Defra data highlights potential labour violations and fear of reprisal among seasonal horticultural workers

Seasonal horticultural workers have likely experienced breaches of employment law by growers, have a pervasive fear of raising grievances and sometimes have not been able to transfer to a different farm, according to the latest seasonal worker survey published by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra).

The Defra data was based on the completed survey responses by 16,787 horticultural workers who came to the UK on temporary visas in 2025. In this post, we examine the key findings and outline how officials can mitigate risks within the Seasonal Worker Scheme.

Basic employment rights violations are pervasive

First, about one in eight respondents (12.3%) reported not being paid for all of the work they did. The report quoted workers not being paid for time travelling between working locations as well as for mandatory cleaning tasks. If this sample was extrapolated to the wider cohort of seasonal workers, it would represent thousands of migrants being underpaid by employers.

In addition, whether knowingly or unknowingly, many growers were reported to have overcharged their workers for accommodation. HMRC guidance is clear that for minimum-wage workers in England and Wales, the cost of accommodation must include essential living needs.

However, the survey data showed some workers were forced to pay extra for utilities (15.0%), laundry (13.4%) and wifi (6.9%). Because seasonal workers earn the National Living Wage or close to it, these surcharges could put such employers in breach of National Minimum Wage Regulations.

Most workers remain silent

The survey also raised questions about workers’ ability to address instances of non-compliance.

Nearly one in six workers (16.2%) reported not knowing how to raise a grievance, and of the 1,708 workers who reported doing so, just 16.2% raised a formal complaint. The reasons for not raising a complaint spoke volumes and included being afraid of losing their job (14.6%), being worried complaining would impact their right to stay in the UK (12.1%), fears of employers finding out (9.6%) and of not being invited back next year (22.1%).

These concerns have been borne out by seasonal workers’ experiences. The Work Rights Centre has come across several cases where growers threatened outspoken seasonal workers with blacklisting.

It is also not surprising that many workers choose not to risk the opportunity to work the full six months permitted by their visa, and return for the following season, given the financial stakes.

On average, it costs workers more than £1,000 just to pay for visa fees, return flight tickets and living essentials. This can be the equivalent of many months’ wages in their countries of origin.

Strikingly, many are also already in debt when they arrive in the UK, so the pressure to earn money is even greater. According to the Defra survey, more than one in three workers (35.5%) reported taking out a loan to fund their pre-arrival costs, while 1.9% said they had to sell possessions just to get to the UK.

Workers’ inability to transfer is a key barrier to reporting

Making it easier for workers to transfer farms could, in theory, encourage reports of labour non-compliance. Indeed, Home Office guidance is clear that workers should not normally be refused a transfer by their scheme operator, with an example exception being a worker having limited time left on their visa.

In practice, however, scheme operators often refuse transfer requests, even when workers relay significant workplace issues. Administrative mismanagement can also leave workers waiting for weeks for a response to a transfer request, if one is provided at all.

Defra reports that about one in three (33.6%) workers who requested a transfer in 2025 did not have it fulfilled, with reasons including no response to a transfer request (17.6%), unavailability of jobs (45.2%) and being required on their current farm (6.9%). In one case the Work Rights Centre are supporting, a worker who experienced several instances of sexual harassment was refused a transfer, despite clear failings on the part of their employer.

Data shows the tip of an iceberg of non-compliance

Admittedly, there have been improvements on the SWS, driven by some industry stakeholders’ efforts. Since 2023 scheme operators have had to offer a minimum of 32 working hours each week or, if insufficient hours are available, ensure compensation. This goes a long way to providing workers with financial stability. The cooling-off period has also been shortened from six months to four, permitting seasonal workers to return to the UK sooner.

Yet, structural issues remain. In her 2025/26 strategy, the then Director of Labour Market Enforcement (DLME) Margaret Beels OBE pinpointed agriculture as a high-risk sector for exploitation and for good reason. Workers are still tied to a single scheme operator that determines where and when they can work, and the safeguards for workers who do report abuses are minimal.

It is also important to note that the Defra data only uncovers the tip of the iceberg. As highlighted in the methods, surveys are disseminated by scheme operators, so many workers who experienced issues simply do not report their issues, or choose to not participate altogether. As an illustrative example, just 16 respondents answered that they had reported an issue to a “worker support organisation”, but both the Work Rights Centre and Worker Support Centre each received many more complaints than that last year.

Stakeholders can reduce exploitation risks

Ideally, the SWS would be redesigned, so that seasonal migrants could work for any employer in the horticultural sector. But there is also scope for reform within the existing framework.

Instituting the Employer Pays Principle (EPP), where the beneficiaries of migrant labour (and not migrants themselves), bear the costs of migration, would prevent workers spending their first months’ wages paying back migration costs, and address some of the financial risk that comes with reporting exploitation. A study by Alma Economics suggested that several models are feasible, with full adoption of the EPP increasing the cost of a weekly food shop by as little as 1-3p. We urge the government and industry stakeholders to adopt the EPP.

In the meantime, workers can report exploitation to the Fair Work Agency, which we also urge to continue to take cases of labour abuses on the SWS seriously.

And finally, governmental bodies should clarify how transfer mechanisms need to operate by updating Home Office guidance. This would help workers who experience labour rights breaches or blow the whistle could access alternative employment and encourage those with grievances to come forward.