Joint Statement on reported Government policy changes to prioritise Britons in Social Housing Allocation – Black South West Network (BSWN) & Stand Against Racism and Inequality (SARI)
On the 18th of June, 2023, The Times reported on the Government’s purported plans to unveil more restrictive rules on social housing allocation. The article, entitled “Britons ‘to be priority (sic) on council house lists’” outlines ministerial concerns regarding the inordinate waiting times experienced by more than a million households patiently waiting for social housing (The Times 2023). Under these possible policy changes, the issue of lengthy waiting lists is expected to be addressed through the prioritisation of British citizens and permanent residents for social housing (Breaking News Network 2023).
Prima facie, policy decisions such as these appear as realpolitik – political decisions based on practicality as opposed to ideology. Certainly, inordinate waiting lists should be engaged with to ensure their shortening whilst also ensuring that all people can obtain social housing when needed. However, in showing prioritisation to Britons in a social housing system that, already, excludes many migrants from engaging with it, the Government reveals that its rationale is rooted deeply in the politics of deservingness and undeservingness.
The Telegraph reports that Government adviser Frank Field, also a former Labour MP, described the number of social homes claimed by migrants as a ‘scandal’, that taxpayer-funded housing deserves to be provided to “citizens who have made the most contribution to society, who have paid their taxes and whose children have not caused trouble…” (The Telegraph 2023). Field’s rationale engages directly with dangerous ideas of deservingness and the demonisation of migrants – who are often racialised individuals or in vulnerable situations. Field’s infusion of danger and unruliness with migrant status is clear in his statement, weaponised as a reason to not provide equal prioritisation to non-UK nationals. Field also perpetuates the misconception that migrants do not make equal contributions to society and that they do not pay taxes. The Migrant Observatory at the University of Oxford refutes such a claim: indeed, its publication on the Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the UK reports that non-EEA nationals pay £20 billion more in income tax and National Insurance than they receive back in tax credits and child benefits (Migrant Observatory 2022). Whilst the publication acknowledges that these findings are predicated on a specific canon of metrics, it does more than enough to refute the statements of Field. Certainly, migrants pay taxes and migrants do make great contributions to society.
In further refutation of Field’s claims, the Migration Observatory further reports that UK-born and foreign-born residents have similar levels of participation in social housing (16% and 17% respectively) (Migrant Observatory 2022). The Migrant Observatory states that claims such as Fields’ regarding migrants receiving priority status in social housing allocation are often unsupported, with the studies of Battiston et al (2015) and Robinson (2010) failing to find evidence to support such a claim despite its popularity in mainstream media. According to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (2023), 90% of lead tenants in rented social housing in England were found to be UK citizens between April 2021 to March 2022, with 5% of lead tenants being from nations outside the European Economic Area (EEA).
The fears of migrant-seized social housing that act as rationales to these government policies may, correctly, recognise that positive net migration may increase the ongoing social housing shortage, but ignore the impact of a depleted social housing stock. Certainly, Wilson and Barton (2022) found that the social housing sector has been in a substantial decline based on their surveying of the sector from 1979 to 2021. The Affordable Housing Commission (2020) identifies the lack of growth in social housing stock as the prime factor for people’s discontent surrounding housing. These findings are not exclusive to the reports of institutes, commissions and those that run them. The National Housing Federation’s commissioned YouGov Poll of 2,048 adults in Great Britain found that there is cross-party criticism for the failure of the Government to effectively tackle the social housing crisis. Kate Henderson of the National Housing Federation states:
“There is a clear consensus amongst voters from all parties and people across all ages and parts of the country, not only that we need to build more social housing, but that this should take precedence over building any other types of home.” (Kate Henderson, National Housing Federation).
It is important to take note of the socio-political background within which this possible governmental policy change takes place. The moral panic surrounding the ‘small boat crisis’ has taken precedence in many spheres of political discourse, shrouding the essence of humanity that should be at the forefront of discussions surrounding the lives of the racialised and displaced “Other”. The Telegraph reports that “the move [...] comes as Rishi Sunak seeks to address voters’ concerns about the impact of the small boats crisis.” The current eligibility criteria for social housing places significant restrictions on migrants who apply for social housing. As outlined by Shelter, individuals are able to apply for social housing if they meet the following criteria:
British or Irish citizenship
Indefinite leave to remain
Settled status under the EU settlement scheme
Right of abode as a Commonwealth citizen
A visa that allows you recourse to public funds, such as
Ukraine family scheme visas
Sponsorship through the Homes for Ukraine scheme
The Afghan relocations and assistance policy or the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme.
The possible policy changes will guarantee that refugees, who come via legitimate routes, remain unaffected.
In light of this, a source informs The Times: “The UK will always welcome the economic contribution of legal migrants to this country, but they shouldn’t be allowed to jump the queue for social homes.” The manner in which this is framed assumes that migrants ‘jump the queue’ frequently. However, the policy advisor to the Chartered Institute of Housing, John Perry, rebukes such myths (Inside Housing 2017). Perry notes that migrants already face “formidable legal obstacles and pay massive fees'' that make the acquisition of social housing difficult. Moreover, only a handful of refugees who come to the UK on special schemes obtain social housing on their arrival. Even then, migrant refugees experience an average wait of 82 weeks for permanent residences, living in overcrowded hotel rooms in the meantime (The National News 2023). Moreover, the Migrant Observatory states that it is not the status of ‘migrant’ that provides them with priority, but the fact that some migrant groups are more likely to have “characteristics [that] gain priority for social housing, such as very low income.” What is needed, rather than the deprioritisation of non-permanent resident migrants and non-British citizens is a reformation of the social housing sector, the building of more social housing, and policies that ensure the safety of those most vulnerable in society. We, at BSWN and SARI, strongly believe that the solution does not lie in policy changes that prop migrants as undeserving of state support or misrepresent them as unduly ‘skipping the queue’, but rather a policy predicated on compassion and care. Until then, we maintain a watchful gaze on the Government as they prepare for this change in policy.
