Amidst concerns about migrants’ social housing allocations, statistics offer the public little reassurance - we need a new, transparent and inclusive approach.
.
Jill Rutter is an associate fellow of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), and one of the authors of “Social Housing Allocation and Immigrant Communities” (EHRC, 2009); she writes here in a personal capacity
There is no doubt that there are real public concerns about the scale and impact of international migration into the UK.
Among the most controversial and misunderstood of these concerns are the supposed impacts of migration on social housing availability.
At a time when five million people are on social housing waiting lists in the UK, and social housing new builds have shrunk to almost nothing, such concerns are not surprising.
The debate over social housing allocation and immigration garnered further attention this week with the publication, by Migration Watch, of a paper on the subject, and associated media coverage by Frank Field. As might be expected from this pressure group, the paper argues that immigration is placing great pressure on social housing in London.
At the same time, the Metropolitan Migration Foundation published polling data suggesting that 66% of people consider birthplace to be irrelevant when allocating social housing. In other words, most people want fairness. But what is the way forward in this most heated of issues?
Even by Migration Watch’s standards, their paper on social housing was a badly researched attempt to raise tensions. It concluded that 11 per cent of social housing lets in London go to foreign nationals: in a city where 37 per cent of the population is foreign-born, what can you expect?
• Time to make the housing recovery a political priority 22 Mar 2012
• Building social housing would cut the housing benefit bill three times faster than a cap 20 Feb 2012
• Downsizing the housing strategy 21 Jany 2012
• Could the welfare bill signal the death of social housing? 22 Dec 2011
Their paper was an attempted riposte to research by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, published in 2009, showing that migrants are overwhelmingly housed in the private rental sector, both in London and elsewhere. The research showed that of the migrants to have arrived in Britain over the past five years, only 11% had been allocated social housing – a group that largely comprised refugees granted sanctuary in the UK.
The reality is that many new migrants simply do not qualify for social housing. Those who come to the UK through work visa or student routes are barred from social housing by their immigration status.
The UK sponsor of a spouse or partner has to show that they can house that person, under no recourse to public funds rules, before the overseas spouse is admitted to the UK. Migrants from the European Economic Area have to show a local connection and prove that they have not made themselves homeless by moving to the UK.
Still, arguments about statistics and entitlements are not going to defuse tensions about the impact of immigration on social housing allocations. There are very real perceptions that UK citizens are not treated fairly when it comes to social housing – perceptions that progressives need to address.
In an attempt to address questions about fairness, the last Labour government produced new social housing allocation guidance in 2009 that enabled local authorities to pace greater weight on local connections and waiting time.
This guidance led to minor changes to local authorities’ letting procedures – social housing applicants were, in some cases, awarded a few more points for a local connection. (This had some unintended consequences, since awarding points for a local connection can discriminate against people who want to move to find work.) Yet these changes offered the public little reassurance.
In turn, the coalition government used the Localism Act 2011 to make substantial changes to social housing allocation. The Act allows local authorities to grant time-limited social tenancies, as well as discharge their duties to provide social housing by supplying privately rented accommodation. In future, social housing will no longer represent housing security, but a patchwork of tenancies – a condition that can only inflame resentments and misconceptions.
At the same time, social housing new builds have shrunk to almost nothing. Between April 2010 and March 2011, Homes and Communities Agency statistics show that there were 10,965 social housing starts on site in London. In the six months to 30 September 2011, this figure had shrunk to 56 new social housing starts on site in London. This is a truly shameful statistic.
We need a different approach. We need much greater local transparency in the allocation of social housing. There could be much more involvement of local people in drawing up social housing allocation policies. We need to afford local authority housing officers the time to talk to those on waiting lists about the processes, and why there is a long wait for social housing.
Local politicians need also to listen to concerns about housing, while addressing misconceptions. Talking about migration helps: a study from the Institute for Public Policy Research looked at examples of how tensions about housing had been successfully defused by sensitive but pro-active local leadership. But above all, we need to build more social housing.
57 Responses to “Social housing and immigration: the need for transparency and fairness”
Blarg1987
Because both sides are funded by very rich corporations, who want to pay peanuts to their employees and if that means importing labour to reduce costs and offloading their needs onto the state in the form of social housing they don’t care.
Employers should be given the choice either higher taxes to pay for employees accomodation etc or increase wages so people on low wages are not so dependent on state subsidies to live.
Anonymous
if that means importing labour to reduce costs and offloading their needs onto the state
Irrespective of the motivation, I agree. It’s driven down wages at the low end, and its offloaded huge expenses on to the taxpayer.
Now I think that is wrong, and you seem to be agreeing.
So why should people who can afford to buy property, or rent in the private sector get subsidised? Like Bob Crow.
Where you are wrong is this. Employment is a deal that has to benefit both sides. If you think that is wrong, I know of people looking for a job. How about if we force you to employ them, irrespective of what they do for you. They could do nothing, but you have to pay them. Not a good thing.
How about the workers working harder to earn more money to pay for the accommodation? Aren’t they responsible for their lives?
So what has happened is this.
Labour allowed vast numbers in, a lot with low skills. There is around a million illegals too, working in low skilled jobs. As you say, that has forced down wages. So the locals who are on benefits have made a choice to stay on welfare. The government hasn’t done anything about this.
For the migrant, legal or otherwise, its a rational choice. For the welfare claimant, its also a rational choice. For the taxpayer, they aren’t given a choice. For the politicians, they don’t give a shit, and that is the cause of the problem.
Now the money has gone and their is just debt, the migrants will be done over, since at some point people will say they are disposable and get kicked out. The benefit claimant will discover that the benefits are cut severely, and they are left out to dry. With no skills or little time left for their retirement they are screwed. The tax payer will discover all their promises are defaulted on, and they are screwed. e.g. The current plans to abolish the state second pension and to tax the state pension at source. Politicians have made sure their pensions are in assets, and they know since they have the vote on issues, and that MPs like turkeys won’t vote for xmas, they are safe.
Blarg1987
“Employment is a deal that has to benefit both sides”
That is very true however with CEO’s of companies pay packets increasing faster then those who work for them who has not be honouring the employment agreement?
So many jobs are being advertised overseas mainly down to cost, not because they can not get anyone local.
A simple solution would be for the first 5 years an employer is responsible for all housing, health care, and education of any person they bring over, if employers truly do need them they are willing to pay the additional cost as they would benefit from that persons.
Otherwise they could focus resources into recruiting local people to do the job, and provide adequate training, I know of many employers who expect applicants to have experience in the said field i.e. to operate a till, but it is a catch 22 as no one wants to train them up first.
Anonymous
Ah yes, punishing success by throwing people out of their communities, the Tory favourite for blocking aspiration among the poor. There are sensible polities like very low withdrawal rates (to the local commercial average) which could deal with that, but no…
The MYTH of immigrants taking all the low end jobs is just that. The problem is the only people who can AFFORD to do those jobs in many cases are the people who’ll live a dozen to a house, spend very little and go home after a few years. Of course your answer is an ethic purge, and punishing people not willing to pay to work.
And of course you want to class millions as disposable and kill them. And of course you plan on sabotaging the pension system, you’ve said it over and over, turkey.
Anonymous
This is a UK site, not an American one. And yes, so sorry you can’t murder immigrants and bathe in their blood.
And no, Europe is NOT friendly to your kind.