2. The BPC is the trade association for those involved in the production of poultry meat – chicken, turkey, duck, goose – in the UK. Our member companies account for nearly 90% of the production in this country, and cover the whole food chain: breeding, hatching, growing, slaughter, processing, and packing. Nearly a billion birds are reared for food every year, providing half the meat that the country eats.

3. Post-Brexit we need a flexible visa system that is fit for purpose. Our industry has grown

beyond the labour availability in the areas we operate – which is why nearly three-fifths 1 of our workforce are EU nationals. Government’s support in creating a flexible visa system that allows us to bring in migrant labour for roles that cannot be filled with UK workers will enable us to carry on feeding the nation with affordable food. We expect the need for migrant labour to continue in the foreseeable future, and at the current levels. Movement of labour to the UK, whether from the EU or other countries, for the poultry meat sector is crucial to the food security of this nation.

4. Post-Brexit we must build skills and jobs for UK workers. We are asking Government to build

flexibility into the Apprenticeship Levy system; to allow funds to be accessed from other parts of the supply chain, broaden the type of training that qualifies, and funding for activities that link to and engage young people in schools. Poultry meat production as a real-life example to support STEM subjects will not only help promote the sector as a career option but also boost rural and semi-rural employment and strengthen local economies. We want to encourage more young people and UK workers into our sector by helping build strong partnerships between schools and businesses and developing skills and training programmes that match the uptake of innovation and technology.

5. The poultry meat sector is not part of the Common Agricultural Policy or any other subsidy programme; yet provides over £1 billion in tax contribution to the Exchequer. 2

6. Our economic contribution has increased by nearly 50 percent in the last five years with a £4.6 billion gross value-added contribution to GDP in 2015. Our sector sustains a total of 87,700 jobs, of these, 37,300 people are employed directly. 2

7. A survey of our workforce in 2015 1 indicated that 58% (21,866) of employees were from other Member States, with 3% being from third-countries, and the remainder from the UK. This overall figure must be qualified on a site by site basis. In some slaughterhouses and processing plants the proportion of EU labour can be 90%, whereas across the farming estate it would average 25%.

8. Under normal circumstances we would expect turnover of staff to be around 20% per year, but following the EU referendum we are receiving anecdotal evidence that this is increasing. We are also seeing greater difficulties in replacing staff and filling vacancies,

and a shift in source of EU labour from, for example, Poland and Lithuania, to more southerly states such as Romania and Bulgaria.

9. The poultry meat sector has been using migrant workers for many years. Partly due to lack of UK labour (high employment rates) in the geographical areas in which we operate, and partly because of increased consumption/production of poultry meat in recent years. There is no limitation of access to roles within the sector, and while most migrant workers begin in an entry level (skilled manual) position, there are no restrictions on moving into technical, supervisory, or managerial roles.

10. The estimated 21,866 workers from other Member States are all permanent. There are some seasonal (mainly Christmas) workers in addition to this figure, which the National Farmers Union estimates at 13,000.

11. Most migrant workers enter the poultry meat sector without any poultry specific qualifications. As a sector, we train all entry level operatives to at least a level 2 qualification, whether that is in agriculture or food production. All new entry employees, UK or migrant, very quickly become skilled workers.

12. The poultry meat sector routinely uses agencies to source labour, both in the UK and in other Member States. While there is some need for temporary labour to meet seasonal demands, most producers use UK agencies as a route by which to source permanent workers.

13. For the poultry meat sector, availability is the only advantage of migrant labour, albeit an enormous one. There is no significant cost difference between UK and migrant labour.

14. Skills and training, and qualifications are standardised across the workforce and are the same regardless of nationality.

15. The agencies, through their trade body, the Association of Labour Providers, would likely be the best source of information on EEA labour flows.

16. The growth of the UK poultry meat sector in the mid-2000s was helped by the new accession states to the EU. Having reached a limit of available UK labour, this was an opportunity to drive growth using the more readily available European labour. We do not have data from that period as to the number and proportion of EU labour in the sector.

17. If the available labour (regardless of source) was to decrease by 10% over the next two years, i.e. we could only fill 9 out of 10 vacancies, then we estimate that overall production of poultry meat in the UK could drop by between 15% and 25%. This depends heavily on where the gaps were and whether automation/technology could be applied in that area. For example, a farmer could not be readily replaced by technology, and the loss of such could have a disproportionate effect of the supply chain. In this instance cost per unit of production, and therefore food prices, would increase.

18. As a sector, we are looking at increased automation and use of technology but that is not a guaranteed contingency.

19. If a visa system were to be introduced for EEA workers then the need in sectors such as poultry meat production should be recognised and them be permitted to employ so-called low-skilled migrant workers. To persist with the shortage occupation list would be a disaster for UK food production, food security, and therefore national security.

20. The economic, social, and fiscal impacts for the poultry meat industry do not differ between nationality, region, occupation, or skill-level.

21. In 2015, the poultry meat sector supported a £4.6 billion gross value added contribution to UK GDP, and a total of £1.1 billion tax contribution to the Exchequer. Of that GVA, £1.8 billion was generated directly by the poultry meat industry. The remainder was through indirect and induced contribution to the economy through supplier and employee spending. 2

CLA

Introduction

1. The CLA represents 32,000 members who between them own or manage around half of the rural land in England and Wales. Whether they be farmers, landowners or rural businesses they will all be affected by changes made by the UK Government to its immigration policy and the impact to the supply of labour.

2. Along with trade and future agricultural policy, the supply of labour is one of

the most important issues that arises as a result of Brexit to both the agrifood sector and the wider rural economy. For the rural economy, the need for migrant labour, either on a seasonal or permanent basis, is fundamental to the viability or otherwise of many rural businesses.

3. This submission sets out the main concerns of the CLA from a future

restrictive migration policy. It examines the economics of labour supply and assesses the potential negative impacts a shortage of labour will have on particular sectors.

4. The submission also outlines the CLA’s own research and the views of the

membership on the issue of future labour supply. The economics of labour supply

5. In any economy the shortage of necessary labour can have the effect of either reducing output and, therefore, growth or increasing labour costs or both. However, given the prominence immigration and the notion of the EU’s freedom of movement of people had on the referendum, the issue is essentially political and future Government immigration policy will clearly need to take into account the potential reaction from the British public.

6. However, economically, reducing migrant labour supply in sectors, such as

horticulture and tourism, is very likely to have devastating consequences for the viability of rural businesses. The inability of many rural businesses to source domestic labour due to the seasonal nature of many rural economic sectors, will simply exacerbate the problems that will arise.

7. Farming is particularly dependent on workers from the EU, and Eastern

Europe in particular. There are more than 30,000 permanent workers (ONS, 2015) and an estimated 80,000 seasonal workers (Migration Advisory Committee, 2012) working in agriculture who are non-UK nationals. The vast majority of these roles are filled by people that originate from Eastern European Countries within the EU.

8. CLA research shows that of the total number of seasonal workers employed the vast majority come from Eastern Europe (73%) but only 22% are domestically recruited.

Table 1: Sources of labour supply

Region Percentage

UK 22%

Western & Southern Europe 3%

Eastern Europe 73%

Rest of the World 2%

Source: CLA

9. In purely economic terms, a shortage in available labour, whether it be domestic or migrant, will have the effect of increasing labour costs and/or reducing output and therefore, economic growth. However, the issue as to the movement of labour (or people) from the EU to the UK has become fundamentally a political, rather than an economic, issue and as such, any Government decision will need to take into account the potential reaction of a UK public that wants to see a reduction in the levels of immigration.

10. But a reduced labour supply in the short to medium term, in sectors such as horticulture and dairy (and the wider rural economy), is likely to lead to reduced production and therefore, increased imports which will have a debilitating effect on the UK’s balance of payments. The effect of this, depending on the trading relationship the UK secures with the EU and non-EU countries, will be a widening of the agrifood trade deficit, increased prices (depending on the rate of sterling) and as a result higher inflation. Economically, restricting labour supply and as such, growth, will have resultant negative implications.

11. What is clear that many rural businesses are unable to source their labour requirements from domestic supply as shown in table 1 above. It is also the case that there are many in the migrant labour force who are employed in permanent, skilled positions. For example, there are many non-UK veterinary officials who conduct hygiene checks in abattoirs and ante and post mortems as part of the current regulatory requirements simply because there is a lack of suitably qualified professionals domestically.

12. Indeed, this facet of the labour force, in terms of skilled labour, needs to be stressed. It is not just as part of the permanent workforce that there are skilled and managerial migrant employees. CLA research shows that some 34% of seasonal migrant workers are either defined as being skilled or employed in a managerial capacity. As importantly, evidence from CLA members shows that this category of employee, although seasonal, return to the UK year on year,

dispelling the argument that the very nature of seasonal infers a constant rotating pool of labour.

Table 2: Roles undertaken by seasonal labour

Role Percentage

Crop Picking, Crop Care or Crop

Sorting

39%

Skilled Work 24%

Animal Husbandry 8%

Managerial Roles 10%

Administration 4%

Other 14%

Source: CLA

13. Therefore, it is logical to suggest that a seasonal workforce does not exhibit the costs suggested in table 4 of the MAC briefing note. As such, there are significant advantages to a reintroduction of a Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme.

14. In order to meet the labour needs of certain agricultural sectors, the Government must design and implement a new seasonal workers scheme before the UK leaves the EU. The most recent scheme allowed for a quota of 21,250 workers and was time limited, in the main to the harvest period. As part of the work contract, employees were often provided with accommodation and other benefits during their employment. The advantage of this type of quota/licensing scheme is that it creates significant opportunities to enforce safeguards relating to workers’ rights, safety and other welfare standards.

15. The Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme (SAWS) came to an end in 2013 following the full accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU. The CLA believes that reintroducing the same type of scheme is vital for continued productivity and needs to be in place before any restrictions apply to the freedom of movement. In addition, replicating the past scheme should be easier administratively.

16. But it is not just in the agriculture sector where restrictions on migrant labour supply would have a significantly negative impact. Across the agrifood supply chain there are a number of non-UK nationals who have built up skills and experience that are invaluable to rural businesses and who are employed permanently. Removing these people from existing businesses as a result of a restrictive immigration policy would be both very damaging economically and counter-productive. The CLA believes that if there is consent from both the employer and the employee, they should be able to remain employed in the UK.

17. It is also important for the UK to attract the best skill and experience from across the world to manage modern farms, processing and production facilities and to bring their knowledge to the UK’s research and development sector. It is unfortunate that restrictive immigration could very well starve the UK of the “best brains” in innovation, an area where the government has stated it wishes to enhance. The CLA believes that only by introducing an immigration system with flexible qualifying criteria will the need of rural businesses for the most innovative approaches in near market R&D be met.

18. Analysis of one of the fastest growing sectors of the UK economy, tourism, presents an even bleaker future post Brexit if the government pursues a restrictive migration policy. Research by the apprenticeship and performance organisation, People 1st, suggests that, as unemployment has fallen over the last five years, the tourism industry’s reliance on EU nationals to fill vacancies in the sector has increased to a situation where about 50% of all new employees are now thought to be EU nationals. This clearly shows the dependence of tourism on workers from the EU as well as underlining the fact that there are increasingly fewer UK nationals able and willing to work in the sector. This clearly underscores the case that EU nationals are not taking tourism jobs at the expense of domestic workers, but rather, are filling vacancies which UK nationals are unable or unwilling to fill themselves.

19. But there is an even more acute problem. Despite having access to a labour supply of EU nationals under the free movement of people, the tourism sector is faced with both a skills and labour shortage. According to the latest Employer Skills Survey 25% of businesses have vacancies, of which 38% are considered to be hard to fill and 64% are skills related. Such a high level of demand for staff has led to some 10,000 unfilled vacancies with 21% of businesses reporting that the staff employed lack essential skills. This compares with just 15% of all businesses in the UK reporting this problem.

20. Indeed, there is a dichotomy in that although research from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) highlights productivity levels in the tourism industry as increasing significantly in recent years, the increasing number of businesses now employing people lacking the skills businesses need in order to provide a world class service to international and domestic visitors alike suggests that the real fear that productivity will actually contract, rather than grow.

Employing a domestic workforce

21. As the MAC briefing note states, agriculture, the food processing sector and the accommodation sectors are heavily reliant on migrant labour. However, efforts to source such labour requirements domestically are not very successful. CLA research suggests that for those businesses that have tried to recruit locally, the success rate has not been high. Within a range of

between 1 to 10 (1 being “very difficult” and 10 being “very easy”) the average score was registered as 3, meaning “difficult to very difficult”. There are a number of reasons for this dilemma. Firstly, there appears to be a clear unwillingness of the domestic workforce to work in the agriculture sector: it is perceived as being low pay, seasonal with a lack of career structure. Secondly, it may be very difficult to actually travel to the job in question: people are unwilling to travel if it is perceived as being too far away. Thirdly, it appears to be the case that many domestic workers are not inclined to the actual type of work involved given its often manual nature. We would suggest that this is not simply about wage levels – it is an attitudinal issue as well as being a cultural one.

22. Put simply, in the event where the supply of migrant labour is restricted, there will not be enough domestic workers to fill the vacuum, irrespective of the wage levels on offer. This means that if the business in question is unable to mechanise sufficiently, and many agricultural sectors grow produce where mechanisation is not actually viable, the shortage of labour will lead to the inability to grow and increase productivity, thus jeopardising the ability of the business to remain viable in the medium to long term.

23. There is a view, and inherently a criticism, that the agrifood sector has not been willing to invest in the future, relying instead on “cheap, foreign labour at the expense of domestic supply”. The MAC briefing note suggests that “access to a large supply of labour may provide little incentive for employers to make production more capital-intensive, thus lowering productivity growth.” The CLA strongly refutes this argument.

24. The CLA’s research for its report “Rural Business 2030: Unlocking investment, unlocking potential”1 shows that rural businesses have increased investment by 38% between 2012 and 2015. Table 3 shows the regional breakdown on investment levels during this period.

Table 3: Regional investment 2012-2015

Region 2012 (£bn) 2015 (£bn – estimated)

East Midlands 0.8 1.1

East of England 1.7 1.8

South East 1.3 2.2

North East 0.4 1.0

North West 1.5 1.5

South West 1.5 2.2

West Midlands 1.0 1.3

Yorkshire and Humber 0.6 1.1

1 CLA, “Rural Business 2030: Unlocking investment, Unlocking potential”,

www.cla.org.uk/conference2016

Wales 1.0 1.3

Total 9.8 13.5

Source: CLA

25. Of this investment, over three quarters was made on capital equipment with 59% of those who invested focusing on infrastructure. As such, if there is either a perception or clear evidence that restrictive migration will lead to a reduction in labour supply and a resultant reduction in output and growth, there is a real possibility that businesses will not be in a position to reinvest in order to counter the negative effect of reduced productivity.

The real and potential impacts of labour shortage on rural business

26. One of the immediate effects of the decision to exit the European Union in terms of labour has been the reduction in the availability of seasonal workers. CLA research points to some 44% of businesses who have experienced a lack of available labour over the last 12 to 24 months.

Table 4: Reduction in availability in seasonal workers over the last 12 – 24 months

Percentage

Experienced a reduction 44%

No perceived or seen reduction 41%

Not applicable 15%

Source: CLA

27. As importantly, research on behalf of the CLA membership clearly suggests that the implications of any restriction on the availability of labour is stark. This is evidenced in table 5 below.

Table 5: Business impact on lack of access to seasonal labour

Significant

Negative

Impact

Negative

Impact

No Impact Positive

Impact

Significant

Positive

Impact

Profitability 59% 30% 8% 3% 1%

Efficiency 66% 24% 4% 3% 3%

Viability 57% 29% 10% 4% 1%

Source: CLA

28. It is clear that many businesses see any labour shortage as having a seriously detrimental impact on their respective business operations. When taking “significant negative impact” and “negative impact” together, it shows that 89% believe there would be a negative impact on profitability, 86% believed it would question the viability of the business with 90% noting that it will severely affect the efficiency of the operation.

29. This evidence underlines the dichotomy between the economic short, medium and long-term effects a restrictive migration policy will have on the viability of rural businesses and the political narrative that has arisen as part of the post Brexit debate. What is needed is a balanced approach towards migration policy that meets the economic needs of rural businesses whilst maintaining the support of the British public.

Future Government Policy and a Defined Need for Labour

30. The Single Market in the EU has four fundamental freedoms: the free movement of capital, goods, services and people. The free movement of people to live and work across the EU has delivered benefits for businesses across the rural economy. This larger pool of potential employees has

provided rural businesses with greater flexibility, certainty and security. Nevertheless, EU membership has led to reduced opportunities for workers from outside the EU as restrictions on non-EU nationals have been increased to accommodate freedom of movement for EU workers.

31. The Government has made clear that the UK will not be a member of the Single Market (although it will have access to the Single Market if it can secure a trade agreement with the EU) and as such, the principle of a free movement of people would not apply. The Government has also suggested that it wishes to “limit the number of EU citizens able to come to the UK to undertake low skilled work”. (leaked White Paper – September 2017). Essentially, it wants to apply a cap to the number of EEA migrants who can work in the UK.

32. But the Prime Minister has also made it very clear, most recently in her speech in Florence, that the UK will seek to negotiate a Free Trade Agreement with the EU that, necessarily, will require an element of flexibility on the issue of the flow of labour to the UK. Importantly, this does not equate to a ‘freedom’ of movement. By being outside of the EU Customs Union and no longer being a member of the Single Market essentially means that the UK would no longer need to comply with the principle of the free movement of people. This means that the UK would be in a position to put together a framework where labour supply is targeted to specific sectors.

33. The CLA believes an essential element of such a framework is a “defined need” for labour that takes into account the wishes of the British electorate whilst also meeting the needs of rural businesses as they seek to invest and grow. Such a framework has to accommodate the very real needs of those rural businesses where the level of production is predicated on a sufficient labour force. If it does not prove possible to secure this labour supply domestically then access needs to be permitted to target and employ non-UK nationals either on a temporary and seasonal basis or on more permanent contracts depending on the requirements of specific sectors.

34. This more balanced and nuanced approach introduces flexibility and recognises the role migrant workers play in generating economic growth. It meets the concept of “defined need” and by doing so satisfies the requirements of rural businesses to a reliable labour source. Put simply, restrictions on or suspensions of sources of labour will negatively impinge on sustainable economic growth.

Concluding remarks

35. It is vital for the Government to recognise the economic benefits that a suitable supply of labour brings for the rural economy. What is necessary is for the Government to put in place a clearly set strategic framework that not only meets the wishes of the majority of the electorate as shown by the referendum decision but also balances the economic needs of rural business. A failure to adopt a common-sense approach could have irreparable consequences for the rural economy.

36. Any Government post Brexit labour policy has to be simple to understand and implement and build on previous migrant labour schemes, for example, the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme. It must also be flexible and have as its core principle a defined need for labour. Equally important will be the language that is used in the future where a policy of ‘managed migration’ would be politically acceptable.

37. It is essential for this framework to recognise that both seasonal and permanent migrant workers play an integral role in producing economic growth. As such, policies need to be put in place that confirm the status of those migrant workers already resident in the UK alongside a more medium to long term view as to ensuring the availability of migrant labour.

38. Immigration, and its potential restriction, was a cornerstone of those who called for the UK to leave the EU. What was not clear during the debate was the potential effect this would have on those businesses that rely heavily on migrant labour, a significant number of which operate in rural Britain. It is now the time for the Government, in negotiating the UK’s exit from the EU, to recognise the economic importance of these workers and to plan a way forward that will ensure the viability of many rural businesses. For a great many sectors that constitute the rural economy, access to a flexible, skilled and secure labour force post Brexit, through applying the principle of “defined need” will be vital in delivering sustainable economic growth.

Clyde Fishermen’s Association

In respect to the employment of non UK crew the Clyde Fishermen’s Association

would like to submit their members issues and thoughts to the current consultation.

It is very clear that the West Coast of Scotland fishing industry (all sectors,

nephrops/scallops etc) has skills shortages and low crew numbers. On the

West Coast fishing represents a sustainable way of life and of earning money,

often when there is little else to provide for families. In mainly rural areas like

Argyll and Bute the depopulation rate runs at around 4%, and in Bute itself that

figure is nearer 10%, employment to and investment into the area through

fishing and the landings it brings is vital.

However many boats are tied up due to the lack of a full and safe crew. Fishing

associations up and down the West Coast receive almost daily phone calls from

their members, desperate vessel owners and family businesses explaining that

they cannot go to sea or earn a family wage without safe and skilled crew. The

issue of the 12nm limit on the West Coast creates a particularly stark situation,

especially for the inshore fleet who are unable to fish out beyond the 12nm.

The issue of crew shortage is linked to depopulation from rural areas, a

generation of younger people heading to the cities for variety of employment and

leaving behind the ways of fishing. In some instances the lack of crew has

occurred due to an increase in fishermen having more daughters who haven’t

wished to continue the tradition of fishing. Yet there is much potential for fishing

fleets to offer a back bone to Scottish and UK socio-economics, just as it does in

areas like Norway. Communities thrive, families thrive and fishing thrives,

supporting the national economy. Norway have managed run a fishery without

the 12nm limit impeding its coastal fleets, they fish based on the ability and

safety of the boat.

A fundamental issue is the way the fishing industry has considered its position

outwardly. Whilst some industries have recruited younger generations into their

trade by attending career fairs, using social media to recruit, establishing

formalised apprenticeships, offering formal training and by making the most of

social media and marketing as a tool, the fishing industry has been slow to

understand the benefits and requirements of this type of approach. Countries

such as Denmark also had a similar issue around ten years and managed to

turn this situation around through a longterm campaign:

http://www.fishermannow.com/

While its aspirational to copy such a scheme, it is understood that this approach

would only be successful if there was enough baseline skilled fishermen to help

train new generations of fishermen as well as keep a successful sustainable

fishing industry functioning and developing. At least for a significant number of

years West Coast fishermen believe non UK crew will be essential.

Most West Coast fishing boats need at least 5 people to operate safely, a

skipper and 4 crew generally. In order to account for sickness, holidays etc the

number can be higher. A slightly bigger than average West Coast boat has

around 10 of a crew. On the smaller crews being one man down makes it

unsafe to go to sea, therefore none of the crew can work and the boat is tied up

to a cost to the owner, skipper, crew and ultimately wider communities and

families who rely on the socio-economic benefits from the fishing boat. A recent

example saw a 10 man crew lose 3 men, immediately the productivity reduced

by 30%. In addition this West Coast boat which provided benefit directly to local

rural West Coast communities had to move out of the 12nm West Coast area

(where sustainable quality seafood was located) and move out to the North Sea

beyond 12nm in order to replace the lost crew men with some non UK crew.

The result was the fishing of a poorer seafood stock, a reduction in profits for 6

months, an increase in risk to health and indeed life by fishing in the more

exposed North Sea in a boat designed for West Coast inshore waters and the

breaking of the more localised socio-economic link to communities in most need.

So many boats become tied up anything from 10 weeks to 6 months of the year,

it can be truly devastating for the communities and fishermen.

There is a strong wiliness amongst the fishing community to professionalise

fishing training further amongst domestic crews. There is a recognition that this

will take some time and fishermen themselves on the West Coast of Scotland

are investing in training centres and training courses alongside improved

outreach work and increased marketing to bring new starts to fishing. In a similar

method to that of our Danish neighbours before us. Right now many UK recruits

to the fishing industry enter by chance or because it is a last resort, so many are

unsuited to the skilled requirements of the job. Often they have a low skill set

and frequently issues with alcohol and drugs. This is not a risk any skippers

wish to take. For many skippers they remember when navigation was taught in

schools, they left school well qualified and educated skippers make for the best

fishermen. The West Coast of Scotland wants to return fishing to a well

respected employment status, and offer an education programme to allow young

men and women to see this is a viable and interesting career path.

However there is a realisation that for the next few years non UK crew will be

essential. The skills gaps to maintain sustainable fishing needs foreign crew to

survive as an industry. Foreign crew is required to teach the new generations of

fishermen. A major issue is the classification of fishermen as unskilled labour.

Fishermen need to be aware of engineering, navigation, health and safety, sea

survival, maths, commerce, boat maintenance, fish biology, IT, gear

management and advanced rope work. They often perform these tasks on little

sleep and in difficult conditions, the last thing they are is unskilled, indeed they

are multi-skilled. The CFA would like to see a review of the classification of non

UK and UK fishing workers to skilled, this would assist in raising the profile of

the job to where it deserves to be, and it would assist with VISA requirements for

non UK crew.

In addition Fishermen are often paid in shares rather than a set wage depending

on what the boat makes. However the CFA would like it to be enshrined that

any UK or non UK crew is paid a fair wage with a minimum set of conditions. No

crew member should be treated in a different way because of his nationality.

We believe the issue is a genuine skill shortage in the West Coast and we will

do what we can to fairly address this, we do not seek to exploit non UK crew or

develop low cost business models around lower than fair wages or payment.

Likewise they should be able to benefit from structured training in the industry.

Furthermore the CFA would like to see exchange programmes established. We

feel it would be beneficial for trainees to have an opportunity to work abroad,

and likewise for non UK fishermen to come to the UK/Scotland on skills

exchanges. It would allow them to learn new skills and the biology of different

stocks in different regions, as well as learn about the culture of other fishing

regions. For example in Norway and in Iceland fishermen work directly with

scientists and researchers, an exchange programme would allow new fishing

professionals to see how far fishing could progress by using more collaborative

and smarter systems of management in the UK too.

It may be in time ratios for UK and foreign crew could be considered like in

Norway, but at the moment it is a real need to help upskill.

Confor

Please provide evidence on the characteristics (e.g. types of jobs migrants

perform; skill levels, etc) of EEA migrants in your particular sector/local area/

region. How do these differ from UK workers? And from non-EEA workers?

Forestry encompasses a wide range of different businesses and employments

across the timber supply chain.

The nursery sector relies heavily on transient labour, large groups of workers

prepared to undertake seasonal jobs in different parts of the country. The experience

of nurseries is that only migrants are prepared to follow this pattern of work.

Unavailability of migrant labour would be a disaster for this sector. This in turn would

result in a stalling of woodland creation which is vital not just for the whole timber

sector but for wider objectives like meeting climate change and low carbon

construction targets.

The forestry contracting sector does not make widespread use of migrant labour in

England and Wales, where there has been little growth in recent years; however, in

Scotland, where the sector has grown, migrant labour is essential to supply the

shortage of rural workers. This is increasingly a skilled role, with workers in

establishment squads increasingly expected to hold PA1 and PA6 NPTC spraying

tickets.

If the forestry sector in England and Wales is to grow in accordance with government

targets, the number of people working in nurseries, tree planting and establishment

will need to double or treble. This would require an increase in migrant labour without

significant investment in recruiting and training people locally.

The sawmilling sector is similarly variable in different areas of the country, with

migrant labour particularly in demand in Scotland, where the sector has grown

quickly in rural areas with small local workforces.

The timber transport sector in Scotland, worth around £50 million GVA, is thought to

be 10-13% from the EEA. Figures are not available for the rest of the UK.

Across the sector, there is no difference between EEA and non-EEA migrants.

To what extent are EEA migrants seasonal; part-time; agency-workers;

temporary; short-term assignments; intra-company transfers; self-employed?

What information do you have on their skill levels? To what extent do these

differ from UK workers and non-EEA workers?

The demand in forestry is largely for low-skilled seasonal workers on short contracts.

However, the availability of medium and high skilled permanent employees is

important for the diversity of the industry but also fills a skills gap as the industry

suffers from a recruitment shortage.

Are there any relevant sources of evidence, beyond the usual range of official

statistics, that would allow the MAC to get a more detailed view of the current

patterns of EEA migration, especially over the last year?

While not specifically about migration, the Scottish forest and timber technologies

sector: skills and training scoping study (2015) provides detailed information about

the sector workforce and the projected skills gaps:

https://pure.uhi.ac.uk/portal/files/2039087/FTT_sector_scoping_study_report.pdf

The sector included nationality of employees in data provided to the ONS but it got

returned as a redacted field because the sample size was too small to provide a

reliable estimate. The numbers of ‘UK British’ employees averaged 95% over 2014-

2016 suggesting about 5% are non-British. However, as explained above, migrant

labour is unevenly distributed and of key importance in certain areas, particularly the

nursery sector.

Have you made any assessment of the impact of a possible reduction in the

availability of EEA migrants (whether occurring naturally or through policy) as

part of your workforce? What impact would a reduction in EEA migration have

on your sector/local area/region? How will your business/sector/area/region

cope? Would the impacts be different if reductions in migration took place

amongst non-EEA migrants? Have you made any contingency plans?

The forestry sector, particularly nurseries, would face significant problems if migrant

labour was not available, due to the unavailability of native labour. Reduction in EEA

migrants would not have a significant impact if migrant labour was available from

non-EEA countries. The industry as a whole has not made any contingency plans,

although individual companies may be doing so.

How involved are universities and training providers in ensuring that the UK

workforce has the skills needed to fill key roles/roles in high demand in your

sector? Do you have plans to increase this involvement in the future?

Forestry has suffered a serious decline in university provision over previous

decades, but this has recently begun to reverse. The industry, and professional

accreditation body the Institute of Chartered Foresters, works closely with these

universities to increase availability of skilled UK workers.

The industry is investigating the possibility of providing training to members of the

rural workforce, for example on upland farms, in woodland planting and

establishment who could be called upon by contractors for the seasonal work

required if woodland expansion in England and Wales begins in earnest.

Confor is the UK’s leading membership organisation for sustainable forestry and

wood-using businesses. Representing over 1600 businesses, Confor provides a

single, powerful voice to ensure our industry thrives long into the future.

Countryside Alliance

The Countryside Alliance works for everyone who loves the countryside and the rural

way of life. Our aim is to protect and promote life in the countryside and to help it thrive.

With over 100,000 members and supporters we are the only organisation working

across a broad range of rural issues.

We welcome the opportunity to provide evidence to the Migration Advisory Committee

(MAC) as part of their commission to provide advice to the Government on EEA

workers in the UK labour market. We understand that this advice will be used to inform

the ‘third phase’ of the Government’s immigration proposals which will be the long-

term arrangements for migration from the EU once any transition/temporary period

has come to an end.

We welcome the fact that the Home Secretary’s commissioning letter (27 July 2017)

and the MAC’s briefing note to accompany this call for evidence (4 August 2017) both

recognise the importance of migration from the EU to UK agriculture. Migration from

the EU is vital for our food and farming industry and the broader rural economy,

particularly in providing seasonal workers at important times of the year. We hope this

will be recognised in the advice which the MAC provides to the Government.

Considering the scope and basis for this call for evidence, we will limit our response

to migration trends from the EU, particularly the importance of seasonal workers to the

food and farming industry and the broader rural economy including game farming and

forestry.

Migration trends – the rural economy

Access to labour is one of the three central issues facing farmers and producers as

we leave the EU, along with trade and support payments.

As part of the EU Single Market, our food and farming industry benefits from the free

movement of people which has provided access to labour from across Europe. People

from the EU play an important role in harvesting, production, and processing across

the food supply chain, in both skilled and unskilled jobs.

Migration from the EU is particularly important during harvest times when there is a

significant increase in the demand for labour. UK farmers and producers employ

approximately 80,000 seasonal workers every year, the vast majority of these people

come from countries within the EU, and this could increase to 95,000 by 2021

according to the NFU. This work is often low paid and low skilled and, given the current

low rates of UK unemployment, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find labour from

the domestic market to carry out this work.

There are indications that it is now becoming difficult to recruit people from countries within the EU following the referendum result in June last year. In June this year a NFU survey found that 17 per cent fewer workers had come to work on British farms, leaving some businesses critically short of people to harvest fruit and vegetables. This view was supported by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Select Committee inquiry report “Feeding the nation: labour constraints” in the last Parliament which stated: “The weight of evidence from a range of agricultural and horticultural businesses indicates that their sectors are facing considerable difficulties in recruiting and retaining labour”. This has been confirmed more recently in a NFU survey which revealed that there was a 29 per cent shortfall in seasonal workers for horticulture businesses in September, raising the average shortfall for the year to 11 per cent.

Changes in domestic policy in Poland and Bulgaria are likely to have contributed to

the difficulties experienced in recruitment this year. However, it can also be attributed

to the decrease in the value of the pound combined with uncertainty about the UK’s

future relationship with the EU which has reduced the appeal of working in the UK for

some people from Europe. In order to ensure that UK farmers and producers are able

to attract the labour they require it is vital that the Government provides clarity on work

and travel arrangements with the EU as soon as possible.

We have been encouraging the Government to reintroduce the Seasonal Agricultural

Workers Scheme (SAWS) or an equivalent scheme. The Government removed the

SAWS in 2013 following the lifting of freedom of movement restrictions on people from

Romania and Bulgaria, and upon advice received from the MAC. However, when this

advice was provided, the MAC stated that by 2017 labour shortages could arise and it

should therefore be reviewed. That was before the vote to leave the EU in June last

year and any foreseen changes in migration arrangements with the EU which makes

the reintroduction of a seasonal workers scheme even more pressing.

The reintroduction of the SAWS or an equivalent scheme could be one way to help

UK farmers and producers when freedom of movement comes to an end and, given

domestic policy changes in EU countries, any new scheme should apply to people

from beyond the EU. As the MAC briefing note to accompany this call for evidence

states: “A study by Scott found that demand for farm labour during peak season is

around four and a half times the demand in low season. It may be very difficult for

these sectors to provide regular employment for settled workers, in which case it may

be natural to use seasonal migration schemes to fill short-term labour shortages”.

Any new seasonal workers scheme for agricultural workers should also include the

requirements of the broader rural economy such as game farming and forestry.

The Game Farmers Association (GFA) estimates that game rearing in the UK is 60

per cent dependent on migrant labour from the EU, similar to the poultry sector. UK

game farming depends on the continued availability of unskilled and semi-skilled

workers from overseas, and the shooting industry more broadly is dependent on this

as over 80 per cent of shoots rely to some extent on reared game birds. Confor has

stated that access to a seasonal labour force is essential in many parts of the forestry

sector such as nurseries, planting squads and sawmills, and has called for a post

Brexit immigration policy that recognises the need for seasonal labour and the

temporary employment of EU nationals in the forestry and timber sector. These

sectors are vitally important to the rural economy and the communities they support

and we encourage the MAC to consult and work with the GFA and Confor as part of

their commission.

Our new immigration policy with the EU must recognise the importance of ensuring

labour is provided to the entire rural supply chain, not just food and farming. One

example of this problem is the current definitions of ‘agriculture’ and ‘livestock’ used in

the Agriculture Act 1947 which do not include the rearing of game birds. These

definitions are the basis of most farming legislation passed since and might well be

suggested as the basis for an agricultural exemption covering migrant labour. Were

that to happen, game farming would be excluded from the exemption, with disastrous

consequences.

We welcome the fact that the MAC briefing note to accompany this call for evidence recognises that “crop, animal production and hunting” need low and medium-skilled EEA migrants, and “agriculture, forestry and fishing” have the most seasonal variation in employment. We understand the MAC is not due to report until September 2018 during which time there will be increased uncertainty for many parts of the rural economy. We therefore encourage the MAC to prioritise seasonal workers and produce an interim report on this to allow the Government time to implement any new scheme. The Home Office has stated that they could create a new scheme within five to six months, with a Statutory Instrument. However, this does not allow much time for a scheme to be tried and tested before March 2019 when we understand that freedom of movement, as we know it, will come to an end. It is vital that any new provisions for seasonal labour are in place well in advance of this date. Whilst we appreciate that the MAC has been commissioned to provide independent advice, it will be aware of the Government’s goal of achieving “sustainable levels of net migration” which was stated in the Manifesto as reducing migration to the “tens of thousands”. It is vitally important that seasonal workers are treated separately and not included in the net migration figures on account of the fact that these people are in the UK for a time limited period. The seasonality of many rural businesses means that access to the EU labour market is vital at important times of the year, and attempts to reduce this form of temporary migration would be damaging to the rural economy. A

clear distinction needs to be made between permanent migration and temporary migration. We must ensure that whatever happens by way of tightening immigration controls, the flow of seasonal workers which keeps crucial rural businesses afloat is not restricted. Recommendations i) An immigration policy to reflect the importance of workers from the EU to the

food and farming industry and the broader rural economy. ii) Distinct policy recommendations for seasonal workers, recognising that this a

separate form of migration which should be excluded from net migration figures. iii) Reintroduction of the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme or equivalent

scheme which should include the requirements of other industries in the rural economy including game farming and forestry, and permit workers to enter from beyond the EU.

iv) An interim report from the MAC on seasonal workers, encouraging the Government to introduce a seasonal workers scheme before March 2019.

Horticultural Trades Association

The Horticultural Trades Association (HTA) is the leading trade association for the

ornamental horticulture and gardening industry in the United Kingdom. The HTA

represents: growers of ornamental plants, shrubs and trees; suppliers of inputs;

retailers of garden products; manufacturers and domestic landscapers. The answers

supplied below have been compiled following consultation with HTA members. Our

market produces £5 billion worth of goods and services annually.

EEA Migration Trends

Please provide evidence on the characteristics (e.g. types of jobs migrants

perform; skill levels, etc) of EEA migrants in your particular sector/local area/ region.

How do these differ from UK workers? And from non-EEA workers?

The majority of migrant workers employed in ornamental horticulture are employed

to carry out seasonal tasks requiring a high level of seasonal input. Tasks will include

picking, grading, packing and despatch of horticultural produce. Some migrant

workers are also employed in managerial positions, particularly where the individuals

concerned have shown themselves to be capable after first starting work on a

casual/seasonal basis.

To what extent are EEA migrants seasonal; part-time; agency-workers; temporary;

short-term assignments; intra-company transfers; self-employed? What information

do you have on their skill levels? To what extent do these differ from UK workers and

non-EEA workers?

As indicated above the majority of EEA migrants in ornamental horticulture are

seasonal workers, with the majority of these sourced through agencies.

Are there any relevant sources of evidence, beyond the usual range of official

statistics, that would allow the MAC to get a more detailed view of the current

patterns of EEA migration, especially over the last year?

Since ornamental horticulture is defined in law as part of agriculture, other sources of

information would include the Gangmaster Licencing Authority and the Association of

Labour Providers.

Have the patterns of EEA migration changed over time? What evidence do you

have showing your employment of EEA migrants since 2000? And after the Brexit

referendum? Are these trends different for UK workers and non-EEA workers?

Patterns of EEA migration have changed over recent years, largely mirroring

Government changes to the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme.

Have you conducted any analysis on the future trends of EEA migration, in

particular in the absence of immigration controls?

The HTA has not conducted any such analysis.

Have you made any assessment of the impact of a possible reduction in the

availability of EEA migrants (whether occurring naturally or through policy) as part of

your workforce? What impact would a reduction in EEA migration have on your

sector/local area/region? How will your business/sector/area/region cope? Would the

impacts be different if reductions in migration took place amongst non-EEA

migrants? Have you made any contingency plans?

HTA member businesses report considerable concern as to their ability to continue

to supply the quantity and quality of UK-grown ornamental produce demanded by the

market-place without the ability to employ large numbers of seasonal workers at the

time they are needed. Some have put investment plans on hold pending further

information on future availability of labour. The HTA draws attention to the fact that

currently the UK imports roughly 50% (in value terms) of ornamental horticultural

produce sold in the UK. Without access to sufficient labour that figure is only likely to

increase. HTA members have invested significant sums of money in providing

accommodation facilities for migrant workers, who predominantly come from EEA

countries.

Recruitment Practices, Training & Skills

Please provide evidence on the methods of recruitment used to employ EEA

migrants. Do these methods differ from those used to employ UK and non-EEA

workers? What impact does this have on UK workers? Have these methods changed

following the Brexit referendum?

As indicated earlier the majority of EEA migrants are recruited through agencies

such as HOPS. UK workers will tend to be recruited locally, but HTA members report

significant difficulties in recruiting UK workers to undertake seasonal, manual work

and certainly in the numbers required.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of employing EEA workers? Have

these changed following the Brexit referendum result?

As indicated earlier, the ability to recruit significant numbers of seasonal workers at

the time and in the locality where they are required is crucial to successful

ornamental businesses. These businesses are very often in remote rural locations,

which are sparsely populated. (such as Cornwall and Lincolnshire).

To what extent has EEA and non-EEA migration affected the skills and training of

the UK workers?

The HTA believes that there has been little effect on skills and training of UK workers

in ornamental horticulture.

How involved are universities and training providers in ensuring that the UK

workforce has the skills needed to fill key roles/roles in high demand in your sector?

Do you have plans to increase this involvement in the future?

How well aware are you of current UK migration policies for non-EEA migrants? If

new immigration policies restrict the numbers of low-skilled migrants who can come

to work in the UK, which forms of migration into low-skilled work should be

prioritised? For example, the current shortage occupation list 2 applies to high skilled

occupations; do you think this should be expanded to cover lower skill levels?

The HTA, and our members, are aware of migration policies to the extent that they

affect ornamental horticulture. The HTA believes that Government migration policy

needs to recognise the fact that ornamental horticulture requires workers at all levels

of the skills continuum.

Economic, Social and Fiscal Impacts

What are the economic, social and fiscal costs and benefits of EEA migration to

the UK economy? What are the impacts of EEA migrants on the labour market,

prices, public services, net fiscal impacts (e.g. taxes paid by migrants; benefits they

receive), productivity, investment, innovation and general competitiveness of UK

industry?

EEA migration has contributed significantly to the ornamental horticultural industry,

enabling the industry to contribute c. £1billion of production value.

Kettle Produce Ltd

EEA Migration Trends

• Please provide evidence on the characteristics (e.g. types of jobs migrants perform; skill levels, etc) of EEA migrants in your particular sector/local area/ region. How do these differ from UK workers? And from non-EEA workers? Migrant workers have traditionally demonstrated a strong work ethic suitable to the agricultural and manufacturing sectors Migrants are employed at a variety of skill levels:- Non-skilled – harvesting/packing Skilled – quality auditors, team leaders/supervisors Management – shift managers In the manufacturing side of the business there is no difference in the roles performed by UK and EU workers

• To what extent are EEA migrants seasonal; part-time; agency-workers; temporary; short-term assignments; intra-company transfers; self-employed? What information do you have on their skill levels? To what extent do these differ from UK workers and non-EEA workers? All would be seasonal/temporary or sourced approved EU and UK agencies,many are well qualified yet prepared to accept manual work many have agricultural connections in their home countries Harvesting – 100% seasonal Packing, QA, management – combination of full time and agency. In a manufacturing environment workers are designated as employee’s only.many of our workers have come from European colleges and have a wide range of skills with many being over skilled for manual tasks

• Are there any relevant sources of evidence, beyond the usual range of official statistics, that would allow the MAC to get a more detailed view of the current patterns of EEA migration, especially over the last year? The number of seasonal workers our Growers use in the field is based on information available to linked retail suppliers on SEDEX at https://www.sedexglobal.com/ The figure is between 750 and 800 of which 80% are employed during a narrow growing and harvest window May to September Government statistics on EU migratory trends should be available

• Have the patterns of EEA migration changed over time? What evidence do you have showing your employment of EEA migrants since 2000? And after the Brexit referendum? Are these trends different for UK workers and non-EEA workers?

To begin with seasonal workers came to Scotland via the SAWS scheme. Later with freedom of movement there was a gradual increase in direct arrivals leading to a consistent supply of reliable staff year in year out. Almost all workers were originally from Poland more recently Polish worker numbers dropped off and were replaced by Romanian and Bulgarian nationals Past employment records could be submitted as evidence. EEA migrants have been the mainstay of harvesting staff for over 20 years. It has become much more difficult to recruit suitable labour since the Brexit vote. Agencies are unable to fulfil all places requested by growers – up to 20% short. For permanent recruitment we are beginning to find it more difficult to find the numbers of employees we need. There has been a definite reduction in interest. Have you conducted any analysis on the future trends of EEA migration, in particular in the absence of immigration controls? No

• Have you made any assessment of the impact of a possible reduction in the availability of EEA migrants (whether occurring naturally or through policy) as part of your workforce? What impact would a reduction in EEA migration have on your sector/local area/region? How will your business/sector/area/region cope? Would the impacts be different if reductions in migration took place amongst non-EEA migrants? Have you made any contingency plans? In view of the rapid change in Labour market conditions for Growers brought about by Brexit there is now clear evidence that Growers are having problems in recruiting sufficient numbers of staff. Established systems of recruitment built up over the last 10 to 12 years are suddenly having to change over a very short period of time, this is proving difficult for the industry and without clear direction and help from government the harvesting of crops and supply of produce will be under threat. The previously quoted information on worker numbers shows the reliance on seasonal workers. One of the benefits of seasonal labour is the ability to share labour between Growers when work patterns change due to weather and crop availability this must be allowed to continue. A reduction in the availability of migratory seasonal labour would be disastrous for the UK fruit and vegetable industry which relies on this vital labour source for harvesting, processing and packing. Experience shows that there is simply an insufficient indigenous labour pool to fulfil all the seasonal requirements.

Recruitment Practices, Training & Skills

• Please provide evidence on the methods of recruitment used to employ EEA migrants. Do these methods differ from those used to employ UK and non-EEA workers? What impact does this have on UK workers? Have these methods changed following the Brexit referendum? Growers – HOPS, Concordia and other GLA registered gangmasters.

• Do recruitment practices differ by skill-type and occupation?

Depends on roll advertised and skills required to do the job.Different recruitment/assessments would be used depending on roll.

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of employing EEA workers? Have these changed following the Brexit referendum result?

We have employed eastern European workers on a permanent basis for over

10 years now. They are based in the local community have extended family

and are contributing to the local economy. EEA workers provide a source of

reliable, flexible workers.

• To what extent has EEA and non-EEA migration affected the skills and training of the UK workers? Migration of EEA workers has not affected the training of UK workers. If suitable UK workers want to work and are reliable then jobs and training are still available.

• How involved are universities and training providers in ensuring that the UK workforce has the skills needed to fill key roles/roles in high demand in your sector? Do you have plans to increase this involvement in the future? Universities and other educational institutions obviously play a role in ensuring that the UK work force are adequately trained in the skills needed for key roles but there is a shortage of young people choosing agriculture or horticulture as a career path. We are very involved in schemes to introduce young people to the industry through work experience and mentoring schemes.

• How well aware are you of current UK migration policies for non-EEA migrants? If new immigration policies restrict the numbers of low-skilled migrants who can come to work in the UK, which forms of migration into low-skilled work should be prioritised? For example, the current shortage occupation list2 applies to high skilled occupations; do you think this should be expanded to cover lower skill levels? There is a definite and obvious need for a mechanism to allow the migration of low skilled workers to undertake seasonal harvesting and packing work.

Economic, Social and Fiscal Impacts

• What are the economic, social and fiscal costs and benefits of EEA migration to the UK economy? What are the impacts of EEA migrants on the labour market, prices, public services, net fiscal impacts (e.g. taxes paid by migrants; benefits they receive), productivity, investment, innovation and general competitiveness of UK industry?

All seasonal EEA migrants come to the UK to work and therefore contribute to the economy through taxes and buying food, goods,etc. While in the UK migrant workers will add to the pressure on public services,housing and local amenities but they are a critical element of the UK economy fulfilling vital roles not just in agriculture and horticulture but also in healthcare, hospitality, building and many more.

• Do these differ from the impact of non-EEA migrants? No experience of non-EEA migrants

• Do these impacts differ at national, regional or local level? They are bound to differ between regions - use of migrant labour is higher in some regions than others.

• Do these impacts vary by sector and occupation? n/k

• Do these impacts vary by skill level (high-skilled, medium-skilled, and low-skilled workers)? n/k

Laurence J Betts Ltd

EEA Migration Trends

1. Please provide evidence on the characteristics (e.g. types of jobs migrants perform; skill levels, etc) of EEA migrants in your particular sector/local area/ region. How do these differ from UK workers? And from non-EEA workers?

I am writing from the perspective of an intensive horticultural business which has employed migrant labour to manage the seasonal nature of our business for decades. The migrant labour is used to carry out manual and semi-mechanised planting and harvest operations during the UK production season for outdoor grown lettuce and baby leaves destined for the UK fresh produce market – including hotels & catering, supermarkets, quick service restaurants, independent retailers etc. The first workers arrive at the end of February each year for planting and they will work through until August. A much larger second group arrive at the end of April/early May and will work through until the end of October harvesting crops by hand. The work is outdoors in all weather conditions – it is manual work and repetitive. It requires physical and mental resilience as well as good dexterity to perform well. A proportion of the seasonal workers will be employed as tractor drivers, forklift drivers and team leaders. We have found that there is no desire amongst the local community to engage in this type of outdoor physical work. The EEA migrants who come to the farm are very motivated to work hard and earn money over a season and then to return to their families in their home country with the money they have saved whilst working and living on the farm in the UK. The EEA workers complement the skills of locally available people that work in other parts of the business. In our experience they are not substituting resident labour. The age profile of these workers (20-45) is such that they are not contributing to the dependency ratio and they make very little demand on local services. They are accommodated on the farm and for the most part the only public service they access is health care.

2. To what extent are EEA migrants seasonal; part-time; agency-workers; temporary; short-term assignments; intra-company transfers; self-employed? What information do you have on their skill levels? To what extent do these differ from UK workers and non-EEA workers?

The EEA migrant workers we employ work full-time hours as employees of the company on a fixed term 6 month contract. They come with a variety of skills but they are recruited purely on their ability to carry out simple physical tasks. We have no information about their educational background before they come to work for the company. Training is given on arrival in all aspects of Health & Safety and how to carry out the tasks assigned to them. They generally have a low level of English and the training they require to carry out their work is provided in their native language.

3. Are there any relevant sources of evidence, beyond the usual range of official statistics, that would allow the MAC to get a more detailed view of the current patterns of EEA migration, especially over the last year?

4. Have the patterns of EEA migration changed over time? What evidence do you have showing your employment of EEA migrants since 2000? And after the Brexit referendum? Are these trends different for UK workers and non-EEA workers?

Historically the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme(SAWS) was the route through which the company recruited seasonal workers. Workers came from non-EEA and EEA countries in the years before SAWS was scrapped in 2013 (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Poland, Romania). Since 2013 the seasonal workers we employ are mostly from Romania.

5. Have you conducted any analysis on the future trends of EEA migration, in particular in the absence of immigration controls?

6. Have you made any assessment of the impact of a possible reduction in the

availability of EEA migrants (whether occurring naturally or through policy) as part of your workforce?

The ultimate outcome would be that we cannot continue to grow crops which need to be harvested by hand. The result of this will be the UK demand for wholehead lettuce would have to be met by imported produce from EU countries that do have access to migrant labour.

7. What impact would a reduction in EEA migration have on your sector/local area/region? How will your business/sector/area/region cope?

The nature of our business means there is a structural dependence on EEA migrant workers, however, the availability of seasonal migrant workers allows the company to employ 30 full-time permanent staff on a farm which would only employ a couple of workers if cropped with combinable crops. There would be an impact on the local economy if these permanent workers were no longer employed, in addition to the loss of economic activity associated with the 100 plus seasonal workers who buy their food and leisure activities locally. The size of the business (on account of intensive horticultural activity) is also of great benefit to local businesses that supply the fuel, seeds, chemicals, tradesmen, packaging etc.

8. Would the impacts be different if reductions in migration took place amongst non-EEA migrants? Have you made any contingency plans?

Non-EEA migration does not directly affect us at the moment because of the difficulty in bringing in low-skilled non EEA workers but if the SAWS scheme were to be resurrected then we could look outside of the EEA to recruit seasonal staff e.g. from countries bordering the EEA such as Serbia, Moldova etc. If there were to be an end to seasonal migrant labour the farm would have to totally re-structure and no longer grow crops which need to be planted and harvested by hand. In our view it is essential that the government secures the rights of the EEA nationals currently in the country and introduces an effective Seasonal Workers Scheme from 2018 onwards thus giving some clarity around which we can plan the future growth and development of the company. This action is necessary to fulfil the governments wish to see increasing and not decreasing self-sufficiency in food production.

Recruitment Practices, Training & Skills

1. Please provide evidence on the methods of recruitment used to employ EEA migrants. Do these methods differ from those used to employ UK and non-EEA workers? What impact does this have on UK workers? Have these methods changed following the Brexit referendum?

Recruitment of EEA migrant workers is done using labour agencies who specialise in recruiting from European countries where there are people with a willingness to engage in the type of manual work we offer. Experience has shown that UK workers have no appetite for this kind of seasonal manual work. As economies develop the expectations of people change. Working long hours outside in all weathers is not something many UK job seekers are willing to undertake. The methods used for recruiting seasonal workers have not changed in that we use the same agencies but the agencies report that they are finding it much more difficult to fill positions since Brexit due to the fall in the value of the pound and the view that other Europeans are not welcome in the UK. Similar work is available in Germany, France, Spain etc. and we have lost workers to these countries this season.

2. Do recruitment practices differ by skill-type and occupation? Yes, skilled positions are either filled by training and promotion within the company or advertising using UK media. Skilled positions are not recruited from outside the UK although EEA migrant workers who have displayed potential in the business are always considered alongside other candidates given they currently have the right to live and work in the UK.

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of employing EEA workers? Have these changed following the Brexit referendum result?

The main advantage of employing EEA workers is that they come to the farm and want to work. They are, for the most part, reliable and have a strong work ethic. Every pound they can earn counts and makes a difference to their lives back in their home countries. We expect them to work hard in teams throughout the season and in return we provide them with an opportunity to earn significant sums of money and live on site with very low living costs – if they want to, they can save £1000’s during a six month season on the farm. The fact that the job is for 6 months, and not all year round, is a deterrent to resident labour who need work all year round if they have a tenancy or mortgage on a house to pay. The disadvantages of employing EEA migrant workers are mainly around the issue of language. In order to function safely, training and line management needs to be provided in their own language – over time the company has established a multi-lingual team of permanent staff which facilitates necessary communication throughout the company.

4. To what extent has EEA and non-EEA migration affected the skills and training of the UK workers?

5. How involved are universities and training providers in ensuring that the UK workforce has the skills needed to fill key roles/roles in high demand in your sector? Do you have plans to increase this involvement in the future?

There is active involvement by both HE and FE institutions in training the UK workforce for roles in an intensive horticultural business – for example, in the past 12 months we have employed a placement student from Harper Adams University, an intern from Hadlow College, we have put an employee on an apprenticeship programme in Land-based engineering with Plumpton College and we have a bookkeeper studying for an AAT qualification with Mid-Kent College. We are due to host a visit for Reading University Agricultural Business Management students in the near future. It is essential that universities and training providers have a focus on training the future workforce for intensive horticultural businesses in the UK – they are diverse businesses and need many different skills to run successfully.

6. How well aware are you of current UK migration policies for non-EEA migrants? If new immigration policies restrict the numbers of low-skilled migrants who can come to work in the UK, which forms of migration into low-skilled work should be prioritised? For example, the current shortage occupation list2 applies to high skilled occupations; do you think this should be expanded to cover lower skill levels?

We have not engaged in the process of employing non EEA migrants under current migration policy. For our sector, the most sensible policy in future is a return to the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme where a business can access temporary seasonal workers who come to the UK for a pre-determined period of time and then return to their home country at the end of the season.

Economic, Social and Fiscal Impacts

1. What are the economic, social and fiscal costs and benefits of EEA migration to the UK economy? What are the impacts of EEA migrants on the labour market, prices, public services, net fiscal impacts (e.g. taxes paid by migrants; benefits they receive), productivity, investment, innovation and general competitiveness of UK industry?

2. Do these differ from the impact of non-EEA migrants?

3. Do these impacts differ at national, regional or local level?

4. Do these impacts vary by sector and occupation?

5. Do these impacts vary by skill level (high-skilled, medium-skilled, and low-

skilled workers)?

National Association of Agricultural Contractors

1. Background

1.1 The NAAC

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above call for evidence.

Founded in 1893, the National Association of Agricultural Contractors (NAAC)

represents contractors in the UK who supply all types of land-based services to

farmers, government, local authorities, sports and recreational facilities. Our members

include agricultural operations, livestock, amenity, mobile seed and mobile feed

processing contractors.

The NAAC is committed to representing the interests of its members at national and

European level; it will offer information and advice; promote the services of members

and assist contractors in providing a professional and competitive service to farmers

and the community. I will base our comments around the activities of the NAAC and

our member’s activities.

1.2 The Contracting Sector

Land-based contractors are effectively ‘farmers without land’, undertaking agricultural

operations on behalf of farmers and land-managers. It is estimated that there are

approx. 6,000 contractors in the UK, ranging in size from one-man bands to

businesses with a multi-million pound turnover. All UK contracting businesses would

be classed as small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs).

The NAAC represents the dedicated and professional contractor, who may be a

specialised businesses offering farming services; or a farmer who has diversified into

contracting to gain additional income from investment in machinery.

Cambridge University’s Farm Business Survey Unit report that 91% of UK farms

employ a contractor, with the largest dairy farms using contractors for 90% of the grass

harvesting and around 85% of UK sugar beet harvested by contractors. This highlights

the significant role that contractors play in UK agriculture, with farmers likely to become

increasingly reliant on contractors in uncertain times as the Brexit process moves

ahead.

Professional agricultural contractors are becoming an increasingly important, integral

part of farm business management, allowing land-owners to share the capital costs of

machinery and labour. A contractor will invest heavily in machinery (eg self-propelled

forager, combine harvester, mobile seed processor, mobile feed mixer, sophisticated

and safer sprayers etc) and then work hard to spread the cost of the machinery by

taking on work on a number of farms to gain a return on the investment. This prevents

very large, expensive, specialised machinery being out of the reach of land-owners,

by sharing the cost of a contractor with other local farmers.

With this in mind, it is suggested that the agricultural contractor is vital to the prosperity

of the countryside, being able to safely deliver large-scale solutions to rural and

environmental problems.

2. Call for Evidence

Agriculture relies heavily on migrant workers and anecdotal evidence from members

tells us that this sector is finding it increasingly difficult to find good skilled and unskilled

labour from the UK workforce.

There does appear to be a ‘modern’ lack of interest and enthusiasm for outdoor

working, which may include longer hours at some times of year.

Contractors require a range of staff from skilled machinery operators who may be

required to operate technologically advanced computers in cab, to manual workers

perhaps cleaning grain stores or poultry housing. In addition, the sector requires teams

of spray operators and manual workers carrying out grounds maintenance work,

through to specialist skilled sheep shearers (usually from Australia or New Zealand).

The skill levels of employees vary from operators who may have been through

college/University and work towards management level, to work-based skills such as

City and Guilds industry qualifications with operators doing semi-skilled jobs such as

machinery operation or spraying.

Work is inevitably seasonal and can involve long hours, although contractors also

require provide steady full time employees year round, particularly those who have

adapted their businesses to winter and summer work.

Members employ both permanent and seasonal staff in their businesses. Feedback from members tells us:

• Job adverts often result in very few suitable UK applicants

• Migrant works are often the only solution for agricultural employers looking to fill, particularly but not exclusively, unskilled roles.

• The contracting sector requires ‘skilled’ unskilled workers! Individuals may be needed to do some manual, possibly outdoors and dirty jobs unblocking machines etc but are equally required to be sufficiently skilled to drive large, very expensive and technical machinery

• The UK job market and education system has pushed less applicants into vocational training and university students are less likely to have the practical skills required for ‘hands-on’ agricultural roles. However, higher tier workers are also required in the industry and the Agricultural Universities can help satisfy this demand. IIn future, increased emphasis may be required on vocational training of UK workers to encourage them into agricultural careers.

• Location is important. Some areas of the UK (more rural) may have more success in sourcing local labour. However, in much of the south of the UK and closer to urbanised areas, labour is lacking. Rural areas may now suffer high prices of property and lack of services making it more difficult for workers to stay in rural jobs. Overseas labour can often be housed in temporary or rented accommodation for a limited period.

• Migrant workers have provided a source of keen, enthusiastic labour, who have the skills, ability and enthusiasm to carry out agricultural work. Manual labour jobs – such as grainstore cleaning, veg picking etc are basic but essential jobs and may be the hardest to fill if we are not able to easily source overseas labour.

• Seasonality of work is a problem. Often the work profile means we are requiring staff for only a short period of time to match harvest periods etc. This often suits overseas candidates being able to come to the UK for a period before returning to their home country. Any UK candidates are likely to be permanently settled in their home area and often unwilling to make a temporary move for a seasonal job opportunity.

• The decline in small farms and the resultant loss of farmers and farm workers has greatly reduced the available pool of experienced labour. Where a few years we would all have a “book” of local farmers’ sons and staff we could call on for help at peak times, this has virtually gone in some areas.

• Post-Brexit, workers are already expressing concern about the post-Brexit barriers to being able to move freely back and to for the seasonal work. Another serious side effect of Brexit has been the impact on their wages, they rightly view that they have had a 10-15% pay cut due to the devaluation of the pound. The industry is trying to compensate by increasing pay but costs will have to be passed on to the farmer customer and Brexit has created uncertainty in the industry that makes this increasingly difficult.

In summary, the UK agricultural industry is heavily reliant on migrant workers to fill seasonal

and full-time roles. It is increasingly difficult to source UK workers for agricultural positions

due to a range of factors such as job reflection and status, pay structures and an seeming

unwillingness of UK workers to take on agricultural work (when they could perhaps have

indoor equivalent positions in other industries).

Migrant workers are able to undertake seasonal positions (many unskilled).

As we head towards Brexit this is a vital issue for the NAAC and its membership. Businesses

have expressed genuine concern about how they can source labour in future and if

businesses can be sustainable without migrant labour. A radical reshape of the UK labour

market and expectations will be required if migrant workers are to be restricted in the

agricultural industry. This is unlikely in reality and a migrant scheme will be required to

ensure a steady source of labour to maintain an economic and profitable farming and

contracting industry, supplying food for the UK population.

NFU Scotland

Executive Summary

1. Thank you for the opportunity to submit evidence on the economic and social

impacts of the UK’s exit from the European Union and on how the UK’s

immigration system should be aligned with a modern industrial strategy.

2. In 2016 NFU Scotland (NFUS) submitted evidence to the Scottish Parliament

laying out 10 key priorities for Scottish agriculture including:

• The trading arrangements negotiated with Europe and the rest of the world must

allow all the workers that the Scottish farming and the food processing industries rely

upon to continue to play their vital role.

3. Access to workers remains a key priority for NFUS, particularly for parts of the

industry that are overwhelmingly dependent on non-UK harvest labour, such as

the fruit and vegetable sector. Mechanisms to allow access to workers must be

in place soon to ensure workers will be able to come to Scotland in spring 2019.

4. Harvest workers tend to shift between employers as harvesting progresses. A

simple UK-wide systems would help to facilitate this and would be more attractive

to migrant workers than systems that restricted movement.

5. Scottish farm businesses in the sectors dependent on non-UK workers are

already experiencing difficulty in obtaining suitable staff, suggesting a need for

greater flexibility in the countries from which workers can be recruited.

6. Although there are many potential solutions to the labour issue, NFUS believes

that a specific Agricultural Labour Scheme would be the best option.

7. Adequate labour for food processing and transportation are also vital to Scottish

agriculture. Changes to the UK Points Based System, including the opening of

Tier 3 for those who cannot qualify for the other tiers, are likely to be necessary.

The Need for Workers

8. Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) is currently gathering data on migrant workers

in Scotland’s Fruit and Vegetable Sectors. Whilst the findings of that work have

not yet been published, NFUS expects that the findings will add accuracy to

evidence gathered by NFUS from our members since the outcome of the 2016

EU referendum, revealing that:

8.1. there are between 5,000 and 15,000 seasonal workers employed within

Scottish agriculture at any one time

8.2. a significant proportion of seasonal workers are directly employed by

growers

8.3. employment peaks during the summer months but migrant workers are

employed outside the summer, e.g. putting up polytunnels in the spring or

harvesting of Brussels Sprouts in the run-up to Christmas

8.4. although many migrants are only employed for the peak part of the season a

significant number are employed for more than six months at a time

8.5. if there was no access to migrant labour few farm businesses in the fruit or

vegetable sectors could continue to grow for those markets.

9. With 10 percent of Scottish agriculture’s gross output coming from the relatively

small number of Scottish agricultural businesses in our soft fruit and vegetable

sectors the impact on Scottish agriculture would be very significant. So too would

be the loss to local economies of the spending by migrant workers during their

stay in Scotland.

10. Employers report that workers tend to move within the UK as the harvest

progresses from South to North. A particular example would be daffodils where

workers move from as far South as Kent to then pick in Scotland. Growers in

England experience very similar problems to Scottish farmers seeking suitable

staff.

11. As the SRUC study only deals with part of Scottish agriculture and not with

permanent workers it is clear that the overall requirement for non-UK labour is

even greater than the figures determined to date. A survey of dairy farms has

found that around a third of permanent employees are non-UK. The poultry meat

sector has told us that non-UK workers account for 10-15 percent of those

employed on poultry farms and hatcheries. One large egg laying enterprise has

reported that approaching half of the workers in its laying units are non-UK.

Anecdotally on some pig units all the full time staff are non-UK. All report

growing problems filling vacancies.

Availability of Suitable Workers

12. It is not just important that workers are available but they must be suitable to the

work. Dependence on migrant workers has come about due to the unwillingness

of local people to do harvest work. This is not unique to Scotland. In Canada

harvest workers come from Mexico; in Greece they are brought in from

Bangladesh.

13. As above, the SRUC study will also examine the views of the harvest workers

themselves. It is important that these views are taken into account alongside the

scale of migrant labour both during the formation of policy and by farmers.

14. One factor that has been identified is the fall in value of the value of sterling

against the Euro which has made work in the UK less financially attractive than it

was. Although the pound has been even weaker in the past those periods have

not coincided with the peak harvesting periods. An offsetting factor is the

relatively higher minimum wages offered in the UK compared with many other EU

Member States.

15. Some employers have reported that they are already seeing a change in the work

ethic of some eastern European workers i.e. that younger workers are less

productive than their predecessors were. This is possibly a reflection of the same

factors that have caused the settled UK population to no longer undertake

harvest work.

16. Currently it is not possible for farmers or labour providers to recruit workers from

outwith the EU. This is already a limitation causing recruiting problems. Post

Brexit, NFUS believes that industry should be allowed to recruit from other

countries where suitable workers would be more interested in coming to

Scotland.

Systems for Provision of Workers

17. NFUS is not prescriptive in what system should be put in place to ensure worker

availability from 2019. As the issue is neither new, nor unique to Scotland there

are examples that could be used, modified as necessary to meet Scotland’s

requirements going forward.

18. In the past NFUS has suggested a return to the Seasonal Agricultural Workers

Scheme (SAWS), which came to an end in 2012. SAWS was well used by the

industry and when focused on students, prior to it being restricted to Romanian

and Bulgarian workers, it had the advantage that students were easy to train,

often spoke English and were well motivated to return home. It did however

suffer from limitations. Quotas were a constraint; as the industry has grown

further the old quotas would now be too small. There was also a limitation to six

months employment. The use of polytunnels has expanded the growing season

meaning that workers are often needed for more than six months.

19. In May 2004 the UK Government introduced the Workers Registration Scheme

(WRS) aimed at regulating incoming workers from eight of the new EU Member

States. Workers were required to register to work for a specific employer and

pay a one-off fee of £50. They could change employers without paying again but

needed to have their registration certificate reissued. Employers were required to

ensure that workers did apply / have registration certificates. The Scheme was

not restricted to agriculture, which meant that a drift of workers to other

employment was not prevented. At the time that was not such a problem as the

workers were mostly being employed via SAWS.

20. A study undertaken for the Scottish Government by Dr. Hepburn has identified a number

of models from other countries but the focus of that study has been on a differentiated

system to operate in Scotland. Due to the multitude of cross-border connections NFUS

would prefer an all-UK system but would support alternatives if the Westminster

Government is unable to develop the systems needed in time to prevent a hiatus in

worker availability.

Features of an Agricultural Labour Scheme

21. Whatever scheme is introduced it should be:

21.1. demand-led - It is employers who best know how many workers they need.

Fixed quotas do not allow for the flexibility needed to react to changes caused

by retail demand or the weather

21.2. regulated - It is clear that a degree of control will be needed. Employment

of agricultural workers is already regulated via the Gangmasters and Labour

Abuse Authority (GLAA). Its model of licensing could be adapted to apply to a

new system for migrant workers

21.3. flexible - Currently growers are able to self-recruit workers with many

returning year-on-year. Others use labour providers. A new system should

not force farmers to use labour providers

21.4. international - The system should allow workers to be employed from

countries outside of the EU. This would not only increase the pool of suitable

workers but would also provide labour opportunities and money to improve

living standards in countries where access to work at decent wages is needed

even more than it is in EU Member States

21.5. simple and low-cost - For the system to attract workers it cannot be overly

complex or impose high charges for visas or permits. Similarly, excessive

burdens on employers must be avoided.

NFUS Suggested Scheme

22. A two-part scheme, one being a seasonal scheme for employment lasting up to 10

months and the second, non-seasonal scheme aimed at workers to be employed for

longer periods. Common features to both parts would be:

22.1. UK-wide, open to workers from any country, not just the EU, to provide

agricultural labour

22.2. a visa system administered by the Home Office, demand-led so as to reflect

the industry’s requirements. The Home Office would conduct checks on entry

and exit from the UK

22.3. farmers to be able to directly recruit workers or to use labour providers. In

either case the employer would require to be licensed and approved by the

Home Office.

23. The Seasonal Scheme would have these additional features:

23.1. visas to work in the UK issued by the Home Office, restricted to a maximum

of ten months in a year with flexibility to cope with different crop requirements

23.2. workers should be able to transfer to other agricultural seasonal work via a

Home Office transfer system, to allow workers to move from where harvesting

is complete to farms where there is work for them.

24. The Non-Seasonal Scheme would not have a specific time restriction. It would also be

envisaged that the restriction to only agricultural employment would end if the worker

stayed in the UK sufficiently long to make a successful application for UK Citizenship.

Associated Industries

25. For the output of Scottish farms to reach consumers it needs to be moved and much of it

has to be processed. Therefore for our farms to supply its markets all parts of the chain

need to have sufficient labour.

26. The Scottish red meat processing sector provides direct employment for approximately

2,700 people. The Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers has estimated that 50

percent of the workforce in some of Scotland’s abattoirs and meat processing plants are

non-UK workers. In Scotland’s poultrymeat sector an estimated 70-80 percent of its

workers are non-UK. Around 70 percent of the workers in some egg packing stations

are non-UK. The vast majority of dairy processor workers are non-UK.

27. The Road Haulage Association has estimated that 60,000 HGV drivers from other EU

states are working in the UK haulage industry and in addition there is a shortfall of

45,000 drivers.

28. The UK Points Based System (PBS) does not currently provide access to the workers

needed for farming, food processing or road haulage. Tier 3 should be opened, and the

Shortage Occupation List amended to provide such access.

Response to Specific Questions

Migration Trends

29. Characteristics (e.g. types of jobs migrants perform; skill levels, etc.) of migrants

in your particular sector/local area/ region? How do these differ from UK workers?

Non-UK harvest workers come to the UK ready and keen to work whereas employers

who attempt to hire local UK staff find the opposite, workers fail to attend and pick far

less per day than non-UK workers. Permanent staff often come from countries where

agriculture forms a bigger part of their economy and come already trained to do more

skilled farm work.

30. To what extent are migrants seasonal; part-time; agency-workers; temporary;

short-term assignments; intra-company transfers; self-employed? What

information do you have on their skill levels? To what extent do these differ from

UK workers? There is much variation. In numerical terms seasonal harvest workers

make up the majority. Some of them are employed via labour providers but many are

employed directly, returning to farms on which they have previously worked. As stated

previously some work for longer periods than others with the harvest period for some

crops having been extended. The skill level of workers provided by labour providers will

not be known in advance. In terms of permanent staff there is a long-standing shortfall in

numbers of UK young people entering farming. Non-UK workers have filled that gap.

31. Are there any relevant sources of evidence, beyond the usual range of official

statistics, that would allow the MAC to get a more detailed view of the current

patterns of migration, especially over the last year? We are not aware of any

currently available but the SRUC study referred to above will offer more hard data.

32. Have the patterns of migration changed over time? What evidence do you have

showing your employment of migrants since 2000? And after the Brexit

referendum? Are these trends different for UK workers? There have definitely been

changes. At one time most workers, including for harvest, were UK born. There were

some exceptions such as migrant sheep shearers from New Zealand and Australia. The

fall of the Iron Curtain allowed Eastern European workers to fill gaps that had

constrained growth in the soft fruit and vegetable sectors. Initially those workers were

mostly students, who came via the SAWS scheme from both EU and third countries.

The first tranche of new Member States was the next change and it lead to the

introduction of the WRS and to an increasing reliance on harvest workers from countries

such as Poland. When Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU SAWS was hijacked as the

mechanism to allow restricted numbers of Romanian and Bulgarian Workers who could

not qualify under the Tier-based scheme. Employers have taken advantage of the

greater flexibility offered by the ending of restrictions on East European workers but have

noted that some employees are less skilled, especially in the English language, that the

students who came via SAWS. It has also been noted that the younger East Europeans

now coming to do harvest work are less interested in labour intensive tasks than their

predecessors were. In contrast, the skill levels of permanent i.e. non-harvest workers

are reported to be high. Since the Brexit referendum employers have had greater

difficulty attracting EU Workers, and the problem is getting worse.

33. Have you conducted any analysis on the future trends of migration, in particular in

the absence of immigration controls? We have not.

34. Have you made any assessment of the impact of a possible reduction in the

availability of migrants (whether occurring naturally or through policy) as part of

your workforce? What impact would a reduction in migration have on your

sector/local area/region? How will your business/sector/area/region cope? Have

you made any contingency plans? We have not undertaken an in-depth analysis of

our own but our Members have been participating in the study being done by SRUC.

The impact of a reduction in migration would depend both on the scale of the reduction

and on where it was focused. A significant shortfall of harvest workers would have an

immediate and catastrophic impact on fruit and vegetable production where there would

be no means to harvest the current volumes of marketable crops. The impact would be

less immediate for permanent workers, assuming that those already in the UK are

allowed to stay. For such workers we would expect an acceleration of unfilled

vacancies.

Recruitment Practices, Training & Skills

35. Please provide evidence on the methods of recruitment used to employ migrants.

Do these methods differ from those used to employ UK workers? What impact

does this have on UK workers? Have these methods changed following the Brexit

referendum? Non-UK harvest workers are generally either directly employed returnees

or workers provided by one of the specialist labour providers. Farms report that

recruitment of permanent staff is undertaken by various means including word of mouth,

the internet, workers living locally wanting a change who send in an application, workers

doing harvest work wanting to stay on longer in the UK. There is no impact on UK

workers as they are not willing to do the work. That has not changed since the

referendum but it is proving harder to get non-UK staff resulting in ongoing vacancies.

36. Do recruitment practices differ by skill-type and occupation? The difference is

generally between unskilled temporary labour and permanent workers. Those with

specific skills would not normally be provided by the same labour providers as harvest

workers.

37. What are the advantages and disadvantages of employing EEA workers? Have

these changed following the Brexit referendum result? Compared with non-EEA

workers the advantage of employing EEA workers has been that they can be employed

without any difficulty in entering the country. The disadvantage has been that they can

decide to move to other employment, leaving a gap to be filled. Compared to UK

workers there can be issues associated with a lack of proficiency in the English

language.

38. To what extent has migration affected the skills and training of the UK workers?

We are not aware that there has been an impact. The problems of attracting and training

enough suitable young UK workers is long-standing.

39. How involved are universities and training providers in ensuring that the UK

workforce has the skills needed to fill key roles/roles in high demand in your

sector? Do you have plans to increase this involvement in the future? For harvest

workers that is not a factor – worker training is on-farm. For permanent workers the

problem is chicken-and-egg. Insufficient candidates to encourage provision of courses

and vice-versa. For that to change farming needs to be seen as profitable and attractive

to young people entering the work force. The future profitability of agriculture post-Brexit

is farm from certain.

40. How well aware are you of current UK migration policies for non-EEA migrants? If

new immigration policies restrict the numbers of low-skilled migrants who can

come to work in the UK, which forms of migration into low-skilled work should be

prioritised? For example, the current shortage occupation list applies to high

skilled occupations; do you think this should be expanded to cover lower skill

levels? We are certainly aware that very few of the workers needed on Scottish farms,

either seasonal or permanent, would qualify under the current Tier system. As stated

above there are more that one way of providing access to such workers including

opening Tier 3, adding agricultural roles to the shortage list, or best of all, establishing a

specific scheme for agriculture.

Economic, Social and Fiscal Impacts

41. What are the economic, social and fiscal costs and benefits of migration to the UK

economy? What are the impacts of migrants on the labour market, prices, public

services, net fiscal impacts (e.g. taxes paid by migrants; benefits they receive),

productivity, investment, innovation and general competitiveness of UK industry?

As described above, non-UK personnel form a vital part of the agricultural and food

supply chain workforce and are therefore vital to Scotland’s food sector. Their impact on

the UK labour market is negligible as most fill vacancies unattractive to UK workers.

That suggests, that with UK employment at record levels UK workers are finding posts

that they prefer over farm or food processing. The impact on public services and fiscally

of harvest workers will be different from that of permanent workers. The former tend to

be young and being in the UK during the summer are unlikely to be major users of the

NHS; being employed, and unaccompanied they will not be users of the benefit system.

The short-term nature of their employment may mean that they will be able to reclaim

some of the tax paid, but EU workers will pay National Insurance, as will their employers.

The impact of permanent non-UK workers will be similar to that of UK workers. Without

access to non-UK workers there would be no investment in the sectors dependent on

them as UK businesses would be unable to compete with businesses in other countries.

The result would be loss of the jobs of the employed UK workers, much greater

dependence on food imports and a corresponding negative impact on the UK balance of

trade.

42. Do these impacts differ at national, regional or local level? Yes because the types

of businesses that rely on non-UK workers are not evenly distributed. In the more

isolated parts of Scotland agriculture is dominated by sheep and beef enterprises, which

are not major users of non-UK workers. Most pig, poultry and egg-laying enterprises,

employing permanent workers are located in the East of Scotland, but there are some in

the Southwest. Dairy enterprises are more widely distributed, but with a higher

proportion being in the Southwest of Scotland. Processing plants are generally located

in built-up areas although egg packing plants are usually co-located with egg laying

enterprises. Most soft fruit and vegetable enterprises, the main users of temporary

harvest workers, are located in the East of Scotland, especially in Perthshire, Angus and

the Lothians.

43. Do these impacts vary by sector and occupation? As described above the main

users of temporary, non-UK workers are the fruit and vegetable sectors. For them the

implications of a loss of access to workers is most imminent, i.e. if migrant workers are

not available in the spring of 2019 all soft fruit and almost all vegetable farms will be

unable to operate. Even the anticipation of that possibility is likely to cause retailers to

make alternative arrangements - finding non-UK suppliers. For farms, processors and

hauliers using permanent non-UK workers the problem will be progressive as vacancies

occur that cannot then be filled.

44. Do these impacts vary by skill level (high-skilled, medium-skilled, and low-skilled

workers)? Harvest workers all fall in the category of low-skilled workers; the same will

apply to most workers employed in processing functions. Some permanent workers may

fall in the category of medium-skilled; it is unlikely that any other than Vets (employed in

abattoirs) will fall into the high-skilled category.

Southalls of Norchard

Please see below the response from Southalls of Norchard to the call for evidence

from MAC commission:

EEA Migration Trends

EEA migrant workers in our vegetable business carry out a range of roles including

picking, packing, driving tractors, lorries and fork lifts. More specialist jobs include

office work, irrigation and spraying. We are a seasonal business and so many of

these workers are engaged typically for 4 – 6 months, although a small number are

full time. Local workers do not appear interested in the relatively short periods,

preferring permanent employment.

Southalls of Norchard began employing EEA migrant workers in 1995, starting with

12, and the ability to employ reliable, hard-working and motivated people has

enabled our business to grow markedly in volumes produced and in general

turnover. We now employ over 200 during our peak Summer period.

We have found that agency labour has been in short supply since mid-September

2017 and this has led to some crop remaining unharvested. This shortage is very

unusual in our experience and may well be an indication of what can be expected in

the future, post-Brexit. If this proves to be the case and our business is restricted in

the number of direct and agency workers we can employ we shall have to cut back

what we produce.

Recruitment Practices, Training and Skills

Seasonal migrant workers in our business are either employed when contact is

made directly between both parties (52%), employed directly but workers provided

by Concordia(UK)Ltd (36%) or are agency workers provided by Staffline Agriculture

(12%). Many of the first category are returnees and we are subsequently aware of

their skillset. Recruitment practices do not differ by skill-type and occupation.

The advantages of employing EEA workers is that a large proportion have an

agricultural background which makes them easily trainable in the tasks that they

have to carry out. They are also comfortable with seasonal work, as previously

mentioned.

The majority of the roles carried out by seasonal workers in our business do not

require a university education or, indeed, great amounts of training. What they do

require is motivation, dexterity and perseverance.

I believe that a new seasonal agricultural workers scheme is necessary to provide

horticulture with enough workers to carry out its growing and harvesting going

forward.

Economic, Social and Fiscal Impacts

In our experience EEA migrants are very positive to the UK economy. Our workers

produce inexpensive, fresh and nutritious food for home UK consumtion. They pay

National Insurance and Income Tax plus VAT on many of their purchases. Being

relatively young and fit they make little use of the National Health Service. Living, as

they do, in mobile homes situated on the farm they have little negative impact on the

local community. Positive impact comes when the EEA migrants and the local

community meet socially, as at the annual farm v village football match. Weekly

supermarket visits put money into the local economy and a local coach company is

engaged for this purpose.

In the horticulture sector many initially low skilled EEA workers are trained into

medium and high skilled roles and many move into management positions in their

respective companies.

To summarise, our business has grown and succeeded through the availability of

EEA migrant workers whose work ethic and reliability has enabled us to complete

programmes for demanding supermarket customers. We are very keen to continue

employing them in the future.

West Sussex Growers Association

As Chairman of West Sussex Growers’ Association (WSGA), I am writing to you in

response to your Call for Evidence for your inquiry into the economic and social

impacts of the UK’s exit from the EU and how an immigration system might be

aligned with a modern industrial strategy.

1. Our horticultural business members in West Sussex have an annual turnover in

excess of £1billion and employ over 9,000 FTEs. The majority of these full time and

seasonal workers are migrants from the EU; predominantly from former Eastern

European countries. Over more than twenty years, these people have become an

essential part of the horticultural workforce in the area.

2. These migrant workers are engaged at many different levels, from basic

harvesting and packing jobs to supervisory and management positions. Because

many of them are well educated and arrive with excellent transferable skills,

including good English and IT skills, they have quickly been identified by their

employers as having greater potential, and have been promoted into more skilled

and senior management positions.

3. In many areas of West Sussex; especially in areas such as Chichester, where the

majority of the Horticultural Industry is located; unemployment levels are very low –

near to 1%. Therefore, when local businesses advertise for staff (at all skills levels),

there is little response from the indigenous population.

Growers, have a present and future need for large numbers of migrant workers. It is

no exaggeration to say that without this additional workforce; it will not be possible to

grow, harvest or pack many crops that are currently grown in Britain. The idea that

this vital workforce can suddenly be recruited from amongst our local communities is

not realistic.

4. If the free movement of people across the EU cannot be retained; then alternative

schemes need to be put in place without delay to satisfy the needs of businesses for

additional workers. Options may include the return of the Seasonal Agricultural

Workers Scheme (SAWS); however, as the Industry has a need for additional

workers all year-round; there is a need for a scheme that allows work permits for a

much longer period. The Industry urgently needs to be able to give assurances to

the existing workforce and to customers that jobs are secure and that we can deliver

the goods.

5. Clearly there will need to be even more focus on “the market place” and “food and

plant security”. Most commentators believe this to be a good thing; however, these

aspirations can only be brought about if the economic climate is seen to be fair and

relatively stable i.e. level playing fields and medium-term certainty.

6. Most horticultural businesses in West Sussex already operate in the “free market”,

supply direct to supermarkets and retailers across the UK, receive no direct financial

support from the EU Common Agricultural Policy or from the UK Government. The

majority of WSGA member businesses are heavily invested, high-tech enterprises

that have already made substantial investments in automation to increase

productivity.

7. As a consequence of Brexit; the value of the pound has fallen dramatically against

other leading currencies. This has brought about a strong tightening of the EU

migrant labour market e.g. since the referendum; it is considerably more financially

attractive for a migrant worker to work in Germany rather than the UK.

8. In order for the Horticultural Industry to have confidence in investing for the future,

it is imperative that far more clarity is given to the likely shape of future trade and

labour agreements with the EU and the rest of the world post Brexit. There is a real

risk that rural investment will be severely curtailed during this very uncertain interim

period.

9. Any reduction in the free access to the EU/EEA labour market, at all skills levels,

whether full-time or seasonal, will cause huge problems for the Horticultural Industry.

There’s no point horticultural businesses investing heavily into glasshouses, pack-

houses and ancillary operations, if they can’t staff them and satisfy the needs of their

customers.

We look forward to the publication of the Migration Advisory Committee’s findings.

Whiting & Hammond

Whiting & Hammond welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Migration

Advisory Committee on this important topic. Our business employs 320 of people in

the UK/specific region, including 28 EU nationals. The EU citizens working for us,

like the rest of our workforce, are vital to our business, significantly contributing

economically and socially.

Many of our roles are seasonal and filled by part-time workers. Without candidates

from within the EU, our pool of applicants would be severely depleted and render

recruitment even more challenging than currently. We also employ skilled workers

from within the EU, particularly within our commercial kitchens. The current trends

indicate that employing professional kitchen staff will only become more difficult as

demand for these skills increases. In an already competitive recruitment and

retention environment, the loss of applicants from the EU could have a significant

impact on our business.

It is difficult to exactly measure the impact of a reduction in EU nationals being

available to our business but we strongly believe that it would lead to difficulties with

recruitment, particularly for roles that are already proving hard to fill, such as chefs

and other kitchen workers. We believe it is important for our business, our customers

and the Government that a future immigration policy ensures that such shortages do

not occur.

We are recruiting in a very competitive sector and use various methods of

recruitment at our disposal, including the use of external agents, social media and

use of our local contacts and networks. Critically we ensure that we recruit within the

UK, working with Government agencies and other organisations to attract the talent

we need. We are committed to developing our workforce, regardless of their

nationality, and invest in training. In order to develop a greater pool of talent into the

wider hospitality industry, we have an established Apprenticeship programme for

both Front of House and Professional chefs. This has been very successful in

retaining and developing our own trainees whilst adding generally to the level of

people coming into the industry.

Overall, Whiting & Hammond has experienced how EU migration is beneficial to the

UK economy and society and is positive for our business, helping us to grow and

improve our offer to customers. We welcome the Government’s commitments to

current EU workers, who have provided so much to our business and who we wish

to support. It is our understanding and desire that all who arrive to work in the UK

before the EU-exit date should have the right to remain and work in this country. It is

important that the process for all workers to gain the relevant permissions to stay

and work is as simple and convenient as possible and that there are no onerous

restrictions on business to employ them.

In terms of post-Brexit immigration policy, we believe that Government should:

• Develop a bespoke migration system for non-graduate EU workers, outside of existing arrangements, that offers preferential status to EU citizens, linked to a broader trade deal – and focuses on sectors and occupations with staff shortages

• Extend the Youth Mobility Scheme both in terms of length of time and in terms of age – this could be three years with the option of an extension, or five years, and apply to those up to 35 years old

• Clarify the rights of those who move to the UK during any transition period and set out the rights of all who move and work post-Brexit

• Place the onus on the citizen to obtain legal permission to work in the UK – without the need for a sponsor employer and a simple process for employers to recognise the right to work

• Provide the ability to move to the UK in search of work as part of broader travel arrangements, though with restricted rights to UK benefits

• Add language-based occupations to the list of skills shortages, including those in hospitality

• Support us in developing the domestic workforce through training programmes and

an improved vocational education system.

These measures will be of benefit to my business and the wider sector, as well as to

UK PLC, and will help to ensure that we can continue to offer our customers great

service into the future.

Wyevale Nurseries

Introduction Wyevale Nurseries are wholesale growers of hardy nursery stock - that is trees, shrubs, conifers and herbaceous plants which we sell nationwide for landscaping, forestry, hedging, conservation and to the garden centre trade. We currently have approximately 100 acres for our containers stock, 600 acres for trees and 200 acres for transplants. We have 3 production divisions namely, Transplants, Trees and Container plants, all of which rely on EEA migrants to fulfil their production. We also have a supply chain division which also employees EEA migrants. In addition we have office staff for sales, accounts and administrative tasks which do not rely on EEA migrants. We will set out each division separately to show why it is essential that the business continues to use EEA migrants.

Grade Trees Transplants Containers Supply chain

UK EEA UK EEA UK EEA UK EEA

5 management 1 1 1 1 4 1 4

4 Supervisor /specialist 4 4 1 1 15 4

3 lead workers 2 1 11 3 3

2 worker 3 1 2 1 13 1

1 young worker 1

Seasonal

Trees Transplants Containers Supply chain

grade UK EEA UK EEA UK EEA UK EEA

5 management

4 Supervisor /specialist

3 lead workers

2 worker 1 0 17 4 9 16 11

1 young worker

Agency

Trees Transplants Containers Supply chain

grade UK EEA UK EEA UK EEA UK EEA

5 management

4 Supervisor /specialist

3 lead workers

2 worker

1 young worker 14 0 5 8

All workers

Trees Transplants Containers Supply chain

UK EEA UK EEA UK EEA UK EEA

Seasonal worker 0 15 0 17 4 14 16 19

Grade 1&2 permanent

worker 3 0 0 1 3 1 13 1

Grade 3+ permanent

worker 5 4 3 3 29 4 10 0

In addition to the production divisions and supply chain we employ Head office staff in sales, accounts and admin. In total there are 22 UK employees and 0 EEA migrant workers.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

5 management 4 Supervisor/specialist

3 lead workers 2 worker 1 young worker

All Business permanent

UK

EEA

Skilled permanent

worker UK 70 Skilled permanent

worker EEA 12 permanent worker UK 20 permanent worker EEA 3 Seasonal worker UK 21 Seasonal worker EEA 65

Summary We have not conducted any analysis on the future of EEA Migration but the possibility of a reduction in the availability of EEA migrants would be catastrophic for the nursery. It is clear that throughout the business there is a strong need to continue to employ EEA migrants especially for the seasonal jobs. The supply of UK labour started to decline approximately 15 years ago. We work with local schools and job centres and continue to recruit UK apprentices but there are very few UK people willing to start a career in horticulture especially if the work on offer is only seasonal. In addition, recruitment numbers and retention rates have proved stubbornly low. (less than 1in 3 success rate for apprentices staying in the business)

37%

6%10%

2%

11%

34%

All business labour composition March 2017

Skilled permanent worker UK

Skilled permanent worker EEA

permanent worker UK

permanent worker EEA

Seasonal worker UK

Seasonal worker EEA

The use of EEA labour has very successfully plugged this gap, proving to be more reliable and cost effective. The EEA migrant workers are willing to work long hours and are very flexible in their approach and willingness to work. Our labour continuity usually works through our best seasonal worker entrants being retained, trained and promoted as they gain experience. Since dependency on EEA labour has percolated so far through the business infrastructure it would take a long time and many supportive policies to reverse the trend and replace the skilled staff now in the business, even if another source for unskilled labour could be found. Without the benefit of EEA migrants the business would be forced to dramatically reduce production, especially trees and transplants and exit some crops entirely. Availability of stock would drop & prices would be forced up and we would have to increase our imports from EEA countries affecting balance of payments and running contra to Biosecurity concerns which favour increased UK production.

We could only grow low labour crops or crops that could be more mechanised, but this would be a long term challenge and hard to finance the capital required given the cash flow impacts of the immediate effects. We do not believe that EEA migration has affected the skills and training of the UK workers but the reduction of EEA workers would have a negative impact on the business and put the jobs of UK workers at risk. We are aware of the current UK migration policies for non EEA migrants but we can only comment on the importance of low skilled migrants for the agricultural/horticultural sector as a whole.

Flixton Mushrooms

We have a mushroom Farm on the Norfolk/Suffolk borders. From 2004 we have

required workers from Europe to pick and pack our crop, because we are unable to

get enough UK staff.

This is not seasonal work, it is all year round.

Our workers have to be skilled in picking the mushrooms. They need training to

learn how to grade and pick effectively.

We find the migrant workers are willing to work extra hours and weekends if

necessary whereas many UK workers are not as flexible. They are a valuable asset

to our team.

When we first had migrant workers they came from the Ukraine and had work

permits. This involved a cost to them and made things more difficult for us as

employers with red tape. This stopped when the EU opened working borders

between members. Now we can access European workers through normal job

adverts through freedom of movement.

Since Brexit we have struggled to find enough pickers and it is effecting our

business. If we cannot get the mushrooms picked on time the crop can be ruined

and then our orders are not fulfilled.

It is probably partly to do with the exchange rate and partly because European

workers are worried about their stability in the workplace over here once Brexit

occurs.

They may decide to go to other European countries now because it is easier for

them and they feel more welcome.

Please do not reduce the number of migrants needed in the agricultural sector

because to produce food we really need them.

Hayloft Plants

I write in response to the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) call for evidence on

the economic and social impact of the UK’s exit from the EU and in particular EEA

workers in the UK labour market. I was invited by the Worcestershire and

Herefordshire Chamber of Commerce to a Roundtable Lunch with Stephen Earl at

Evesham Vale Growers on Wednesday 11th October 2017 when I was made aware

of the issue and the deadline for responses. I enclose a feature written by me this

afternoon which will appear in the December issue (published 16th November 2017)

of the West Midlands Edition of the NFU’s British Farmer and Grower

Publication.

I am a Director and Shareholder in a small horticultural business, Hayloft Plants Ltd,

based in Pershore in the West Midlands. We sell ornamental garden plants through

multiple channels directly to the end users (gardeners). Our principal distribution

channels are Mail Order Catalogues, Advertising in National Newspapers and

Gardening Magazines, Own Brand Partnerships with national publication such as

The Telegraph Media Group and Express Newspapers, a website www.hayloft-

plants.co.uk , Social Media and selling on a Television Shopping Channel, QVC UK.

www.qvcuk.com

Most of our sales are to UK gardeners but we have many small customers scattered

throughout Europe. Our average order size is £25. We are one of the larger

businesses in the market town of Pershore. We have in the past sold plants on QVC

in both Italy and Germany.

We have two types of employees. Permanent UK National (& one from New

Zealand) workers, both full time and part time, who work in the offices, majority are

female and all are paid above the National Living Wage(NLW). Total number 35.

Their principal functions are to sell/market plants and to undertake Customer

Service. These jobs are supported by Seasonal Migrant Workers who run the

horticultural nurseries and pack the garden plants. With the exception of two UK

national ex-apprentices (both aged 20 years old), these are all from the EEA –

mainly Poland, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Romania. We have one French lad who

comes to us every year. Our Operations Manager, a Polish National, has been with

us since 2006 and now owns a house in the town of Evesham. We employ his wife

and several members of his family and friends from the Polish town of Zamosc. They

come to Hayloft Plants anywhere from as little as six weeks to a maximum of 11

months each year. Five EEA workers are now permanent, all in supervisory

positions. Other seasonal staff come thought the Labour Agency and Gang Master

Concordia YSV Ltd. The total seasonal staff numbers 30 at the peak period March to

July. We employ up to 40 – 45 seasonal staff during any year.

With the exception of two EEA families who own/rent houses, all seasonal staff are

housed on the nurseries in mobile homes/chalet house accommodation. The staff

come and go to suit both their needs and our needs. We get our plants looked

after/packed, they earn approximately five times what they would earn in their home

country. Most come back to us year after year on the basis ‘if you look after

someone they will look after you’. Most Migrant workers are technically employed on

Zero hour contracts, although we have NEVER gone below 34 hours a week and

most weeks we average high 40 hours. There are two ‘crimes’ I can commit as far as

the migrant workers are concerned – not enough hours (they aspire for 50/week) and

no fast internet connection.

Our business has multiplied its sales ten times since 2007 partly due to changes in

customer buying habits (trusting credit cards/mail order shopping, use of

websites/social media) but also our ability to efficiently grow and distribute our

products. This growth wouldn’t have been possible without the migrant workers. In

your eyes the migrant workers would be low skilled. We have invested in training

them in courses such as English lessons, Fork lift truck driving, various Health and

Safety/First Aid courses, spraying PA1/PA6 courses etc. We run weekly free minibus

trips to the two local towns for their food shopping. All facilities are provided

(bedding, cooking, TV/Internet, washing machines/driers, cycles, games etc) in

exchange for the daily Accommodation offset payment of £6.40 a day (£44.80 a

week). We have one accommodation ‘test’ – would you live in it and would you put

your daughter in it – If the answer is ‘Yes’ and ‘Yes’ then you can hold your head up

high with pride.

I voted to remain in the European Union and I was embarrassed to hold a British

passport the morning after the Brexit vote. We as a nation told my loyal migrant

workforce that they are not wanted in this country. As Sterling weakened we gave

them all a pay cut despite the Government increasing the National Living wage

dramatically in 2016 and again in 2017. Since the vote, a couple have gone to work

full time in Germany but most have overcome the ‘shock’ and we continue to sell our

plants, the demand for which has remained good since the Brexit vote.

I as a Director have to keep strong and lead this Business while down inside me I’m

quietly ‘shitting’ myself. Please excuse my language. We’ve stopped any significant

capital expenditure and we sit like ‘rabbits in the headlights’ while the Government

gives us some direction. We have two issues to deal with;

1. The movement of plants into and out of Europe – issues with possible Phytosanitary requirements, Customs requirements – both involve cost and time which will have to be passed onto the consumer and

2. The availability of Seasonal labour – we are in an area of very low unemployment and there is no one willing to work on a temporary basis, unless the Government drastically cuts the benefits packages the unemployed receive.

Both of the Shareholders, my wife and I, are 56 years of age. We had hoped one day

to sell this Business and are lucky that we have sufficient funds outside the company

to retire tomorrow. So if the Government causes us major problems with either, or

both, of the two issues above we maybe be forced to close down the Business which

has been trading for twenty four years. This is our rather sad Contingency Plan. The

company has sufficient assets to pay all its liabilities including, reluctantly, the

Government.

Your Economists will be able to advise that the Migrant workers will settle and work

in other EU countries, so the real losers will be the UK nationals, mainly female, all

paid above the NLW who will lose their child friendly employment. In an area of low

unemployment no doubt you will tell me they will all get jobs, but what happens if all

the horticultural businesses in this area do the same? We could see a massive

increase in UK national unemployment.

So I urge you to recommend that agriculture and horticulture be made a special case

whereby there is availability of Seasonal Agricultural Workers through a SAWS

scheme which is operated through licenced and regulated charities such as

Concordia YSV Ltd and HOPS Labour Solutions Ltd, who have done so since 1948

until this scheme was stopped once the A2 Countries joined the EU for employment

purposes. These workers come to the UK with a Visa for up to six months and

therefore don’t appear in the Governments politically sensitive Migration statistics.

Hertfordshire Growers We must insure a good amount of unskilled labour in order for our Horticultural

industry to survive in good health providing healthy food for our nation

Orchard Lodge Farm

I run a small fruit farm in Kent with one full time UK employee and use EEA workers

recruited through recognised agencies for farm work and harvesting work which is

low skilled. I usually recruit around 10 workers. I tried recruiting 3 young English

workers this year and each one only lasted a day before leaving.

Our current workers are seasonal, full time working for four to six weeks at a time on

two different harvests, sometimes staying for both from June to October. They also

carry out non-harvest work like thinning fruit off trees prior to harvest, pruning and

young tree management. They are vetted by a recruitment agency but most have no

previous experience unless they have previously worked on the farm.

For detailed information on migrant patterns please contact British Growers

Association.

NFU has conducted analysis on future trends citing a shortage of workers. This

trend is already very apparent this year. A reduction in EEA migration would mean

crops left unpicked and we would go out of business unless workers can be recruited

from other parts of the world. Because the work periods are fairly short, it makes

long distance travel uneconomic therefore we are limited in where we can recruit

from geographically. There is no scope for contingency plans as we are only a small

farm, other than contacting previous workers through Facebook but most are either

unwilling to come back to the UK or are already employed full time in other jobs in

the UK such as catering.

I have always recruited through recognised agricultural agencies like Concordia. This

does not have any impact on UK workers as UK workers decline to work in this

sector. I have had to contact more agencies than I would normally to fill my

vacancies.

Following the Brexit result the standard of good workers available from EEA

countries has dried up. The workers coming tend to be older, less willing to work as

hard, generally slower and less physically fit.

Migration has not affected the skills or training of my UK employee.

I am as closely involved as I can be with my current recruitment agency. I do not

have any contact with universities as this is low skilled physical temporary work and I

would not expect them to take any interest . My only alternative source of labour

might be offenders in prison but I am not sure if this could work .

Because many of these jobs relating to harvesting are temporary I believe a different

approach needs to be taken as they only need short term entry to the country and

then return to their country of origin. They need to be treated differently from

migrants coming to fill full time jobs.

The benefits of EEA migrants allow UK workers to do jobs which do not involve

having to work outside in all weathers. My workers have never claimed any

benefits. Most do not earn enough to pay income tax and only pay National

Insurance. Without migrant workers our productivity and ability to invest and

innovate would be severely curtailed. For example, in order to grow cherries, I need

to have polytunnels erected and teams to sheet and unsheet them. This sort of

service is only provided by foreign workers who can do the job cost effectively

because they become skilled in a very particulars area or horticulture, are very hard

working and less demanding than UK workers in terms of wages. Without these

workers I could not even grow cherries, let alone harvest them.

In summary, unless there is a simple scheme available for low skilled harvest

workers to come to this country on a temporary basis we will not be able to continue

producing fresh produce in this country. There also needs to be a system to allow

migrants to fill full time jobs. The majority of full time jobs in agriculture which are not

harvest based such as tractor driving, working in packhouses, transport and

packaging are nearly all filled by migrant workers so they are just as vital to

agriculture as part of the wider process of getting food from farms to supermarket

shelves. Take away the migrant workers and the supermarket shelves will be empty

in a week.

Roughway Farm

In response to the current evidence gathering process I would like to add the

experience of this business.

Roughway farm is a mixed fruit farm in West Kent employing 80 seasonal staff

between June and October to harvest crops and perform associated tasks. Our

produce is sold to most of the major UK food retailers.

Over the last 15 years, predominantly Eastern Europeans have increasingly provided

the bulk of this labour requirement. Local British labour willing to work outside

manually is virtually non-existent in this generally affluent area with high rates of

employment.

Regardless of Brexit the availability of seasonal staff has dropped dramatically in the

last 3 years for many reasons. This year we are unable to maximise our harvest due

to labour shortages, leaving fruit unpicked and work uncompleted.

Discussion with staff who are not returning, leaving prematurely or chose not to

come at all this year reveals a wide range of causation. This includes currency

factors, alternative work in the rest of the EU, demographic factors as they age eg

children to care for, desire to build a career in their own improving countries. This is

all perfectly understandable but the difference now is the lack of willing replacements

that were numerous even 4 years ago.

Without governmental assistance in widening the access to international labour in

2018 we will see major problems, and in 2019 a complete melt down in our

domestic horticultural industry.

Maintaining the existing EU sourced labour pool will not be enough. Countries from

outside the EU will be needed as well. The original SAWS scheme which sourced

from Ukraine and other former Soviet states worked very well for years on 6 month

work cards. It also was hugely beneficial in benefitting international understanding.

Regrettably it was dismantled for EU preference reasons.

Horticulture is a long term business and uncertainty in the field of labour supply is

already affecting my investment decisions. That there is even a debate on the

correct course of action is extraordinary. Failure to quickly address this issue will

see, less fresh produce consumption with implications on health, more imports,

higher prices and more supply uncertainty.

Walsh Mushrooms

EEA Migration Trends

We are looking for mushrooms pickers, collection men, Line operators for the

packing line and our outside filling and emptying teams

These are all year round full time positions

The patterns I am seeing over the past year is that less and less people are willing to

come to the UK. Due to a fall in sterling, Brexit and a general feeling of not been

welcome

A another pattern we are also seeing is there seems to be a real shortage of labour

in general across all sectors. As a result with the mushroom industry been so

competitive we are really struggling as a result to attract

The Mushroom sector as a hole is really struggling to find labour at present and is

really under severe pressure. Any further reduction in EEA labour would result in the

closure of farms and a reduction in supply across the sector. I also believe this would

drive prices due to demand exceeding supply

Recruitment Practices, Training & Skills

Over the years are recruitment was mostly true friends and family with around 20%

from recruitment companies. This year has been the opposite with nearly all are

recruitment coming from recruitment agencies. The feedback from the agencies is

that the UK is no longer as attractive as it once was. As a result we are now having

to pay a premium to just get staff

The advantages of employing EEA workers is simply been able to keep the farm

open. You won’t get UK harvesters this is no different than in any other country I

have worked Ireland, UK, Holland, Germany all rely on EEA work force. The change

now is that these workers are harder and harder to get, and even harder to hold on

to

The EEA has not affected the training or skills of UK workers as 97% of our work

force are considered low skilled jobs

I firmly believe that migeration into low skilled work should be prioritized over the

high skilled occupations. If this trend remains we will simply have to have either

higher prices for mushrooms due to a shortage or have to import them from other

EU countries at a higher price

Economic Social and Fiscal Impacts

Here in Suffolk Mushrooms we have 90+ employees

All are staff rent homes in the local areas

We are also one of the biggest contributor to the local economy with a turnover in

excess of £6 million per year

The slow down on EEA migrants is a real worry for the future and sustainability of

not only the Mushroom sector but a lot of other agriculture and sectors