PRACTICAL CONCERNS ABOUT MIGRATION
16. These case studies show that settled residents often have
practical issues of concern about migrationthough these
concerns do not relate exclusively to migrants.[31]
We were struck by the similarity in the concerns expressed by
migrants that we met in Peterborough, and Barking and Dagenham,
to those of settled communities. Migrants acknowledged that there
were valid concerns about the effect of migration on crime, litter,
housing, and the limited spoken English of new arrivals.[32]
Sarah Spencer, Associate Director at the Centre for Migration,
Policy and Society (COMPAS), also found from her research that
migrants and non-migrants had a striking degree of agreement on
issues of concern about their local neighbourhood.[33]
Public concerns about the effects of migration cannot simply
be dismissed as racist or xenophobic. Tensions often arise on
real practical issues, such as the proliferation of Houses in
Multiple Occupation (HMOs).
Houses in multiple occupation (HMOs)
17. Many witnesses expressed concerns about the problems associated
with HMOs. While migrants are not the sole occupant of HMOs, witnesses
reported that many of these dwellings were increasingly being
occupied by migrants, particularly by single male working adults.[34]
In Peterborough, residents were very concerned about the rapid
increase in the number of HMOs in their area, in response to demand
from migrants moving into the area. Mr Blake-Herbert, Director
of Resources, Slough Borough Council, reported that Slough had
seen a net growth in HMOs catering for the new migrant population.[35]
Fenland District Council estimates that the vast majority of HMOs
in its borough cater for migrants and that they continue to receive
reports of properties being converted to HMOs to house migrant
workers.[36] Figures
from the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) show that
60 per cent of new migrants to the UK in the last five years live
in private rented accommodation.[37]
Despite some local evidence on the number of migrants living in
HMOs, no national assessment appears to have been made of the
overall effect of migration on the number of HMOs.
18. There are many problems associated with the
proliferation and concentration of HMOs. Peterborough residents
reported an increase in fly-tipping and uncollected rubbish as
a result of homes being converted into HMOs.[38]
Mr Blake-Herbert stated that, in Slough, one of the key complaints
about HMOs in Slough was the "level of refuse that is created
within those individual properties".[39]
The Chartered Institute of Housing argued that the "poor
management of properties exacerbates the problems, and can affect
community cohesion in an area (e.g. if rubbish accumulates, if
people are coming and going at night due to shift work)".[40]
19. HMOs do not just cause problems for the people
living in surrounding properties. The people living in the HMOs
themselves can also suffer from poor quality housing, overcrowding
and unscrupulous landlords.[41]
The Local Government Association (LGA) pointed out that a minority
of landlords exploit migrant workers with many living in "overcrowded
properties in a poor state of repair with attendant fire or other
health and safety problems".[42]
Fenland District Council told us that it had experienced several
serious fire incidents in HMOs the last few years, and that the
vast majority of the occupants were migrants.[43]
20. One of the ways in which local authorities
are tackling HMOs and their associated problems is through the
HMO licensing scheme. The Housing Act 2004 introduced compulsory
licensing for HMOs, and enabled local authorities to apply for
extended licensing powers where there are problems. Peterborough
City Council told us that it was seeking to extend its licensing
powers to tackle the problems associated with unscrupulous landlords,
who often take advantage of migrants, but that it had found the
process long and excessively bureaucratic.[44]
21. The Government has recently acknowledged,
in its Migration Impacts Plan, that migration may have an effect
on the number of HMOs. It has made a new commitment to ensuring
that its commissioned review of the private rented sector examines
the effect of migration. The Government also states that it will
"work with local authorities to develop discretionary licensing
schemes in those local authority areas with a high number of properties
housing migrant workers".[45]
We welcome the Government's commitment to ensuring that the
review of the private rented sector examines the effect of migration
on housing. We recommend that the review include a detailed assessment
of the effects of migration on Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs)
and the problems which result both for existing communities and
for the individuals who live in them. We also welcome the Government's
commitment to supporting local authorities in the use of their
discretionary licensing powers. However, further action is needed.
We reiterate the recommendation made in our Report The Supply
of Rented Housing, where we argued that the Government should
make it easier for local authorities to regulate HMOs, and in
particular that the process of applying for extended licensing
should be easier.[46]
In areas where migrants tend to live in HMOs, public concern
about migration can be reduced if the problems of HMOs are tackled.
The pace of change
25 per cent of British adults felt that local
areas were losing their sense of Britishness because of immigration,
a 13 per cent increase from 2005MORI poll, April 2008[47]
22. People are worried about the cultural effects
of migration as well as the visible impact. During our visits,
people repeatedly stressed to us their fears over the scale and
pace of migration into their local area. In Barking and Dagenham,
one resident that we met stated that many long-standing residents
no longer felt safe as they no longer knew their neighbours, and
consequently many white people were moving out of the area. Others
voiced their concerns about the lack of spoken English.[48]
The residents we spoke to in Peterborough, and Barking and Dagenham,
argued that there were simply too many migrants moving into the
area in a short time period.
23. The pace of change in some local areas has
been dramatic. Barking and Dagenham Borough Council told us that
its area has experienced the fastest changing demography in the
country: "in 1991, only 6.8% of the borough's population
was non-white [
] and is now, it is estimated, approximately
25%".[49] Dagenham
has experienced a particular change, primarily from the movement
of people from inner-London boroughs who are attracted to the
area by the availability of cheaper accommodation, rather than
directly from other countries.[50]
Slough Borough Council described the severity of the consequences
for the local area of the pace of change:
If the town continues to attract in poorer communities
that cause both white flight and the flight of wealthier sections
of the other non-white communities, its future sustainability
is in doubt.[51]
24. The feeling that a community is changing
too quickly can be exacerbated in areas that have little previous
history of inward migration. The CIC report identified three types
of areas where the newness of diversity can lead to particular
cohesion problems: urban areas, such as outer London boroughs;
rural areas, such as areas around the Wash; and ethnically diverse
urban areas, such as inner cities that are experiencing new migration
from non-commonwealth countries.[52]
Evidence from our visits supports the CIC's findings. Peterborough
(located near the Wash), and Barking and Dagenham (an outer London
borough) have experienced rapid change and experience poor cohesion.
The rapid pace of change experienced by many communities has
led to increased local public concern about migration and can
negatively affect community cohesion.
Q
1 The national picture
25. Nationally, there is a positive picture of
cohesion, with 82 per cent of people agreeing with the statement
that people of different backgrounds get on well in their local
area.[53] Locally, the
picture of cohesion is quite varied, with cohesion levels ranging
between 38 and 90 per cent.[54]
A small minority of
local authority areas have significantly low levels of cohesion;
ten local authority areas out of 386 have levels below 60 per
cent.[55]
26. There is no straightforward relationship
between the number of migrants in an area and levels of cohesion.
Figure 1 illustrates this, using National Insurance number allocations
in 2006-07 as an indicative proxy for migrant numbers.[56]
The areas ringed in black are the 20 per cent least cohesive local
authority areas in the country. Although some areas have experienced
high levels of migration and poor cohesion, it is not always the
case that the one leads to the other. For example, some inner-London
boroughs such as Newham and Brent have experienced high levels
of recent migration,[57]
yet experience cohesion levels above the national average.[58]
This may be because these areas have a history of diversity and
migration. On the other hand, Boston has the lowest level of cohesion
in the country and has experienced high levels of recent migration.
The Secretary of State informed us that an estimated 25 per cent
of the Boston population is from Eastern Europe.[59]
27. Figure 1 and the example areas above demonstrate
that local communities are complex, and there are many interrelated
factors that can influence how cohesive the area is. The CIC concluded
that there are a wide variety of factors influencing cohesion
and identified five as key: deprivation, discrimination, crime
and antisocial behaviour, diversity and immigration.[60]
The Commission suggested that attention should be focused on areas
that are experiencing change and that are less affluent. In its
memorandum to our inquiry, the Government stated that "affluent
areas experiencing migration usually have higher than average
cohesion".[61] Data
from the Citizenship Survey showed that people's perceptions of
community cohesion declined the greater the extent of deprivation
in their area.[62]
28. There is no straightforward relationship
between the number of migrants in an area and levels of cohesion.
Some areas experience high inward migration yet have a good level
of cohesion in comparison to the national average. Nevertheless,
cohesion can be negatively affected by migration, particularly
in areas where there is poverty and/or little previous experience
of diversity.
Figure 1: Community cohesion and non-UK National
Insurance number allocations, 2006-07

14 Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. Back
15
ONS, Components of Population Change, UK, 22 August 2007,
www.statistics.gov.uk. Back
16
ONS, Total International Migration 1997-2006, 20 May 2008,
www.statistics.gov.uk. Back
17
Department for Work and Pensions, National Insurance Number
Allocations to Overseas Nationals entering the UK 2007, www.dwp.gov.uk.
Back
18
ONS, Total International Migration 1997-2006, 20 May 2008,
www.statistics.gov.uk. Back
19
Ipsos MORI, Rivers of Blood Survey, April 2008, www.ipsos-mori.com. Back
20
Annex Back
21
Annex Back
22
Ev 90. See also Q 33. Back
23
Q 6 Back
24
Ev 78 Back
25
Ev 75 Back
26
The Audit Commission, Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI)
data 2006-07. Back
27
Multiple Indices of Deprivation 2007 Back
28
BVPI data 2006-07 Back
29
Multiple Indices of Deprivation 2007 Back
30
Boston, Lincolnshire, had the lowest level of cohesion in 2006-07
at 38 per cent. BVPI data 2006-07. Back
31
Annex Back
32
Annex. See also Q 184. Back
33
Q 184 Back
34
Q 44. See also Annex. Back
35
Q 44 Back
36
Ev 107 Back
37
EHRC and LGA, Allocation of Social Housing by Local authorities
in England and Wales-letter to Chief Executives from Sir Simon
Milton and Trevor Phillips, 8 April 2008, www.lga.gov.uk. Back
38
Annex Back
39
Q 51 Back
40
Ev 76 Back
41
Q 49 Back
42
Ev 131 Back
43
Ev 107 Back
44
Annex Back
45
Communities and Local Government, Managing the Impacts of
Migration: A Cross-Government Approach, June 2008, p 30. Back
46
Communities and Local Government Committee, Eighth Report of
Session 2007-08, The Supply of Rented Housing, HC 457,
para 188. Back
47
Ipsos MORI, Rivers of Blood Survey, April 2008, www.ipsos-mori.com. Back
48
Annex Back
49
Ev 132 Back
50
Annex Back
51
Ev 148 Back
52
Our Shared Future, para 2.33. Back
53
Communities and Local Government, Citizenship Survey April
- December 2007, England and Wales, p 10. Back
54
Ev 78 Back
55
Based on BVPI data 2006-2007, those 10 areas are: Boston, Barking
and Dagenham, Burnley, Pendle, Oldham, Fenland, Thurrock, Great
Yarmouth, South Holland, Stoke-on-Trent, and Corby. Back
56
These figures should not be regarded as the total number of
non-UK nationals, as there are a number of limitations on the
data. NINO data do not show when overseas nationals subsequently
depart the UK, the length of stay in the UK, nor record movement
between UK areas: consequently the data do not provide information
on outflows or movement within the UK. Non-UK nationals are not
required to de-register when they move; consequently the data
show the inflow of registrations but do not capture the movement
of migrants within and out of the UK.. The figures exclude migrants
who do not require a National Insurance number, for example students. Back
57
In Newham, 16,160 non-UK nationals registered for a National
Insurance number in 2006-07; in Brent, 15,600 registrations were
recorded. Back
58
The level of community cohesion in Newham and Brent is 85 percent,
in comparison to the national average of 82 per cent. Back
59
Q 229 Back
60
Our Shared Future, para 2.15. Back
61
Ev 79 Back
62
Our Shared Future, para 2.17. Back