This week the government launched a consultation into their proposal to require private landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants.
Jenny Pennington is a Researcher at IPPR
This week the government launched a consultation into their proposal to require private landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants.
Others have pointed out that the plan is likely to be unworkable (especially in the absence of a register of private landlords) and could have unintended consequences (including discrimination against legal migrants and minorities).
These are both valid criticisms, but the real flaw is what the proposals don’t achieve. The government’s plans are a missed opportunity to tackle the real challenges for housing in the UK.
Migration does put pressure on housing in some areas, particularly within the private rented sector, and there is a need for government action here. Immigration is estimated to be responsible for around 40 per cent of new housing demand, temporary migration can unsettle communities through high ‘population churn’.
Unscrupulous landlords can exploit new arrivals with poor quality, overpriced and sometimes dangerous living conditions (sometimes referred to as ‘beds in sheds’). 75 per cent of recently-arrived migrants live in the private rented sector. But to date the government have been resistant to regulating this growing and often dysfunctional area. This week’s proposals mark the first attempt.
The proposal has been presented as an attempt to crack down on ‘beds in sheds’, but is likely to be ineffective at achieving this aim. Landlords who are renting out sub-standard accommodation are already flouting a numbers of regulations. It is the lack of enforcement of the laws we have, not a need for new ones, that is allowing these dangerous practices to continue.
Reduced local authority budgets that mean less funding available for enforcement is the real pressure point here.
The proposal is also unlikely to be successful in its other aim, reducing irregular migration, for similar reasons. Last week a report by the chief inspector of the UKBA revealed that the department failed to follow up on thousands of leads on the whereabouts of irregular immigrants. Without additional resources these new provisions will do little to boost the government’s enforcement capacity.
Identifying and removing migrants who have no right to be in the UK is a legitimate aim; however it isn’t a solution to the housing crisis. Estimates put the numbers of irregular migrants in the UK at around 615,000 (although there is considerable uncertainty about the true figure, and recent processes may have substantially reduced numbers).
We know that they often live in overcrowded accommodation – so that their use of housing is far lower than the average of 2.3 people per home. Government reviews have suggested that UK needs to build 290,500 homes a year just to keep pace with demand.
Therefore, even if all undocumented migrants were to be identified and removed from the UK (something that is probably impossible and likely to cost around £10.5 billion pounds) this would only release enough housing to ease demand for at most one year. Housing undersupply dates back long before net migration reached today’s levels, and needs different policy solutions.
In addition, the proposals do little to address the real pressures on housing related to immigration. Temporary migration in particular can lead to high concentrations of overcrowded housing with rapid tenant turnover.
For example in Thetford in Norfolk, the number of houses like this rose from 40 to 400 over four years in response to migration. This can limit neighbourly interaction and lead to annoyances (e.g. if many households are unfamiliar with local rubbish disposal rules).
However, as the vast majority of the migrants living in these homes are in the UK legally, these proposals will leave these issues untouched. Local authorities need real regulatory powers to control the numbers of short term private rented lets available in their area.
Action on these issues would do far more to resolve the real problems of immigration and housing.
The government have shown with these proposals that they are not against introducing regulation to tame the private rented sector. But for political reasons they have chosen to focus on irregular migration rather than addressing any of the more substantial issues in the private rented sector (including some linked to migration).
What we need now are more workable solutions that address the real problems experienced by local communities, and fewer political gimmicks.
10 Responses to “The Immigration Bill does little to solve the real housing issues”
OldLb
Average is good. The reason is that it represents a good cross section.
Lets take your temporary example. You’re trying to claim that temporary workers cost less, yet for some reason you don’t provide any numbers.
Stump up some numbers
Let me give you one small illustration why its bonkers.
If a temp worker comes in, they build up rights to pensions. However, they then leave and pay no tax in the UK, but still get the pension.
Similarly, if they bring children, its schooling, its health care, is a share of the common resources, and its a share of the pensions.
Now for the 12K a year threshold, I’ve excluded the biggest problem. That’s the pensions. That’s rising at 734 bn a year according to government figures (still kept off the books). Given that’s only ever going to be paid by tax payers, (30 million), its another 25K a year that you need in taxes to just stay in the same place.
Notice – numbers given. Numbers you can check. Why don’t you post numbers?
blarg1987
I admit I do not have the source data at hand but lets look at your example:
We do not know how many come here with children, so we could reasonably say it is in a minority of cases (that is 6K knocked off), NHS usage also very low (Knock off say at least 1500). You usually find they do not rent privately and do not claim social housing allowance so we can knock that off, how can you say temporarr workers pay no tax n the UK most are on PAYE, so pay national insurence and income tax, unless they earn under the threashold.
OldLb
http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Employer=Starbucks_Corporation/Hourly_Rate/Job/Barista
How much does starbucks pay?
12,684 pounds a year. That’s the sort of wage lots of migrants are paid.
Now, http://www.listentotaxman.com/index.php and you get
Empoyer NI £688.34
Employee NI 592.32
Income tax 648.80
Total 1,929.46
Err, the NHS costs more. Plus, they are now occupying a job that could quite easily be done by someone on welfare. So on top you have to add on that cost too, plus the common goods, plus the pensions, …
Wake up. Lots of migration is bad, just as some of the migration is good.
Getting migrants in to work in Starbucks is bad. Get over it.
OldLb
So why are you ignoring the pensions?
Why are you ignoring, defence, police, roads.
So why don’t we charge migrants for schooling? 6K a pop.
Why not insist they have private insurance?
OldLb
There’s another angle to your arguments.
Namely, if you don’t get the service, you shouldn’t pay for it. Good apparently for migrants.
So a migrant with no kids, doesn’t have to pay for other people’s kids to be educated.
So what about Brits with no kids. Should they be let of the tax and just parents taxed for schools?