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”
Anonymous
And? The problem with CEO pay is the same as government debt. No control. Shareholders aren’t allowed to exercise control because large numbers of shares are held in trust, and trusts don’t exercise control. Same as government. You and I don’t get a vote on any issue.
So many jobs are being advertised overseas mainly down to cost, not because they can not get anyone local.
It’s a market. Markets will find the cheapest option if allowed to operate. That jobs are advertised overseas should tell you that there are costs to operating in the UK that can be avoided by going overseas.
Tax, regulation, cost of workers, availability of workers, motivation of workers all spring to mind.
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.
Here’s a simpler solution
1. You have to pay more tax than the average government spend, per migrant.
That way there is no question about economic benefit to the UK. There is no question of social housing for them too, since they will be earning too much. BNP gets starved of its excuses.
2. You can stay so long as you meet that test. Drop below, and either the employer tops up, the employee tops up, or they go.
3. Simple check on their tax form each year.
4. Works for employees and self employed, and non-doms.
5. No needs for stalinist central planning and points systems.
6. For the first year, you pay the tax up front, your employer guarantees it, or it is bonded.
Otherwise they could focus resources into recruiting local people to do the job, and provide adequate training,
Er, what are the schools for?
wintalkgift
Social housing and immigration: the need for transparency and fairness – Left Foot Forward http://t.co/yVfZGkNw
BevR
RT @leftfootfwd: Social housing and immigration: the need for transparency and fairness http://t.co/qk5wXXma
Blarg1987
Are you implying schools should teach people how to operate a checkout etc?
Anonymous
No. They should teach them way beyond the level of education needed to operate a check out.
That they fail to get people beyond that level is the failure.