The future of Scottish agriculture post-Brexit Contents

5Agricultural Workforce

71.A substantial proportion of Scotland’s agricultural workforce is made up of non-UK nationals, with a particularly high dependence in some sectors, such as:

Horticulture: Up to 10,000 non-UK nationals are employed in seasonal positions in the soft fruit and vegetable sectors each year;
Veterinary: Over 80% of vets in approved meat establishments come from outside the UK;
Meat processing: 50% of staff in Scottish red meat processing are non-UK nationals;
Egg processing: non-UK nationals make up over 40% of temporary and permanent egg sorters and packers in the integrated egg industry, and
Dairy: 33% of permanent staff in the dairy sector are non-UK nationals.141

The majority of these workers come from Eastern European countries which joined the EU in 2004142 and 2008.143 Employers have told us that non-UK workers are essential to their operations, with a survey by Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) showing that nearly two-thirds of farmers would change their business model if they lost access to non-UK labourers.144

72.However, the number of EU workers in Scotland’s agricultural sector has been declining over the past three years, particularly for seasonal work. NFU Scotland have reported a 10–20% shortfall of workers in the soft fruit and vegetable sectors.145 According to SRUC this was linked to an improvement in workers home countries and a depreciation of Sterling which saw some workers’ take-home pay fall by 20%.146 Steven Thomson, a Senior Agricultural Economist at SRUC, told us this caused some farms to leave up to 30% of their crops in the ground last season.147 The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board have warned that Brexit risks exacerbating this, with the end of EU free movement making it even more difficult for farms to recruit new workers.148

73.The UK Government have acknowledged the importance of non-UK labour in “supporting a successful and effective agricultural sector” and have committed to ensuring a long-term strategy is in place to provide an efficient workforce to the food and farming sector post-Brexit.149 This strategy currently centres around two initiatives:

The introduction of a Seasonal Workers Pilot to ease shortages in the seasonal sector, and
The creation of a new immigration system post-Brexit.150

The rest of this Chapter will examine these proposals in more detail and explore if there are any alternatives to overseas workers.

Seasonal Workers Pilot

74.The Government announced in September 2018 that it would launch an agricultural seasonal workers pilot to “test the effectiveness of the immigration system at helping alleviate seasonal labour shortages during peak production periods.”151 The pilot launched in March 2019 and allows fruit and vegetable farms to employ up 2,500 non-EU workers for up to six months in 2019 and 2020.152 Two scheme operators—Concordia and Pro-Force—have been licenced to manage the pilot and are responsible for identifying suitable workers, helping them apply for their Tier 5 (temporary worker) visa and matching them to UK farms.153 The operators have chosen to recruit workers from Moldova, Ukraine and Russia, and will each be able to allocate 1,250 workers.154 The table below shows how these will initially be allocated across the UK.155

Location	Concordia (1,250)	Pro-Force (1,250)
England	824	962
Scotland	426	190
Northern Ireland	0	10
Wales	0	0

All our witnesses welcomed the decision to launch the pilot. However, those who have engaged with it since March, told us they had concerns regarding the scheme’s scope and as well as challenges with its operational delivery.

Size and scope of the scheme

75.Jonnie Hall, Director of Policy, NFU Scotland, told us the 2,500 quota “did not stack up”, and would struggle to meet Scotland’s labour demands let alone that of the entire UK agricultural sector.156 This scepticism was shared by John Kinnaird, National Council for Rural Advisers, who argued that the pilot was a short-term solution which would not fix Scotland’s long-term labour crisis:

I am not sure what has been proposed is a long-term solution […] I am not convinced it will deliver what it is trying to deliver and by the time we discover that, you will have the potential of fruit starting to rot in fields […] it is very much short-termism.157

These concerns were shared by the pilot operators themselves. Matthew Jarret, Managing Director, Pro-Force, told us that the pilot was unlikely to alleviate labour pressures during peak periods of the growing season in its current form.158 James Porter, Angus Growers argued that the solution was to increase the size of the pilot immediately to 10,000 workers a year. This he claimed would fill the current shortfall of EU workers and test the operator’s ability to manage a larger scheme.159 Pro-Force and Concordia said they would welcome this and were confident that they could fill a 10,000 quota if asked by the Government.160

76.The second issue concerned the scope of the pilot, with workers restricted to working in edible horticulture. SRUC and NFU Scotland queried why this was the case, with other sectors such as floral and meat processing also reliant on seasonal workers due to their labour-intensive nature.161 When we mentioned this to the operators, Pro-Force told us they had already raised this with the Government:

I have been pushing fairly hard in terms of horticulture. I touched on daffodils and I have had a number of growers in Scotland requesting our services for next year, as they have struggled with labour this year. That is not part of edible horticulture but its field-based and labour-intensive and absolutely should be included.162

77.When we pushed the Secretary of State on both issues, he acknowledged that there was opposition to the size and scope of the pilot but argued that the pilot aim was not to solve the labour shortages facing the sector but test how effective a seasonal scheme could be. He added that the pilot was also not the only source of labour available to the sector, with farms still able to recruit seasonal workers from the EU through freedom of movement.163 However, he said the Government would monitor the pilots’ process during the season and would be willing to make changes if needed.164

78.We welcome the Government’s decision to launch a Seasonal Workers Pilot Scheme, however there is overwhelming evidence that 2,500 workers will be insufficient to meet the demands of the agricultural sector in Scotland, let alone the rest of the UK. We recommend that the Government increase the size of the pilot to 10,000 workers next year. We also recommend that its scope be broadened to cover other sectors reliant on seasonal workers such as floral and meat processing.

79.It is clear to us that a permanent Seasonal Workers Scheme is needed to meet the demand for seasonal agricultural workers post-2020. We therefore recommend that the Government commit to running a version of the scheme on a permanent basis.

Operational challenges

80.When we explored the pilot in more detail we learnt that over 300 workers had failed to arrive in the UK on schedule due to a back-log of visa applications.165 Pro-Force and Concordia told us this was partly due to workers finding it difficult to book appointments at the UK Visa Application Centres (VACs) in Moldova and Ukraine to apply for their Tier 5 visa, with some applications taking over 30 days to process.166 We were told that this was due to a lack of VAC appointments.167

81.To apply for a Tier 5 visa, workers in Moldova and Ukraine have to book an appointment at the UK VACs in Kiev and Chisinau before their visas can be sent to the UK for processing. This is managed by TLS, a commercial third party. Stephanie Maurel, Chief Executive, Concordia, told us that the VAC in Chisinau was only open two days a week, with applicants booking on the second day facing additional cost, and was experiencing a 2-week waiting period for appointments. In Kiev meanwhile, there was a 4–5 week waiting period.168 When we asked the operators what support they had received from the Government, Matthew Jarrett said it was limited:

They are supportive and understanding, but we are not able to make any real movement forward. Our biggest issue is that if we don’t get people on the ground quickly, we could miss the season.169

Stephanie Maurel said this was not directly an issue caused by the Home Office, but an inevitability when over 2,000 people are processed through two visa offices.170

82.Following these concerns, we wrote to The Rt Hon Caroline Nokes MP, Minister of State for Immigration, to request an update on the Government’s response. The Minister said TLS had been in-touch with the operators and had offered to provide extra appointments in the relevant VACs and additional “bespoke” support through a “mobile visa service”, which would allow groups of workers to be processed together in one location.171 Since this intervention, Concordia told us workers were finding it quicker and easier to book appointments, particularly in Kiev where appointments can now be scheduled within five days.172 However, Concordia said there was less progress in Chisinau, where workers were being charged a minimum of €50 to book an appointment, with additional costs for extra services, such as group bookings, bookings on the second day of the week and different times of the day.173 Stephanie Maurel said this had created a recruitment problem in Moldova with the “excessive” fees being a deterrent for workers:

We are asking people who are students, who are trying to pay their termly fees and who are coming over here to earn a minimum wage, to pay out quite a lot of money to come over […] If you are paying £244 for a visa [you are then] almost doubling that with the extra fees for your appointment and getting your passport sent to you-we can’t ask that of people.174

As a result of these delays, Concordia told us they had moved over 150 requests for seasonal workers from Moldova to the Ukraine and Russia.175

83.Both Concordia and Pro-Force said additional application fees was a matter which needed to be addressed if the Government wished to maintain a competitive scheme. Matthew Jarrett warned that the UK risked pricing itself out of the market for workers, with similar schemes in other EU countries such as Germany not charging any fees on their workers.176 Stephanie Maurel shared this concern:

Every worker accepts that they need to pay the £244 visa application cost, however the other surrounding fees are pricing many workers out of the market. We want to ensure we get the best and most motivated workers coming to the UK, not those who can afford to pay the visa processing costs.177

When we raised this issue with the Secretary of State, he said that the Government would look at what could be done to ensure the scheme “works as effectively as possible”.178

84.We welcome the additional support the UK Government has made available to the pilot scheme following our intervention. However, we are concerned that there remain difficulties in processing workers in Ukraine and Moldova to allow them to reach farms on time. This has not been helped by the additional costs expected of workers to book a visa interview on-top of the £244 visa fee, which could deter student workers. This is substantially more than comparative schemes in Europe and risks pricing the UK out of the market for agricultural workers. If the Government wants the best and most motivated workers, not just those who can afford to pay, we recommend it abolish visa interview fees and review the cost of Tier 5 visas, to ensure the pilot remains competitive internationally.

Perceptions of Scottish Agriculture

85.In addition to concerns about cost, Concordia and Pro-Force also told us they had heard anecdotal evidence about difficulties in attracting workers to Scotland due to some overseas workers having negative perceptions of what it was like to work in the Scottish agriculture sector.179

86.After that evidence session Concordia spoke to their recruitment agents to get more information about these concerns and wrote to us explaining that there were four main issues that potential workers raised about coming to work in Scotland:

Cost: Flights to Scotland are more expensive than to most English airports, with most Eastern European airports not having direct flights to Scotland. There is also very limited bus access from Eastern Europe to Scotland.
Distance: Many workers ask for a farm near London as they wish to be in close proximity to the capital. There was also a perception that Scottish farms are more remote than in England.
Weather: The belief that Scotland is “wetter and colder” than the rest of the UK, which has an impact on crops and this the hours worked. As a result, some workers felt they will earn less money in Scotland.
Accommodation: Some workers said they had heard that the accommodation in Scotland was not as well kept as in the rest of the UK.180

Concordia added that most concerns were based on “erroneous perceptions” provided by friends and family, adding that most workers who have spent a season working in Scotland are generally content to return.181 Pro-Force and Concordia told us that they are trying to tackle these misconceptions by creating educational videos and leaflets about the benefits of living and working in Scotland.182

87.We were disappointed to hear that some foreign workers have expressed a reluctance to work in Scotland’s seasonal agricultural sector, based on preconceptions that we do not recognise. While it appears that many concerns are based on misconceptions, it is important that these are addressed to ensure that Scottish farms continue to attract the best workers. We welcome the work that Concordia and Pro-Force are already doing on these issues and recommend that the UK and Scottish Government work together to identify ways to address the concerns raised by Pro-Force and Concordia.

Future immigration framework

88.The Seasonal Workers’ Pilot only addresses temporary workers in a small part of the agricultural sector. In December 2018, the Government published its plans for a post-Brexit immigration system for both EU and non-EU nationals, which all parts of the agricultural sector not covered by the Seasonal Workers Pilot will have to use to meet its non-UK labour needs. This does not include a specific low-skilled immigration route to the UK. Instead, the Government proposes lowering the current Tier 2 visa for skilled workers to include those at an intermediate skills level. In addition, a transitional scheme will run until 2025, which will provide a time-limited route for lower skilled short-term workers.183 Both proposals are subject to a year’s consultation.184

Skilled route

89.Tier 2 visas are currently used for skilled workers and inter-company transfers and require employees to meet minimum skill and salary requirements. Since April 2017 Tier 2 applicants have needed to be qualified to graduate level and earn at least £30,000.185 Under the Government’s new proposals, the skills threshold for a Tier 2 visa would be lowered to incorporate more intermediate skilled roles, while the salary threshold would remain at £30,000.186

90.Most roles in the agricultural sector are met through EU freedom of movement and do not meet the proposed Tier 2 criteria for skilled workers. Some witnesses were concerned that a £30,000 cap would prevent non-UK workers from being recruited into support roles within the agricultural sector such as veterinarians, whose typical salary is in the mid £20,000s. Kate Rowell, Quality Meat Scotland, said the meat processing sector would be put under extreme pressure if abattoirs could not hire EU vets.187 This view was echoed by the British Veterinary Association, who warned that if vets were not exempt from the £30,000 threshold it could lead to a “near-total wipe-out of veterinary surgeons” in critical public health roles in UK slaughterhouses.188 John Kinnaird, National Council for Rural Advisers, said this would have a “devastating” impact on the agricultural sector.189

91.To adapt to the needs of the agricultural sector, Professor Julie Fitzpatrick called on the Government to create a more sophisticated way to make judgements on workers’ skills rather than focusing purely on “arbitrary salary figures” or whether a role requires a degree.190 We made a similar argument in our Report on Immigration and Scotland.191

92.When we raised this with the Secretary of State, he told us that the £30,000 cap was based on recommendations from the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) and was under consultation.192 However, he said he had raised with the Home Office the need for there to be a more flexible “sector-specific” approach to immigration which reflected the unique needs of the agricultural sector:

I think that this Committee would accept, as I do, that you need to take a more sector-specific approach. You can have people who are working in the meat trade who are skilled butchers who will be earning less than [£30,000]. You can have some people who are official veterinarians, who are critical for making sure that animal health is upheld, who might be earning less than that […] We do need to take account of that and I have made that point.193

According to media reports the Home Secretary has urged the MAC to “come up with fresh evidence justifying the proposals.”194

93.We welcome the Secretary of State’s assurance that the Government will consider the sectoral needs of Scottish agriculture in its future immigration policy, but this is not reflected by the proposed £30,000 salary cap for skilled workers. This will have a detrimental impact on supporting professions like the veterinary sector which are reliant on non-UK workers. We recommend that the £30,000 salary cap be removed and welcome the fact the Government appears to be asking the Migration Advisory Committee to revisit this issue.

Transitional measures

94.While the Government’s long-term ambition is to have no dedicated migration route for low skilled and unskilled workers, it has recognised that sectors such as agriculture will find it difficult to immediately adapt to the changing circumstances and will require additional support.195 It has therefore proposed a transitional low-skilled route for overseas workers. This would allow workers to enter the UK for 12 months after which they would have to return home for a 12-month “cooling off period”. This will only be open to specified low risk nationalities and all entrants will pay a fee. It will be kept under review until 2025 to ensure it is meeting the UK’s economy needs and the Government have said it intends to engage extensively with businesses and stakeholders to help them transition away from low skilled non-UK workers during this period.196

95.This transitional measure was strongly criticised by the Royal Society of Edinburgh, who argued that while a 12-month visa may help to address worker shortages in the near term, they are unlikely to be a sustainable solution to labour shortages in the agricultural sector.197 This they argued is because the short duration of the visas may deter potential applicants from applying for roles in the UK and with the 12-month cooling period, damage sectors that rely on returnee workers.198 James Porter told us the proposal would also increase employers overheads, with farms having to hire different personnel each year, “needlessly” increasing costs:

If you put in a bit of effort and get somebody trained up in these jobs only then to have to tell them, “You have to clear off for 12 months”. That doesn’t fit any model that any business would seriously look at. You really need to kick that into touch straightaway.199

Archie Gibson, Agrico UK, agreed with James Porter, but argued the Government could address these concerns by making the system more flexible and reflecting the timeframe that business operate on. By increasing the length of stay to 18 months, he argued more businesses could justify the investment.200

96.The proposal of a temporary 12-month visa for low skilled workers will likely only increase training and recruitment costs for businesses and prevent them from relying on returnee workers. We recommend that the Government remove the cooling off period for temporary workers, at least for the broader agricultural sectors, and consult on how businesses can best be supported in reducing their dependency on overseas workers.

Alternatives to non-UK workers

97.As the sector tries to adapt to a future without low-skilled overseas workers, the Government’s immigration proposals suggest a greater emphasis on mechanising the industry.201 This was highlighted by the Migration Advisory Committee in its report on EEA migration into the UK, which argued that sector was becoming too reliant on migrant labour and needed to become more productive through investment in innovation.202

98.However, a lot of our witnesses were pessimistic about automation replacing the sectors reliance on migrant workers, arguing that it is a long-term solution and cannot be considered a like-for-like substitute. James Porter said this was the case with the soft fruit sector, with technology not yet at the level to replace the need for workers:

In soft fruit, it is not a realistic proposition […] If you look at this new raspberry harvester they are trailing. It can pick up the berries that it can see on the canes as it goes up, but somebody has to walk behind with a trolley and pick off all the ones that are hidden by leaves. They have to walk exactly the same ground as they would have before, so the solution is miles away […] I do not see it ever replacing people picking fruit.203

Jonnie Hall, NFU Scotland, went further saying while automation could ease labour pressures in certain areas, it could never fully replace the expertise of an agricultural worker. Instead he said automatisaion should help workers become more efficient not seek to replace them.204

99.The Secretary of State was more optimistic about the role automation could play in reducing overseas labour dependency, however he agreed that it would not remove the need altogether:

It is certainly the case that in the future technology, automation, artificial intelligence and so on can potentially reduce the need for labour in some sectors, but again it is a matter of making sure that we invest in that technology but also recognising that there are different tasks that are more easily performed.205

100.Automation and technology can help reduce Scotland’s reliance on non-UK workers in the future and help make the agricultural sector more productive, but this is not the silver bullet to solve the labour shortages facing the sector and there will still be a need for additional agricultural labour in Scotland for the foreseeable future. In the next chapter we will explore how investment in automation could improve the sectors productivity and make new innovations more accessible to farming communities.

141 FSA003 and NFU Scotland, Change: Why people matter to Scottish farming and food, 2018

142 8 countries joined the EU in 2004: Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.

143 2 countries joined the EU in 2008: Bulgaria and Romania.

144 Scotland’s Rural College, Farm workers in Scottish agriculture: Case studies in the international seasonal migrant labour market, 2018

145 NFU Scotland, Seasonal Workers Survey Identifies Labour Shortage Fears, 2018

151 Defra, Seasonal Workers Pilot opens, 2019

152 Defra, Seasonal workers pilot opens, 2019