Yesterday's Social Trends 2009 report had a fascinating table showing the relative impact of natural change (that is, the difference between births and deaths) and immigration on population growth over the last few decades.

The report noted, 'During the 1980s the flow of migrants into the UK changed to a net inflow, reversing the trend of the two previous decades. As both factors continued into the 1990s the impact of migration on population change became increasingly influential. Between 1951 and 1961, natural change accounted for 98 per cent of the UK's population growth. Between 2001 and 2007 this had fallen to 38 per cent. Projections suggest that population growth for the rest of this decade is likely to remain attributable to both natural change and net migration in roughly equal measure. However, over the period 2011-2021 natural change is expected to become more important in influencing population change, accounting for around 57 per cent of the increase in population. Some of this increase may be attributed to the birth of children to migrant mothers, meaning that migration could have a more important influence on population change than indicated by the summary figures.'

Net migration in 2007 alone was 237,000 - 46,000 higher than the previous year and just 7,000 lower than the record of 244,000 estimated for 2004. Taken together with the drop in average household size - from 2.9 in 1971 to 2.4 today and projected to fall even further to 2.1 by the end of the next decade - this means the UK will probably need 7 million more homes by 2020 than it currently has - far more than the 3 million new homes presently promised by the government.

Yet, an increase or decrease of just 0.1 in average household size can affect housing need by 1 million houses. So, as I suggested yesterday, any trend towards extended families living together would significantly ease the environmental and economic pressures on society. According to recent research†, the number of homes in Britain occupied by several generations is set to increase from 750,000 to 1.75 million over the next twenty years. This is a trend the government would be well-advised to encourage if it wishes to ease ever-escalating property prices (the recent dip notwithstanding), insufficient provision of care home places for an ageing population, and the requirement for affordable childcare that meets the parenting needs of young children as well as the parental choices of those who wish to work. In Singapore, for example, there are grants for first-time homebuyers who choose to live in public housing near to their parents or married child. As we suggested in Reactivating the Extended Family, more than two decades ago:

'Various tax measures could be used to provide incentives for people to move near their ageing parents, or even near brothers and unmarried sisters. For example, increased allowances could be provided for caring for a dependant relative at home, as discussed in the previous section. In addition, those living in the same neighbourhood as ageing parents might be allowed to file a joint tax return with them, with tax advantages attached to such joint returns. New house construction, although achieving change only slowly, could be used to develop housing "clusters", suitable for extended family groups. In particular, the provision of a "granny annex" could be provided with a much higher proportion of public housing, and grants extended towards the cost of such provision in private housing. Incentives for the small family business sector might also be a means to encourage siblings to continue to live near their parents after reaching adulthood.'

For more on all these issues, watch out for Votewise Now! later in the year, the completely new edition of our general election guide Votewise.

† Research from B&Q, cited in Granny flats: Housing your older relatives, The Times, 11 April 2008

• 
• Share