Landlords may discriminate if faced with jail jeopardy
Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham has warned that the ‘Right to Rent’ element in the Home Office’s Immigration Bill runs the risk of returning Britain to the overt racism of the 1950s.
The Bill cleared its first parliamentary hurdle on Tuesday, despite opposition from Labour, Lib Dem and SNP MPs as the Commons voted to give it a second reading by a margin of 49, after Labour’s bid to block it was rejected by 40 votes.
Right to Rent requires landlords to conduct checks on the immigration status of tenants, which, dissenters claim, could lead to reluctance on the landlords’ part to let to people with foreign-sounding names. This, says the shadow Home Secretary, could become the modern equivalent of ‘No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish” signs that became rife in British cities throughout the 1950s and most of the 1960s.
A survey conducted by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) found that 42 per cent of landlords said Right to Rent made them less likely to let a property to someone who does not have a British passport, while 27 per cent said they were even reluctant to engage with people who had foreign-sounding names or accents.
Mr Burnham said the scheme flies in the face of David Cameron’s “compassionate Conservatism” speech to his conference last week, in which he raised the problem of job applicants with “white-sounding names” who were nearly twice as likely to get call backs for jobs than people with “ethnic-sounding names”, even if they had the same qualifications.
Tory MP Richard Fuller also warned Home Secretary Theresa May that her efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants could lead to increased prejudice if they are pursued too aggressively. During the Bill’s second reading, the Bedford MP intervened: “The problem is, it is very difficult for someone to see if someone is an illegal immigrant, what they see is someone who is different.
“Do you not accept that within this law there is the potential for discrimination to be increased if this is pursued too aggressively?”
Mrs May replied: “I think it is only fair to people who are coming here, who are making their contribution to society, who have actually played by the rules, that we do take efforts to ensure that those who are here with no right to be here who are abusing our systems are actually dealt with appropriately. That’s why on things like access to bank accounts and driving licences and other matters I think it is important that we have taken action.”
Mrs May stressed that immigration “enriches” Britain but that when it is too high it puts pressure on public services and can drive down wages.
She insisted extreme views on immigration must be rejected but Andy Burnham claimed Mrs May was speaking in a “markedly different tone” to her Tory conference speech last week in which she said high immigration damages social cohesion.
It is perhaps significant that the Home Office has failed to reveal the findings of a pilot study on its proposed Right to Rent legislation conducted in the West Midlands. This failure is viewed by several critics as an attempt to hide the policy’s shortcomings. Indeed, research by the JCWI, which sought to emulate the Government’s pilot by surveying West Midlands landlords and their prospective tenants, suggests that many landlords will be likely to discriminate as a result of the Immigration Bill’s threats of heavy fines and even jail for property owners who rent to illegal immigrants.
Mr Burnham criticised plans to make renting a property to someone with no immigration status punishable by a jail sentence. He said “landlords are not border or immigration experts” and they are “not experts in spotting forged documents”.
“On what basis are we planning to outsource immigration control to them?” he asked.
Mr Burnham added: “On this evidence, Right to Rent in its current form could lead to widespread discrimination. Of course, we have come a long way as a society since landlords displayed unwelcoming notices in their windows. But the new document checks could become the modern equivalent of the ‘no dogs, no blacks, no Irish’ signs and, by being more insidious, such casual discrimination will be far harder to challenge.
The Home Secretary said: “I’ll be clear about this, it’s not about asking landlords to become immigration experts, those who undertake simple steps will have nothing to fear and will not face prosecution or penalties.”
The new Immigration Bill will also extend “deport first, appeal later” measures introduced under the coalition government to ensure migrants are deported before any appeal on their immigration status is heard, and allow the satellite tagging of foreign criminals who are released on bail.
Support will also be cut for destitute asylum seekers who refuse to return home despite their claim failing, although some maintain it is too dangerous to do so. Destitute asylum seekers are currently given somewhere to live and £35.39 a week to spend on a payment card for food, clothing and toiletries.
Mrs May said: “When people have no right to be here in the UK we expect them to leave but some people are being sent the wrong message and this Bill reflects the Government’s commitment to providing support for destitute asylum seekers in line with international obligations.
“However those with no right to be here are expected to return home and the Bill will restrict the support we give to people who are here illegally.”
Mr Burnham attacked the Government’s bill, saying it contained “half-baked, divisive measures”.
“We won’t support legislation in haste that is not backed by clear evidence and that is the problem with this bill,” he said, adding: “Parts of it appear to have been drafted on the same beer mat, in the same pub as the Home Secretary’s speech to Conservative party conference in Manchester.
“It is legislation driven by a desire to be seen to be doing something and a desire to get headlines.”
Mr Burnham said the “evidence is clear” that immigration provides a “net benefit to our economy”, however, the effect of immigration is “not uniform across the country”.
“It has a differential impact in different areas,” he said.
Stuart McDonald, the SNP’s immigration, asylum and border control spokesman, accused the Government of “immigration theatre”. He said: “The Government wants to be seen to be doing something so it goes through the motions of yet another Immigration Bill and to hell with the consequences.”
Mr McDonald added the proposed legislation relies on the public to help enforce the measures, including landlords. He warned: “We are setting off down a road of amateur immigration control as if we’re to become a nation of immigration officers.
“Yet again, anyone dealing regularly with immigration work – including honourable members – should be well aware what a complex issue this is. Not one where it is appropriate for amateurs to be involved in enforcement.
“As with decisions of the Home Office, we search in vain in this Bill for proper rights of appeal and redress against amateur enforcement decisions. Indeed judicial scrutiny of evictions is torn apart.”
Mr McDonald went on: “In summary, this is a Bill which pursues the wrong goals by the wrong methods and at tremendous cost and we should decline to give it a second reading.”
Richard Arkless, SNP MP for Dumfries and Galloway, said he was worried about the “unintended consequences” of the Bill.
He said: “I say that the nut that this sledgehammer of a Bill is designed to smash will pale into insignificance with the can of worms that it will open.”
