Seasonal migrant workers in Scottish agriculture: research report

Appendix H: Evidence Review Findings

Employer and worker motivations for seasonal migrant work in Scottish agriculture

Reliance on migrant workers in Scotland

The Scottish agricultural sector, in particular horticulture (fruit and vegetable production) and the potato sector, has a high dependency on migrant workers at all stages of the production process, including sowing, planting, weeding, picking, grading, processing, and packing. Many of these tasks do not have a viable mechanical alternative, and the availability and capability of local people is limited (Thomson and McMorran 2019, NFU 2020, Barbulescu and Vargas-Silva 2020).

This reliance on casual and temporary employees began to develop several decades ago. Agricultural intensification drove down wages, employers struggled to recruit labour locally, and migrant labour was increasingly available due to countries accessing the EU (Findlay et al. 2010, Nye and Lobley 2021). Furthermore, the UK permitted citizens from certain countries unrestricted access to its labour market (Findlay and McCollum 2013).

According to Consterdine and Samuk (2015), employers prefer migrant workers, due to the perceived superior work ethic of migrants in contrast to British workers. Employers see migrants as more tolerant of undesirable employment conditions than domestic labourers. Research on employers' attitudes found that they see migrant workers as holding a superior work ethic – putting significant effort into their job and monitoring their own performance without the need for continual employer surveillance (Ruhs and Anderson 2010). The higher tolerance of poor working conditions has been linked to the perceived temporality of the situation (Flynn and Kay 2017). Less explicit reasons for employers valuing migrant workers could relate to wider studies of UK employers found to value migrant workers as 'good workers' and less demanding than our domestic workforce (MacKenzie and Forde 2009). In turn, this could be linked to a lack of knowledge of workers' rights and insufficient understanding of English (FLEX and FMF 2021).

Employers in the UK have found it difficult to source domestic labour to take up seasonal employment on farms (Findlay et al. 2010). In 2020, despite the widely publicised Pick for Britain campaign, UK residents made up only 11% of the workforce (NFU 2020). Domestic recruitment in 2021 was at 5% for Scotland (NFUS 2021). Part of this is related to rules associated with unemployment support which makes it unattractive for locals to take up seasonal employment. Therefore, migrant workers are filling roles not taken up by the national workforce. This makes the case of seasonal migrant labour in agriculture distinct from other sectors in that it has a 'complementary' nature (rather than 'substitutional' as in other sectors that rely on migrant labour) (Findlay et al. 2010).

Motivations of seasonal workers

According to Thomson (2018a), key motivations for foreign workers choosing to work on Scottish farms were:

1. Earnings potential linked to enhanced quality of life and goals;

2. Conditions of work relative to home countries; and

3. Familiarity, recommendations and farm reputation.

This is confirmed in more qualitative studies that mention employment, and a combination of aspirations for the future linked to emotional considerations and a sense of security (Flynn and Kay 2017). Motivations for migration are similar across sectors with employment and associated income the dominating factor, and further factors reflecting a variety of individual circumstances such as learning English, family reunification, connections in the area, gaining work experience and positive past experiences (Jentsch et al. 2007).

Given the important role of employment and income as motivation for migrant workers, it is clear that the level of wages in the home country plays an important role. Although minimum wages for example in Bulgaria and Romania have increased over the last decade, they are still below Scottish wages and thus continue to represent a strong incentive. However, a reduced take-home wage will reduce the attractiveness for workers to come to Scotland. The take-home wage reduces in line with a poorer exchange rate for the British Pound, meaning that the effective take-home wage for Eastern Europeans working in the UK has fallen since 2015 (Thomson 2018a, Thomson and McMorran 2019). There is also less need for workers to migrate to the UK as employment rates continue to rise in their home countries.

Number and demographic qualities of agricultural seasonal migrant workers in Scotland

The demographics of seasonal migrant workers are changing, mainly in response to socio-economic conditions in both the home and the host country. A general trend for seasonal migrant workers in Scotland is that workers are becoming older, there are fewer students and fewer returnees. According to Thomson (2018a), in 2017 about 60% of Scotland's seasonal migrant workers came from Bulgaria and Romania, and a further 18% from Poland.^[15]

Seasonal migrant workers play a key role in the soft fruit sector on the east coast and are on average employed for about four months per year. The total duration of their stay may vary between less than two months and more than six months during a season, and a proportion of workers are also highly mobile, working on different farms and regions.

The changing geographical focus reflects the level of attractiveness of working in Scotland, rules and requirements attached to temporary migration schemes (currently the UK Seasonal Workers Pilot) and the economic situation in the home country. Overall, Scotland and the UK have become less attractive to other European countries since the UK's withdrawal from the EU. This is due to visas being required that are costly and time-consuming to arrange, and other costs associated with arranging and traveling to work in Scotland having an off-putting effect (Thomson et al. 2018; Thomson and McMorran, 2019; FLEX and FMF 2021; Kyambi et al. 2018; NFUS 2021). However, EU Exit as such is only a contributory factor and not the main reason for worker shortages.

These factors result in fewer workers coming to Scotland, and that cohort being characterised by different demographics and skills. The workers tend to be older, and fewer of them are students. These factors are associated with a poorer level of English (Thomson 2018a). Workers now have a higher need for support but are less able to secure it themselves. Employers have also seen fewer returnees (about half of the workforce were returnees in 2017, Thomson 2018a). Whilst previously workers developed skills over multiple seasons if the employers were able to retain good seasonal employees year after year, the drop in returnees means that the skills level overall reduces (NFUS 2021).

Employer and worker experience of temporary migration schemes

Temporary migration programmes are a longstanding policy instrument to address labour shortages, with the host state, the sending state, and the migrants all seen to benefit (Consterdine and Samuk, 2015, 2018). However, the aims of those involved do not necessarily align. For example, national migration policies may aim to address rural depopulation and the viability of public and private services in rural communities.

Concurrently, migrants themselves have a different, continuously evolving agenda that drives their decisions to be mobile or settled and allows them to negotiate their identities and sense of belonging (de Lima 2012). In addition, it can be questioned whether such programmes are indeed justified, given examples where a temporary measure to fill labour shortages evolved into large-scale immigration settlement (for example in Germany and the US) (Consterdine and Samuk, 2015). Some have even argued that labour 'shortages are socially, economically, culturally and politically constructed and that they need not exist' (Geddes and Scott, 2010, 211).

Both academia and policy have criticised temporary migration programmes for tying workers to employers in rigid ways and falling short of integration measures (Consterdine and Samuk, 2015). Indeed, recent proposals for a UK programme were criticised for lacking elements that are recognised as best practice for circular migration (Zubairi et al. 2020, report commissioned by Scottish Government).

Elements that are recognised as best practice include ensuring protections for migrant workers' rights, as well as provision of requirements of pastoral support and duty of care towards migrant workers. Best practice also refers to closer governmental relations between sending and host countries to coordinate migration and reintegration of workers to their home country (ibid., 77ff).

These issues also apply to sectoral programmes such as the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme (SAWS) and the Seasonal Workers Pilot (SWP). Investigation of the working conditions and lived experiences of migrant workers is relevant in the broader context of how migrants to Scotland and the UK are treated. There are concerns about human trafficking and that 'human rights of newcomers to the country' are not being upheld (Petkevica 2021, FLEX and FMF 2021). The central issues revolve around fair recruitment and fair treatment of workers.^[16]

What Jentsch (2007) stated for migrant workers across sectors in both rural and urban areas, is still likely to apply today. Policies that attempt to deal with seasonal migrant workers in agriculture need to be flexible, to take account of diverse migration regimes across Europe. Jentsch claimed '"Best practices" cannot simply be transferred from one context to another: one size does not fit all.' Consterdine and Samuk (2018) emphasised that simply the absence of a temporary migration programme will not alleviate migrant exploitation, and that a socially just approach to migrant workers (and associated schemes) needs to be built around migrant agency.

Issues around working permits for migrant workers continue to play an important role. These permits determine who can come to and work in Scotland, for how long, what conditions must be met, what dependencies are established and what (transaction) costs arise.

Working permit rules are framed by temporary migration schemes, also referred to as seasonal workers' schemes. These schemes combine differing objectives of labour law and immigration policy which leads to tensions between ensuring workers' rights and avoiding seasonal migrant workers remaining in the country permanently (Zubairi et al., 2020). This tension is not a problem unique to the UK, but also emerged at European level. Legal and political interests clashed in the EUs Seasonal Workers Directive, when immigration control and labour rights are incompatible (Fudge and Herzfeld Olsson 2014).

The UK's Seasonal Agricultural Worker Scheme was introduced in 1943 and has been adjusted to the sector's demands over the years (Consterdine and Samuk 2015). Workers from non-EU countries (Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria) made up a large share in the early 2000s. Thomson (2018b) explains the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme was restricted to workers from non-EU countries from 2008 and was 'eventually scrapped in 2013 as post-accession worker restrictions on Bulgarian and Romanians came to an end' (Thomson 2018b). Before the closure of the scheme, Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme had reached a quota of 21,250, representing a fourfold increase from the original quota in 1990 (Consterdine and Samuk 2018). There is evidence that suggests changes in specific rules of the scheme influenced the distribution of workers' home countries and numbers of migrant workers (Consterdine and Samuk 2015; Scott 2015; Findlay and McCollum 2013).

After the closure of Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme and prior to a new scheme being introduced, there were years with worker shortages and without. In their submission to the DEFRA inquiry into labour constraints in the agricultural sector, the National Farmers Union highlighted a shortfall in migrant labour to the UK overall. Although no shortages were reported for 2016, labour providers recruited over 4,000 fewer workers than needed in 2017 (Zubairi et al. 2020). This is mirrored in a National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS) survey where almost half of the respondents (31 in total) had difficulty harvesting in 2017 due to labour shortages.

A new scheme was announced in 2018, in response to concerns raised by farmers about possible labour shortages. The Seasonal Workers Pilot (SWP) introduced in 2019 allowed the recruitment of up to 2,500 temporary migrants to seasonal roles in the horticultural sector. This quota was increased to 10,000 in 2020 (FLEX and FMF 2021).

Criticism of seasonal worker schemes

The Seasonal Workers Pilot quota was expanded to 30,000 in 2021 from 10,000 in 2020 (Defra and Home Office 2021). This expansion allowed workers to enter the UK on a Seasonal Workers Visa (SWV), a Tier 5 sponsored visa. Scheme pilots have been criticised for several reasons. These include insufficient quotas allowed lack of flexibility to account for a highly mobile workforce and return rules (Thomson 2018c). Zubairi et al. (2020) commented on the 'clunky visa processing system' that resulted in delays for workers coming into the country.

When assessing the adequacy of the various iterations of migrant worker schemes, the total number of workers required needs to be kept in mind: An estimated 70,000 to 80,000 migrant workers are engaged in UK agriculture (House of Commons 2017), with an estimated 9,250 seasonal migrant workers used on Scottish farms in 2017 (Thomson 2018a). These figures indicate that a quota of 30,000 is not sufficient to meet the needs of the agricultural sector in the UK. Farming organisations point to the risk of unharvested crops and lost business revenue due to worker shortfall. For example, in September 2021, the NFUS emphasised a shortage of both permanent and seasonal workers with impacts on farmers as well as the food and drink industry (See, NFU Scotland pressures Government on labour crisis, Food Manufacture 2021). Notably, the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme had an annual quota ranging from 16,250 to 25,000 between 2004 and 2012, with only 82% of the highest quota (in 2004) being used (Consterdine and Samuk, 2015, 5). Recent figures from the Feeding the Nation project found that labour shortage issues continue across the UK in 2021:

• 8 in 10 UK farmers had difficulties employing and retaining seasonal workers in 2021, compared with 2020,
• 16% had shortages of over 20% of their required need,
• 5 in 10 found it "fairly difficult" or "very difficult" to navigate new immigration system,
• 6 in 10 farms recruited the same number of British workers in 2021 as in 2018.

Further criticism of the Seasonal Workers Pilot related to the stay of workers limited to 6 months per year, which could undermine the ambitions of those workers who want to stay longer (26% of workers in Scotland surveyed by Thomson 2018a stayed more than 6 months in a given season). Other businesses need labour at multiple times of the year for short periods of time, which again does not fit well with a set 6-month period. NFUS (2021) assessed the 6-month 'cooling off' period between visas as too long. The Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme preferred new candidates each season (Thomson 2018c); a setup which can be seen to undermine the benefit that returnees bring to businesses. The NFUS has requested a more permanent solution to the issue: the organisation called for a review of the Seasonal Workers Pilot and to replace it with an improved permanent scheme (see, Farming's labour shortage plea, The Scotsman 2021). This should take into consideration the needs of both farm businesses and seasonal migrant workers, to secure a workforce for the long term (NFUS, 2021, Nye and Lobley, 2021).

Such a permanent scheme would frame the issue not simply as seasonal migration of a new set of agricultural workers every year, but as one of circular migration. This would explicitly recognise the benefits that returnees bring. It would need to address interrelated problems in the following areas:

• Insufficient protection of workers' rights; including tying workers to employers in rigid ways (Consterdine and Samuk 2015), linked to visas and transfers, and improving the clarity on contracts (NFUS 2021)
• Right type of recruitment (better connecting farm businesses to prospective employees) and measures to increase the returnee rate (NFUS 2021)
• Insufficient integration measures (Consterdine and Samuk 2015), support and pastoral care (Zubairi et al. 2020)
• Closer relations between sending and host countries to coordinate migration and reintegration of workers to their home country (Zubairi et al. 2020).

International examples

Comparative international examples of temporary worker schemes have been reviewed extensively in a recent report for Scottish Government (Zubairi et al. 2020). This covered both agricultural and non-agricultural migrant worker schemes and found migrant labour to be most concentrated in primary industries. Two schemes were reviewed in-depth: the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program in Canada, and the Recognised Seasonal Employer Scheme in New Zealand (ibid., 27ff). In addition, schemes for migrant workers in Spain, South Africa, Australia and Germany, as well as the EU Seasonal Workers Directive were discussed briefly. In summary, the scheme in New Zealand has been recognised internationally as good practice (Gibson and McKenzie 2014; Bedford et al. 2017). Its distinguishing features are a comprehensive provision of pastoral support and the close cooperation between the New Zealand government and sending states, with beneficial impacts on returning workers.

In general, there seems a clear delineation between those advocating for temporary migrant worker schemes and those who are critical of them. Food and farming businesses, along with their representative organisation such as farmers unions, are 'fierce advocates' of the schemes. Afterall, they – and developed world agriculture more generally – have become increasingly reliant upon low-wage, but not necessarily low-skilled, migrant labour (Scott 2015). Academics and human rights organisations are amongst the critics, mainly due to the risk, and actual practice, of exploitation (FLEX and FMF 2021), and governments 'trying to import labour but not people' (Scott 2015). This links back to the inherent tension between immigration control and worker rights, and the demand that a socially just approach to migrant workers (and associated schemes) needs to be built around migrant agency (Consterdine and Samuk 2018).

Employer and worker experiences of recruitment

Where temporary migration schemes are in place, they will influence recruitment rules and processes. At a general level, 'most international migrants depend on some form of intermediary to help them migrate to and find employment in another country. These intermediaries can take a number of forms and include recruitment agencies selecting those they consider to be appropriate candidates and matching them to suitable vacancies in host countries. They can also be informal social networks, whereby friends and family share information and advice about job opportunities abroad' (Findlay and McCollum 2013). Intermediaries channel information and resources, and filter who does and does not have access to migration systems, which puts them in a position of power and allows them to shape the nature of the migrant experience.

Recruiting seasonal farm labour now requires greater effort for a poorer return (age, quality of workers, increased retention cost). ALP (2019) highlighted that the quality of workers continues to fall, while labour sourcing and supply costs continue to rise. Without access to seasonal migrant workers, the business models of many horticultural businesses become untenable. It has been suggested that the uncertainty around access to foreign seasonal farm work has led many businesses to consider changes in their business structure, for example downscaling their business, switching to other agricultural activities, or ceasing current activity (Thomson 2018c; Thomson & McMorran 2019). Employers of seasonal workers claim that the current arrangements where migrants are expected to cover the visa costs of £244 plus cost of travelling makes countries such as Spain, Greece, Sweden, and Germany more attractive (Brown 2021).

According to ALP (2019), the majority of UK food growers and manufacturers have already increased wages of lower skilled workers. In addition, they are deploying numerous labour attraction and retention strategies. Iain Brown, chairman of NFU Scotland Horticulture Working Group, stated that agricultural wages in Scotland are higher than those in England, and higher than the minimum wage (Malik 2021). According to NFUS (2021), the NFU's end of season survey for 2020 showed an average hourly wage for seasonal workers of £10.35. This is stated to be consistent with anecdotal feedback from NFUS member businesses that report hourly rates above £10 and often as high as £15. Nevertheless, overall, wages in the agricultural sector are low relative to other economic sectors. The average hourly wage for farm workers was a third less than the overall UK average wage (Devlin 2016). This is mediated to a limited extent by the fact that in addition to an hourly rate, migrant workers in horticulture tend to have some component of their wage that depends on their output; how much fruit they pick, also called a piece rate (MAC 2013).

Around half of Scotland's seasonal migrant agricultural workforce were returnees in 2017, with the remainder being sourced through: (i) recruitment agencies (18%); (ii) informal 'friends and family' networks of existing staff (13%); and (iii) direct recruitment by the farms (10%) (Thomson 2018a). In addition, during peak work periods labour providers are often contracted to supply workers on a more flexible and immediate basis, something more commonplace in the field vegetable and potato sector compared to the fruit sector. From an industry perspective, recruiting new workers has become more challenging and expensive (Thomson 2018b). This change is a result of fewer returnees and increased 'no shows' (Thomson and McMorran 2019). The NFUS (2021) is strongly in favour of 'cutting out the middleman' as they believe it will improve information flow, help to recruit workers with realistic expectations, and reduce the amount of additional costs prospective employees are currently incurring in the recruitment process.

Gangmasters, or operators, played an important role as they managed the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme on behalf of the UK Border Agency. They were responsible for recruiting and processing applications, ensuring farmers provided suitable accommodation and adhered to regulations around employment rights such as minimum wage. Also, workers were not allowed to switch to another farm site. Hence operators formed the control mechanism for the lives of the workers (Consterdine and Samuk 2018). The Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA) later renamed Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority was established in April 2005. Their primary purpose is to prevent the exploitation of workers in the agricultural and food sector (Consterdine and Samuk 2018). The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority is a non-departmental public body which licenses labour providers in the food and food processing industry, including the Seasonal Workers Pilot Operators (FLEX and FMF 2021).

The Seasonal Workers Pilot has a reduced number of scheme operators, and unlike Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme, these operators are not permitted to source labour for their own needs (FLEX and FMF 2021). Pilot Operators must ensure certain conditions are met for the workers they sponsor, including a safe work environment, minimum wages, hygienic and safe accommodation (ibid.) Research in Scotland identified 'unfree recruitment' as a high risk associated with forced labour. This is related to the finding of high levels of inaccuracy reported by workers, where information received in their own country diverges from the reality upon arrival. Further working conditions compound the risk, namely the debts incurred by workers for travel, lack of translation and pressure to sign contracts (FLEX and FMF 2021).

An additional factor that may impact negatively on workers choice to come to Scotland is the perception of a hostile press and xenophobia, and a feeling of being unwanted (Thomson and McMorran 2019). However, Barbulescu et al. (2021) interpret the data from a 2020 poll to suggest that there is less opposition to seasonal migration compared to other types of low skilled migration. According to the poll, the UK public seems less opposed to seasonal migrant workers (22% want a decrease), compared to the general category of low-skilled workers, either from the EU (49% want a decrease) or beyond (51% want a decrease). Regardless of public perception, migrant workers may prefer other European countries that are closer to their home countries. This proximity can make it more affordable for them to visit their families and help to reduce feelings of isolation.

The improved economic performance in Eastern European countries has also led to a general shortage of seasonal farm workers across much of Europe (for example Germany, Ireland, Spain according to Thomson 2018b; and Austria, Mahlknecht pers. comm. 2021). In addition, migrant workers have more options now available to them and as the EU workforce availability tightens, agriculture is increasingly competing with other sectors that are better paid (for example construction) or indoor based (for example factory-based labour), hence may be perceived as having more attractive working conditions. Thomson and McMorran (2019) observe: 'a widespread belief that workers now perceive other countries as more attractive now relative to the UK.'

Being encouraged by friends, acquaintances, and family (both those already in Scotland and those at home) makes a large difference in decision making. These sources can provide information and facilitate access to accommodation and employment, which provides (a sense of) security for the move to an unknown place.

Experiences of Scottish agricultural as a seasonal migrant worker

There are both positive and negative accounts of seasonal migrant worker experiences in Scottish agriculture. Some research has highlighted issues of marginalisation, exploitation and social exclusion (in particular FLEX and FMF 2021). Other work has documented a mixture and relatively positive realities of migrant workers on farms (Flynn and Kay 2017).

A qualitative research study with Central and East European labour migrants living and working in rural areas of Scotland (Flynn and Kay 2017) highlighted the importance of other factors beyond the purely economic incentive. They show that material and emotional aspects of social security influence migrants' decisions of returning, and potentially staying longer term.

Reliable employers, good working conditions, regular wages, all help to provide a sense of material security; whilst feeling valued by employers, having good relations with co-workers, feelings of contentment and calmness whilst at work, and appreciating the surrounding environment, can help to facilitate more emotional feelings of security' (Flynn and Kay 2017).

The scenic attractiveness of Scotland was also cited by migrants to rural areas in the study by Zubairi et al. (2020).

The seasonal migrant workforce in Scottish agriculture is highly diverse: workers come from different countries with different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. This requires employers to provide training to their managers on people management, workers' rights, and anti-discrimination practices. However, Petkevica (2021) found that workers are assigned a supervisor position with limited training, leading her to identify the lack of training for supervisors and management as a key issue. Others have noted the lack of opportunities for progression for migrants in the agricultural sector (Flynn and Kay 2017). For those workers who aim for career progression the perspective of returning to seasonal farm work year after year becomes less attractive.

Temporary farm work brings a host of insecurities and challenges due to its seasonal nature, and in this sense differs from other accounts of migration. The temporary nature may mean that migrants are prepared to accept bad working conditions in the short term, in exchange for long-term (financial) gain in their home country (Rye and Andrzejewska 2010). The extent to which an individual is prepared to accept such trade-offs depends on various other factors, including the nature of working relationships; the location of work; and employers' attitudes and behaviour (Flynn and Kay 2017). Employers' willingness to support migrant workers can make a big difference to their experience of security. One example would be by helping with bureaucratic procedures and paperwork to make this aspect of migration less stressful.

Some migrant workers in Scotland may also be motivated by the chance to improve their English, partially linked to anticipated better prospects for finding other work in the UK and potentially staying more permanently (Zubairi et al. 2020). However, improving language skills, and also making wider social connections, is hampered by long hours, physically demanding work, and a tendency to work almost exclusively with other migrants on the farm (Flynn and Kay 2017). There is limited provision of language classes in rural areas and issues in terms of their accessibility for migrant workers (for example class hours conflicting with work hours, transportation, exhaustion). The English language barrier has been highlighted as a factor increasing the risk of forced labour, for example when workers are not able to read the contracts they sign, or do not understand health and safety instructions (FLEX and FMF 2021).

Several participants in Flynn and Kay's (2017) study 'talked about exploitative and/or negative relations with either employers or co-workers, including with other migrants, who were appointed as supervisors. Issues of competition for jobs and frustrations around interdependencies led to tensions and conflict. Participants reported that some employers provided only very poor or basic facilities, paid wages late and/or offered unstable and unclear working hours.'

The potential for exploitative relations starts at the recruitment stage. Earlier accounts suggested a more haphazard process of migration, with control largely ceded to others (for example employers, employment agencies) (Jentsch et al. 2007). Others found various planning strategies and negotiations involving a range of relationships and actors (Flynn and Kay 2017). Schemes almost always require an employer sponsor. Under Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme, this meant that employers did not have to give any guarantees to migrant workers over the length of work or payment, while the migrants were de facto tied to the employer for a season, and dependent on them for housing and transport (Scott 2015). This was reiterated by Consterdine and Samuk (2015), stating that the source of the problem appears to lie in the institutional arrangements. That is to say, the common arrangement that migrant workers (and their working permit) are tied to a specific employer, thus granting employers almost total control over the workers' lives.

Linked to this, a further area of concern are poor living conditions. Participants in the FLEX and FMF (2021) study reported unsafe housing. There is little they can do to address this problem when their housing is provided by their employer (which was the case for 98% of workers involved in the research). The loss of their work would also mean loss of housing, posing a risk of homelessness. The threat of loss of work (perceived or real) can be abused by employers as a means to exert pressure on migrant workers, for example to meet piece-rate targets and not voice complaints. This dependency on the employer has the potential to lead to 'work and life under duress' which is one of the dimensions of forced labour (ibid.).

Farm workers feature in many of the occupational health and safety risks identified for migrant workers globally. These include exposure to poor weather, high temperatures and pesticides used on farm (Moyce and Schenker 2018). Due to the physically demanding nature of the work, there is a higher risk of injuries, for example from physical hazards, workplace demands, lack of safety standards and workplace abuse (ibid.). A study in Turkey found that health and occupational safety risks are higher for seasonal agricultural workers than other sectors. The higher health risks are associated with transportation, housing, social security, education, nutrition and working conditions (Goecer et al. 2020). Language and cultural barriers, and a lack of access to health care were among the factors highlighted as increasing the risks for migrant workers (Moyce and Schenker 2018). In Scotland, there is some evidence from data collected in the FLEX and FMF (2021) study that migrant workers faced health and safety risks posed by inadequate protective gear, lack of first aid or inattentiveness to accidents and illness. Regarding weather protective clothing, the employer is required to provide this in line with the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Order. Graham Bruce, Director at Ringlink, stressed this legal requirement applied equally to seasonal migrant workers (See, Seasonal migrant workers, NFU Scotland, 2021).

RSABI (Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Institution) works to support people in Scottish agriculture and offers a Seasonal Workers helpline. This has been made available in multiple languages since 2020, in order to address the additional pressures associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. RSABI provide practical, emotional and, in some cases, financial support. They state that looking after workers by looking after their accommodation is important both for the wellbeing of the workers and the reputation of Scottish farming. No data could be sourced on the extent to which this support is taken up by migrant workers. According to the Feeding the Nation project, there is little support tailored for the needs of seasonal migrant workers in the UK. Furthermore, charities have difficulties in reaching this community as they tend to live on farms.

Criticism levelled at the exploitation of migrant workers has also been framed as systemic. Lawrence (2015) wrote: 'Whereas field work and packing and processing were once given to local workers with reasonable family-friendly hours and the chance to top up pay with voluntary overtime at weekends, now it is 24/7 rolling 12-hour shifts confirmed only at short notice, theoretically for the national minimum wage. The zero-hours agency habits pioneered in the food and agriculture sector have spread across the economy. (…) We have created jobs that are inhuman, and incompatible with any normal settled existence.'