Ill-considered statements about immigration and housing can play into the hands of racists

Last week the Prime Minister, David Cameron, announced plans to limit the availability of social housing for non-EU immigrants. We have been led to believe that local English-born citizens are being denied housing because immigrants are ‘jumping the housing waiting list’.

The reality, though, is much different. The Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, has reported that just 9% of social lettings were to non-UK born households. Yet in 2011, 13% of the population of England were born overseas. That means immigrants are less likely to secure social housing than the rest of the population.

Most local authorities have local connection policies. It is very unlikely that those new to an area, including those from elsewhere in England, will get social housing. There are no figures showing the number of overseas-born households getting social housing within two years of arriving in England. But according to Inside Housing, anecdotal evidence from social landlords “suggests that the figure is close to zero”.

Yet in spite of the facts, there is a perception that “the indigenous community” is being squeezed out of housing by incomers. There are anecdotes about newly arrived households moving into social housing and, for some in the media, anecdote is more compelling that fact.

But there is some basis for these anecdotes: the illegal sub-letting properties, and the right to buy.

There are believed to be 160,000 social tenancies that are illegally sub-let. Those in most need can include newly arrived households who are exploited and required to pay rents well above those being paid by the social housing tenants to their landlords. It is understandable that neighbours, whose own family members might be on the waiting list, conclude that a newly arrived household have secured social housing when the reality is that they are being exploited, with no rights and paying the highest rents.

One in three properties sold through right to buy are now being let within the private rented sector, yielding rents far in excess of those previously paid to social landlords. (There are clear lessons to be learned here regarding the increasing housing benefit bill). Again neighbours might conclude that their family member has again been disadvantaged, believing that the flat next door has been let through the local authority to newly arrived landlords when it has, in fact, been transferred to the private rented sector.

The only beneficiaries of this situation are those who are exploiting housing need (including those illegally sub-letting social housing) and the far right who seek to ferment racial discord, often in areas with a mix of high cost housing, housing shortage, and large immigrant communities.

I think politicians should be very cautious before they make pronouncements that are not based on facts on an incredibly emotive subject.

Reflecting on the ‘C’ word, and mentioning Graham Cox and Germaine Greer in the same breath!

Yesterday morning I posted a blog about the minimum pricing of alcohol in response to reports that the government might not proceed with this policy, a policy I think David Cameron was right to pursue. I tweeted a link to the blog and that is when the ‘fun’ started.

A former parliamentary candidate for a minor political party tweeted an extraordinary response: “Stuff your minimum pricing up your arse – socialist c*nt”. People seemed to like my response: “I’m overwhelmed by thoughtfulness of your argument”.

I can’t say my response was original nor as cutting as that of Stella Creasy MP who, when subjected to vile sexist abuse on Twitter, responded with this devastating riposte: “Your mother must be so proud of you”.

I was surprised by Mr P’s response to my blog, and confused by his subsequent bizarre question to me: “How many NHS patients have you killed?”. (For the record, and for the avoidance of any doubt, none!).

Suggesting that one “stuff your minimum pricing” where the sun don’t shine was not the most constructive intervention, unlike the much more thoughtful and challenging arguments set out by Cllr. Graham Cox on his blog.

Today’s post looks at the phrase “socialist c*nt”.  As for being a socialist, some know about my political background, but others might debate whether I have become a poacher turned gamekeeper. I don’t regard socialist as a dirty word although some use it as a sloppy denunciation of a general political outlook, in the same way as the shock jocks in the USA use the phrase ‘liberal’.

It is the use of the C-word that causes particular offence to many people. I am angered and saddened that this insult is used so freely in social media.

According to Wikipedia, it is “a word for the female genitalia, particularly the vulva, and is widely considered to be vulgar….. Scholar Germaine Greer has said that “it is one of the few remaining words in the English language with a genuine power to shock.” (It) is also used as a derogatory epithet referring to people of either sex….. (It describes) “an unpleasant or stupid person” in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, whereas Merriam-Webster has a usage of the term as “usually disparaging and obscene: woman”, noting that it is used in the U.S. as “an offensive way to refer to a woman”.”

I don’t expect the C-word to be used in BHT, either as an insult or in ‘jest’, EVER.

There is no equivalent for men or for male genitalia, nothing that carries the same viciousness. Words like ‘knob’ and ‘dick head’ are laced with humour.

We have moved on as a society and today it is less likely that people will use the grossly offensive and racist N-word to describe black people, and similarly language has evolved to respect rather than insult gay men and lesbian women.

I have thought about how I should have responded. I tried humour, perhaps not very well and perhaps not appropriately. I did condemn his grossly offensive and sexist language, as did others.  Mr P’s language attracted wide condemnation which is encouraging.

I finish with reference to a response, on a par with that of Stella Creasy, by Gina Harrison, now sadly dead.  She lived in Norfolk Square.  She always defended the right of street drinkers to drink in the old tram shelters (now sadly demolished) because there was no where else for them to go, but she never gave them money.  One day when she refused to give a drinker any money, he called after her: “You old whore”.  Gina, then well into her eighties, slowly walked up to him and said: “Less of the old, if you don’t mind.” Now that’s style.

Bullingdon Club Bullies dehumanise homeless man by burning £50 in front of him

This afternoon I was writing a no doubt worthy item for this blog on BHT’s preparation for the digital inclusion challenges relating to the introduction of Universal Credit when I saw the tweets by Aideen Jones, the Chief Executive of Southdown Housing Association, regarding members of the Bullingdon Club who allegedly burnt a £50 note in front of someone begging on the streets of Oxford. (26/02/13: Please note I have removed a link to the original article on another blog which has itself been removed).

Aideen is right to point out that £50 could have bought 40 pairs of thermal socks for homeless people.

Of course people will make a connection between this obscene flaunting of wealth by a group of rich boys. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Mayor of London, all were members of the Bullingdon Club during their misspent youth, but I imagine Messrs Cameron, Osborne and Johnson will today share the outrage felt by most reasonably minded individuals over this incident.

The thing that upsets me most about this incident is what it says about how homeless men and women are dehumanised by society. If the allegation is true, these Bullingdon Bullies are merely an extreme example, and are the rightful targets for the contempt of decent people. But this dehumanisation goes much wider, from the groups of lads who think it is funny to give someone sleeping rough a kicking on a Saturday night, or a drunken reveller relieving himself on someone sleeping in a doorway, or the security guard who pours a bucket of cold water over someone sleeping in a car park.

More extreme examples lead to the violent death of homeless people through assault or setting fire to a sleeping bag when the individual is asleep in it. Dropping a paving slab on the head of someone asleep on the beach or in a park is likely to do serious damage.

Yet this happens. What we need to do is to put an end to homelessness. A grand objective, but one that should be seen as historically important as the abolition of slavery or the ending of apartheid. This week, Homeless Link will be launching a manifesto aimed at seeing the end of homelessness in the UK by 2023. My colleague, Nikki Homewood, will be at the launch of this manifesto in the House of Commons on Tuesday.

But individually we can do something. In response to Aideen’s tweet, I will buy £50 of thermal underwear for homeless men and women who use First Base Day Centre. You, too, can help, either by buying something from Amazon using the First Base wish list on this link or for those of you who don’t wish to use Amazon, donations can be made direct to First Base through our Just Giving page.

But there is one other thing we can do. We can stop using the term ‘the homeless’, a phrase that dehumanises people. They are men and women, they are someone’s son or daughter, husband or wide, brother or sister, father or mother. They have names. They have hopes and aspirations, feelings and fears. I always try to refer to “homeless men and women”.

In South Africa, where I grew up under apartheid, the white rulers referred to “the blacks” who had second class status, and whose lives were valued less than those of white people. The murder of a black man and woman rarely attracted media attention, more rarely warranted a police enquiry. In the white community, black people had become dehumanised. Hopefully in Britain in 2013 we won’t allow the same to happen to homeless men and women.

The public debate on welfare reform has been based on ignorance and prejudice

Last week there was a contentious vote in the House of Commons regarding welfare benefits. Much has been written elsewhere regarding the impact of the reform of welfare benefits.

What has saddened me is the widespread ignorance relating to the level of benefits and the prejudice being shown towards claimants.  The Daily Express headline the following day, “Party is over for benefit skivers”, summed much of what I find distasteful about the way the debate has been conducted.

Here is a small test to help you assess your own understanding of welfare benefits. It is based on a YouGov poll that was carried out just before Christmas. If you don’t know the answers (I knew very few myself) make your best guess on the basis of what you have heard or read.

1. What percentage of the entire welfare budget goes on benefits to unemployed people?
2. On average what percentage of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently according to the government’s own figures?
3. What percentage of people who claim Jobseeker’s Allowance go on to claim it for more than a year?
4. How much does an unemployed couple with two school-age children get in Jobseeker’s Allowance per week?
5. How much better off, or worse off, per week would this family with two school-age children be if one of the unemployed parents got a 30 hour a week minimum wage job?

Jot down your answers before you read further.  I was surprised by my own personal ignorance, and concerned how I had bought into some of the mis-information that has done the rounds.

I asked 30 colleagues at BHT to do this test, and again I was taken aback by how much they, collectively, had had their perceptions skewed by the tone of the debate.

So how accurate is your perception?

1. On average people think that 41 percent of the entire welfare budget goes on benefits to unemployed people, while the true figure is 3 percent.
2. On average people think that 27 percent of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently, while the government’s own figure is 0.7 percent.
3. On average people think that almost half the people (48 percent) who claim Jobseeker’s Allowance go on to claim it for more than a year, while the true figure is just under 30 per cent (27.8 percent).
4. On average people think that an unemployed couple with two school-age children would get £147 in Jobseeker’s Allowance – more than 30 percent higher than the £111.45 they would actually receive – a £35 over-calculation.
5. Only 21 percent of people think that this family with two school-age children would be better off if one of the unemployed parents got a 30 hour a week minimum wage job, even though they would actually end up £138 a week better off. Even those who thought they would be better off only thought on average they would gain by £59.

It is the last question that really hit home to me.  I was miles out.  I thought the family would be just marginally better off with a job that pays the national minimum wage.  It shows that benefit levels are well below even the national minimum wage.

So much for life on benefits being a party!  No doubt an intelligent sub-editor wrote that headline, and other intelligent people will have framed the debate in such a misleading way.  I feel we, as a society, lost some integrity last week.

We need to put an end to rough sleeping once and for all

A 21-year-old homeless woman was killed on Saturday night when a large spruce tree fell on the tent she was living in. Police said that three other people were injured by the tree which was brought down in the severe weather that lashed parts of the country at the weekend.

Last Thursday night, in terrible weather, colleagues from BHT, CRI, local authorities and the police did the annual headcount of rough sleepers in Brighton, Eastbourne and Hastings.  In Brighton the new official figure was 43, up six from the previous year.    There is a general consensus that the actual number is probably nearer 60.

Why is it in this day and age, in one of the richest countries in the world, do we still have people living on the streets?

There is some brilliant work going on by many agencies, and CRI’s No Second Night Out initiative is the latest in a long line of services that help people make that transition from street homelessness into accommodation.  The worker in this particular initiative has, over the last three months, engaged with 31 individuals , 30 of whom she has got into accommodation.

As we approach Christmas, members of the public are extremely generous to organisations such as BHT.  In fact, we rely on this generosity to sustain us throughout the year.  People are more inclined to donate at this time because it is the Season of Goodwill and because of the appalling weather that we are now experiencing.

Even though we are having gales blow down trees and flooding across the country, this is not regarded in government circles as “severe weather” and homeless people remain on the streets. Successive governments have had a policy that emergency provision only comes into being if the forecast has temperatures falling to below freezing for three consecutive nights.  Two nights of freezing weather, no emergency shelters.  Gales and flooding, similarly, no emergency shelter.

It is time that the government rethinks its policy for emergency shelters at times of severe weather.  Last Saturday’s tragedy could have been avoided.

Actually, a lot more is needed. We need to put an end to rough sleeping once and for all.

 

The Big Interview (Argus 10th November 2012)

On Saturday, November 10th, the Brighton Argus carried an interview with me.  The focus was housing in Brighton. Unfortunately, the Big Interview (as the weekly item is called) is not posted online.  So here is the text of the interview:

What are the main housing challenges faced by Brighton and Hove?

Simply, there’s a shortage of supply to meet the ever-increasing demand for housing.  The rising cost of the housing that is available is making it increasingly difficult for people to meet their housing costs. The increasing demand for homes in the City is partly due to the increasing number of single person households, and partly due to more people are moving here.

Brighton has a low wage economy.  Those jobs that are available, often in the service and retail sectors, are subject to enormous competition.  It is not uncommon that graduates from our two universities end up in non-graduate jobs in order to remain in the City.

While people joke that this has led to us having the most qualified baristas in the country, the harsh reality is that this trend excludes less qualified, local staff out of the jobs market. Low wages, coupled with high housing costs, is not a healthy mix if we want to live in a City at ease with itself.

Do we face any pressures that other areas don’t?

Brighton and Hove is sea- and land-locked.  There are relatively few sites on which to build new homes.  It has a thriving economy and is an attractive place to live and work.  The challenge for the City is its ability to accommodate the businesses that will provide jobs, and the homes for people to live in.

I really hope that we get the balance right between jobs and homes.  I would hate to see Brighton become a dormitory town, with most residents commuting to jobs elsewhere.  If I wanted to live in a town like that I would move to Worthing!

I would support the building of housing between Falmer and Woodingdean, but that is unlikely to be agreed.  So if we can’t go south and cannot encroach on the National Park, the only way, as Yazz sang in the 1980’s, is up!  We need a debate on the number of high rise developments that the City needs.

Unfortunately, the debate on tall buildings has been skewed by the controversies surrounding the ‘Roaring Forties’ tower in the Marina and the King Alfred proposals.

Where we have a real advantage over other areas is the range and effectiveness of support services.  Where elsewhere in the country such services are being decimated, in Brighton and Hove, with all party support, most have been protected, and homelessness has been prevented.

What part do you and Brighton Housing Trust play in addressing these issues?

One of the most important things we do is to prevent homelessness.  Last year, because of our work, mainly through our Advice Centre in Queen’s Road, we helped 4,116 households from becoming homeless.

Unfortunately, because of changes to the Legal Aid system, from next April, we will be able to help fewer people unless we can attract funding from new sources.  The visible consequence will be more people living on the streets.

In addition to preventing homelessness, we do a lot of work addressing those issues that may have led people to homelessness. We help people to prepare for housing – what it takes to be a good tenant, how to work with, not against, landlords, and how to increase the housing opportunities available to people.

We provide relatively few homes but the work we do in preventing homelessness and finding practical solutions for people in housing need means that BHT’s contribution to resolving issues relating to housing demand is far greater than our modest size.

What would you most want to see happen to tackle these challenges? Can local or national Government help?

In Brighton and Hove, local government could help by agreeing to build 750 homes at Toads Hole Valley.  Perhaps more homes should be considered on this site, a thousand or fifteen hundred, but I doubt there would be support for that.

The government should invest in truly affordable social housing.  The campaign group, Homes for Britain, says that every £1 spent on housing puts £3 into the economy.  And for every £1 spent on construction, government gets 56p back in reduced welfare payments.

Over the lifetime of this government, £35 billion will be spent of housing benefit, yet just £4.5 billion is being spent on building.  It is economic madness.

The right to buy doesn’t help.  Over the last 25 years housing has moved from being affordable and available to meet local demand, to being available only at unaffordable rents.  I heard the other day about a former council house, once with a rent of £120 per week, now being let out privately for £750 per week.

Are more people coming to you in crisis now than in the past and is that down to the recession or other factors? i.e. are economic circumstances driving people onto the streets?

Over the last two years we have seen a sharp increase in the number of people sleeping on the streets in Brighton.  That appears to have steadied over the last year partly due to excellent work being undertaken by Brighton and Hove City Council, CRI, Sussex Central YMCA, BHT and others.

I am amazed at the resourcefulness and sacrifices people make in order to keep themselves and their families in one piece.  We regularly come across single people, holding down jobs, but living in cars because they can’t afford housing.  Parents, usually women, are going without food, to ensure that their children have what they need or to heat their homes.

The latest increases in fuel charges might well push some households over the edge, and there is plenty more bad news yet to come.

So do you foresee the situation getting worse in the immediate future? What is your worst fear? What is your best hope?

The introduction of Universal Credit from next year, changes to the Social Fund and further restrictions on housing benefit, will likely result in more people getting into difficulty.

The plan with Universal Credit is to merge into one payment most of the benefits received by a household.  Universal Credit will be paid monthly, leading to new challenges for households to stretch the cash throughout a longer period.  It will also incorporate housing benefit payments.  This could lead to an increase in rent arrears resulting in losses for landlords and an increase in evictions.

The Department of Works and Pensions expects 80% of claims to be made online.  At BHT we have carried out our own research and have found that 71% of our clients appear to have the means and support to make claims online.  But when you take away the facilities and support BHT provides, that number falls to just 19%, similar to the assessment the DWP itself has made.

My biggest fear is that more people will fall foul of the new welfare regime and will lose their benefit entitlement, sometimes for prolonged periods.  This will result in three H’s: hardship, hypothermia and hunger.

The challenge for charities like BHT is how we can find a twenty first century solution to poverty.  Food banks are already doing a roaring trade. I fear we will soon see the opening of food kitchens.  A depressing note on which to finish.

The work of BHT’s Advice Centre: preventing homelessness, reducing inequality, community cohesion

This morning I reviewed the impact made by BHT’s Advice Centre in Brighton. Here are some basic statistics. I would ask you to reflect on the difference we make to the City and the consequences should this service close:

• 35% clients belong to a BME group
• 42% clients have either a disability, addiction or suffers from mental or physical ill health
• 55% of housing clients are in “priority need” and so the possible responsibility of the City Council.

Positive Outcomes (expressed as a percent) of Cases Closed during 2011/12

• Housing Advice 88% (This includes homeless prevention, conditions improved, accommodation found, better able to manage affairs)
• Housing court duty 85% (This includes homelessness prevented through stopping a possession order or execution of bailiff’s warrant)
• Accommodation Advice and Assistance 60% (This includes Homelessness prevention, PRS Accommodation found or sustained. These statistics are based on tracking 317 clients over 12 months).
• Welfare Benefits 95% (This includes clients who received increased or backdated benefit, and who are now better abled to manage their affairs)
• Debt 87% (This includes debts negotiated to an affordable plan, client better able to manage debt, debt reduced/written off etc.)
• Immigration 78% (This includes being granted Leave to Remain, refugee status, citizenship, family reunion etc. and includes 63% of appeals won)

Our legal services directly contributes to City strategies on:

• Prevention of homelessness and rough sleeping by reducing the numbers in temporary accommodation.  In 2011/12 homelessness was prevented or accommodation found in 1,531 of cases above. A 70% homelessness prevention rate.
• Reducing Inequality through helping to lift clients out of poverty (often suffering multiple problems, for example mental health, addictions, offenders, street homelessness, anti-social behaviour, poverty)
• Community cohesion through immigration advice helping families achieve stability and live together

Brighton’s night time economy is tarnishing the city’s brand

On September 26^th, I am speaking in a debate being organised by the Brighton and Hove Chamber of Commerce.  The question is: “This house believes that Brighton’s night time economy is tarnishing the city’s brand”.  I will be speaking in favour of the question.  Other speakers include Justin Manning from the Queen’s Hotel, Nigel Liddell of the Brighton & Hove Business Crime Reduction Partnership, and Ian Chisnall, organiser of Brighton & Hove Street Pastors.

I would be interested in what you think so that I can properly think through the issues.

I come to this issue as someone who feels that, put quite simply, aspects of the night time economy threatens the economy of Brighton, including other parts of the night time economy which are essential for the economic well being of the City.

For example, take so called ‘party houses’. Rather than the traditional tourist infrastructure (hotels, restaurants, etc.) benefiting from weekend visitors and other tourists, these houses are a nightmare for neighbours. They facilitate the ‘front-loading’ of alcohol before these visitors descending on the town centre where their behaviour is often not conducive for others (guests staying in hotels, families out for dinner, theatre goers, etc.).

The spending power of those on alcohol-fuelled weekend breaks (hen and stag events) is limited.  They are focused on alcohol outlets that encourage/facilitate further drinking.  Having lived in the town centre for many years, and having represented Regency Ward on the old Brighton Borough Council, I now actively avoid going into the centre of Brighton after 8pm on a Friday or Saturday evening.  My spending power is thus denied those restaurants and facilities that might otherwise have benefited from it.

For a year I chaired the Licensing Committee on Brighton Borough Council.  That year, because of close co-operation between the Council, Sussex Police and licensees, we were able to regulate the night time economy in a way that incidents of violence were clamped down on.  Licensees who failed to co-operate risked having their Public Entertainment Licences revoked.  The result was that on New Year’s Eve 1986, there was not a single arrest for violence or drunken disorder in Brighton.

Unless we ensure that the night time economy is robustly managed, the image of the City will become tarnished, at great cost to businesses and residents alike.

Let me know what you think.

 

(Note: when this item was first posted I referred to no arrests in 2006. It should have been 1986.  My apologies).

Why are the speakers at some conferences almost exclusively men in grey suits?

I returned to work today after almost 3 weeks annual leave.  I had the usual million emails and various matters to be attended to.  I will endeavour to respond as soon as possible.  I am, as always, incredibly grateful to my PA, Anna Thompson, for organising the various demands that have awaited my return.

One thing she highlighted for me were two conferences that might be of interest, but she thought I might have concerns about the speakers at one of them – eleven men and just one woman.  Before I went away I declined to speak on one panel partly because all the speakers were men.  At another conference I spoke at, having asked for an assurance of a mixed panel, I found myself chairing an all-male session.

In this day and age it should not be necessary to even raise this as an issue.  But speaking as a man (often in a grey suite), I think that too many conference speakers are men in grey suites.  I won’t be attending the conference with the almost exclusively male line up.  I will be attending the other conference, organised by RAISE and being held at the Directory for Social Change, where the number of women speakers outnumber their male counterparts by almost 2 to 1.

(Note: The original post said the conference I will be attending was being organised by the Directory for Social Change rather than by RAISE.  My apologies for this error).

Can we afford welfare and housing?

Next Saturday (19^th May 2012) I am speaking at a Brighton Fringe event being organised by the Labour Representation Committee on the theme ‘We can afford Welfare and Housing’.

I am slightly in awe of others on the panel, not least Kevin Maguire (Daily Mirror associate editor & New Statesman columnist) and Teresa Pearce MP who sits on the House of Commons Work & Pensions Select Committee.

Of course, as the seventh richest country in the world, the UK can afford welfare and housing.  An alternate view is that the UK cannot afford not to afford welfare and housing.  Social coherence depends on it, and the reputation of the UK as a civilised country would be, perhaps is being, undermined by an ever increasing number of men and women sleeping on our streets.

In Brighton and Hove we have seen the number of rough sleepers increase from 14 in November 2010 to almost 40 a year later, and now there is a consensus that the number is in excess of 70.

The reality is 70% of the cuts already agreed have yet to bite.  And one of the key safety nets, the availability of legal aid, is being eroded.

The post-war consensus on the Welfare State is being challenged; indeed, it could be argued that it has been destroyed. A new settlement is required that looks at how state-subsidised welfare and housing is provided, and what impact it should have.

In the 1980’s, the subsidy provided to social housing was moved from the subsidy of bricks and mortar to subsiding rents.  That shift is being accelerated by increasing the subsidy provided to those buying their council houses.  Such subsidy does not add value; rather it moves public money into private hands.  That way the affordability of social housing is undermined.

Future discussions should be based on an understanding that welfare and housing can be afforded.  The tough discussion is how that subsidy can best be used.