The UK farmer protests you probably haven’t heard about

Spread the love
Fruit pickers and farm workers protesting labour abuses on British farms. Peter Marshall

Alex Heffron, Lancaster University

Farm owners have besieged parliament with tractors in order to protest new subsidy schemes and inheritance tax arrangements. The farm workers who milk cows, drive machinery and pick crops have grievances too, yet their demands have been less publicised. So, what do they want?

I am a farmer based in the south-west of Wales and a researcher of farming policy. I recently joined a protest by a group of Latin American farm workers known as “Justice is Not Seasonal”, outside the Home Office in London.

The group accused soft fruit supplier Haygrove, which operates farms on three continents and supplies veg box delivery schemes including Riverford and Abel and Cole, of presiding over poor living and working conditions, failing to pay workers and charging inflated flight costs for overseas workers. Haygrove has an annual turnover in excess of £50 million.

Haygrove denies these allegations. In response to a case brought forward by the trade union United Voices of the World and the charity Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit, the Home Office has made an interim decision stating there are reasonable grounds that one of the affected workers, Julia Quecaño Casimiro, has been subjected to human trafficking and modern slavery.

The case tribunal is due to be held soon although it has been a slow, arduous process reaching this point.

In an article for the BBC, a spokesperson for Haygrove said that Casimiro’s claims were “materially incorrect and misleading”. Haygrove’s practices are audited by third-party organisations including the Home Office, and the company takes “great care” in ensuring fair recruitment and working processes, the spokesperson said.

Various trade unions and organisations attended the protest, including the Landworkers’ Alliance, United Voices of the World, Independent Workers’ union of Great Britain, Unite and Solidarity Across Land Trades.

Conspicuously absent was the National Farmers’ Union, which predominantly represents farm owners. This highlights the divergent class interests that exist within terms like “farmer”.

More workers and more exploitation

There are 160,000 UK farm workers (as opposed to owners and managers). Of these, some of the most gruelling agricultural work is done by around 45,000 seasonal migrant workers, either in fields in all weather or in the sweltering heat of polytunnels.

The UK attracts migrant farm workers with six-month temporary visas. A United Nations special rapporteur, Tomoya Obokata, an expert in human rights law and modern slavery, has suggested that the UK is breaking international law with its seasonal work scheme by failing to investigate instances of forced labour. Claims of exploitation and bullying on UK farms are also becoming more common. Meanwhile, in an effort to appease farm managers, the UK government recently announced a five-year extension of this scheme.

Food and farming organisations have urged the UK to produce more fruit and vegetables as part of a wider shift towards a less carbon-intensive food system.

To scale up domestic production will require more workers harvesting crops in poor conditions, especially migrant workers who don’t have the same legal rights as British citizens.

Seasonal migrant workers, for example, cannot bring family members to the UK and have no access to benefits, while their visas are often tied to one place of work which typically includes accommodation which leaves them particularly vulnerable to abuse. A call for increased labour, without a call for improved conditions, could mean more exploitation on British farms.

Exploitation is not limited to the allegations of a few bad apples either. It is so widespread that it threatens the resilience of the UK’s food system.

A recent report found that more than half of migrants at risk of labour abuse work in the food system. A more resilient food supply will require better working conditions, pay and housing for workers in this sector, the report concludes.

Higher prices don’t mean better welfare

It’s tempting to ask consumers to pay more for their food so that farm workers might earn more. However, higher prices are no guarantee of better conditions. Leaving aside rising inflation and stagnating wages which make it harder for consumers to buy ethically, organic farms already sell produce at a premium and some are also among those accused of mistreating workers.

This is even a problem among small-scale organic food producers, as documented by Solidarity Across Land Trades. A report by this land worker’s union found that some small farms use bogus traineeships to justify paying workers as little as £1.41 per hour. This is despite the produce usually being sold for more than conventional supermarket prices.

Crates of fruit and vegetables in a shop aisle.
Greener diets depend on increased fruit and vegetable production. Framarzo/Shutterstock

The structural problems of the food system are more complicated than the price consumers pay for food. There is also the question of who gets to be heard, who is valued and who is deemed worthy of rights and dignity when food production takes place under a system of class-based exploitation. These challenges cannot be solved at the checkout alone.

The ecological crisis demands transitions away from diesel-powered machinery and chemical fertilisers and herbicides produced with fossil fuels. Farm workers are needed to carry out the transition towards more sustainable practices, but there will be no green transition unless these workers have a stake in it.

This idea of “a just transition” has gained traction in recent years, and it is just as relevant to farmers and farm workers as it is to workers in other sectors, such as oil and gas. But what might it look like?

The demands made by Justice Is Not Seasonal are a good place to start: an end to forced labour and exploitation on UK farms and full accountability for those responsible, fair wages and safe working conditions, residency rights and access to justice and remediation.


Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


Alex Heffron, PhD Candidate in Geography, Lancaster University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingThe UK farmer protests you probably haven’t heard about

Richest nations ‘exporting extinction’ with demand for beef, palm oil and timber

Spread the love

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/14/richest-nations-exporting-extinction-with-demand-for-beef-palm-oil-and-timber-aoe

A toucan in Costa Rica. Most wildlife habitats are being destroyed in countries with tropical forests, the study shows. Photograph: Francesco Puntiroli/Alamy

Consumption in wealthy countries including US and UK is responsible for 13% of global forest loss beyond their borders, study finds

The world’s wealthiest nations are “exporting extinction” by destroying 15 times more biodiversity internationally than within their own borders, research shows.

Most wildlife habitats are being destroyed in countries with tropical forest, according to the study which looked at how wealthy countries’ demand for products such as beef, palm oil, timber and soya beans is destroying biodiversity hotspots elsewhere.

It found that high-income nations were responsible for 13% of global loss of forest habitats outside their own borders. The US alone was responsible for 3% of the world’s non-US forest habitat destruction.

“That just underscores the magnitude of the process,” said lead researcher Alex Wiebe, a doctoral student in ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University in the US. Countries that had the most significant impacts abroad included the US, Germany, France, Japan, China and the UK, according to the paper, published in Nature.

… Article continues at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/14/richest-nations-exporting-extinction-with-demand-for-beef-palm-oil-and-timber-aoe

Continue ReadingRichest nations ‘exporting extinction’ with demand for beef, palm oil and timber

The Chancellor and her expenses before she became an MP

Spread the love

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg75jr5284o

Rachel Reeves has had a difficult start to her ministerial career.

As well as Labour’s new chancellor taking on the challenges of the UK economy, she has faced tricky questions about her past.

They began with scrutiny of her online CV late last year.

On the professional networking site LinkedIn, the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed to have worked as an economist at Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) immediately before becoming an MP.

One of those who challenged it was a retired former colleague, Kev Gillett.

In a public post on LinkedIn, which he asked followers to share, he wrote: “Back in 2009 Rt Hon Rachel Reeves worked 3 levels below me. Just facts. She was a Complaints Support Manager at LBG/HBOS. Not an Economist. #factcheck.”

In fact it emerged that she had worked in a managerial role within the bank’s complaint handling department and her LinkedIn profile was updated to remove the claim.

Thin grey line

Rachel Reeves’s online CV exaggerated how long she spent working at the Bank of England

Thin grey line

Gillett also made another claim about Reeves’s time at the bank from 2006 to 2009, writing that she: “Nearly got sacked due to an expenses scandal where the 3 senior managers were all signing off each others expenses.”

Reeves’s team vigorously denied the allegations.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg75jr5284o

dizzy: I’ve quoted the start of a fairly long article from the BBC by Billy Kenber, Politics investigations correspondent and Phil Kemp, Politics producer. It is the report into their investigation of UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ errors in her reported career history and an expenses fraud investigation at her former employer Halifax Bank of Scotland.

Continue ReadingThe Chancellor and her expenses before she became an MP

Labour continues the Tory war on the poor, sick and disabled

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/labour-continues-tory-war-poor-sick-and-disabled

DWP chief Liz Kendall

DR DYLAN MURPHY challenges the idea that social security places an economic burden on the public

THE current Labour government of red Tories has doubled down recently on its propaganda against those people claiming benefits in the UK.

These reactionary comments range from Starmer’s pledge in the Sun to be ruthless in his cuts to benefits, to Reeves making inflated claims in the same paper that spending on benefits has “spiralled out of control.”

In the same interview with the Sun Reeves bragged that Labour is “introducing the biggest welfare fraud and error package in recent history.”

The implication is clear: those claiming benefits, including those workers on low wages claiming elements of universal credit, are an undeserving burden on the British economy.

In the “golden days” of the Victorian era they at least maintained a distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. Under Starmer’s Labour all people who claim benefits are clearly in the undeserving poor category and should be made to suffer ever greater poverty all to help “turbo charge” economic growth.

Article continues at https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/labour-continues-tory-war-poor-sick-and-disabled

Keir Starmer confirms that he's proud to be a red Tory continuing austerity and targeting poor and disabled scum.
Keir Starmer confirms that he’s proud to be a red Tory continuing austerity and targeting poor and disabled scum.
Continue ReadingLabour continues the Tory war on the poor, sick and disabled

Optics over outcomes: How the Chancellor’s airport expansion plans don’t add up

Spread the love

https://neweconomics.org/2025/01/optics-over-outcomes-how-the-chancellors-airport-expansion-plans-dont-add-up

By the government’s own analysis, expansion will not improve outcomes for communities across the UK

Source: Civil Aviation Authority and ONS Travelpac

Of the 70-odd million additional passengers the proposed expansions of Heathrow, Gatwick, and Luton would put in the air at their peak, we can expect between two-thirds and three-quarters (or 45 – 50 million) to be UK residents on their way out of the country. Making air travel cheaper while the cost of domestic leisure, hospitality, and overland travel remains prohibitively high leaves many squeezed households with little choice. Between 25 – 50% of travellers report ​‘cost’ as a key factor in their decision whether to stay in the UK or travel abroad.

From a high point in 2022, the UK’s domestic tourism industry has now seen two years of decline, contributing to the very stagnation that troubles the Chancellor. At the same time UK residents have poured overseas in record numbers, taking their hard-earned cash with them. New NEF analysis suggests trips to Mediterranean resort destinations and the Canary Islands hit a new record in 2024. Our top 20 direct routes saw passenger numbers rise from their 2019 peak of 52 million to 56 million last year.

The last line of economic defence of the proposed expansion of Heathrow is perhaps the weakest of them all. Many desire to increase Heathrow’s standing as a hub airport, this means capturing ​”international to international” passengers changing flights in the UK. As these passengers stop in the UK for a matter of a few hours at most they leave little economic value behind. They also pay no air passenger duty so the benefit to the Treasury is minimal. Their flights do, however, come under the UK’s climate responsibilities. Transfer passengers are a boon for the airports and airlines, and the predominantly foreign-domiciled entities which own them, but of little value to the rest of us.

Today’s airport decisions hint of desperation from a government seemingly more interested in optics for a select group of wealthy international investors than actual improvements in economic outcomes for communities all across the UK.

https://neweconomics.org/2025/01/optics-over-outcomes-how-the-chancellors-airport-expansion-plans-dont-add-up

Continue ReadingOptics over outcomes: How the Chancellor’s airport expansion plans don’t add up