All countries have isolated horror stories of exploitation and even servitude involving migrant labour, whether that’s forced, involuntary work as described by asylum seekers in Yorkshire or backbreaking hard labour and withheld wages among migrants harvesting grapes in France’s Champagne region.
But most work, even if illegal, is voluntary: it is something that the migrant worker opts for because they believe it improves their lot. The mutually beneficial nature of the job is one reason to explore more legal routes for migrant entry and to revise the significant restrictions on asylum seekers working on both sides of the Channel.
There is scant evidence, though, of a pervasive black market economic model here, let alone some form of “modern slavery.”
The Low Pay Commission every year estimates minimum wage non-compliance as a reasonable proxy of this. Although the headline underpayment rate of 22pc looks high, the majority of these cases are people paid just below the current minimum wage rate or between the previous rate and the current rate. The proportion of wage payments that are what might be regarded as so low as to be genuinely “exploitative” is tiny.
Nor is Britain’s shadow economy particularly large. Tight labour market checks may make it difficult to employ people illegally in France. But the significantly higher taxes from Paris increase the incentive to try. International Monetary Fund estimates suggest the UK’s shadow economy in 2016 was around 12.9 percent of GDP, against 15 percent of GDP in France. Of this, the illegal “underground economy” component is deemed over twice as large across the Channel than here.
Why would so many give up on France to seek out “modern slavery” in the UK anyway? The migrants evidently don’t see Britain that way. When asked, those on the French coast trying to get to Britain say they want to cross because they speak English, have family ties here, or believe they would be treated less well in France given their experiences in the camps. And in the longer term their job prospects certainly look much better in Britain.
In this respect, it’s Beaune’s moralising on “humane” labour market regulation that grates most. For one thing is clear: those stringent French employment checks he demands in Britain are part of a broader system of costly labour market regulation that kills employment opportunities, not just for those who ultimately become legal migrants or refugees, but young French workers too.
A 2014 Migration Policy Institute study concluded that “France’s labour market can be hostile to new entrants, whether recently arrived immigrants or young people seeking their first job.” The country restricts foreign nationals from working in the public sector, fails to recognise many foreign qualifications, and implements onerous occupational licensing requirements for many positions.
Costly hiring and firing laws reduce job market dynamism, while regulations that kick in when firms exceed 50 workers deter businesses from scaling up. The result is high unemployment, particularly for those on the margins of the workforce, such as migrants, the young and unskilled.
Before the pandemic, the French unemployment rate among the foreign-born labour force was a high 13.1pc against just 4.3pc in the UK. The employment rate was lower too: 58.9pc in France compared with a much higher 74.7pc here. These same rules and regulations crush opportunities for the young- youth unemployment was 20 percent in France, almost double the 11.1pc in Britain
The human costs of such high unemployment are huge, contributing to intergenerational difficulties for children of migrants. Previous research has shown that second-generation immigrants in France are severely disadvantaged in the labour market, with descendants of immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa and Turkey discriminated against most.
One would think, given all this, that senior French politicians would be more circumspect about damning other “economic models” or talking up the humanity of their labour laws. But there has always been a peculiar French snobbery towards a liberal jobs market that doesn’t incorporate ID cards or a host of protective entry restrictions. Using deaths in the Channel to express it just seems tone-deaf to the moment.
None of this is to downplay the current Channel crossings crisis, which has many causes, including displacement following clampdowns on other crossing methods, such as in lorries. The attempted journeys are a difficult problem to solve without overhauling the whole immigration system in ways that could lead to a politically challenging surge in applications.
But for the French government to imply these issues reflect a deliberate policy of fostering illegal work in the UK is contemptible. And given their overall effects, if asked to choose between France’s “humane” labour laws and ours, I’d opt for the UK’s every time.
