Joint memorandum by The Chartered Institute
of Housing and The Housing Associations' Charitable Trust
The Chartered Institute of Housing is the professional
organisation for people who work in housing. Its purpose is to
maximise the contribution housing professionals make to the wellbeing
of communities. The Chartered Institute has over 20,000 members
across the UK and the Asian Pacific working in a range of organisations—including
housing associations, local authorities, arms length management
organisations, the private sector and educational institutions.
The Housing Associations' Charitable Trust (hact)
pioneers solutions to issues concerning people on the margins
of mainstream housing provision, including as an important element
of its work a refugee housing integration programme.
INTRODUCTION
This is a joint submission by the CIH and hact
to the Committee's inquiry into Community Cohesion and Migration.
Both bodies welcome the inquiry, which raises important issues
with which they have been directly engaged over the last few years.
CIH and hact decided to make a joint submission
because of our partnership in the project Opening Doors, jointly-funded
by CLG and the Housing Corporation, which works with six housing
association partners in different parts of England to improve
their services to migrant and refugee communities. Community cohesion
is a key element of this work.
Both organisations have had a leading role in
issues of community cohesion and housing. Both made submissions
to, and were involved in the work of, the Independent Commission
on Integration and Cohesion (CIC). CIH has (with the Housing Corporation)
published a new good practice guide on community cohesion and
housing, with a particular emphasis on new migration, and has
given guidance to housing organisations on issues such as translation
and interpretation. Hact has recently completed its Accommodate
refugee housing partnership project, working in five areas to
improve housing and integration of refugee communities. Hact also
has a project Communities R Us which focuses on building community
cohesion in three communities which have experienced inward migration
by migrant workers, refugees, or both.
We can make our publications on this issue available
to the Committee and they are referred to in the bibliography.
1. Overall effects of recent migration on
diversity in the UK and on communities
1.1 The effects of migration and growing
diversity have affected the make up of communities in the UK in
many different ways, for example:
— Languages spoken—in
London schools, children speak in total about 300 different "home"
languages. As an example of the changing population picture, in
Tower Hamlets, which has a large Sylheti-speaking Bangladeshi
population, the demand for East European language services now
exceeds that for Sylheti.
— Religion—while many
migrants come from countries with a Christian background, all
the other major religions are also represented. An important aspect
is that people may come from different traditions within Christianity,
Islam, etc. Somali people may want separate religious facilities
to people from (say) Pakistan, even though both communities are
traditionally Muslim.
— Population make-up—new
migrants tend to be younger (concentrated in the 25-44 age group),
and are more likely to be male than female—a reversal of
the pattern of migration a decade ago. (One consequence is that
migrants are helping to rebalance the country's population, which
is of course aging).
— Reasons for coming here—there
are currently about 1.4 million foreign workers in the UK and
over 300,000 foreign students. In 2006, almost 100,000 people
were granted settlement as relatives (mainly spouses and children)
of people already living here, and just short of 20,000 as refugees.
In the same year, about 42,000 asylum seekers were receiving state
support.
— Legal status—migrants
vary widely in their legal status. There may be wide differences
within groups of the same national origin. For example, among
Somalis in the UK—and in any single town or city—we
will find British citizens, refugees, asylum-seekers, persons
granted exceptional leave to remain, undocumented migrants (often
people who have stayed beyond the period allowed), and people
granted refugee status in another European country but who subsequently
moved (legally) to Britain. Among workers from EU states, immigration
status also varies widely depending on country of origin, employment
status, etc.
1.2 Of all the recent factors which have
produced what some are calling "superdiversity", work-related
migration is probably the biggest and one which is difficult to
forecast with any certainty. EU expansion, in particular, has
created a transient workforce, subject to varied (and changing)
restrictions to its movement within the EU. Its size and where
it locates also depend heavily on the relative prosperity of different
member states and factors such as cheap transport links. Some
forecasts suggest, for example, that the rapid growth of the Polish
economy means that in a few years the large émigré
Polish community in Britain will stop growing or even get smaller.
1.3 Growing diversity has considerable implications
for community cohesion. These range from the sudden changes that
can take place in neighbourhoods as new groups move in, to the
interactions (sometimes problematic) between different minority
communities, to the changing expectations of younger people in
minority communities, particularly those born in the UK who in
many cases may still feel that they are not fully accepted as
British. There is a much wider range of needs and circumstances,
which vary from place to place across Britain, than there was
20 years ago.
1.4 We believe that it is essential to view
these issues from the perspective of the different neighbourhoods
and communities experiencing migration and growing diversity.
Long-established communities may see "new" groups moving
into their areas without necessarily being aware of their reasons
for being in Britain or their varying legal status. Policy tends
to focus on categories of people, for example "migrant workers"
or "refugees". But at neighbourhood level such categories
may well be irrelevant or (often) misapplied: the important issue
is people, their differences, and how greater cohesion can be
achieved—regardless of status or why they are here.
2. ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES OF
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
2.1 Until recently, there was little coordination
of responsibility for the different aspects of policy on migration
and on community cohesion, and this point was made in the CIC
report (paragraph 5.20). We believe that the transfer of responsibility
for community cohesion to CLG in May 2006 was the right move,
but it has still not fully resolved the issue of getting a properly
integrated and comprehensive set of policies. For example:
2.1.1 Migration policy is seen predominantly
as an economic issue. While the economic advantages of migration
are clear, decision-making tends to divorce the economic issues
from the social issues and the impacts on public services. For
example, the government's Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has
a remit and work plan which focus entirely on issues about the
demand for migrant labour, without considering the wider implications
of greater migration.
2.1.2 While it is true that the government
has also established a Migration Impact Forum (MIF) to consider
these wider issues, its work does not feed across to that of the
MAC. Also, its terms of reference do not allow it to make recommendations.
2.1.3 Both bodies focus on work-related migration
but, as we have emphasised, many communities are affected by and
are concerned about all forms of migration, without necessarily
distinguishing their origins. There is no mechanism (as far as
we are aware) for looking in the round at the impact at local
level of the range of policies on migration and settlement—whether
work-related, asylum-seeking, by established refugees, for family
reasons, etc. An example of the policy confusion that results
is the bewildering range of entitlements to public services and
welfare benefits (which we return to later).
2.1.4 Neither are we confident that these
mechanisms will allow adequate planning for the impact of migration
on demand for services. As we have seen, migration is having both
a perceived and actual impact on housing and other services, as
demonstrated by the debate over housing allocations in Barking
and Dagenham. Legitimate concerns about housing shortages can
very easily be racialised and fuel considerable discontent.
2.2 We therefore believe it is vital for
government to have a mechanism for reviewing policies related
to migration that takes into account all types of migration and
the full range of its impacts, particularly on public services
and on communities, and the way these are changing over time.
This is of course a very challenging task, but unless faced the
government will continue to make policy which is only based on
part of the evidence and which fails to address the full range
of concerns of people in their neighbourhoods.
2.3 The current Public Service Agreement
relating to cohesion and the integration of new migrants is PSA
21. Government issued a new "delivery agreement" for
this PSA in October, 2007. However, it is worth pointing out some
weaknesses about the PSA as a mechanism for focussing government
policy:
— Community cohesion is only part of
the PSA (covered by two of the six indicators).
— At national level, it will be assessed
through the "Places" survey. Previous results have been
consistently good and may not therefore identify lack of cohesion
in particular local areas.
— At local level, it is up to local
authorities whether they include one or more of the indicators
in their Local Area Agreements LAAs), and set targets accordingly
(see below).
2.4 However, we believe that the community
cohesion "challenge" needs to be given even greater
weight, so that it is "mainstreamed" across all departments
(in the way that, for example, child policy is being mainstreamed)
and is a key driver of government policy. It should be an important
test of any policy decision or government announcement that it
promotes community cohesion (or at the very least does not act
against it). This should include policies and announcements on
the contentious issues of migration and asylum.
3. ROLES OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AND OTHER
AGENCIES
3.1 Coordination of the response to new
arrivals in localities, as within central government, needs to
be "joined up" as no one organisation currently has
the overall responsibility for assessing or dealing with the impacts
of migration or integration, and this has led to a fragmented
and mostly uncoordinated response. A coordinated response is critical
to champion the benefits of migration and respond effectively
to the worries created by migration such as access to housing.
A single lead and voice in each locality is essential to ensure
a clear direction and support to achieve strong sustainable communities—and
clearly it is the local authority that is in the best position
to take this role.
3.2 Local authorities need both incentives
and resources to take on this task. Although there has been publicity
around the demands which new migrants put on local services, the
reality is that many migrants are either not entitled to many
services or are unaware of their rights. It is therefore easy
for their needs to go unrecognised or to impact in areas which
receive less attention from local authorities (eg in the case
of housing, making use of the private rented sector rather than
the social housing stock).
3.3 In this context, a welcome decision
has been the priority afforded to community cohesion in the new
range of national indicators, following the recommendation from
the CIC. The main indicator (the "percentage of people who
believe people from different backgrounds get on well together
in their local area") is the first on the new list of indicators
for local government issued for consultation by CLG in October,
2007. While this gives it prominence, it is up to the authorities
whether they adopt this indicator as one of the 35 (out of 198)
to which they will give priority. It will therefore be vital that
in the dialogue between government offices and local authorities
over LAAs that both sides look to prioritise this indicator in
areas where community cohesion is a key issue.
3.4 The CIC emphasised that, as well as
a national indicator, local communities should be encouraged to
develop their own definitions and measures of community cohesion,
reflecting local needs and priorities, and encouraging constructive
debate as to what obstacles to cohesion exist and how to tackle
them. We believe that this is very important and has in fact taken
place in some areas (see examples in the CIH guide, including
the experience of the hact Communities R Us project in
Bolton).
3.5 Beyond the indicator on community cohesion
(NI 1), there are only two others which relate to migration in
the consultation document:
— NI 12 links immigration enforcement
activity to licensing of houses in multiple occupation. CIH has
objected to this, on the grounds that it is not the role of licensing
schemes to enforce immigration law.
— NI 13 is more positive in measuring
migrants' language skills, but CIH has commented that the proposed
method of measurement (the percentage of applicants for English
courses who complete them) does not address the issue of people
who are unaware of courses available, or whose applications are
not accepted because courses are full.
We therefore believe that the indicators in
themselves are unlikely to act as sufficient incentive to local
authorities. The key will be to persuade local authorities, and
Local Strategic Partnerships, of the importance of cohesion for
the future of their areas and the costs of not giving it sufficient
priority in both strategic planning and the different aspects
of service provision.
3.6 Finally, it is worth emphasising that
it is usually poor neighbourhoods which experience the effects
of migration, whether it is asylum seekers dispersed to areas
of low housing demand, or EU migrants living in multi-occupied
accommodation. Perhaps the biggest single impact on community
cohesion will be if the objective that "no-one should be
seriously disadvantaged by where they live", set out in the
Government's National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal in 2001,
were to be achieved.
4. EFFECTIVENESS
OF RESPONSE
TO MIGRATION
IN DIFFERENT
LOCAL AREAS
4.1 As indicated by the Committee's terms
of reference for the inquiry, there is a range of types of area
affected by new migration and the impacts are different in different
areas. As part of our joint project Opening Doors, we have
carried out a review of regional and local studies on the impacts
of new migration, and this informs our brief comments below.
4.2 Areas of Rapid Increase in Inward
Migration. One characteristic of inward migration in the last
few years, especially since the expansion of the EU from 2004,
is that it has both increased and has affected a geographically
wide range of areas, including areas with limited previous experience
of accepting migrants. Migration nationally has, according to
official figures, more or less doubled in the last decade from
around 300,000 or fewer people per year to approaching 600,000.
These figures are known to mask greater short-term movements,
especially of migrant workers, who are often concentrated in particular
areas (see below). However, the main point to be made is that
migration is now such an important factor that it affects the
majority of local authorities to some degree. Even if actual numbers
in a particular district are small, the impact can be considerable
if the authority concerned had little or no previous experience
of minority communities, and (for example) has few staff with
relevant skills. In our experience the response from authorities
has been very variable indeed, with some responding well (including
some in the "inexperienced" category) but the majority
lagging behind or reliant on inadequate advice services never
intended to deal with the demands they now face.
4.3 Areas with a Lack of Experience of
Diversity. Many rural areas and small towns have been affected
by new migration, not only across England but across the whole
of the UK. The evidence is documented in the Audit Commission's
excellent appraisal Crossing Borders, which was published in January
2007. Good practice in responding to migration in such areas with
little experience of diversity has included:
— Cornwall—has a multi-agency
migrant workers group which has produced a "Welcome to Cornwall"
pack and developed a responsible employers scheme, as well as
responding to poor conditions in temporary housing.
— North Somerset—commissioned
a specific survey looking at the housing needs of migrant groups.
— South Holland—worked
with partners to survey a large number of migrant workers and
also members of the long-established community, to test cohesion
issues as well as needs for services.
In all cases, there are issues of resources
and skills to follow up these initial studies and ensure that
they are fully reflected in service changes.
4.4 Areas where Migrant Communities mix
with Settled Migrant Communities. There are also many areas
where migrants are absorbed into settled communities, adding to
the diversity that already exists. It is probably fair to say
that the majority of cities and towns with an ethnically-mixed
population have experienced further migration from new groups,
in part because of their cosmopolitan nature and in part because
they offer support networks to newcomers. Although local authorities
in these cases, and bodies such as housing associations, are often
better equipped to deal with diversity, this does not necessarily
mean that the new needs have been identified. Indeed, existing
diversity—plus factors already mentioned such as lack of
eligibility for services—may mean that new groups' needs
remain hidden. However, some authorities (eg Southampton) and
some housing associations (eg Willow Park Housing Trust in Manchester,
Wakefield and District Housing in Yorkshire) have responded in
imaginative ways.
4.5 The message from the work which CIH
and hact have carried out is that there is "good practice"
in dealing with new migration, but it is very scattered and the
agencies concerned are having to learn quickly and in many cases
acquire new skills. The resource climate for local government
in particular is not conducive to new initiatives or service expansion
in the directions often required.
5. IMPACT OF
NEW MIGRATION
ON LOCAL
COMMUNITIES
5.1 Under this heading we deal with the
impact on neighbourhoods, under the following heading the impact
on housing services.
5.2 Given the scale of change which has
taken place in some local areas, accompanied by hostile media
coverage and often unhelpful political comment, it is perhaps
surprising that there has not been a greater negative impact of
new migration at local level. Recently, the number of incidents
as been quite small (eg clashes between communities in Wrexham
in Wales, and in Boston in Lincolnshire), although there were
more serious problems (including murders) associated with the
first stages of asylum dispersal from 2000 onwards. Most recent
surveys of migrant workers have reported some problems for individuals
but, in general, not major ones. The issues are therefore often
lower-key but nevertheless important, for example:
— Poor conditions, overcrowding and
associated problems in private rented housing and for seasonal
workers on caravan sites.
— Destitution suffered by people who
lose access to welfare services and both suffer deprivation themselves
and have an adverse impact on the communities where they live.
— Friction between communities, eg
between long-established BME communities and newer ones competing
for resources in the same area.
— Problems related to age differences,
eg migrant workers being mainly younger people, often male, perhaps
moving into areas where the indigenous community includes a lot
of older people.
There are several examples of local authorities
and housing associations, and of tenants' and residents' groups,
brokering better relationships and defusing tensions. The CIH
guide to Community Cohesion and Housing has several migrant-related
case studies. It is important that (following the work of the
CIC) good practice continues to be encouraged and disseminated.
5.3 Destitution is a particularly significant
issue for community relations—and there is growing destitution
reported from local studies in Coventry, Leicester, Leeds and
Newcastle, as well as specific evidence of destitution in London
among migrant workers who lose their jobs. We urge the Committee
to recommend government to review policies which lead to destitution
or—in the case of asylum seekers—which use it as a
tool to enforce immigration policy. Not only does it cause hardship
to individuals, it has a considerable impact on neighbourhoods
because of the obvious risks of people (often young men) having
nothing to do, no accommodation and no money.
5.4 It is vital to emphasise the role that
is or could be played by community-based groups working with migrant
and refugee communities. Such groups already play an important
role in London and other large cities, and often have a nascent
role in smaller towns. It is very important that local authorities
and other agencies work to identify and support such groups, if
possible investing in building their capacity. The work which
CIH and hact are doing through Opening Doors is intended to encourage
this and is already developing good practice examples.
6. IMPACT ON
HOUSING SERVICES
6.1 The evidence of the impact of new migration
on social housing is, so far, that it has been very limited. For
example, the latest "CORE" returns on lettings by housing
associations show only 1% going to accession state nationals in
2006-07, and the equivalent proportion for local authority lettings
is only 0.7%. In round figures, this accounts for about 1,500
lettings across the whole social housing stock, out of total lettings
in that year (included in "CORE" data) of around 170,000.
So far, new EU migration has therefore had little direct impact
on social housing.
6.2 Nevertheless a number of authorities
and associations have reported a growing number of inquiries about
housing from EU migrants, and as more decide either to stay long
term or bring family members, demand may increase. At this stage
however there is still time for government, and for social landlords,
to plan their responses to possible increased demand for housing.
(We will be making these points to the joint inquiry by the Equalities
and Human Rights Commission and the LGA into the fairness of housing
allocations.)
6.3 All of the local studies reviewed by
CIH and hact have indicated that the overwhelming proportion of
EU migrants is accommodated in the private sector, either directly
through employers, through agents, or through landlords. This
has had a considerable impact on housing supply, especially in
small towns, affecting not just the private rented market but
also the lower end of the home owner market, as landlords buy
property to let to migrants. There is a widespread problem of
poor conditions, excessive rents and overcrowding, especially
in smaller places where authorities do not have sufficient staff
to enforce standards/rent levels in the private sector. Poor management
of properties exacerbates the problems, and can affect community
cohesion in an area (eg if rubbish accumulates, if people are
coming and going at night due to shift work, etc).
6.4 In a joint submission by various agencies
(including CIH and hact) to the Migration Impact Forum, in January,
we suggested that CLG should consider ways to support local authorities
to gear up their enforcement activities in the private rented
sector, especially in areas with high inward migration.
6.5 Regardless of tenure, there is considerable
evidence of need for better advice facilities for migrants, accessible
to them and with advice available in appropriate languages. Although
there are some advice services of these kinds (notably New Link
in Peterborough) in many areas they are unavailable or not attractive
to migrants. It also important that any nationally-developed "welcome
pack" for migrants adequately covers housing issues.
6.6 There is also an issue about the complexity
of entitlements to housing and other services, according to immigration
status. CIH and hact are currently developing an online resource
which will be available to individuals and to housing professionals,
advice workers and migrant/refugee community organisations, later
this year. However, the complexity of the rules is in itself a
barrier—for frontline workers it may be safer to tell someone
that they are not eligible (for example, for help as a homeless
person) rather than risk assuming an eligibility which does not
accord with the rules.
6.7 A related issue is access to choice-based
letting schemes, which require computer access and literacy, competence
in English and familiarity with local areas where accommodation
choices might be made. There is already evidence of the difficulties
CBL schemes pose to refugee groups; it is important that social
landlords take account of the needs of all new migrant groups,
as indeed some have done.
6.8 Finally, there is the important issue
of identifying new migrant populations, and assessing their circumstances
and needs. The Opening Doors work has identified a number of examples
of local surveys, but there are problems about data availability
and also expertise and costs for undertaking local surveys. Surveys
may need to be repeated at intervals because the situation is
so dynamic. There is a need for guidance on undertaking such surveys,
and a clear expectation that this information will be included
in local housing strategies and other strategic plans.
6.9 There must be recognition that the impact
on housing resources is threefold:
— housing revenue accounts;
— LA and HA capital resources; and
— LA General Fund (strategic housing
role, homelessness and housing advice, support for the voluntary
and community sector and work with the private rented sector).
The greatest impact is on the General Fund,
which in most LAs is the most constrained.
7. RESPONSIBILITIES
OF EMPLOYERS
7.1 CIH and hact are concerned that, while
the overall economic benefits of migration are recognised, there
are few mechanisms to ensure that a proportion of the benefit
is reinvested locally to meet the costs associated with the presence
of migrants. This is particularly the case in housing where (as
we have explained) migrant workers often have inadequate accommodation
(with knock on effects for the neighbourhoods where it is located)
or may increasingly look to the public sector for advice or for
housing.
7.2 We would like to see this issue addressed,
possibly in the following ways:
— Consider how to work with employers
to improve tied accommodation and/or provide alternatives.
— Consider the potential role of housing
associations as managers of accommodation on behalf of employers,
to ensure higher standards, and how this could be financed.
— Consider an exploratory programme
with say six LA/HA partnerships to examine options for improved/better
managed accommodation with local employers and encourage a range
of different solutions.
8. ACTION TO
TAKE FORWARD
THE CIC RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 CIH and hact support the majority of
the CIC's recommendations, the initial response to them by the
Communities Secretary in October, and the Housing Corporation's
strategy Shared Places. We comment here only on exceptions
to this.
8.1.1 We were concerned that the CIC's final
report did not place sufficient emphasis on the importance of
housing, given that community cohesion is fundamentally about
neighbourhoods and where people live. We look for this to be addressed
in the CLG's full response to CIC later this year.
8.1.2 Although welcoming the CIC's proposed
new definition of community cohesion, again it omits the "neighbourhood"
dimension which is included in the current definition. We believe
that it is important that any changed definition reflects this.
8.1.3 We support the CIC's recommendation
that there should be research into "what works in different
neighbourhoods, and why". While there are now numbers of
different local projects addressing cohesion issues, there is
little evidence of what works in different circumstances.
8.1.4 We were concerned about the strength
of the CIC's comments about "single group funding" and
were pleased that the Community Secretary's letter called for
a more balanced approach. The guidance to housing organisations
in the CIH guide to Community Cohesion and Housing aims
for such an approach.
8.1.5 We endorse the CIC's views about the
need for clear government messages about cohesion and the need
to respond rapidly to myths. Again, there is guidance on this,
and practical examples, in the CIH guide.
|
