Origen de LEGO: 1932-1953

Statistics about tenure, rent levels and income are available from the various housing surveys carried out at national level, but none of these include country of birth, date of arrival or nationality (except the ‘English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Other’ collected by the English House Condition Survey), and so cannot provide information about migrants. Table 7.1 shows that the percentage of people living in ‘non decent’ homes has fallen, but remains higher among people from those described as ‘ethnic minority households’ and defined as ‘households where the respondent defines their ethnicity as something other than white’ (DCLG, 2007).

Table 7.1 Percentage of people living in ‘non decent’ homes, England, 1996–

2005

1996 2001 2003 2004 2005 White households 43.1 33.6 29.8 27.9 26.0 Ethnic minority households 51.5 39.9 35.3 33.0 30.6 Source: English House Condition Survey, 2005.

The Census collects data on country of birth but published data in housing reports only relate to ethnicity. Table 7.2 notes higher than average rates of overcrowding among all groups other than White British.

Table 7.2 Percentage of people living in overcrowded accommodation, by ethnicity, UK, 2001

Notes: (¹) HRP: Household Reference Person.

(²) The occupancy rating provides a measure of under-occupancy and overcrowding. For example, a value of -1 implies that there is one room too few and that there is overcrowding in the household. (This assumes that every household, including one-person households, requires a minimum of two common rooms, excluding bathroom.)

The Continuous Recording (CORE) data (on who has been offered new tenancies by all registered housing associations and most local authorities, but with some

significant gaps) has recorded nationality since 2007, and now publishes these figures, but with no national totals. The published national data show that ethnic minority tenants in general needs and supported housing lettings account for around one in five of all tenants (Tables 7.3 and 7.4).

Table 7.3 CORE national overview, England, 2006/7

General needs lettings

Table 7.4 CORE national overview, England, 2004–8 Supported housing lettings

2007/8 107,252 3,727,399 54.2 23.8 19.6 20.0

2006/7 103.515 3,518.628 57.6 25.3 19.3 18.9

2005/6 96,896 3,180,423 60.9 28.2 20.8 17.7

2004/5 66.576 2,061,646 73.8 35.2 26.8 19.0

Source: CORE data, 2008/9.

The Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) has done some useful work on tenure using the Labour Force Survey (LFS) data (which includes information on tenure and country of birth) over a one-year period, which they have prepared for use later in a report commissioned by the Commission on social housing allocations and migrants (Rutter and Latorre, forthcoming). Figure 7.1 shows that new migrants are

concentrated in the private rented sector, but also that the percentages of new migrants, foreign-born and UK-born, in social housing are quite similar, at 11–18 per cent. The data does not distinguish between types of migration, but it is reasonable

to assume that a high proportion of the 11 per cent of new migrants in social housing arrived as asylum seekers or refugees, as they are eligible and more likely to apply for social housing since they arrive with few housing resources and have access to more information about housing options.

Figure 7.1 Housing tenure and country of birth, UK, 2006/7

Housing tenure distribution by country of birth

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Owner occupier Social tenant Private tenant Other*

Percentage over population

UK born Foreign born Foreign born arrived in the last 5 years

Source: LFS 2006Q4-2007Q3

* Includes rent relative of household member or related to work

Source: LFS and IPPR calculations (IPPR, 2007).

The IPPR has also produced landlord breakdowns for those renting by country of birth, which enables us to look at some populations more likely to be migrants (although these are not identified by recent arrival). For these, they have used LFS data over two years (because the sample size would not otherwise be adequate):

see Figures 7.2 and 7.3. However, the figures need to be treated with some caution because, even here, the numbers to produce percentages at the lower end will be small. They do provide some interesting contrasts. Those born in Europe (with the usual exception of those born in Germany, including a proportion of children of UK overseas forces personnel) have significantly lower percentages in council or housing association accommodation than the UK-born, with a lower proportion still for those born in Eastern European countries. This would reflect both the more recent arrival (since access to social housing is often via time on waiting lists) and the more restricted legal rights of those from accession countries. Non-European migrants reflect the varieties of experience, prosperity and entitlement explored above: those born in Bangladesh, Jamaica, Afghanistan and Somalia, for example, have a higher percentage in social housing than the UK-born, probably reflecting both eligibility (due to refugee status, long residence or citizenship) and poverty. Most other people born abroad have significantly higher percentages in the private rented sector.

Figure 7.2 Rented accommodation landlords and nationalities (over 100,000), UK, 2005/7

Landlord of accommodation in countries with population in the UK over 100,000, 2005-2007

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

UK India Ireland Poland Pakistan Germany Bangladesh South Africa China and Hong Kong Jamaica United States Nigeria Kenya France Australia Sri lanka Zimbabwe Italy

LA/council/Scottish homes

Housing association, charitable trust or local housing company Employing organisation

Another organisation

Relative of household member

Individual employer

Other individual private landlord

Source: LFS 2005Q4-2007Q3

Source: LFS and IPPR calculations (IPPR, 2007).

Figure 7.3 Rented accommodation landlords and nationalities (40–100,000), UK, 2005/7

Landlord of accommodation in countries with population in the UK between 100,000 and 40,000, 2005-2007

Source: LFS and IPPR calculations (IPPR, 2007).

The same LFS data has also been used to look at tenure (Figures 7.4 and 7.5). Only two groups (those born in Kenya or Singapore) match the UK percentage in owner occupation, all others having a higher percentage in rented accommodation. Those born in India, Ireland and Italy, however, have a higher percentage who own outright.

Figure 7.4 Tenure by nationality over 100,000, UK, 2005/7

Accommodation details in countries with population in the UK over 100,000, 2005-2007

Owned Outright Being bought with m ortgage or loan Part rent, part m ortgage R ented R ent free Source: LFS 2005Q4-2007Q3

Source: LFS and IPPR calculations (IPPR, 2007).

Figure 7.5 Tenure by nationality 40–100,000, UK, 2005/7

Accommodation details in countries with population in the UK between 100,000 and 40,000, 2005-2007

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Philippines Somalia Ghana Canada Cyprus Turkey Spain Portugal Netherlands Iran New Zealand

Malaysia Lithuania Uganda Iraq Afghanistan

Slovakia Singapore Brazil

Owned Outright Being bought with mortgage or loan Part rent, part mortgage Rented Rent free Source: LFS 2005Q4-2007Q3

Source: LFS and IPPR calculations (IPPR, 2007).

The proportion of migrants in social housing, therefore, is relatively low, but there are significant differences between different groups of migrants. As shown in Table 7.5, some countries from which refugees and asylum seekers are more likely to come have higher proportions in social housing than the UK-born, while nationalities comprising mainly economic migrants are more likely to have lower percentages in social housing.

Table 7.5 Proportion of population living in social housing in Britain, by

Source: LFS and IPPR calculations (IPPR, 2007).

7.3 Homelessness

As noted above, immigration status is a determinant of eligibility for homelessness services in the UK. Applications on the grounds of homelessness are, of course, an indicator of poverty, since those who can use their own resources do so, in order to avoid applying as homeless, with the attendant uncertainty, stigma and possible long periods in temporary accommodation. Local councils accept a duty to rehouse as homeless only those who are:

• Eligible (in terms of immigration status and habitual residence).

• Legally homeless (that is, with no suitable accommodation available anywhere in the world).

• In priority need (with a child, pregnant woman or vulnerable person in the household).

• Not intentionally homeless.

Homelessness has been a significant route of entry into council housing in areas of high demand. The (Department of) Communities and Local Government (DCLG) publishes information about applications for homelessness services in the quarterly P1E returns, but these set out the total number of applications from people of ethnic minority origin only. Table 7.6 shows that applications for homelessness assistance have been declining over the last two years (as policies and practices designed to divert applicants have begun to bite). Ethnic minority applications, however, have not been declining as fast and now constitute almost half of all applications.

Table 7.6 Statutory homelessness, by ethnicity, England Period Total Minority Ethnic % of total

2006 Q2 93,910 41,160 44

Q3 93,090 40,750 44

Q4 89,510 39,160 44

2007 Q1 87,120 38,610 44

Q2 84,900 38,770 46

Q3 82,750 38,710 47

Source: DCLG Quarterly P1E returns.

DCLG also publishes P1E data collected about applications made by A8 migrants in the quarterly Accession Monitoring Reports. Since there is a lot of anecdotal

evidence that widespread discrimination occurs against such applicants (who are routinely turned away unless they have worked and been registered on the Workers Registration Scheme for a year in the UK, in spite of DCLG guidance telling local authorities firmly that while working during this time they are eligible) and, since there are few applications anyway, the use of these figures is limited. The monitoring returns for A8 nationals to June 2007 show that identified accession country migrants made up 0.4 per cent of homelessness applications overall (an increase from 0.2 per cent in 2004 to 0.6 per cent in 2007). However, not everyone who applies as

homeless receives an offer of accommodation; indeed in 2006/7 only 47 per cent were assessed as cases where the local authority has a duty to house. As Table 7.7 below shows, for A8 nationals since 2004, this proportion is much lower: only 35 per cent of the applications were accepted and so resulted in the local authority offering accommodation.

Table 7.7 Homelessness applications by A8 nationals, 2004–7, England

The difference between the overall acceptance rate of 47 per cent and the 35 per cent for A8 nationals warrants further examination.