The response to dire housing should not be studied callousness

https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/feb/03/dire-social-housing-asylum-seekers-mps

Version 0 of 1.

Two stories this week showed the dire circumstances in housing for the most vulnerable. The first, the state of accommodation for asylum seekers, as detailed in a home affairs select committee report that branded it “shameful” and “a disgrace”, with complaints from tenants that as well as damp, mould and safety issues, they had to deal with dead rats in the kitchen.

The second story, on the anniversary of “right to rent” checks, points out that the huge number of checks carried out costs the sector large sums and does little to help vulnerable tenants – those without passports and official documents (common among homeless people) are either refused accommodation or fall prey to unscrupulous landlords.

The response from a small but vocal minority to both tales is studied callousness.The view seems to be that anyone who can’t support themselves should be grateful for anything they get. It’s the same attitude that meets homelessness with a hardening heart, rather than seeing rough sleepers as a symptom of a failed state apparatus.

As long as you claim that people are falling victim to the housing crisis because of their own choices or supposed fecklessness, you make excuses for a problem that could be solved with sufficient will and cash.

This attitude does not come from nowhere: the Conservative party, and parts of the Labour party, have been pushing for a return to the idea of the deserving and undeserving poor for decades. Arguments for mandatory work capability assessments rest on the notion that many people claiming benefits are fit for work but would rather not earn more money, and that the government is merely sorting out the genuine or deserving claimants from the skivers or undeserving people on benefits.

Never mind that the number of appeals won shows the system is wildly unreliable, or that many people have died after being declared fit for work – the argument has been carved into stone. People will argue that the checks and balances in place are inadequate, but few will argue the idea itself is a busted flush.

This argument is seen increasingly in housing: dare to speak out about the rise in council housing waiting lists, and the argument goes that scarcity of social housing is no bad thing. Point out that asylum housing is uninhabitable, and you’re bombarded with comments arguing refugees should be grateful for anything they receive, rather than expect basic hospitality and dignity.

Few MPs rent – many are landlords with at least one property – so the idea that people can own or rent their own home without problems if they work hard enough takes root in policy. The actual experience of many people across the country is drowned out by rhetoric about the deserving and undeserving. Currently, attitudes towards social housing look bizarre when transmuted to other services provided by the state.

Social housing should be for all those who need it, not just for the most vulnerable. Providing more housing saves huge sums of cash down the line, and massively improves health, social and educational outcomes for tenants. Arguing that because the NHS is under strain, you should only visit A&E if you are having a heart attack but not appendicitis, would rightly cause an outcry. But instead we’re told to consider social housing an antiquated luxury, not a social service that is in increasing demand and should thus be expanded.

Changing the attitudes of politicians and the public, from advocating denial of housing to the poor and vulnerable to accepting that shelter and housing is a human right and a mark of a decent society, won’t be easy – but is possible.

If people are incapable of empathy and of seeing other humans as equal, the financial argument needs to be made again and again: early intervention to stop homelessness, both on the street and in temporary accommodation, saves huge sums of money in the short and long term.

The fact that asylum seekers’ housing is disgraceful should shame us: the fact it is disgraceful even though the government has allowed huge multinationals to make a profit from central government funds is even more disgraceful. Many local authorities could house asylum seekers and people on housing waiting lists adequately, and cheaply – if the government let them.

Sign up for your free Guardian Housing network newsletter with news and analysis sent direct to you on the last Friday of the month. Follow us:@GuardianHousing