Leader of the Opposition Kemi Badenoch has this week said that she’ll consider Danish-style laws to ensure the “active integration” of immigrants to Britain.

The most controversial of these policies is Denmark’s so-called “ghetto law”, which aims to reduce the number of people of “non-Western origin” in designated “vulnerable residential areas” to less than 30%. Areas are deemed vulnerable if they have sufficiently high levels of unemployment, poverty, educational failure and criminality. Crucially, if more than 50% of residents are non-Western immigrants (and their descendants), then the neighbourhood is also designated as a “parallel society”. This triggers a programme of government action to transform the area. Measures include the voluntary relocation of migrants, but also evictions and the strategic demolition of social housing.

Needless to say, the policy has provoked backlash. The Danish government has already dropped the use of the terms “ghetto” and “hard ghetto” from its official vocabulary. There’s also been pressure from the European Court of Justice, which has formally objected to — though not yet ruled illegal — the distinction made between Western and non-Western recipients of social housing.

However, the backlash does not appear to have discouraged Badenoch who, in remarks at a Policy Exchange event this week, indicated that she was open to a UK ghetto law. The approach is popular with Danish voters, and would likely meet with similar approval in Britain. However, it’s not just a case of politics. The Danish model is a complete non-starter if the British state is incapable of delivering it.

It’s worth noting that Denmark starts from a lower base of immigration, with 84% of the population being ethnically Danish, whereas white Britons make up only 74% of the population of England and Wales. In London, the equivalent percentage is just 37%, with a total white population of 54%. Given that level of diversity, the Danish objective of avoiding “non-Western” majorities in particular neighbourhoods would, in the UK, require mass relocations out of the capital and other major cities and into the rest of the country. Even if the policy were limited to social housing tenants, this is surely not what Badenoch is suggesting.

Presumably, any anti-ghettoisation drive would begin with areas marked by the lowest standards of housing provision. However, that would require an ability on the part of officialdom to systematically identify and deal with slum landlords. The tenants of these properties would need to be identified too — above all, illegal immigrants. Research highlighted by the Telegraph in January suggested that up to one in 13 London residents are there illegally, around 585,000 people. Unfortunately, the Home Office does not publish official figures, likely because it has no reliable way of tracking these individuals.

Both Denmark and the UK are European outliers in not having compulsory ID cards. However, the Danes have an advanced digital ID system used to access public services including housing. In other words, the state has a pretty good idea of who is in Denmark and where they live. What’s more, homelessness — and especially rough sleeping — is strictly controlled.

Another clear contrast between the two countries concerns asylum policy. Last year, 2,300 individuals requested asylum in Denmark and 860 had it granted. In 2024, the figures for the UK were 108,138 (claiming) and 67,978 (“granted refugee status or other leave”). Even allowing for the UK’s bigger population, that’s a vast difference — and it speaks volumes as to the respective grip that each government has on immigration.

So while Badenoch is right to look to other countries for effective policies, the real lesson from Denmark is that the British state is profoundly dysfunctional. Controversial ideas generate headlines, but what we need now are systemic solutions.

---

Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.

peterfranklin_

---