Labour forces

There is a tendency to think that the use of "foreign" labour is a new issue. In reality it is merely a periodic increase in a phenomenon that has been with us for some time. But what do we mean by "foreign" today, why is the issue currently of importance and what are the implications?

"Foreign" labour has been used in England from the building of Hadrian's Wall, nearly 2000 years ago, to the building of the canals in the second half of the 19th century. Indeed it probably started earlier and has been a consistent factor throughout history, with peaks and troughs like all other economic trends.

The wall was built, under Roman supervision, by a mixture of "English" (although such a concept had yet to be invented) and "European" labour. The labour was brought to the to the north-western extremity of the Roman Empire to carry out the project, and consisted of slaves.

By the mid-19th century the labour force had ceased to be slaves, but was still imported to carry out construction projects. This labour came mainly from Southern Ireland, was paid, and spoke English. It was also based here, and working legally.

These changes are interesting because they show that while the phenomenon of using imported labour to carry out a project has been with us for centuries, its nature has changed over time.

In addition to the origin, language and reason for working, another factor that has changed is the type of work that this labour is carrying out. Currently, and perhaps for the first time, we are seeing "foreign" labour working in skilled and semi-skilled jobs rather than in the manual work that we are used to. Increasingly, this "foreign" labour is working as electricians, plumbers or fitters, rather than trench diggers. This trend has been apparent in the more mainstream construction industry for some time.

The other change is that this time this "foreign" labour, by its very nature of being "skilled", is set to stay.

However, we need to consider what we mean by "foreign"? And here we have to be careful not to fall into stereotypical categorisations.

We are going to struggle to define labour from [the EC] as foreign when we don’t consider the labour from the Ireland to be so

Strictly speaking, those navvies that came from Ireland to dig the canals in 1870 were not then foreign. Certainly the majority came from what we know today as the Republic of Ireland. However, when they came to England the south of Ireland was part of the UK; they were not "foreign" at all – they just happened to come from across the Irish Sea.

Even today many of us wouldn't consider labour from the Republic to be foreign. But why? Is it because it has been normal to work with the Irish on site, or maybe it is because they speak English?

The UK is part of the Commonwealth and part of the European Community (EC). With membership of the latter, although not the former, there is a freedom of movement of labour enshrined by treaty. In a modern way, this makes labour that comes from Europe to work in the UK today, in all but the language that they speak, identical to the labour of the Republic of Ireland that we are so used to working alongside. Or does it? Are there other factors that differentiate it? Factors such as the technical standards to which they work, for instance.

Even if this is the case it seems that we are going to struggle to define labour from EC countries as "foreign" when we don't consider the labour from the Republic of Ireland to be so.

What about Commonwealth labour however? Without a work permit or a working visa individuals from Commonwealth countries are not allowed to work in the UK. But I would surmise that most of us have worked with, or employed Australians, Kiwis or South Africans, either on site or in the office. What about Ghanaians, Malaysians or Botswanians? How often have we checked whether they have a valid work permit or visa. And if we did, have we noted its expiry date and ceased to employ them after it ran out?

Perhaps because they speak English we are more comfortable employing them than we are Europeans, which in fact are easier to employ legally. Perhaps again though, it is because they come with qualifications that have, in the main, some parallel if not identical standing with our own?

As an aside, it is also interesting to note that the largest number of "illegal" immigrants (working or not working) in the UK are those from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Many of these nationals arrived on visitors' permits or visas and decided to stay longer than their allotted time, and to work – often in the construction industry.

So far, therefore, the conclusion to be drawn is that we are prepared to employ (and I use that work advisedly) individuals that might be here illegally, so long as they speak English and have qualifications that bear some similarity to those of the UK.

But, and it is a big but, the current trend in the employment of "foreign" labour bucks these historical normalities. There is an increase in use, at least in London and the south-east, of labour that is here illegally, speaks patchy English and has qualifications that are, to say the least, suspect.