london-without-poverty_0

A London without poverty
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s manifesto briefing for
the London mayoral election 2016

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is an independent organisation working
to inspire social change through research, policy and practice.
Our vision is for a prosperous UK without poverty where everyone can thrive
and contribute. To achieve this we work in partnership with private, public and
voluntary sectors, as well as with individuals and communities. Using evidence
and experience, we search for the underlying causes of social problems and
demonstrate practical solutions in order to influence lasting change.

Introduction
London is a capital city of constant change, a global arena of
innovation and opportunity. It is one of the richest cities in the
world. But it also holds some of the UK’s poorest communities.
Over two million Londoners live in poverty.
This manifesto briefing proposes a set of policies which we hope
the London mayoral candidates will champion. These policies aim
to ensure that the capital prospers for all Londoners to share in the
capital’s prosperity, building on its strong economic environment
for broad, sustained and inclusive growth.
What does poverty look like in London?
Poverty is when a person’s resources (mainly their material
resources) are not sufficient to meet their minimum needs
(including social participation).
In the capital, there has been a shift in the nature of poverty.
Poverty is no longer characterised narrowly by worklessness and
social renting in inner London. Increasingly, working people in
private renting in outer London experience poverty too. This is
a symptom of deep structural changes in the UK labour market.
There has been a rise in precarious, poorly paid work and a
‘hollowing out’ of middle-income jobs to progress to. Combined
with rapidly rising housing and childcare costs, these undermine
the London that promises prosperity for all.
What can the Mayor do?
The Mayor of London has limited powers. But the Mayor does have
a platform for implementing policies and championing causes that
can have a huge impact on the lives of low-income households,
not just in London but throughout the UK. One example is the
support successive Mayors have given to the Living Wage
campaign, urging businesses and local authorities to pay staff
living wages as a minimum. This campaign played a part in the
Chancellor’s planned introduction of a National Living Wage
by 2020.
JRF believes that London should be a place where people’s
chances in life are not defined by their socio-economic background
and that communities can work together to tackle disadvantage.
These policy proposals address poverty across the lifecourse. These
are policies the next Mayor could implement or champion in their
first term.
The London mayoralty has proved to be a position that allows for
radical thought and global ambition, keeping London among the
best cities in the world. We hope that the mayoral candidates from
all parties adopt these measures in their election manifestos for
May 2016. Poverty is real in the UK, but it can be solved. The next
Mayor of London has a vital role to play in doing so.
3

4
Childhood
Our evidence is very clear: what happens in childhood has a strong
impact on each person’s chances throughout life. Poverty has a
huge impact on the family home. A JRF review of parenting and
poverty concluded that ‘living on a low income in a run-down
neighbourhood does not make it impossible to be the affectionate,
authoritative parent of healthy, sociable children. But it does,
undeniably, make it more difficult.1
There is a wealth of evidence
that children who grow up in low-income households have poorer
mental and physical health than those who grow up in richer
families. At an early age, children from better-off backgrounds
score better in tests of cognitive, social and behavioural
development. Poverty drives poorer educational attainment and
weakens long-term life chances.2
Our evidence is very clear: what happens in childhood has
a strong impact on each person’s chances throughout life.
The Mayor has no formal powers over school education. But Boris
Johnson’s education inquiry led to the 2012 Going for Gold
report3
and following actions, including a London curriculum and a
dedicated unit at City Hall to secure new sites for free schools.
This shows that some mayoral convening and campaigning can give
space for mayor-led innovation. We believe the next Mayor should
use their position to promote the following.
Campaign for higher quality childcare
In recent years, governments have made significant steps to
expand the quantity of childcare available to families of all
incomes, recognising its role in supporting higher labour market
participation and improving work incentives, so increasing family
incomes. JRF research4
shows that high-quality childcare can

5
protect children against the negative impacts of poverty and
improve their development, contributing to better educational
and employment outcomes later in life. We now need a much
stronger focus on quality, if we are to maximise the life chances of
children in London.
High-quality childcare can protect children against
the negative impacts of poverty and improve their
development.
Currently, the UK system effectively protects against very
low-quality childcare, but rarely provides childcare of the quality
to deliver developmental benefits. Families living in high
unemployment areas are less likely to be able to access childcare
within normal working hours. State support for childcare costs is
poorly targeted at low-income parents, leaving some struggling to
afford childcare, and gives poor value for money - by taking a more
universal approach to childcare we are subsidising those who can
afford it, creating poor value on the expenditure from a poverty
reduction point of view.
The Mayor does not have direct powers to drive up the quality of
childcare in London, but could again play a vital championing and
convening role. Our research suggests that the next London
Mayor should champion:
• Moving towards a graduate-led, fully qualified childcare
workforce, with wage levels across all types of provider similar
to the current wages in the maintained sector.
• Keeping the mixed market of private, voluntary and maintained
sector providers, with child-minders and children’s centre-based
care playing important roles.
• Investing in a social enterprise programme to develop business
models proven to deliver quality and flexibility.
• Linking childcare providers much more closely to early
intervention networks and improving provider’s support for
home learning, helping families to access services and give
children the best start at home.5
Retain momentum behind closing London’s
attainment gap
London has made great progress in closing the educational
attainment gap. The London Challenge programme, which ran
between 2003 and 2011, saw the performance of schools improve
dramatically. Key Stage 4 results moved from among the worst in
the country to the best during the period. The capital has led the
way on this issue for decades.
London leads the way in closing the educational
attainment gap. The next Mayor can keep London
at the forefront of good practice.
Nevertheless, while still smaller than in the rest of the country, a
persistent attainment gap remains between those who are on free
school meals and those who are not. The next Mayor should look
to build momentum towards completely closing the attainment gap
in London, keeping the city at the forefront of best practice in this
field.
Key to this will be continuing several initiatives that aim to
improve the quality of teachers and leaders in schools serving
disadvantaged communities. These include Teach First, School
Direct, Teaching Schools and the Future Leaders Trust. A drive
towards improving current teachers’ Continuing Professional
Development is equally important. This will help support current
staff to improve and progress, to avoid disparities between
teachers able to take advantage of leadership initiatives and
longer serving staff.6

Integrating leadership and oversight of the
education system in London
In England, the role of local authorities in education is declining
fast. New Regional Schools Commissioners (RSCs) have been
in place since 2014. The role and capacity of this new structure
needs to be developed further. In particular, if RSCs are to become
the main source of oversight and support, they should aim to
improve performance across all schools in their area, not to
promote a particular type of school.
In England, the role of local authorities in education is
declining fast.
A recent report from the Education Select Committee7
raised
concerns about the division of London into three different RSC
areas. It cited Greater London Authority (GLA) concerns that the
division was ‘inexpedient’ and ‘unsustainable’, creating confusion
and complicating co-ordination of education services across the
city. JRF supports the view that leadership and oversight of
education in London should be integrated under one RSC, to
ensure smoother operation across the metropolitan area. This
arrangement would align more closely with the wider governance
structures emerging under the government’s metropolitan
devolution agenda.
Champion a network of ‘family hubs’
JRF evidence demonstrates that children’s prospects are strongly
affected by their relationship with their parents, and their parents’
relationships with each other.8
Help for parents to best support
their child’s development and early action to reduce the likelihood
of family breakdown, or soften its impact, are an important part of
any anti-poverty plan. We believe that the government should
develop a network of family hubs to provide parents and families
with wraparound support and act as a medium for wider
co-ordination and integration of services.
Help for parents and support during family
breakdown are central to any anti-poverty plan.
In its report Fully committed,9
the Centre for Social Justice
outlined similar proposals, these included:
• Using a ‘hub and spokes’ model; these build on larger children’s
centres (shown to be more effective) with more numerous
community-based services to maximise access to services,
especially for those for whom travel to a centre would be a
barrier.
• Making family hubs the ‘go to’ place for parents to access
services and information about any family-related issue.
• Locating as many services as possible in family hubs, including
birth registration, antenatal and postnatal services, childcare
information, debt advice, relationship and parenting support,
local activities for families and support for families who are
separating.
• Linking with local voluntary and community sector activities.
The Centre for Social Justice report also envisaged family hubs
providing employment advice and substance misuse services. This
would have clear advantages for some service users, but might not
be appropriate for all. Local areas would need to think carefully
about the client groups needing to access the range of services
and ensure that the mix of users accessing services in one location
was appropriate. Family hubs could also be linked to employment
support services, extending co-ordination to form a family and
employment hub network.10
6

Working age
The employment rate now sits at 74% in London, slightly behind
the average across the UK, but continuing on an upward trend.
However, unemployment remains persistently high in some
boroughs. According to the Trust for London, the three with the
highest levels are all in east London – Barking and Dagenham,
Tower Hamlets and Newham. Here unemployment rates are
between 8-10%, compared with a national average of 5%.11
Pay remains a problem for Londoners. The next Mayor
must keep up the momentum for a London Living Wage.
Pay continues to be a problem in London. While wages returned
to growth for most of the country in 2015, hourly pay continued
to fall in the capital, leaving it lagging 12.4% behind pre-recession
levels.12
In the 2015 Summer Budget, the Chancellor began to
address wage stagnation by introducing a new National Living
Wage of £7.20 an hour for those over 25. This will undoubtedly
affect the living standards of many over-25s who work full-time
in London. But the figure still falls far behind the voluntary London
Living Wage (currently £9.40 an hour), which is set with regard to
the cost of living in the capital. The current Mayor has been a
robust advocate of the voluntary London Living Wage,
encouraging many more employers to take it up. The number of
London Living Wage employers nearly doubled in 2015. The next
Mayor must build on this strong foundation and continue to
advocate for the voluntary London Living Wage with employers
across the city. We hope the next Mayor will be a vocal supporter
of the new Living Wage Commission.
Poor earnings growth in the capital is partly the result of
deeper structural changes in the labour market, both in London
and beyond. The loss of nearly 10% of the UK’s semi-skilled,
middle-income jobs13
over the decade up to 2012 is suggestive
of a ‘hollowing out’ of our labour market: employment growth is
polarised at each end, with fewer ladders to progress in between.
Four out of five low-paid workers will not have fully escaped
low pay after ten years.14
The next Mayor will have to tackle job
progression if they are to build a prosperous and inclusive capital.
8

A prosperous, inclusive London needs jobs that allow
workers to progress out of low pay.
This is an interconnected web of issues on the path to sustainable,
inclusive growth in London. To begin to address it, we believe
mayoral candidates should consider the following proposals.
Use the devolution of employment support to
redesign the system, incentivising a focus upon
earnings (as well as sustainable employment), and
addressing the specific needs of those furthest away
from the labour market
In the 2015 Autumn Statement, the Chancellor announced that
the Mayor of London will be given the power to jointly commission
(with London boroughs) employment support to assist long-term
unemployed people and those with health conditions and
disabilities to re-enter work. The Mayor could use the new
powers to develop a stronger programme of employment
services, based upon evidence of what works.
JRF research recommends re-orienting the employment service
so it concentrates on higher employment and earnings.15
This will
not only help to continue to push up employment figures, but will
also increase participants’ chances of securing jobs starting at as
high a level of pay as possible. It would give service providers a
clear rationale to prioritise ongoing support, advice and access to
training once people are in work, to help them progress to jobs
with higher earnings or more hours. By incentivising an efficient
match of labour to demand, it would maximise reductions in state
support to individuals.
For this policy to be most effective, however, we need
demand-side policies too. JRF recommends that the next Mayor’s
9

10
office take a brokering role. This could involve developing a forum
including representatives of sectors with skills shortages or specific
challenges (like high staff turnover) and business support and skills
providers. This forum could better map job roles and develop
training packages to help people progress from one role to
another. The forum could also build bridges between business
and employment support services, encouraging a flow of suitable
low-income candidates for jobs.
For those further away from the labour market, JRF research
finds that many people with a disability or health condition want to
work, and there is evidence that work is generally good for health.
Individuals’ perception of their health condition has proved
important in evaluations of previous programmes. Joining up
employment support with condition management and occupational
health services is crucial. But evaluation of the Work Programme
finds advisers lack the skills and knowledge to do this. Better
outcomes will require more experimentation with different types of
support, combined with more specialist advisers. This could include
co-location and joint working between employment support
specialists and clinical teams. This has been shown to work for
some conditions. Evidence also shows the effectiveness of a
personal adviser building motivation and confidence, access to
work experience, intermediate labour markets, individual placement
support and subsidised employment. These are important lessons
for the new Work and Health Programme recently announced by
national government. They must also be applied to the devolved
context and the work the next Mayor must do to deliver effective
programmes in London.

11
Create ‘first job opportunities’ using procurement
budgets
The GLA has a significant public procurement budget, with
procurement services managed by Transport for London.16
This
could be used better to create jobs-with-training for young people
from disadvantaged areas. Currently, Transport for London runs
an apprenticeship scheme, providing 200 posts for young people
across its supply chains. Better use of public procurement
expenditure could support a widening of this scheme.
London is at the forefront of good procurement practice.
The Mayor can create hundreds of jobs a year for the most
excluded using procurement contracts.
JRF has produced a ‘social clause procurement model’; this
demonstrates how contract clauses could create one
job-with-training for a disadvantaged young person for every £1
million procurement contract value.17
The target beneficiaries are
those furthest away from the labour market, including those who
have never had a job or who are long-term unemployed. Local
authorities across the UK have piloted this model in projects
totalling £760 million. If the Mayor of London made this model
standard practice for the GLA, this could create hundreds of jobs
per year for the most excluded. London has been at the forefront
of good procurement practice, evidenced by construction projects
such as the Olympics and Cross Rail. Future procurement contracts
should include social procurement clauses which create
opportunities for those furthest away from the labour market.
Mayor’s taskforce on in-work poverty
Our report, Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2015,18
showed that more than half of people in poverty were in a
household where someone worked. This trend has continued,
becoming particularly acute in London. A Trust for London report
published last year showed that there are now 1.2 million
Londoners in poverty living in a working family, up 70% in a
decade.19
JRF research shows that the Chancellor’s National Living
Wage will help to improve the living standards of two-parent
families in London where both work full time, but the increase to
the wage floor will still leave many behind.20
The Mayor can use their considerable power as convener
to set up a taskforce on in-work poverty in London.
We recommend that the Mayor use their power as convener to set
up a taskforce on in-work poverty in London. The taskforce should
include representatives of trade unions and employers, particularly
those in the retail, catering and care sectors, where pay is on
average very low. The taskforce could look to develop
sector-specific strategies that encompass workforce pay,
productivity and progression. This should build on the excellent
contacts and momentum behind the London Living Wage.

12
Later life
Over successive parliaments we have broken the stubborn link
between poverty and old age across the UK. London’s Poverty
Profile report21
shows a 6% fall in pensioner poverty in inner
London. The story of how we have tackled pensioner poverty
nationally shows how, with concerted action over a long time,
governments, employers and the third sector can make great
progress towards sustained reductions in poverty.
18% of London’s pensioners still live in poverty, the
highest rate in the UK.
Nevertheless, 18% of London’s pensioners remain in poverty, the
highest rate across the UK, suggesting that continued efforts are
required to build on the recent successes. We believe the following
might sustain this positive trend.
Work with health and service providers to improve
take-up of entitlements
Across the UK, take-up of some benefits by older people remains
low. DWP statistics in 2014 show more than a third of pensioners
entitled to Pension Credit are not receiving it. This represents a
very large proportion of older people whose incomes are smaller
than they should be and suggests that there is a significant
constituency of older people in London who are entitled to further
support. This picture is repeated to differing degrees across other
benefits, including Housing Benefit (20% of eligible pensioners do
not claim across the UK) and Council Tax reduction (40% do not
claim). Take-up rates for Attendance and Carers Allowance are also
likely to be open to improvement in the capital.

13
By acting to improve take-up of benefits, the next Mayor
could reduce poverty among older Londoners at minimal
cost to GLA budgets.
By acting to improve take-up, the next Mayor could reduce
poverty among older people struggling to make ends meet in
London at minimal cost to GLA budgets. JRF evidence suggests
that investment in local campaigns is the most effective approach.
Typically these generate far more in additional benefit income
than they cost to deliver. The Mayor should implement a city-wide
marketing drive and a benefits training programme for service
providers who have regular contact with older people, in particular
GPs, nurses, housing and advice providers, with a view to improving
take-up of entitlements across this age group.22
Work with employers to increase savings among
young people through auto-enrolment
The biggest gaps between UK pensioners who are in income
poverty and those who are not relate to whether or not they have
occupational or private pensions. In 2013/14, only a quarter of
pensioners overall lacked any kind of personal pension, compared
with over half of those in poverty.23
To protect London’s future pensioners from
poverty, the next Mayor should work with
employers to reduce the numbers opting out
from workplace pensions.
Policy change from April 2016, combining the New State Pension
with a Pension Credit top-up, should address many of the needs of
future pensioners. Automatic enrolment into workplace pensions
for those aged over 21 and earning above £10,000 a year has also
largely been a success. Once fully implemented, the policy aims
to increase the numbers starting to save (or saving more) by nine
million across the UK, and the total amount saved by £11 billion
a year. Median private pension income is projected to be £3,700
by 2050, compared with £2,200 if auto-enrolment had not been
in place.24
These improvements are concentrated among low to
median earners. The lowest quartile of earners is expected to see
an increase of nearly 60% in their median private pension income
at retirement. However, given this is from a very low base, this may
not be enough to keep them out of poverty. Rates of opting out
from auto-enrolment are higher for those aged over 50 and for
part-time workers (but not by salary level).
JRF strongly recommends that auto-enrolment should continue,
but supplemented by new initiatives to reduce opt-out rates,
particularly among those at higher risk of poverty in later life.
The next Mayor of London should work with employers to reduce
opt-out rates for women, older workers, part-time workers and
people from ethnic minorities through: greater advertising of
schemes to employees; additional incentives not to opt out for
high-risk groups; and landlord initiatives to reach workers living in
social housing.25

14
Housing
The critical driver of poverty in London is the crisis in the housing
market. Combined with stagnating pay, rapidly rising housing costs
are having a major impact on Londoners’ ability to maintain their
living standards, and preventing most young Londoners from
accumulating assets. There have been a number of demand-side
measures over this parliamentary term to widen access to the
property market. But the failure of successive governments to
support the building of enough affordable homes has led to the
costs of home-ownership spiralling and rents rising at a much
faster pace than inflation. This has left the vast proportion of
Londoners with little hope of ever being able to purchase property
within the capital. Housing has become a top political priority for
increasing numbers of Londoners.
Housing is increasingly the top political priority for
Londoners.
Stock has transferred from the social rented and owner-occupied
sectors into the private rented sector over many decades. Private
renting has increasingly become the tenure of households in
poverty. In 2013/14 there were 4.3 million people living in
poverty in the private rented sector, two million more than a
decade earlier.26
The termination of a private rented tenancy is now
the largest driver of homelessness in London. For these reasons,
taken in the context of a government fixation on home-ownership
interventions that are unlikely to improve affordability for
low-income Londoners, our recommendations here focus upon
improving quality and affordability in the rented sector. This is not
to diminish the need for a significant expansion of the supply of
affordable homes in the capital.
The termination of a private rented tenancy is now the
largest driver of homelessness in London.
Shift funding from low-cost home-ownership to
affordable rents
Over the course of this parliamentary term, central government
has chosen to focus policy on expanding home-ownership through
demand-side subsidies. Most recently, this strategy has expanded
into supply through the ‘starter homes’ initiative in the Housing

15
and Planning Bill 2016. We welcome the shift to include
supply-side measures. But the current proposals will not help
those on the lowest incomes to improve their living standards
or accumulate assets.
Introducing a Living Rent, pegged to local income, would
provide a genuinely affordable and sustainable rental
option for low-income Londoners.
Recent JRF research shows that only 3% of new social housing
tenants will be able to afford the government’s starter homes,
despite the 20% discount the government is offering. This suggests
much more needs to be done to widen access to affordable
housing among low-income groups.
JRF Right to Buy report, 201527
The Mayor of London has devolved responsibility over housing,
including the housing investment powers exercised elsewhere by
capital from the Homes and Communities Agency. The
opportunities presented by these powers were bolstered
recently by the higher levels of capital grant made available during
the 2015 Autumn Statement. JRF proposes that the next Mayor
use these powers to prioritise affordable rented properties over
home-ownership (out of reach for most Londoners). One model
for doing this would use subsidy to spur the development of rented
properties, with rent levels pegged to local incomes to ensure
genuine affordability. Under our proposals, rents would be set to
28% of local average lower quartile earnings, in perpetuity. In early
2015, JRF costed 16,800 homes per annum in London at £76k
grant per unit, totalling £1.276 billion. This would provide a
genuinely affordable rental option for low-income Londoners, in
perpetuity, releasing pressure upon the private rented sector.
JRF proposes that the next Mayor use these
powers to prioritise affordable rented properties
over home-ownership.
Highlight the impact of local authority high-value
sales
The Housing and Planning Bill 2016 effectively legislates to force
local authorities to sell vacant, high-value housing stock to fund
the extension of Right to Buy to housing association tenants. This
will have a very damaging effect on social housing stock in London.
Where higher proportions of stock are likely to breach the upper
value limit which triggers sale under the legislation. The effect on
the availability of social housing stock in London will be deep and
immediate, with homes put up for sale upon vacancy, rather than
housing families on waiting lists.

The mayoral candidates should publicly challenge the policy,
highlighting its very concerning consequences for London. There
is a strong case for funding the extension of Right to Buy through
general taxation.28
Improve quality in the private rented sector through
local authority licensing schemes
The previous Mayor developed the London Rental Standard as part
of the vital drive to improve quality in the private rented sector.
Although commendable, the ‘opt-in’ nature of this scheme has led
to poor take-up. Only around 14,000 landlords had signed up by
February 2016.29
The Mayor can make a compelling case for a mandatory
licensing scheme across London, building on the London
Rental Standard.
Local authorities such as Newham have also implemented
mandatory borough-wide licensing schemes. These have
been more successful at improving quality at the bottom end
of the sector and tackling poor landlord practice. Despite this
improvement in quality, popularity among landlords and tenants,30
and grant funding from the Department for Communities and
Local Government, these schemes have now been blocked
from further expansion across London. In April 2015, the then
Communities Secretary removed the general approval for such
schemes. This means any further schemes covering more than
20% of a borough’s geographical area or more than 20% of their
private rented sector would need Secretary of State approval.
Given the pressure on London’s private rented sector, the Mayor
could make a compelling case to the Communities Secretary for a
city-wide mandatory licensing scheme, building upon the London
Rental Standard. Should further powers be devolved to London,
the next Mayor should campaign to ensure that these include
the power to approve future schemes.
The Mayor could also use a proportion of the housing budget
to invest in local authority enforcement teams where pressure
is greatest. This would ensure they make the most of Housing
and Planning Bill measures to confront rogue landlords, and that
they can properly target resources on those parts of the private
sector which are unfit for tenants.
16

References
1. (forthcoming 2016) Tackling poverty during childhood. York:
Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Please visit https://www.jrf.org.uk/our-
work/about-poverty for more information
2. As above
3. Greater London Authority (2012) The Mayor’s Education Enquiry, Final
Report, Findings and Recommendations
4. See reference 1
5. As above
6. As above
7. Education Select Committee. (January 2016) The Role of Regional
Schools Commissioners
8. See reference 1
9. Centre For Social Justice (2014) Fully Committed? How government
could reverse family breakdown.
10. See reference 1
11. Aldridge, H. Barry Born, T. Tinson, A. and MacInnes, T. (2015)
London’s Poverty Profile. New Policy Institute & Trust for London
12. D’Arcy, C. Five charts the London Mayoral candidates need to see on
living standards. Resolution Foundation
13. Schmuecker, K. (2014) Future of UK labour market. York: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation
14. Macinnes, T. et al. (2015) Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion
2015. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
15. (Forthcoming 2016) Working age chapter – anti-poverty strategy for
the UK. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Please visit https://www.jrf.
org.uk/our-work/about-poverty for more information
16. As above
17. Macfarlane, R. (2014) Tackling poverty through procurement. York:
Joseph Rowntree Foundation
18. MacInnes, T. Tinson, A. Hughes, C. Barry Born, T. and Aldridge, H.
(2015) Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2015. York: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation
19. See reference 11
20. Hirsch, D. (2020) Summer Budget MIS analysis. York: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation
21. See reference 11
22. (Forthcoming 2016) Later life chapter – anti-poverty strategy for the
UK. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Please visit https://www.jrf.org.uk/
our-work/about-poverty for more information
23. As above
24. As above
25. As above
26. Birch, J. (2015) Housing and poverty roundup. York: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation
27. Clarke, A. et al. (2015) Understanding the likely poverty impacts
of the extension of Right to Buy to housing association tenants. York:
Joseph Rowntree Foundation
28. Department for Communities and Local Government (February
2016) Housing Associations and the Right to Buy
29. London Rental Standard - https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/
housing-and-land/renting/london-rental-standard
30. Residential Landlords Association, (2015) Election Manifesto 2015
19

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s briefing for the London mayoral election 2016
For more information please contact:
Tom Peters
Public Affairs Manager
Email: Tom.Peters@jrf.org.uk
Tel: 020 7520 2080
www.jrf.org.uk
CDID reference: 3204
ISBN: 978-1-910783-53-5

london-without-poverty_0

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (19)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (10)

Ähnlich wie london-without-poverty_0

Ähnlich wie london-without-poverty_0 (20)

london-without-poverty_0