Read the research | Share on Twitter

The paper, authored by Will Tanner and Guy Miscampbell, argues that Ministers should give Britain’s private renters a new Chance to Buy their rented home by rewarding landlords who sell to long-term tenants.

Under the proposals, Onward’s proposals:

• Existing buy-to-let properties would be eligible for 100% capital gains tax relief if the property is sold to a sitting tenant who has lived there for 3 years or more.
• The gain from this tax relief would be split evenly between the landlord and the tenant, giving the landlord a windfall when they sell and the tenant thousands of pounds towards their mortgage deposit.
• Onward proposes that the Treasury should pay for this policy by tightening other tax reliefs for buy-to-let investors, including reducing the Private Residence Relief period from 18 months to 6 months and abolishing Lettings Relief of up to £40,000.

Onward’s modelling estimates that 88,000 households would take up the relief each year, meaning nearly half a million households could benefit over 5 years. Accounting for multiple-person households, this would support the transition of a million people from the private rented sector into home ownership by 2023.

The average gain per property would be £15,000, meaning the average first time buyer could expect to benefit by £7,500. Because the gain is affected by property prices and their historical growth, this rises substantially in some parts of the country, with the average buying tenant in London receiving £19,500 under the scheme.

If the Government wanted to go further to incentivise longer-term tenancies, Onward argues that they could make other allowances, such as Wear and Tear Allowance, conditional on the properties being offered on a tenancy agreement of 3 years or more. The changes could be introduced alongside or instead of the Government’s proposed introduction of fixed 3-year tenancies for everyone.

The report comes amidst growing political interest in the changing nature of Britain’s private rented sector, with Ministers recently consulting on proposals to bring in mandatory three-year tenancies.

• In the last two decades, the private rented sector has doubled in size, with more than 20% of homes, or 4.7 million households, now rented privately.
• The average length of residence in the private rented sector is 3.9 years. In 2016-17, half of renters had lived in private rented accommodation for more than 5 years, compared to fewer than a fifth in 2008-09.
• Households pay a greater proportion of their living costs towards rent per month than previous generations. From the 1960s to the early 1980s private renters spent on average around 10% of their income on rent in most of the country, and around 15% in London. Today those figures have increased to over 30% and nearly 40% respectively.
• Unsurprisingly, the vast majority want to own: nine in ten people prefer home ownership over renting. 65% of 18–40-year-olds who currently do not own a home hope to
  do so one day.

This has considerable political implications. Research shows the political challenge facing the Conservative Party amongst private renters, including in marginal seats, in particular:

• According to Ipsos Mori, private renters were significantly more likely to vote Labour (54%) than Conservative (31%) at the last election and the Labour Party’s lead amongst private renters grew by 12 points.
• Recent polling for Shelter showed the Conservatives trail Labour by an average 22 points amongst private renters in the 60 most marginal constituencies. 61 per cent of voters in those seats do not have confidence in the Government’s housing offer.
• Onward research published in the Sunday Telegraph has shown that by 2022, there will only be 88 parliamentary seats where homeowners comprise more than 70 per cent of all homes, down from 330 in 2001.

The post Make a House a Home appeared first on Onward.

Read the full research note here 

The research note unearths new Ministry of Justice data showing that in recent years the proportion of crime accounted for by a small number of criminals has increased dramatically. Roughly half of all crimes are being committed by 10% of offenders, and 4% of all crimes are being caused by 0.2% of all criminals.

This concentration of crime should present policy makers with an opportunity to reduce crime substantially. A targeted increase in the proportion of super-prolific offenders being jailed and an increase in their sentence length would reduce crime significantly.

However, the report draws on new data obtained through a series of Parliamentary Questions, and it reveals that in England and Wales:

Since 2007, the number of super-prolific criminals, (offenders with more than 50 previous convictions) who were convicted but spared jail tripled, from 1,299 in 2007 to 3,916 in 2018.  This means that the average MP would have seen two super prolific offenders spared jail in his or her constituency in 2007, but six per constituency in 2018.

Over the last ten years, there were:

• 206,000 offenders who were convicted but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, despite having more than 25 previous convictions.
• 32,000 offenders who were spared jail, despite having more than 50 previous convictions and;
• 2,450 offenders spared jail, despite having over 100 previous convictions.

After rising between 2010 and 2016, the proportion of prolific criminals dropped back sharply in the last two years. Between 2016 and 2018 the proportion of those who had over 100 previous offences who were jailed dropped from 51% to 43%. The proportion for those with over 75 offences dropped from 49% to 44%. And for those with over 50 offences from 48% to 45%. 

Although the proportion of highly prolific criminals jailed went up for several years, because crime is increasingly concentrated in a growing number of super-prolific offenders, the absolute numbers escaping jail still increased.  And as the proportion of super-prolific offenders jailed has fallen in the last couple of years, this problem has been exacerbated.

Among prolific offenders who were convicted of violence against the person, large numbers still escaped jail. Nearly a third of those who were convicted of violence against the person and had more than 25 previous convictions still escaped a jail sentence.

Turning to specific offences, criminals are in some cases committing the very same crime very large numbers of times without being jailed.

Looking at the last three years, there were people found guilty of common assault up to 44 times before being jailed. At least one person was convicted of assaulting a police officer 12 times before being jailed. There were people not jailed despite 15 convictions for robbery, 60 convictions for theft and 17 convictions for burglary. 

Despite high levels of concern about knife crime, there were individuals who were convicted of possession of an article with a blade or point up to 18 times without being jailed. This is despite the fact that anyone caught with a knife for a second time should automatically receive a six month jail sentence under section 28 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

While the proportion of those convicted of a repeat offence of carrying a knife who were jailed has increased, it is far from 100%, even for those with multiple offences of the same kind.  35% of over 16s for whom it was their third conviction or caution for the same offence were not jailed, while 30% of those for whom it was their fourth or more offence of knife possession were not jailed in the year ending March 2019. This was up from 30% and 26% respectively the year before, as imprisonment rates appear to have declined.

Because the number of people who were convicted of knife possession has increased sharply in recent years, the decline in the proportion of repeat offenders who were not jailed last year meant that the number of people who were convicted or cautioned for a repeat knife crime but not jailed rose last year to over 2,000, its highest level since 2012.

 The report highlights the increasing number of suspended and community sentences offenders are being given before being jailed. Of those who were subsequently jailed, the number who had previously received 10 or more community sentences increased from 3,853 in 2007 to 6,216 in 2018.   The proportion of those jailed who had five or more previous community sentences increased from around a quarter (26%) to nearly a third (32%) over the same period. Only 27% of those jailed in 2018 had no previous community sentences.

Some individuals are being given absurd numbers of community sentences.  The highest number of previous community sentences received by an offender jailed in 2018 was 47, and in 2016 and 2017 it was 49. 

Offenders placed on community sentences between 2007 and 2015 were convicted of over 1.2 million crimes, including 46,675 offences of violence against the person and 472,000 thefts.

Of those jailed, the number with five or more previous suspended sentences increased nearly tenfold, from 286 in 2007 to 2,735 in 2018.

While the report focuses on prolific offenders, it highlights aspects of wider sentencing policy which are also concerning. The proportion of all those convicted of assaulting a police officer who were jailed declined from 17% in 2007 to just 13% in 2018.  At the same time the average length of a custodial sentence for such offences has also declined, from 2.8 months to just 2.2 months over the same period. 

Prisoners sentenced to a standard determinate custodial sentence must be released automatically at the halfway point of their sentence and serve the second half on licence. Those sentenced to at least 12 weeks but less than four years may be released on Home Detention Curfew (HDC) up to 135 days before the halfway point, depending on sentence length.

The number and proportion of prisoners being released under HDC increased sharply between 2017 and 2018, from 13% to over a fifth of those released (21%). Numbers released before the halfway point increased from 9,320 to 14,769.  Previously HDC releases had been falling – from 15% in 2011, to 12% in 2016.

The report makes three recommendations:

1)      A review of sentencing of prolific offenders with a view to creating a clearer expectation of longer and more certain prison sentences for super-prolific offenders. This could involve returning the ideas of minimum sentences and “earned release” which Conservatives promised in opposition.

2)      Investing in more prison capacity to enable more super-prolific offenders to be jailed and for longer.

3)      Action to improve and toughen community sentences, suspended sentences and drug rehabilitation programmes.

Report author Neil O’Brien said:

“Whoever is the next Prime Minister must invest in our jails and ensure that super-prolific criminals start getting the time in prison they deserve.”

“We need a review of sentencing policy regarding prolific criminals to jail more of them and for longer. We also need to invest in more prison capacity.”

“Large numbers of people should not be getting let out of prison before even the halfway mark of their sentence under early release.  In the long run we should be moving to honesty in sentencing so people serve the time that is read out in court.

“It is disturbing that sentencing for assaults on police officers has become so weak.  Brave police men and women are being used as punchbags by criminals on a daily basis, yet the courts are jailing smaller and smaller proportions of them.”

“There is absolutely no contradiction between believing in more and better action to prevent crime, and tough sentences for those who commit a lot of crime.  They should be two sides of the same coin.”

“There is also much more that could be done to steer prolific offenders away from a life of crime at an early age.  And one of the most important causes of prolific offending is drug addiction – for which we must improve treatment.  But we must also protect the public from the small group of people who commit so much crime. Super-prolific offenders must face more certain and longer prison sentences.”

The post Super-prolific criminals: The case for action appeared first on Onward.

Read the research here

Among the key findings of the report:

• The number of state school pupils admitted to Oxford and Cambridge has not increased for 20 years. Admissions from state schools peaked in 2002, when 3,343 state school pupils were admitted. In 2018, just 3,166 were admitted. Between 2002 and 2018 the number of UK state school pupils admitted fell 5% while the number of UK independent school pupils fell 23%.
• The proportion of students admitted to Oxbridge from the UK has declined from 88% in 2008 to 78% in 2018. The number of 18 year olds in the UK set to grow by a fifth between 2018 and 2030. This means that if numbers of state school pupils continue to flatline, their odds of getting into Oxbridge will decline.
• High entry requirement universities in England have grown their numbers of overseas students rather than the number of UK students. Between 2014/15 and 2018/19 the dozen highest entry requirement universities in England added 4,895 more first year undergraduates from outside the UK, but only 350 from the UK: a 35% increase and a 1% increase respectively. 
• At the dozen universities in England with the highest entry requirements, the proportion of overseas students rose from 27% to 33% between 2014/15 and 2018/19.  Looking at UK universities as a whole it rose far less, from 17% to 19%.

Report author Neil O’Brien MP said:

“The dramatic growth of lucrative overseas students has crowded out British students at many of our top universities. The revenues from overseas students have been very important for universities, but there has been a price paid by UK students. As the government looks at the future of universities, it should consider whether we want to keep going in the same direction. With the number of overseas students dramatically reduced because of coronavirus, this could be a moment to reset our approach.”

“Media reports about Oxbridge admissions have generally concentrated on the proportion of UK students who are from state schools. But that measure, which is rising, gives a misleading picture of how likely state school pupils are to actually gain a place. In fact the chance of going to Oxford or Cambridge has flatlined at best for decades. Unless something changes, state school pupils’ chances of going are actually set to fall as the number of 18 year olds is set to increase by a fifth.”

The post No Room at the Top appeared first on Onward.

Key findings:

Scots increasingly reject having a referendum in the next two years. The combined share of voters wanting a referendum “this year” or “next year” is now 27% – down from 35% in February – while 26% want a referendum in 2023-24 and 9% want one in 2025-26. The combined share supporting a referendum in 2027 or “never” has remained unchanged at 38%.

Just half of current Yes voters (50%)  say a vote should be this year or next, and only two in five 2019 SNP voters (41%) agree. More than half of Labour voters (51%) do not want a referendum in this Parliament, and three fifths of Conservatives (62%) think there should “never” be another referendum.

There is a growing demand for clarity on currency and EU membership. When asked what conditions should be met before a referendum, the most cited answer is now “The Scottish Government has made clear what currency Scotland would use if it became an independent country” (45%), shortly followed by “There is clarity on whether an independent Scotland would be able to join the EU” (41%) and “Jobs and economic growth are back to where they were before Coronavirus” (41%). The condition that “Coronavirus has been completely eliminated” has fallen from the most cited condition in February (49%) to the fourth (32%).

An overwhelming majority of voters want Nicola Sturgeon to focus on covid not independence. Nearly four in five (79%) of Scottish voters agree that “​​It is more important that Scottish politicians focus on tackling coronavirus than on constitutional issues right now”, compared to just 21% who think constitutional issues are more important. This is true of Yes voters and SNP supporters as well as those sceptical of independence:  75% of future Yes voters and 76% of 2019 SNP voters say coronavirus should take priority over the constitution. The SNP conference this weekend (10-13 September) has three priorities –  Independence, the 2022 Council elections and Climate Change – which do not include coronavirus.

Headline VI is settled and in line with other polls at 48% Yes, 52% No. Support for independence is 48%, excluding Don’t Knows, with 52% of voters saying they would vote to keep Scotland in the UK. This represents an 8-point fall since Onward conducted a similar poll in late February, when 56% of Scots said they would vote “Yes”.

Full data tables available here

Will Tanner, Director of Onward, said:

“As the SNP gather for their party conference this weekend, it is clear that their priorities are not those of the Scottish people. An overwhelming majority – including 3 in 4 of the SNP’s own voters – say that the Government should focus on tackling coronavirus, not constitutional reform, and less than a third of people want a referendum in the next two years.

“The message is clear. Instead of ratcheting up the separatist rhetoric, the Scottish Government should be working with the rest of the UK to prevent a fourth wave of infections, bring back jobs and growth and fix public services.”

The State of the Union and wider attitudes to Scottish Independence

This research was published 6 months after Onward’s landmark report on public attitudes to the Union, State of the Union, which found that while support for independence was rising, it is volatile and far from inevitable that Scots decide to leave the United Kingdom. The report, which was released before the May 2021 elections, established that:

• Three fifths (61%) of Scottish voters agree that “the focus on constitutional issues in recent years has distracted politicians from working more on public services like health, education and the police”, compared to just 19% who disagree.
• 58% of Scottish voters agree that “Scotland’s schools, which used to be world-leading, have fallen behind relative to comparable countries”, compared to 23% who disagree.
• This does not however stop Scottish voters from saying that most issues would be better handled if Scotland were independent compared to remaining in the UK. The only issues that Scots think would be better handled by remaining in the UK are foreign affairs and defence, reforming the UK constitution and sourcing vaccine supplies.
• Scottish voters are more likely to say the UK Government has handled rolling out the vaccine well (38%) than the Scottish Government (34%), and believe the UK Government has done well overall on providing economic support, clear information to the public, and managing the health and care system, suggesting the Union may be benefitting from a vaccine bounce.

The post New Onward research on Scottish Independence appeared first on Onward.