logo
Government exploring making farms and supermarkets pay to bring foreign farm workers to the UK

Government exploring making farms and supermarkets pay to bring foreign farm workers to the UK

Independent04-06-2025
British farms and supermarkets could tackle the exploitation of fruit and vegetable pickers by paying their travel and visa costs, according to a government-commissioned report.
The report, undertaken for the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), follows growing allegations of mistreatment of migrant workers on the seasonal worker visa, including a legal challenge brought by an Indonesian fruit picker against the UK government for human rights breaches.
Tens of thousands of workers come to the UK every year on a six-month visa from as far as Chile and the Philippines, and some accrue thousands of pounds of debt before they arrive, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation.
The potential policy runs counter to tough new immigration rules announced by Sir Keir Starmer that make it harder for workers and students to come to Britain. But it would bring the UK closer in line with other countries, such as the United States, where employers are required to bear the costs of workers' recruitment and travel.
Currently, a handful of operators are licensed by the Home Office to recruit farm labourers and can issue a certificate of sponsorship that can be used to secure a seasonal worker visa from the Home Office. But the workers are left to pay for it and for the cost of travel to the UK.
Commissioned by Defra the study into the 'Employer Pays Principle', seen by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Independent, proposes four alternative options to government, which would see recruiters, farms, retailers and consumers bear the costs instead.
In response to this story, a Defra spokesperson said the government 'has no plans to impose the Employer Pays Principle for seasonal workers', but The Independent understands the government will review the study and consider learnings alongside industry partners.
In the first proposed model, recruiters would have to cover the costs upfront and would then charge farms higher fees for the service. In the second option, recruiters would still cover the costs, but they could then apply to a government or industry fund to be reimbursed. In the third, the worker would cover their costs, but then be reimbursed on arrival to the UK. In the fourth, the costs covered by the recruiters would be passed on in full down the supply chain, via farms and supermarkets, to consumers.
The study, written by consultancy Alma Economics, estimates a range of £850-£1,500 that would be paid by employers for each worker on the seasonal workers' scheme.
It also estimates fruit and vegetable growers will face the highest financial cost from options one and three. The first model could result in 70 out of 827 farms experiencing losses, compared to 43 in the second proposal, 57 for option three, and zero for the final scheme.
Consumers would pay between one and three pence per week more for fruit and vegetables picked under the scheme, the research estimates. Making the employer pay for the recruitment would cost £43.1m in total and eliminate debt for 18,200 workers.
The research cites a report which said 70 per cent of workers on the scheme had accrued debt to come to the UK.
One seasonal farm worker, Elize*, has been travelling from South Africa to work on British farms for several years. She has often had to borrow nearly £2,000 from acquaintances to cover her travel and visa costs, at times being charged interest rates of around 20 per cent.
She says not having to pay travel and visa costs would help her get out of a cycle of having to choose between taking on high-interest loans or barely eating throughout the year in order to save enough to afford flights to the UK.
The report, which consulted supermarkets, farmers and recruiters, said that stakeholders supported making operators cover the costs and then pass them down the supply chain.
While the study said farmers were reliant on the seasonal worker scheme because they believed 'UK workers often lack the skills and motivation' needed to pick fruit and vegetables, they largely opposed overseas workers having their recruitment costs covered.
Many worried it would threaten 'worker commitment', since the current system provides 'strong incentives to work hard' to clear debts.
However, most retailers were in favour of introducing the employer pays principle, as were some scheme operators, the report said.
Meanwhile, worker representative bodies and human rights organisations welcomed the proposals but thought wider reforms were needed to ensure it improved worker welfare.
Eleanor Lyons, the government's independent anti-slavery commissioner, called on the government to act and highlighted the increased vulnerability of these workers.
'This has an incredibly detrimental impact on the victims who can be forced to work excessive hours, trapped in debt bondage, and in incredibly challenging conditions,' she said. 'The government needs to act now to provide more protection for seasonal workers; the risks to them are clear and there must be more safeguards.'
A National Farmers Union spokesperson said: 'The NFU is aware that Defra is conducting a study modelling the economic impacts of the Employer Pays Principle. This is part of a larger agriculture sector-wide ongoing discussion on enhancements to seasonal worker welfare in the UK. Seasonal workers are of the utmost importance to the production of UK food, fruit and vegetables in particular.
'We look forward to the publication of the review so we can assess the detail in full.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's bold prediction about Zelensky-less Ukraine peace summit with Putin: ‘I'll know in the first two minutes'
Trump's bold prediction about Zelensky-less Ukraine peace summit with Putin: ‘I'll know in the first two minutes'

The Independent

time19 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Trump's bold prediction about Zelensky-less Ukraine peace summit with Putin: ‘I'll know in the first two minutes'

Donald Trump claimed that he would know 'in the first two minutes' of his upcoming meeting with Vladimir Putin if a peace deal could be reached between Russia and Ukraine. 'We're going to have a meeting with Vladimir Putin, and at the end of that meeting, probably in the first two minutes, I'll know exactly whether or not a deal can be made,' the president told reporters at a press conference Monday. Asked how he would know, the president replied: 'Because that's what I do. I make deals.' However, Trump later appeared to contradict himself, after saying that it was 'not up to him' if a deal was made or not. 'I'm not going to make a deal. It's not up to me to make a deal. I think a deal should be made for both,' he said. The president is set to meet with the Russian president Friday in Alaska for the 'highly anticipated' meeting, during which the pair will discuss bringing an end to the conflict that has raged since the invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces in February 2022. Trump briefly appeared to forget the location of the meeting, telling reporters at the press conference that he would be travelling to Russia for the meeting, instead of The Last Frontier. He added that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky 'could' attend the bilateral, but also appeared to question if it would help a deal be reached. 'He wasn't a part of it,' Trump said, speaking about the setting up of the talks. 'I would say he could go, but he's been to a lot of meetings. You know, he's been there for three and a half years. Nothing happened.' He added that, should a 'fair' deal be reached, he would inform the European Union as well as Zelensky, who he would call first 'out of respect.' 'And I may say, 'lots of luck, keep fighting.' Or I may say 'we can make a deal,' he said. Either way, Trump said that a meeting between Putin and Zelensky would be necessary in the future. 'Ultimately, I'm going to put the two of them in a room. I'll be there, or I won't be there, and I think it'll get solved.' Friday's meeting will be the first between a U.S. president and Putin since 2021, when Joe Biden met him in Switzerland, and marks the first time the Russian president has set foot on American soil in a decade. His visit is due to go ahead as planned, despite the fact that he faces an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court. Critics have also noted that Alaska was once owned by Russia, who claimed it during the 1770s and sold it back to the U.S. in 1867. Russian traditionalists have long-since demanded the return of the territory.

Chat show host blasts Trump as he explains why he got Italian citizenship
Chat show host blasts Trump as he explains why he got Italian citizenship

The Independent

time19 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Chat show host blasts Trump as he explains why he got Italian citizenship

Talk show host Jimmy Kimmel has revealed he obtained Italian citizenship, expressing his dismay over Donald Trump 's potential second term in office. Kimmel, a long-standing critic of Donald Trump, shared this information on Sarah Silverman 's podcast, noting that many Americans disapproving of Trump are seeking citizenship elsewhere. He stated that he welcomes those who change their minds about supporting Donald Trump, emphasising the difficulty of admitting one was wrong. This comes after popular podcaster Joe Rogan, who previously endorsed Donald Trump, recently criticised the president's deportation policies, particularly concerning non-criminals. Donald Trump has reiterated his claim that Kimmel, along with Jimmy Fallon, will soon lose their jobs, suggesting that anti-Trump comedy is failing.

What will happen to people arrested on Palestine Action demonstration?
What will happen to people arrested on Palestine Action demonstration?

The Guardian

time20 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

What will happen to people arrested on Palestine Action demonstration?

The consequences of being arrested for expressing support for Palestine Action could be 'life-changing', one of those detained during Saturday's protests, Sir Jonathon Porritt, has admitted. While the former government adviser said that he had carefully deliberated over a decision to take part, the road ahead for the more than 500 people arrested on Saturday involves possible criminal charges, court cases and convictions. Ultimately, custodial sentences of as much as 14 years could be imposed. Those whose details could be confirmed were released on bail to appear at a police station at a future date. The police will be sending case files to the Crown Prosecution Service, as it has already done in the case of at least 26 others who were arrested at previous protests in support of Palestine Action. All those arrested have now been released under police bail, with the main condition being not to attend any future demonstrations aiming to overwhelm the criminal justice system in protest at the proscription of Palestine Action by the British government. They will be asked how they plead and if it is not guilty they can elect for a trial before a magistrate or, more likely, a district judge. The majority of the 522 people arrested in Parliament Square – in most cases after displaying pieces of cardboard saying 'I opposed genocide, I support Palestine Action' – were detained under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 'lower level' part of the act, which means those who are charged will be tried in a magistrates court rather than a crown court. Some have been charged under the more serious section 12, which means they could seek to have their case heard in front of a jury of their peers at a crown court. The prosecution could also seek to have the trial heard there. Defend Our Juries, the organising group behind the protest, has said it won't be recommending what people do, as they have already participated 'at huge personal cost' but it will be 'providing the information'. There is a scenario in which court trials do not happen, if the co-founder of Palestine Action is successful in a legal challenge against the home secretary's decision to ban the group under anti-terrorism laws. Given that most those arrested on Saturday will be investigated under section 13 of the terrorism act, they could well walk free from court. They face a maximum sentence of six months' imprisonment or a fine of up to £5,000 or both, while magistrates will also take into account factors such as good character. More than half of those arrested on Saturday were also aged 60 or over. Those arrested under the more serious section 12 of the Terrorism Act face a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison if convicted. However, such individuals could end up being tried before a jury in a crown court. In recent cases under section 13, people charged with supporting Hamas, including displaying pictures of hang gliders such as those used in the 7 October 2023 attack on Israel, were given absolute or conditional discharges. Will a jury drawn from their peers be more likely to sympathise with those arrested on Saturday? Those involved in organising the protest are confident that the British public is on the same page as them. The impact of such a conviction would be felt in everything from employment to travel. Many of those arrested are retired and, while they do not have a job to lose, the possibility of being unable to get a visa to go abroad might weigh. However, the consequences are starker for others arrested on Saturday including health workers and doctors. There was an organised 'health block' of 13 medical professionals – including an obstetrician and gynaecologist, three other working doctors, a number of nurses, and retired doctors. Alice Clack, a senior obstetrician and gynaecologist in the NHS, said: 'If doctors are charged with a crime we have to self-report to the GMC [General Medical Council], who then have a look at the crime in question and decide whether to refer it to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. 'Then, someone could expect to be suspended or they could be erased from the register. That is the possibility.' As for seeking future employment, recent legislation largely reduced the period of time during which those convicted of most crimes must declare a conviction. However, while it reduced the period of time during which an individual must declare a conviction, it does not apply to terrorist offences – which never become spent.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store