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”
Joseph Rowntree Fdn.
Social housing and immigration: the need for transparency and fairness http://t.co/9hlVs6YU via @leftfootfwd #ukhousing
Agency Express
Social housing and immigration: the need for transparency and fairness http://t.co/9hlVs6YU via @leftfootfwd #ukhousing
Matt Smith
How is Migration Watch’s paper badly researched? Their main conclusion is that the statistics are so bad that a public enquiry should be held into social housing allocations. As this site is supposed to believe in ‘evidence based’ policy you think you would support such an enquiry.
Afgreen
“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?”
This sentence is imply gratuitous ill manners that does nothing to enhance the reputation of its author or, indeed, this website. Quite apart from that it makes an elementary confusion between the foreign born and foreign nationals. Many foreign born will have become British nationals and can, rightly, expect to be treated the same as other British citzens born here. Foreign nationals are those who have either not been here long enough to apply for nationality or have not sought to do so.
“The [IPPR] 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.” Indeed but that was not the headline. The headline was that”less than 2% of social housing is taken up by foreign born people who arrived in the UK in the last five years”. This number was achieved by comparing a flow over a five year period with the entire stock.
What the Migrationwatch research has shown betond doubt is that, in London, the statistics are so poor that none of the previous claims can be substantiated. That is why we are calling for the nationality question to be made compulsory and for an enquiry into the allocation of social housing in England. These are entirely sensible proposals and are the best way to reduce tensions.
Anonymous
1. Teachers should be accountable for their results.
2. Exams should be set externally, and marked anonymously
3. Teachers who failed to get a higher percentage passed the threshold, should be held accountable. Remedial training, and if that fails, removed from teaching
4. The current threshold of an acceptable education is pathetically low.
Where is the higher taxes bar the retraining? Where is the increase in bureaucracy? It’s minor. We can get far more savings by removing local authorities (10% cut) from the picture.
Each year, have teachers got enough passed the threshold.
I would suggest 8, 11, 14 and 18 as being the appropriate ages to test.
So a question for you. How long does it take to train someone to use a till if they have a maths O-Level? What percentage of that is company policy, and what percentage basic arithmetic.
I’m just curious as to your example. Why do you think there is no training to use a till, and why that is a problem?
Hope that answers your points.
Now, perhaps the question of debts. Should civil service pensions be a debt, and if not doesn’t that make the optional?