13th October 2026
Britain’s housing crisis is real, but blaming migration alone risks overlooking the workers, skills, taxes and businesses that newcomers can bring to the country. Should government be doing more to help people turn their potential into economic activity?.
A new report from the Centre for Policy Studies has reignited the argument over immigration and Britain’s housing crisis. Its central claim is striking: record levels of migration since 2020 have added more than £15,000 to the price of the average English home.
The report estimates that if net migration had been kept to tens of thousands a year, rather than reaching much higher levels, the average house price in England would be around £15,270 lower today.
That is a substantial figure, and the underlying argument deserves consideration. More people need somewhere to live. If the number of homes does not keep pace with the number of households, competition for accommodation can push up rents and prices.
But there is another side to this debate, and it deserves rather more attention.
People who come to Britain do not simply arrive looking for a home. Many also arrive to work, pay taxes, fill vacancies, provide essential services and establish businesses. If we are going to calculate the cost of migration, should we not also examine its economic contribution?
A housing calculation is not the whole economic picture
The Centre for Policy Studies has identified a genuine pressure on housing demand. However, its £15,270 figure is a modelled estimate of what house prices might have been under a different migration scenario. It is not a bill that can be presented to migrants, nor does it establish that migration is the main reason homes have become unaffordable.
The report itself acknowledges that Britain has under-built for decades. The number of homes per 1,000 people in England fell between 2021 and 2025, despite more than 1.1 million homes being built during that period.
The question is why the country has repeatedly failed to provide enough suitable housing for its growing population.
Planning restrictions, the cost of construction, the availability of land, infrastructure constraints and the slow pace of development all matter. So do interest rates, wages and the ability of first-time buyers to obtain a mortgage.
Migration adds to demand, but it does not explain why Britain has struggled to build enough homes over many years. Nor would reducing migration automatically solve the housing problems already facing millions of people.
A useful comparison comes from research commissioned by the Government’s Migration Advisory Committee and published in June 2026. Its review of international evidence found that migration generally puts some upward pressure on house prices and rents, but that the effects are usually modest and depend heavily on local conditions.
The researchers estimated that migration probably accounts for only a modest proportion of the long-term rise in UK house prices. Their work reinforces an important point: housing supply and population growth must be considered together.
What about the economic contribution?
Imagine two people arriving in Britain.
One takes a job in a care home, pays income tax and National Insurance, rents a flat and spends some of their wages in local shops. The other arrives under a different set of circumstances and may not immediately enter employment.
Their circumstances and economic contributions will be different. Treating both as identical entries in a population calculation tells us very little about their overall effect on the economy.
Migrants are not one uniform group. They include skilled professionals, care workers, agricultural workers, construction workers, university students, family members, refugees and people setting up companies. Some arrive with jobs already arranged. Others need time, support or permission before they can work. Some remain for a short period; others build their lives here permanently.
The sensible approach is to examine the different groups and the evidence about their contributions, rather than assuming that everyone arriving creates the same costs or produces the same benefits.
Workers can help employers keep businesses operating, provide services that would otherwise be difficult to staff and contribute through taxation. Entrepreneurs can establish companies, employ other people and create new products or services.
There are also costs. Workers need housing, transport and access to public services. The tax contribution of an individual depends on their earnings and circumstances, while the wider fiscal effect depends on factors such as age, employment, family circumstances and the public services they use.
These are questions for evidence, not slogans.
The important point is that a calculation of additional housing demand is not, by itself, a calculation of migration’s overall economic effect.
Could Britain do more to help people into work?
This is where the debate ought to become more constructive.
Britain has people who want to work but face barriers to employment. Some are unemployed; others are economically inactive, have caring responsibilities, lack suitable qualifications or need help to return to the workplace after illness.
Some migrants face barriers of their own. These may include limited English, qualifications that employers do not recognise, difficulties navigating the job market or a lack of access to training.
Would more effective support help some of these people find work, improve their earnings and contribute more to the economy?
It is a reasonable question, and it applies to British-born residents as well as newcomers.
Better English-language provision, practical vocational training, recognition of overseas qualifications and closer links between employers and training providers could help people use skills they already possess. Support for business start-ups, including advice on finance, regulation and tax, could help those with the ability and ambition to employ others.
None of this means that every person can or should be expected to work. Nor does it mean that training alone will solve every skills shortage. Employers must offer jobs with suitable pay and conditions, and training must lead to opportunities that actually exist.
But a country facing labour shortages and pressure on public finances should be asking whether it is making the best use of the people already here.
It should also be examining whether its migration rules bring in the skills the economy needs, whether employers are investing sufficiently in training and whether the country is educating enough of its own workforce for the jobs ahead.
Simply reducing the number of people arriving may reduce some demand. It does not automatically fill vacancies, create businesses or train workers.
There is a housing connection in both directions
There is another important complication. Migration can increase demand for housing, but migrants can also help build it.
The Migration Advisory Committee has previously pointed out that workers from overseas form part of the construction workforce. Where builders cannot recruit enough people with the necessary skills, shortages can restrict the number of homes completed and increase costs.
This does not mean that Britain should rely indefinitely on overseas labour instead of training its own construction workers. It means that the effect of migration on housing cannot sensibly be measured by counting only the people needing homes while ignoring those helping to construct them.
A government serious about tackling the housing crisis needs a plan that addresses both sides of the equation: sufficient workers and materials to build homes, and a planning and development system capable of delivering them where they are needed.
That requires more than an argument about immigration numbers.
What does this mean for Caithness and the Highlands?
The national debate can sound rather distant from the experience of communities in the north of Scotland, but the practical issues are familiar.
Rural employers can struggle to recruit and retain workers. Businesses need staff, public services need skilled people, and an ageing population creates additional demands for care and other support.
At the same time, a shortage of suitable housing can make it difficult for people to accept jobs or settle in an area. A vacancy may exist, but if a prospective employee cannot find somewhere affordable to live, the employer may still be unable to recruit.
The answer cannot simply be to attract workers without considering where they will live. Nor should the shortage of housing automatically be used as an argument against bringing in people whose skills and labour may be needed.
Local authorities, employers, housing providers, colleges and government need to consider these issues together. Where a community needs workers, there should be a realistic assessment of the housing, transport, training and services required to support them.
For Caithness, this is particularly relevant to any plans for new industrial investment, energy projects or expansion in health and care services. Announcing jobs is one thing. Making sure that people can fill those jobs and live locally is another.
A more useful debate
The Centre for Policy Studies is right to draw attention to the pressure that population growth can place on housing when supply fails to keep up. That is a legitimate issue, not something that should be dismissed simply because immigration is politically contentious.
But the debate becomes misleading if one side of the calculation dominates everything else.
The Government should publish clearer assessments of how different forms of migration affect housing demand, public finances, labour shortages, wages, productivity and business creation. It should also explain how these effects vary between regions and communities.
At the same time, it should set out what it is doing to increase housebuilding, improve access to affordable homes, train workers, help people into employment and support viable new businesses.
The public is entitled to ask whether migration is being managed properly. It is equally entitled to ask whether Britain is making full use of the people, skills and resources it already has.
There is no contradiction in wanting migration to be controlled and wanting migrants who are here lawfully to have a fair opportunity to work, contribute and build a future.
Britain needs enough homes. It also needs enough people with the skills and opportunities to build a productive economy.
The real test of policy is not simply how many people arrive, or how many homes are built. It is whether the country can bring those two things into a sensible balance, while giving people already here a better chance to contribute.
Blaming migration for the housing crisis may make a compelling headline. Building enough homes, training enough workers and making better use of the people available would be a more useful achievement.
Sources and further reading[/]b
Centre for Policy Studies, The UK’s Housing Crisis is Getting Worse: https://cps.org.uk/research/the-uks-housing-crisis-is-getting-worse/
Migration Advisory Committee, Migration and housing costs: what does international evidence imply for the UK? (19 June 2026): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-housing-costs-what-does-international-evidence-imply-for-the-uk
Office for National Statistics, Long-term international migration, provisional: year ending December 2025: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/latest
[b]And then there is Scotlands House building - also Failing
The latest figures show that Scotland’s housebuilding is falling well short of what is needed, and affordable housing completions are also behind the pace required to meet the Scottish Government’s 2032 target.
The newest figures published on 29 September 2026, cover the year to June 2026. They show that just over 17,000 new homes were completed across Scotland, down 11% on the previous 12 months. Social-sector completions fell by 25%.
How Scotland compares with its targets
All-sector housebuilding · year to June 2026
17,000+
Homes completed
Down 11%
Affordable housing target · 110,000 by 2032
36,500+
About 33% delivered
What does that mean for the 2032 target?
The Scottish Government has committed to delivering 110,000 affordable homes between March 2022 and 2032, including at least 70% for social rent and 10% in rural and island communities.
Scottish Government
- More than 36,500 had been delivered by June 2026.
- That leaves approximately 73,500 homes to deliver in the remaining period.
- To meet the target, the programme now needs to average around 12,800 affordable homes a year through to 2032.
That is a demanding rate. The latest annual figure for affordable housing completions was around 6,800, so delivery would need to almost double to reach the target on time.
There is one encouraging sign: affordable housing starts increased by 34% in the year to June 2026. But starts are not completed homes, and the increase came from a low starting point. Whether that improvement translates into substantially more homes being delivered remains to be seen.
The wider problem
The figures point to two related difficulties.
First, private housebuilding is weak. Private-sector completions were down 7% over the year to June, while starts were down 8%. Second, social-sector completions fell by 25%, even though starts rose by 26%.
The affordable housing target is not a target for all new homes: it includes social rent, affordable rent and affordable home ownership, and can include renovated homes and purchases as well as new construction. It is therefore important not to confuse the two sets of figures.
Scotland is not simply failing to make enough progress on affordable housing. Overall housebuilding is also moving in the wrong direction. The rise in starts offers some hope, but the completion figures are the ones that determine how many homes people can actually move into.
For Caithness and the Highlands, the national totals are only part of the story. The distribution matters too: a new home in a part of Scotland with little housing pressure does not necessarily help a worker who needs somewhere affordable near a job in Wick, Thurso or a remote rural community.
The next question is whether the Scottish Government can explain not only how many homes it intends to deliver, but where they will be built, what type they will be, and how it plans to increase the rate of construction enough to meet its promises.