Until ministers change tack on immigration, non-white British citizens will face discrimination

The “hostile environment“ is under the spotlight again. This time, government policy is being challenged in the High Court for its impact on renters – specifically, non-white British people who have been refused tenancy due to their skin colour and lack of a British passport.

Lawyers are contesting the Right to Rent scheme, introduced in 2016, which places the onus on landlords to check the immigration status of prospective tenants. A vital component in Theresa May’s plan to make Britain a “hostile place for illegal migrants”, it seeks to ensure that no one without the right to remain in the country manages to slip into private accommodation.

But, rather like the mistakes made in the Windrush fiasco, the measure has had unintended consequences.

By threatening landlords with prosecution if they know or have “reasonable cause to believe” that the property they are letting is occupied by someone who does not have the right to rent in the UK, Right to Rent has encouraged many simply to avoid renting to anyone who is not white and doesn’t have a British passport, to reduce the risk of falling foul of the rules.

There are figures to back the assertion. New research by the Residential Landlords Association (RLA) shows nearly half of private landlords are now less likely to rent to those without a British passport, a rise on last year. In separate research, a series of mystery shopper exercises carried out by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI), the charity leading the court challenge, found that the scheme was causing foreign nationals and BAME people of all nationalities to experience racial discrimination.

Even without the statistical evidence, the act of appointing landlords to carry out what can be complex immigration checks was always likely to lead to mistakes being made. It would appear many landlords know this, so – probably with no intention to discriminate at all – choose instead to avoid renting to anyone without a British passport, even though they might be UK citizens.

Crucially, there have been numerous warnings about this unintended upshot of the Right to Rent scheme from landlords, housing charities and immigrant welfare organisations – yet the Home Office ploughed on with it and is now fighting for it in court.

Sajid Javid delivered warm words when he was drafted into the role of home secretary following Amber Rudd’s resignation over the Windrush scandal, pledging there would be “no adverse impact on individuals who have a right to be here and to access those services”. The word “hostile” was replaced by the less savage-sounding “compliant”.

But the actions of the Home Office since then would suggest there has been little change in approach. And on wider immigration policy, it appears the home secretary is planning to slash immigration numbers in the upcoming white paper, with net migration from Europe set to be reduced to as little as 10,000 a year.

The government may have pledged never to preside over a repeat of Windrush, but as long as it continues to require landlords, the NHS, charities, and other agencies to act as glorified border guards, the hostile environment will continue to discriminate against non-white British citizens. That is a scandal which demands our attention too.