Migration Pulse

Beds in sheds

The latest campaign by frenetic housing minister Grant Shapps is tackling 'beds in sheds'. How big a problem is this and will his proposals tackle it?
May 8, 2012
Profile photo
John Perry

John researches and writes on housing, migration and refugee issues. John was Director of Policy at the CIH for twelve years until 2003, before moving to Nicaragua, where he co-ordinates projects with low income families. He regularly writes for the Migration Pulse as a guest contributor.

It must be said is that his recognition that the problem exists is very welcome. Indeed, the Housing and Migration Network called for action on the problem only in February.  ‘Sheds’ is a metaphor for a wide range of unsuitable accommodation in buildings that aren’t houses – sheds, garages and outbuildings in cities; barns, containers and defunct caravans in rural areas. 

No one knows the scale of the problem and it certainly can’t be assessed through Google Earth as fancifully claimed in the government announcement.  But it is an inhumane (as well as illegal) way to accommodate people. A co-ordinated response, involving the different agencies required if action is to be effective, is definitely needed.

However, there are some significant issues about the way this is going to be tackled that call for further thought before it begins.

First, although this may just be about getting the story into the press, it doesn’t help if the victims of the problem – the immigrants illegally housed in unsuitable buildings (or worse) – are also seen as the culprits. But this is what the first line of the government press release appears to do. It promises action not only against ‘criminal landlords’ but also to remove ‘illegal immigrants’, some of whom apparently want to return home but have ‘destroyed their passports’ to avoid removal. Immigration minister Damien Green adds that "(…) those with no right to be in the UK must leave the country. If they volunteer to leave, we will help. If they refuse, we will enforce their removal."

So it seems that the new ‘taskforce’ will have dual objectives – closing down illegal accommodation and sending any illegal immigrants packing.  Which means of course that it’s very unlikely to work: any migrants living in these conditions will be even more scared to notify the authorities than they were before: not only those who are undocumented but even the many who have a right to be here but fear that it might be challenged.  It also suggests that – if it gets no co-operation from the victims themselves – the taskforce will rely on tittle-tattle from neighbours and could even encourage more persecution of migrants than already exists.

So the second point is that the taskforce should focus on the accommodation issue and in doing so aim to work with local migrant groups and support groups who (as well as the local authority) are the ones likely to know where the worst problems are and why.  As it stands, support groups will rightly be suspicious of the initiative and may well be reluctant to co-operate, yet with their support and advice it could work in a way which benefits poorly housed migrants instead of criminalising them.

Third, the problems in London are known to be broadly of two kinds. One is people being rented illegal structures, but the other is people camping out in semi-public or hidden spaces (e.g.under flyovers), for lack of access to any proper accommodation at all. These two issues are quite different and will require different solutions.

Fourth, it is clear that unless some form of move-on accommodation is available, the taskforce could well solve one problem and create another – more rough sleeping, which has been a growing problem for migrants already. Clearly, careful preparation with homelessness services and advice agencies will also be required, and these services are already at stretching point.  This will not be easy.

Fifth, the main local authority input will be by environmental health staff, which raises two issues. One is simply that their services too are over-stretched and subject to cuts. Grant Shapps has already exhorted them to be more active in tackling ‘rogue landlords’ but at the same time the government is drastically cutting the revenue support that helps fund this side of local authorities’ housing services.

The other local authority issue – which comes back to liaison with migrant support groups – is having staff available who have experience or training in dealing with migrants, their housing issues and their language and other support needs.  While many environmental health officers (EHOs) may be sympathetic, they may not have these skills and knowledge. In the recent past, some councils such as Hastings and East Cambridgeshire appointed special staff to deal with migrants and migrant groups, and produced training material or guidance for EHOs. Because these services were often funded by the now-defunct Migration Impacts Fund (MIF), they may now have ceased or be under threat.

So the environment for tackling ‘beds in sheds’ is not a promising one, especially given the overall context of the housing crisis. We should therefore offer two cheers for the government’s initiative, but urge them to think carefully – and consult migrant support organisations – on how it should be put into practice.

Comments

It's little short of extraordinary that the Government is expressing concern about the housing conditions in which many migrants live, while actively pursuing policies which exacerbate the precariousness which makes such "primitive" housing conditions inevitable.

As many people will know, the Home Secretary is presently facing Judicial Review proceedings on the basis that she has, as matter of policy, decided that applications for section 4 accommodation and subsistence support made by refused asylum seekers on the basis of further asylum submissions will not be considered unless there will be a "justifiable delay" in deciding the further submissions; the case being argued is that the Secretary of State's policy is unlawful because it fails to avoid inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR.

Meanwhile, as I have written elsewhere [http://migrantsrights.org.uk/migration-pulse/2012/fresh-asylum-claims-uk-border-agency-and-access-justice], those same fresh representations are routinely dismissed, without right of appeal, by the Secretary of State's representatives after the most cursory consideration, in breach of the UKBA's responsibilities under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules; the impact of this, inevitably, is that people are left homeless and destitute.

Given the active pursuit of policies which make it little short of impossible for people failed by the asylum system to access accommodation and subsistence support, where precisely do either Shapps or May imagine that such people might be able to exist, if not within the illegal economy?

A note on commenting

Due to recent increased commenting activity we have taken the decision to disable commenting on old blogs. As we are a small office it is simply impossible to fight spam and keep removing comments that don’t comply with our house rules on what is now an archive of over 800 pieces.

We have also decided to take a more proactive role in enforcing our blog house rules on the blogs where comments are open. The rules are there for a good reason and we want to make sure we are consistent and apply them across the board. 

This is not in any shape or form meant to stifle debate, but to make sure that it remains civil and on topic.

Thanks and best regards,

--MRN Team

http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/about/blog-rules

MRN blogging and comments – Policy and House Rules

Your comments

1. Please be civil– we will remove anything that:

  • Is considered likely to provoke, attack or offend others
  • Is racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable
  • Contains swear words or other language likely to offend
  • Breaks the law, condones or encourage unlawful activity or which could endanger the safety or well-being of others
  • Impersonates someone else
  • advertises products or services

2. Comments that could damage the reputation of a person or organisation, that risk prejudicing on-going or forthcoming court proceedings or that could place MRN in contravention of its legal and/or regulatory obligations will be removed.

3. Please make comments relevant to the subject of the article. We may remove comments that we consider to be spam or which are unrelated to the article content against which they are posted.

4. Please keep the number of comments you make on a topic reasonable. Too many posts from an individual or small group can discourage other readers from joining the conversation.

5. In exceptional cases we may get a high volume of similar comments on a post. In these cases we may close comments for that post, adding a note letting you know that further comments will not be published.

6. By submitting comments to this site, you warrant that such comments are not defamatory nor infringe any law. You agree to indemnify MRN against all legal fees, damages and other expenses that may be incurred by MRN as a result of your breach of the above warranty.