Access to housing for regular migrants Thomas Huddleston, 16.11.2012

1. Access to housing for regular migrantsThomas Huddleston, 16.11.2012

2. 15+ years as an independent policy ‘think-and-do-tank’ • Mission: lasting and positive change for open and inclusive societies • better informed debate and action on migration, equality and diversity; • greater European cooperation between & within sectors • 4 activities:  • Establish expert networks • Compare and analyse policies • Engage more stakeholders at EU level • Create new opportunities for dialogue and mutual learning

3. Housing rights: Equal access for various legal migrants increasingly required by EU law. Migration may change general conditions for social housing, e.g. residence, language (VL, NL) Housing requirements: Access to these legal statuses increasingly restricted in Northwest Europe for migrants who use their right to welfare. Access to family reunion limited to migrants who meet sometimes vague housing requirement. Outcomes: Little monitoring of housing quality & segregation for migrants & its effects on economic, social, legal integration

4. 7 Policy Areas for immigrants to participate in society: 1) Labour market mobility* 2) Family reunion* 3) Education 4) Political participation* 5) Long-term residence* 6) Access to nationality 7) Anti-discrimination Covers 27 EU Member States, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, USA (recently Australia, Japan…) 100+ national independent legal experts answer and peer review, all based on policies passed by 31 May 2010

5. Generally, political will counts, more than tradition • Related to public opinion • Changes are slow, rarely based on data • Policy more similar/strong with EU law • Overall, policies often not coherent, but linked

7. Except in CY (improper transposition), US (1996, 5-year exclusion), AU (2-year exclusion for most)

8. Except in CY, CZ, HU, SK (allowed by Directive), DK & UK (General welfare restrictions), IE (no status)

9. Half of EU Member States, restrictions in residence duration or nationality for maternity leave, social security payments, unemployment benefits. Will improve with transposition of Single Permit directive

10. All for race or ethnic origin. Some for religion or belief. Largest gaps on nationality (1/2 EU MS). Uneven grounds esp. in countries without Single Equality Act (e.g. AU)

11. Due to EU law to fight discrimination, countries greatly and consistently improve legal conditions • Strength of law related to public awareness, but still relatively few cases • Strongest still CA/US, EU countries with oldest legislation (UK, BE, NL, SE) • Limited ‘positive actions & duties’, equality bodies’ powers/resources, legal standing for NGOs, class actions, situation testing

13. Pink = None / Blue = General health & safety standards / Black = Further requirements Any legal means to prove basic housing (17/24) & income (18). AT, FR, IT, SK add more housing conditions, while AT, BE, CY, FR, GR, NL restrict income largely to legal job contract. Level required in many is vague & unrelated to personal circumstances

14. Often required (1/2 EU MS, blue & black countries). Despite brief turn around 2000 (NATAC), new move to ‘iuspecuniae’ in AT, soon BE & NL, UK past & future proposals (Marc Howard)

16. Source: IZA 2011

17. ⃝ Employment ⃝ Education⃝ Social Inclusion ⃝Active Citizenship • At-risk-of-poverty-or-social-exclusion (includessevere material deprivation) • Income • Self-reported health • Property ownership Other relevant EU housing indicators (EU-SILC) • Overcrowding (EU) • Housing cost overburden (OECD) • Renting at reduced rate or free-of-charge (OECD) • Access to (housing) benefits (IZA) • Perceived discrimination in housing (EU-MIDIS) • Note: Data excludes homeless & collective housing (hospitals, students, workers)

18. At EU level, foreign-born (aged 20-64) are 3X less likely to own property, especially foreigners and people from non-EU countries • Greatest gaps in FI, GR, IE, IT (newcomers) & LU, NO, ES (high among natives) • Ownership rates differ by age, residence duration, income, citizenship • More relevant for measuring long-term integration than social exclusion • Higher absolute & relative income inequality in most Member States • Higher poverty risk for non-EU foreign-born (35%) than native-born (20%) or EU-born (21%), esp. AT, BE, DK, FI, FI, also GR, IT, ES • Poverty-risk significantly influenced by income, education, employment, duration of residence, household, use of benefits

20. Significantly related to income

21. Across OECD, nearly 1 in 4 people in deprived or overcrowded housing live in an immigrant household • Shares in deprived households over 10% for foreign-born in BE, IT, PT, UK • Housing cost overburden (40%+ of disposable income) more likely among foreign-born (18%) than native-born (13%), especially in ES, UK, Nordics. • Housing subsidies are not enough to reduce migrant’s higher housing burden • Renting at reduced rate or free-of-charge is less likely among foreign-born in most countries, esp. IE, ES, IT, AT, UK. Similar in FI, DE, CH, BE, NL, SE

22. 1/3 of EU countries see higher use of overall welfare benefits among foreign-born, mostly due to higher use of unemployment benefits (also housing or family, not pension or sickness) Controlling for socio-economic status, use of benefits among foreign-born is higher than native-born in 1/3 of EU MS, similar in 1/3, and lower in 1/3 Lower use of unemployment benefits among unemployed foreign-born

23. Note: White Bar = No statistical significance, IZA

24. Probit regression controlling for age, education, gender, number of children in household, IZA

25. “Least” problematic of nine areas • Highest perceived prevalence among North Africans and Roma (11%) • esp. in Southern Europe (IT), Central Europe • Only 31% knew of law against racial discrimination in housing (like other areas) • Public perceives higher level of discrimination against foreigners in countries with greater poverty gaps between natives & migrants (MPG)