|
Communities and Local Government Committee
INQUIRY INTO COMMUNITY COMMISSION AND MIGRATION
JOINT MEMORANDUM TO THE INQUIRY BY CIH AND HACT
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 1.4m 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 twenty 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 (para 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.
Chartered Institute of Housing and hact, January 2008
|