Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the National Farmers' Union (NFU)
The NFU wishes to thank the House of Commons
Select Committee for the opportunity to give evidence on Tuesday
3 February 2009, and is happy to provide the following written
answers in response to the following further questions received
by email.
1. Which aspects of the Points Based System
do you think best fit the needs of the agriculture and horticulture
sectors, and why?
The consolidation of the previous 80 work and
study routes into the Points Based System (PBS) 5 tiers, of which
tiers 1-3 are based on skill level, tier 4 covers students, and
tier 5 covers youth mobility and temporary workers, is largely
welcomed by the agricultural and horticultural sectors as being
more coherent than the previous approach.
The appointment of the Migration Advisory Committee
(MAC) to advise the Government about labour shortages which can
be sensibly filled by migration is also welcome, as the MAC appears
to be both independent and to take a structured approach to its
work, commissioning independent research and also conducting its
own inquiries. The NFU has given evidence to the MAC and commends
the MAC for the outcome of its review of the transitional provisions
on Romania and Bulgaria in December 2009. The NFU has not given
evidence to the Migration Impacts Forum but recognises the importance
attached to its work.
An aspect of the PBS which does not fit the
needs of the agricultural and horticultural sectors is the failure
to recognise seasonal labour patterns within the 5 tiers. The
production patterns of the agricultural and horticultural sectors
are dominated by the annual cycle of the seasons, which drives
peak demands for labour. This feature of agricultural and horticultural
labour demand is independent of, and in addition to, the level
of skill involved in the role.
The NFU has been led to expect that tier 3 low
skilled labour will not be used to fill specific labour shortages
for the foreseeable future. If this is correct, and the intention
is to never open tier 3 to the agricultural and horticultural
sectors, then the PBS does not suit the needs of the agricultural
and horticultural sectors to recruit non-EU low skilled workers
in circumstances when there is a shortfall of EU low skilled workers.
2. How much low-skilled labour under tier
3 would the agriculture and horticulture sectors need to recruit?
The agricultural and horticultural sectors have
not recruited low skilled labour through tier 3 of the PBS because
tier 3 is presently suspended. However, in 2008 16,470[60]
low skilled workers were approved under the Seasonal Agriculture
Workers Scheme (SAWS) from Romania and Bulgaria while restrictions
remained on the access to the UK labour market of Romanian and
Bulgarian workers.
For 2009 the agricultural and horticultural sectors
expect to recruit 21,250 low skilled workers from Romania and
Bulgaria through the SAWS. This is a sector specific migration
scheme which allows workers up to 6 months employment in agriculture
and horticulture in the UK. The scheme is administered by the
SAWS operators who are allocated a quota of the 21,250 work cards
issued by UK Border Agency. Sole operators will employ the workers
on their own farms, and multiple operators such as HOPS and Concordia
will supply the workers to client farms. The NFU welcomes the
MAC recommendation that the number of SAWS work cards for the
2010 season be kept under review, and provisionally would like
to see an additional 5,000 work cards available increasing the
total number of low skilled workers approved under the scheme
to 26,250. If tier 3 were opened, the agricultural and horticultural
sector would hope to recruit similar numbers of unskilled workers
to the numbers sourced through SAWS.
The SAWS scheme is about 50 years old and pre-dates
the PBS. In the period before 2008 the demand for seasonal labour
was partially met by the SAWS which recruited non-EU seasonal
workers who returned to their country of origin after working
in the UK for a maximum period of six months. The NFU is concerned
that the SAWS, which presently recruits workers from Romania and
Bulgaria, will be closed when Romanian and Bulgarian workers are
given full access to the UK labour market. This could leave a
shortage of seasonal workers available to the UK agricultural
and horticultural sector. The NFU would like to see SAWS followed
by a similar scheme open to non-EU seasonal workers to ensure
that a there is not a shortage of suitable workers.
The immigration unit of the EU DG Justice, Freedom
and Security is expected to produce a draft directive on third
country seasonal workers in 2009. This directive will establish
the basic elements of seasonal schemes for third country workers
who will be required to return to their country of origin after
the expiry of a fixed term work permit. At a minimum, the NFU
recommends that the UK observes the development of this draft
directive with interest, even if the UK is not prepared to sign
up to the directive at this time.
3. Are you confident that the agriculture
and horticulture sectors will be able to recruit the skilled labour
they need under tier 2? Do you have any concerns about the way
points are allocated under tier 2?
It is expected that the agricultural and horticultural
sector will be able to recruit skilled labour under the PBS tier
2. The present skill level of tier 2 at National Vocational Qualification
(NVQ) level 3 and above is set at the right level to recognise
skilled agricultural and horticultural qualifications, and the
initial salary thresholds for 2008 were set at a level which allowed
small numbers of skilled agricultural and horticultural workers
to be recruited. For the future, it will be critical to monitor
the salary thresholds to ensure that they continue to reflect
the salaries available in the sector, and to maintain a flexible
immigration system to ensure the agricultural and horticultural
sector continue to have the necessary skilled labour to prosper.
The Recommended UK Shortage Occupation List for tier
2 of the PBS, issued by the MAC in September 2008, lists a single
agricultural and horticultural occupation, that of a skilled sheep
shearer. It is hoped that the MAC will regularly reassess the
shortage occupation list giving the opportunity to introduce or
remove shortage occupations as required. This will become more
important if tier 2 becomes more restrictive through the strengthening
of the resident labour market test, the raising of sponsorship
fees or in other ways.
4. Do you welcome the removal of the Working
Holiday Maker scheme and introduction, in its place, of the Youth
Mobility scheme under tier 5? Will this change still allow you
to recruit temporary student labour?
The design of the PBS tier 5 Youth Mobility
Scheme is similar to the previous Working Holiday Maker scheme
in terms of the age of those covered by the scheme and provisions
concerning their dependent relatives. However, the Working Holiday
Maker scheme was open to Commonwealth Citizens, British Dependent
Territories Citizens and British Overseas Citizens which was somewhat
wider that the present countries recognised by the tier 5 Youth
Mobility Scheme—only Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand.
This reduces the countries of origin of workers entering the UK
through the scheme.
The agricultural and horticultural sector used to
gain particular benefit from Working Holiday Makers from Australia,
New Zealand, and South Africa, so the exclusion of South Africans
from tier 5 Youth Mobility scheme is disappointing. The particular
value of Working Holiday Makers from these countries was in part
because their country of origin was in the southern hemisphere,
so that their seasons contrasted with those of the northern hemisphere.
This results in southern hemisphere skilled and semi-skilled workers
being available for seasonal work during the UK peak season, when
it is down season in their country of origin for the activity
in which they are skilled. In addition, the similar level of technology
made these workers invaluable. The consequence of this was that
Working Holiday Makers were frequently employed in skilled roles
harvesting combinable crops involving operating valuable and complex
combine and pea vine harvesters, sheep shearing and supervisory
roles in horticulture.
A further difference is that Working Holiday
Makers were allowed to come to the UK for up to two years, and
work for up to one year during that time, which may be contrasted
with the tier 5 Youth Mobility Scheme which is more generous and
allows a period of up to two years staying and working in the
UK. However, the proposal to have an annual allocation of places
on the Youth Mobility Scheme for each of the individual participating
countries appears unnecessarily restrictive in view of the Youth
Mobility Scheme only admitting participants to the UK for a maximum
visit of two years, during which time they are expected to be
able to support themselves without recourse to public funds.
In terms of recruiting temporary student labour,
this was largely through SAWS which used to recruit non-EU students
(in recent years from Eastern European countries such as the Ukraine,
Belarus and Moldova) prior to changing the entry criteria in 2007-2008
to Romanian and Bulgarian workers of any age and background. It
may be that some students used to come to the UK through the Working
Holidaymaker scheme, but for a student studying abroad to spend
up to 2 years in the UK would risk disruption of their studies
in their country of origin. For students wanting to study in the
UK tier 4 is the usual migration route and not tier 5. Consequently,
the NFU does not expect the agricultural and horticultural sector
to recruit large numbers of temporary student labour from tier
5.
5. Do you think it is realistic to expect
young people entering the UK under the Youth Mobility Scheme to
have £1,600 in savings, as stipulated by the Government?
The requirement for young people entering the
UK under the Youth Mobility Scheme to have £1,600 in savings
is unrealistic for young people generally, and even more unrealistic
for students. This figure should be reduced considerably. We would
suggest a better figure would be £500, as a figure higher
than this would be prohibitive to many young people from Australia,
Canada, Japan and New Zealand. If additional countries of origin
were included in the Youth Mobility Scheme it would appropriate
to review the savings threshold again to ensure that the scheme
is genuinely open to young people from of all the included countries.
February 2009
60 Bulgarian and Romanian Accession Statistics October-December
2008, UK Border Agency, 2009 at Annex A. Back
| 
