In September 2015, a group of UK-based foundations and NGOs met at the Paul Hamlyn Foundation to discuss responses to the refugee crisis that was engulfing Europe. The images of Alan Kurdi’s lifeless body on a Turkish beach had jolted many from unease or disbelief to shock, sympathy and compassion. Although the UK was not experiencing inflows like mainland Europe, there was a groundswell of public support for refugees and positive coverage of an issue all too often mired in controversy.
Some of us thought that there was scope for collective action and the meeting led the establishment of New Beginnings, a pooled fund managed by the UK Community Foundations Network (UKCF). Although both Barrow Cadbury and Paul Hamlyn are strategic, long-term funders in the area of migration we thought it was important to help set up this responsive fund. Firstly, we were hearing that small local groups were over-stretched and overwhelmed by offers to volunteer. Often the first port of call for people who want to engage with this issue and welcome migrants and refugees, these groups were inundated with requests but ill-equipped to harness this new energy and interest.
As long-standing investors in work to understand public attitudes to refugee and migration issues, we were under no illusions that the crisis would lead to a dramatic and positive shift in views. However, this fund seemed opportune given that surveys have found that the public have more positive attitudes to migration in their local area than at national level. There is also extensive evidence to show that meaningful contact with migrants and refugees can be a very powerful experience that shapes how people feel about this issue.
We were also struck by the US experience of building a movement in support of migrants and refugees. There, advocates and their philanthropic partners have found that a healthy immigration movement requires investment in both large and small organisations. The ability of these organisations to engage meaningfully with the public, and not just their core supporters, has proved critical.
With New Beginnings we were motivated by the chance to build on the momentum generated by external events and to help often fragile community groups become more resilient and reach out to newer constituencies. Given its short-term nature, the fund was not designed to fill gaps in service delivery – of which there are many – but to build capacity in engaging local communities in support of their work at a time of great demand. To that end, we are also in the process of developing workshops to enable some of the groups involved to strengthen their approach to communications and to tap into existing networks and reach new supporters.
In May 2016, New Beginnings awarded £506,000 in one year grants to 45 organisations, 39 of which received up to £10,000 and seven partnership projects that were awarded up to £20,000. Typical examples include Restore, a Birmingham based group that has seen massive increases in volunteer befriender requests over the past year. Also supported is Oasis Cardiff Partnership, which will work with new arrivals to help them integrate, partly through sessions organised by volunteers from the local community and also a ‘Friends and Neighbours’ group.
New Beginnings will launch a second round, of a similar size to the first, later this summer. Approaches from foundations or donors interested in contributing would be very welcome. One of the issues we and the other funders and partners hope to address this time round is the paucity of applications from refugee or migrant led organisations. How do we go about reaching these often over-looked and low profile groups that have the potential to make a significant contribution towards long-term change?
In this post-Brexit haze the refugee crisis now seems quite distant. However, the rationale for the fund remains, perhaps even more so now that some of the fault lines and anxieties that existed before the vote have surfaced and have uncovered a tension that risks undermining the UK’s long tradition of welcoming newcomers.
Trusts, foundations and other philanthropists and supporters now more than ever need to demonstrate collective and sustained support for the often unglamorous work of these community groups and the volunteers working with them.
Ayesha Saran is migration programme manager at Barrow Cadbury Trust.
Alex Sutton is senior grants manager at Paul Hamlyn Foundation.
This blog represents the views of the two trusts and not the views of all funders of the New Beginnings Fund.
Foundations contributing to the pooled fund include: Comic Relief; Barrow Cadbury Trust; Paul Hamlyn Foundation; Pears Foundation; Lloyds Bank Foundation for England and Wales; The Rayne Foundation; City of London Corporation; BBC Children in Need and Oak Foundation.
Until December, 2015, the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners (SMR) were those which had been adopted in 1955. The process of bringing them up to date took five years and four expert meetings. Quakers, acting through the Friends World Committee for Consultation (FWCC) were involved throughout the process. This account describes the process of updating the SMR, with a focus on prison officials’ duty to maintain safety.
Revision was controversial. Many states argued that the SMR retained their full authority and should not be changed. An open-ended expert group was convened in Vienna, in January 2012, to examine the status of the SMR. The argument for revision built on two factors: first, concepts of human rights had evolved in international instruments since the SMR were agreed; and second, knowledge about managing prisons had moved on.
The first expert meeting agreed that while many of the SMR were fine as they were, some changes were needed. A targeted revision would be restricted to nine areas:
Dignity; Healthcare; Discipline (including solitary confinement); Investigation of deaths and evidence of torture; Needs of vulnerable groups; Legal representation; Complaints and inspections; Replacing outdated terminology; and Training of staff.
A principle was established that no change could lower existing standards. States and NGOs were invited to submit proposed rule changes to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime.
The 1955 SMR did not require that prisons be safe. The text included rules about prison discipline to maintain order, but no explicit statement of a duty to maintain safety. Hence, the SMR did not meet the standard set by the Bangkok Rules for the treatment of women offenders, which declared the right of women “to be free of victimisation while imprisoned” (Bangkok Rules, Preliminary Observations, para 9).
Quakers, joined by Penal Reform International, called for a new rule, establishing prison safety as a duty of states. There were two main reasons: first, the dignity of people in custody depends on their being safe; second, the deprivation of liberty places people in a vulnerable position and therefore the state assumes a duty to protect them. In 2001, Penal Reform International had argued: “When the State deprives a person of liberty, it assumes a duty of care for that person. The primary duty of care is to maintain the safety of persons deprived of their liberty” (PRI, 2001: Making Standards Work; see also ECHR, Salman V Turkey, 27 June 2000, para 99).
But would states agree to undertake such a duty? Could the delegates be convinced that it was even possible to run prisons safely?
In September 2012, prior to the second expert meeting, Quakers submitted a paper listing developments in prison practice which contributed to safety:
“Prisons can be made safe by meeting people’s basic human needs; teaching more effective ways of managing conflict; confronting tactics that escalate disputes; and establishing formal mechanisms within prison which facilitate and promote conflict resolution.”
At the second expert group meeting (Buenos Aires, December 2012) there was a shift in mood. There was a strong commitment to producing a new set of SMR. The chair, Victor Abramovich, was dynamic and positive in approach. He guided the experts to find areas in which there was agreement, and to take note of others where there were strong differences.
A document prepared by the UN Office for Drugs and Crime provided a compendium of rule changes proposed by states and NGOs. The second meeting also drew on a paper produced by experts (including FWCC) convened by the University of Essex. During the second expert meeting, a Quaker oral statement drew attention to the important role prison staff perform in challenging the harmful behaviour that escalates into violence.
A third meeting was convened in Vienna, in March, 2014. This was a drafting session. Rules were proposed in full; the wording was debated in detail; but only a few new rules were produced. The revision was far from complete. The meeting did agree on a new rule that:
“Prison administrations are encouraged to use, to the extent possible, conflict prevention, mediation or any other alternative dispute prevention and resolution mechanisms to prevent disciplinary offences, as well as to prevent and resolve conflicts.”
A fourth expert meeting was arranged, sponsored by the Republic of South Africa. The experts met in Cape Town (March 2015). Judge Dunstan Mlambo chaired this session with wisdom, patience and authority. Differences were raised, debated, and resolved. The difficult questions included: should health care be free to the prisoner? Should inspections be independent? On what aspects should prisoners be able to benefit from legal advice? What does solitary confinement mean?
The meeting was scheduled to run from the 2nd to the 5th. We made amazing progress, working steadily through the rules. The UNODC Secretariat read out proposed text, amendments were suggested, debated and agreed, and we moved to the next rule. On safety, the Secretariat’s working paper included under Rule 1 a basic principle that “The safety and security of prisoners, staff, service providers and visitors shall be ensured at all times.”
On the morning of the 6th of March, at about 3 a.m. the 4th expert group concluded its work. A new set of standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners had been agreed, henceforth to be called the Nelson Mandela Rules. The revised SMR were agreed as a whole by the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in May 2015, and then adopted by the UN General Assembly in December, 2015. Now the challenge is to promote them as a tool to improve prison practice.
Recognition of the Nelson Mandela Rules will form part of the celebrations of Nelson Mandela International Day for Freedom Justice and Democracy on 18 July.
After years of frustration, the referendum campaign unleashed pent-up anger on immigration, resulting in an explosive debate that helped lay the groundwork to drive Britain out of the EU. As the country charts an uncertain course forward, mainstream parties must offer concrete policy solutions and address divisive narratives on immigration. A new project by Policy Network and the Barrow Cadbury Fund is exploring how this can be done.
Over the past two weeks, the dust has been failing to settle in the wake of the UK’s most divisive political exercise in decades. Amid the chaos unleashed by the leave vote, there has been scrambling on all sides to come up with new positions on immigration in this context of turmoil. The initial reaction of many leading Brexiteers was to either shamelessly backtrack on claims made during the campaign or to resolutely refuse to acknowledge reality. We saw some key leave figures distancing themselves from earlier promises to end free movement, while others insisted that access to the single market coupled with caps on EU immigration would be possible or even easy to obtain. Remainers who had tried to downplay the relevance of immigration as an issue during the campaign were forced to concede its importance to the outcome.
As the political class deals with the Brexit fallout, ordinary communities around the country have been picking up the pieces. Reports of hate crimes surged fivefold in the week after the vote, and three million EU citizens, many with jobs, families, and long-established lives in Britain, have been left fretting about their future. Once the leadership battles and internal wrangling of parties in Westminster are settled, these people, along with millions who voted leave, will be waiting to hear in much greater detail what the new positions of the mainstream parties are and what a post-Brexit immigration policy is going to look like. To answer these questions effectively, parties must reflect on how immigration came to feature so strongly in the debate, what is really at stake, and what the building blocks of an effective response should now be.
How we got here
Immigration did not suddenly appear on the agenda during the referendum campaign. While it may have taken centre stage in TV debates and dominated the front pages during the ten week campaigning period, public concern on this topic has been rising over time (Figure 1); it also played a key role in the general elections of 2010 and 2015. The UK public appears to be reacting not to a fantasy, but to real changes in the number of people entering the country, which started to climb from the mid-1990s (Figure 2). Between 1993 and 2014, the foreign-born population more than doubled, reaching 13.1 per cent of the total. The ONS’s predictions at the end of 2015 projected population growth of 9.7 million over the next 25 years, of which (pre-Brexit) net migration was expected to account for just over half.
Figure 1
The mainstream political responses to these trends over the years varied under different governments, but had one thing in common: they failed to adequately address the public’s concern, and in particular their fears, over immigration. Currently, the UK’s main inflow comes from economic migration. This category experienced a notable rise after the Labour administration chose not to impose transitional controls on immigration from the EU8 states that joined the union in 2004. As one of only three existing EU members to do this (Sweden and Ireland being the others), the decision led to a surge in immigration from central and eastern European states and helped put the country on course to reach record levels of net migration in 2015. Net migration to the end of that year stood at 333,000, of which EU migration accounts for just under half. The release of this data weeks before the Brexit vote fed into the hostility towards EU migrants that had become a key plank of the leave campaign.
Figure 2
As immigration rose in the 2000s, Labour’s initial approach was to accept and embrace it, rather than try to discourage it. Viewing economic migration as beneficial to the economy (which manystudies have argued it is), Tony Blair’s government allowed for its largely unrestricted continuation, while developing a series of measures to tackle illegal immigration and promote integration. These included the setup of border controls at Calais, as well as developing English language classes, citizenship ceremonies and civic education courses for immigrants in the UK.
This approach increasingly irked many members of the public, particularly those in the towns and regions of the country experiencing large relative inflows, who worried not about national gains, but localised cultural and economic impact. When the Conservatives offered up the now infamous promise to cut net migration to the ‘tens of thousands’ in the 2010 general election campaign, many were all too ready to hear it. When that reduction failed to materialise, it fuelled further distrust in mainstream politicians and helped create the image of a government powerless to control the country’s borders, which was used to such effect during the referendum campaign.
An existential threat
The number one beneficiary of the combined struggles and failures of mainstream parties on immigration in the UK has been the UK Independence Party. Having failed to capture public support advocating for the UK’s ‘independence’ from the EU on economic grounds, it significantly broadened its appeal by latching onto this issue and driving home the message that it was the only party to take the immigration ‘crisis’ seriously. UKIP has worked hard to cultivate its image as not racist, but simply advocating for ‘common sense’ policies when it comes to who should enter the country and in what numbers. Like the leave campaign in general, it has succeeded in drawing in a broad coalition of voters from an electorate that no longer divides neatly along left-right traditional lines, by focusing on the issues that matter to them most.
This detoxification effort and shift in focus has helped move UKIP from a fringe party to one that can command millions of votes. Now that its stated raison d’etre has been accomplished, and Nigel Farage has stepped down, the Party’s future is unclear. It may ultimately diminish in importance, or it may rise even further in popularity if an EEA-style Brexit agreement is negotiated for the UK that fails to curb free movement and allows the party to shout ‘betrayal’. What is evident are the risks that the style of politics promoted by it and its populist counterparts around Europe pose to mainstream parties, especially if they continue to flounder on immigration.
First, and most obviously, they risk a continued outright loss of votes and support. A majority of voters in the UK were happy to ignore the constant economic warnings aired in the run-up to the referendum in favour of simplistic catch-all messages that promised them every aspect of a better life outside the EU, including action on immigration. Even for those who believed the warnings, the chance to make unhappiness about their current circumstances heard was either worth the sacrifice, or in their view contained no sacrifice whatsoever since they had no further left to fall. If this sense of anger and despair is not addressed, the mainstream will continue to haemorrage support.
Second, mainstream parties risk being pushed rightwards in their own policies and their rhetoric in the hope of remaining popular and relevant. The promotion of the Australian-style points system for all immigrants, pushed by Conservative Vote Leave campaigners and UKIP alike, is one example of the mainstream and populists advocating for a similar policy on immigration. The system was presented as a fairer alternative to the existing one – where it was argued EU migrants were being prioritised over non-EU migrants – but a clear explanation of how this would work in practice was not provided. David Cameron’s 2015 reference to a ‘swarm’ of migrants at Calais was an earlier indication of a dangerous move in this populist direction. These changes in tone are also associated with the left. Labour’s stance on immigration began to toughen in 2010 when it first properly shifted focus to reducing immigration and increasing controls; since then its policy has been couched in increasingly negative terms.
These challenges mean that getting it right on immigration is not just a question of gaining or maintaining power for mainstream parties; it is a question of their very survival. Although the UK’s electoral system has kept UKIP at bay nationally, its ability to influence the debate and pressure the mainstream helped bring the Brexit vote about. After a vitriolic referendum campaign, major parties are left divided at the very time when strength and leadership is most needed.
Charting a new path
The question remains what can be done about all of this. A new Policy Network and Barrow Cadbury Fund research project is exploring the questions mainstream parties in the UK must ask and answer if they are to develop new, effective and comprehensive strategies on immigration. The project considers this challenge in the context of a European continent in which several countries have seen a rise in hostility towards immigration and a surge in support for populist parties, including several that are now demanding their own referendums on EU membership. It will ask what can be learned from the efforts of other European countries to deal with immigration challenges, and consider what aspects of successful strategies might be adapted to the UK context.
The overall goal for mainstream parties must be to take back control of the conversation on immigration. As the EU referendum has shown, allowing both populist parties and populist voices within mainstream parties to dominate the debate can have far-reaching and negative consequences. The focus on immigrants as a threat during the campaign was powerful – they were portrayed as overburdening the UK’s systems, particularly the NHS, and the spectre of Turkey was used to frighten voters. This presentation was not effectively challenged and remain campaigners failed to make a positive case for immigration. Regaining voice on this issue requires not a simplistic focus on numbers, but a reconsideration of how the whole debate on immigration is conducted. Moderate voices must untangle the myriad of issues that feed into the public’s sense of discontent, and address their fears including those of erosion of national identity and growing worry about various insecurities in a globalised world.
The good news for those wishing for a more nuanced conversation on immigration is that there may still be large numbers of people who are willing to take part in that conversation and listen to new ideas put on the table. British Future has previously carried out work that identified half the British public as falling into a ‘moderate majority’ or ‘anxious middle’ who were not polarised on either end of the immigration debate, but whose positions actually depend on the policies and reassurances offered. The divisions stirred by the campaign have heightened the urgency of reaching and engaging those people. Referendums are by nature divisive, as they force a choice between two simple options – in this case ‘remain’ or ‘leave’ – but the public, who recognise the complexity of immigration challenges, must be reassured that there are still more options available to them than simply ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to immigration. While acknowledging the key role immigration concerns played in the campaign, the final vote does not by any account equate to a 52 per cent vote against immigration and a 48 per cent vote for it.
The complex concerns of this ‘anxious middle’ must be addressed through workable policy proposals which are realistic and implementable. This means abandoning grand promises and unachievable targets in favour of open discussions about the trade-offs that are required to live in a modern, open democracy, as many Britons still want the UK to be. While in the Brexit negotiations free movement will be top of the agenda, the wider context of other immigration challenges should not be forgotten. More than 50 per cent of current UK immigration comes from outside the EU, and the referendum outcome has also stoked tensions on issues such as the Jungle at Calais, with a number of French voices calling for a renegotiation of the Le Touqet agreement. All of these issues, and the consideration of each constituent category of immigration – be it economic, asylum, family reunion, or students – will require attention and debate.
The new prime minister and her government will need to be far more open and honest on immigration than any before them as they seek to restore public confidence and remedy the erosion of trust in politics which led so many voters to feel their voices went unheard for so long. As well as looking to other European countries for examples of best practice, they could consider revamping UK ideas from the past (such as the Migrant Impact Fund), and look to engage diverse stakeholder groups, including civil society, to come up with new and innovative proposals. Particularly sensitive in the aftermath of a Brexit vote and the divides it has revealed in UK society will be the question of integration and social cohesion. The work being done on these issues will take on greater importance than ever, including the recommendations of the Casey Review, which is expected for release in the coming months.
Regaining control of this debate also requires a commitment from the moderate mainstream not just to act on immigration, but to make sure they are seen to be acting. Effective communication is more important than ever for an anxious public and cannot just be one way. People around the UK, however they voted on the EU, must be able to see, feel and understand the ways in which their concerns are being addressed as new policy on immigration develops in the new political world that emerges after the Brexit vote. They must be consulted, listened to, and made to feel they have a stake in this. If parties can harness and engage the interest of these people and offer constructive solutions to their concerns, then the tumult we are now seeing could yet give way to a more positive outcome on immigration that avoids the pitfalls of the past.
Maeve Glavey, researcher, Policy Network
The RSA launches the Citizens’ Economics Council, supported by Barrow Cadbury Trust and Friends Provident Foundation, on Wednesday 29 June. In this blog, which was first published on the RSA website, Anthony Painter, Director of the Action and Research Centre at the RSA, discusses the implications of the referendum result for democracy and refers to the predictions of the 2013 Policy Network publication ‘Democratic stress, the populist signal and extremist threat’ which was also supported by Barrow Cadbury Trust. Sign up to attend the launch event.
The EU referendum is now done and the UK has voted to leave the EU. It was anything but a glorious advert for British democracy.
On one hand, we had a campaign that was willing and determined to set people against one another by their ethnicity, their class, and whether they were ‘experts’ or ‘elites’. The other campaign, when it wasn’t in melodrama mode, deployed the modern organisational technology of political narrowcasting. In so doing, it ignored a huge part of the country, on the basis of its probability of supporting its campaign. As a consequence, whole areas – including many traditional Labour areas in the north crucial to the outcome – heard only the discordant voice of Faragism.
Much has been made about the fact that this referendum was a choice about the types of values that our country epitomises. The referendum was indeed that but more besides. It was also a choice about the type of democracy we want to be. There are deeper democratic and social forces at play – how they are resolved will be one of the critical decisions we as a society make in the coming years.
For many decades now trust in representative democracy has been in decline. Interestingly, many of the advocates of leave framed their argument in terms of defending parliamentary democracy. But it was no such thing. Representative liberal democracy relies not only on the consent of people but on a set of institutional arrangements that can meet their needs and protect their rights – from independent legal institutions to international cooperation. ‘Take back control’ ultimately rejects this web of relationships in favour of some general ‘will of the people’. But how is this ‘will’ formed?
The answer is by substituting individual instincts and emotion for expertise, representation and institutional structures that put a break on populist impulses – if only to force us to pause for thought. Not only in politics but in education, health, business, local governance, and policing too, we are ever more willing to put our personal judgement ahead of ‘experts’ or ‘so-called experts’ as they have come to be known. The experts failed to convince their fellow countrymen and if their post-Brexit prophecies do not come to pass then the schism will become deeper.
Scrutiny and a degree of scepticism is not in itself a bad thing of course – the high-trust society had major drawbacks as Hillsborough, the increasing share of national wealth taken by the top, figures of trust preying on children, and the scandal of Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust all show. Healthy scepticism is just that – healthy. Too often, however, we are replacing scrutiny and scepticism with a trust in our own instinct and cynicism. It is ‘me the people’ rather than ‘we the people’.
So the legitimacy of hierarchy is threatened but then replaced with a notion of democracy centred around populist individualism – whether it’s ‘take back control’ or ‘make America great again’. The foolish aspect of the decision to hold this referendum was the notion that it would resolve anything. Instead, it has released the forces of populist individualism. Far from being a political alternative, populism is actually an alternative form of democracy. The aim is not simply to replace parties and powers within representative democracy, it seeks to replace representative democracy itself. These forces may be difficult to contain now. Labour is seen to have deserted whole swathes of its traditional support; Conservatives are seen as vacillating and untrustworthy. The mainstream is brittle.
This was all predictable. In a paper on populism, extremism and democracy back in 2013, I wrote of the referendum pledge:
“As a strategy to minimise the space for the UK’s populist radical right party (UKIP), David Cameron’s EU referendum pledge is likely to be a misguided one. It may split away a portion of his party, threaten his own leadership, give profile to a populist party that he cannot or will not match, boost the brand image of UKIP in the eurosceptic media, and fail to address the real underlying anxieties of voters who are attracted to UKIP. It is a considerable opportunity for UKIP as they are given the spotlight in a way they have not been able to secure in their entire history.”
This feels like a scenario that is closer to the current reality than a ‘lancing of the boil’ that the Prime Minister was hoping for. The same paper recommended a process of ‘contact democracy’ where the political mainstream engaged in a process of democratic engagement in a discursive rather than campaigning fashion. A discursive democracy is a very different approach to individualist populism and tired, narrowcasting, hierarchical representative democracy. Discursive democracy breaks down the barriers between experts and the people, the governing and the governed, policy and politics. In other words, it flattens democratic engagement and eschews false divides, opening out and making democracy more solidaristic as a consequence.
Next week, the RSA will launch the Citizens’ Economic Council which is in an experiment in discursive, solidaristic, contact democracy. Essentially, a demographically diverse group of 50 – 60 citizens selected using stratified random sampling methodology will, over the course of a year, deliberate on the big economic questions of the time and make their own recommendations for future economic priorities – including the fundamental objectives on which economic policy is based. Economists have had a tough ride of late – justifiably some might argue – but this opens up the black box of economic thinking to the laity. We are intrigued to see the outcome.
This is but one experiment and others have been successfully run previously as tracked by Claudia Chwalisz in The Populist Signal. An unstated conviction at the heart of this experiment has to be that if representative democracy is to face continuing pressures then there has to be an alternative that is not akin to the referendum campaign we have just endured.
Democracy is hard; it requires work. Representative democracy was a hard won battle. The historian E.P.Thompson has described the two centuries-long making of the English working class. World War II contributed an accelerated politicisation. An exclusively class-centric politics doesn’t feel right for these more plural times. Class is important but just one component of political consciousness. However, we can’t just allow democracy to be a battle between an untrusted ‘elite’ and an impulsive political discourse. Democracy works best when it challenges all of us to think, discuss, and reflect. That’s where models such as the Citizens’ Economic Council come in.
There’s lots of unfinished business post-referendum: the presence in our midst of far-right violent extremism, how we can find the right relationship with the post-Eurozone/post-crash EU from which we intend to depart, and the future of political parties that are split in quite fundamental ways. But we desperately need to take time to understand the democratic mess that we have created. In reality, democratic forms co-exist. We might want to reflect on how we can bring people into the process of making better informed decisions about the national future. That means a bigger role for people in our democracy.
Sign up here for the launch of the RSA Citizens Economic Council
Anawim (which comes from the Aramaic word (ah-nah-weem) meaning the poorest, the outcast, the persecuted – those with no voice) was set up thirty years ago to support women in the Birmingham area who have multiple and complex needs to lead stable and fulfilling lives with their children and families. Anawim’s mission is to keep families together and support women and children towards independence, regular employment and dignity using restorative and reparative principles.
In a new and exciting phase our women’s centre is building its very own accommodation on site for up to six women at a time, who are released from prison. Our prison in-reach and street outreach team, crèche and money advice service will be housed downstairs. We have been managing in some temporary buildings that turned out to be not very temporary. So having boiled in the Summer and frozen in the Winter in metal units, we are delighted to be in the process of planning for new accommodation.
Anawim’s existing accommodation
We have secured over £1.1 million to cover the construction of the building which will be on the same site as our women’s centre. As far as we are aware this is the accommodation of its kind in England. We hope that one day it will be used as one of the alternative to custody units recommended by Baroness Corston in her 2007 report.
We know that the needs of women offenders are quite different to men but once they turn their lives around the impact extends to their partners and children. Women offenders are more likely to have experienced trauma in their lives, so careful thought is going into making the building as pleasant and sympathetic as possible. The whole centre is being taken through the ‘Enabling Environments’ process at the moment and we are meeting with an academic who specialises in the architecture and design of buildings such as prisons to ensure that the new building creates the most positive environment possible. At the same time as having a new building, we will be having an extensive evaluation undertaken by Birmingham University to assess and compare the effectiveness of having accommodation on the site of a women’s centre.
Architects’ drawings for the new accommodation
The current social housing situation is dire for everyone but especially for women who are released from prison. Our prison in-reach team identifies women who we can accommodate and offer a real chance of recovery. The Centre will also be a ‘pathway’ from the CAMEO personality disorder unit in Foston Hall Prison where Anawim currently works.
Every day we see women released from custody ending up back in the area where they were previously criminally active such as red light districts. Not only is this incredibly harmful to their recovery and readjustment to life outside of prison but it also makes them vulnerable to returning to old ways and unhealthy relationships.
We are so excited to be able to offer this new service and so thankful to our funders the Jabbs Foundation.
Tony Greenham, the author of this blog, is Director of Economic, Enterprise and Manufacturing at the RSA. This blog was originally posted on the RSA website.
Brexit has marked a new low in the abuse of economics in political debate. From politicians playing fast and loose with statistics to policymakers peddling opinions as ‘facts’ we are not just confused; we are disillusioned. More than ever, we need to explore new ways to engage the public in meaningful debate about the economy.
In politics, the economy matters. Ever since Bill Clinton’s campaign chief coined the phrase ‘The economy, stupid’, politicians have been ever more keen to assert their economic competence.
No surprise that the Brexit camps have chosen to fight much of their battles on the grounds of the economy. But in doing so they have managed to generate much heat whilst putting us further in the dark.
Only one in five of us feel well informed about the referendum, and perhaps even more damaging we simply do not trust our senior political figures to tell the truth about the EU. Even the Bank of England’s reputation has been diminished, with only 35% trusting Governor Mark Carney against 38% saying they did not.
In a scathing 83 page report on the Brexit debate, the Treasury Selected Committee concluded that the “arms race of ever more lurid claims and counter-claims” on the economy was impoverishing political debate.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the use of the ridiculous phrase ‘economically illiterate’ levelled against political opponents. Mastering a huge and diverse academic discipline, with at least nine different schools of thought, can hardly be equated with the ability to read. More importantly, who says you have to be a trained economist to have a valid view on the economy?
Economists generally behave better than politicians, but still project confusing and conflicting certainty. While Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal studies argues that economists are almost unanimous in their view that Brexit would shrink the economy, former senior IMF economist Ashoka Mody attacks this apparent consensus as crossing the line into groupthink. In reality, economic predictions depend heavily on the assumptions made by their authors but these are rarely discussed or made transparent to the reader.
So when you hear a statement such as:
“Leaving the EU will make every household £4300 worse off”
You should interpret it as follows:
“To be honest we cannot tell what will happen in the future, but we have tried really hard to have a good guess. To make this guess we have made some assumptions that you may or may not agree with, and you should know that if we made different assumptions we might get a completely different result. We have also relied on some theories about the way the economy works that are contestable, and if you applied different theories you might also get different results. Good luck with all of that.”
You can see the appeal of the former.
At least Paul Johnson, a speaker at our forthcoming launch event for the Citizens Economic Council, injects a rare moment of humility into the debate when he recognises that ultimately this is a political decision. A smaller economy might be a trade-off some people are willing to make for more sovereignty and, as an economist, he says “I can’t tell you how to trade these things off, how to make this choice.”
In other words, if Brexit is the question, economics cannot give you the answer.
So what?
You might reasonably wish a plague on everyone’s economic statistics and just ignore arguments about the economy.
We claim the opposite. We should aim to demystify economics, make economic debate more meaningful and accessible, and find ways to engage more people in active deliberations on economic decisions.
And this is an urgent task. The need for greater democratic engagement on economic issues has become more pressing over time for at least three reasons:
1. Erosion of public trust
Recent economic crises – banking, sovereign debt, Eurozone, scandals about tax havens, corporate asset stripping and persistent poverty even in rich nations, have damaged public trust in economic and political institutions. Doing better economic policy to citizens might help, but how about doing economic policy better with citizens.
2. The rise of pluralism in economics
Apparent economic stability during the period of the Great Moderation was taken as proof of the validity of a package of policies to liberalise markets, trade and finance, reduce taxation and increase labour market flexibility while controlling inflation. These ‘unquestionable’ policies were themselves supported by an equally strong orthodoxy within academic economics.
However, the crisis challenged the idea of a singular, certain and infallible body of economic theory and many have now called for a more pluralistic approach to economic research and policymaking. Recognising this lack of certainty in economic theory magnifies the importance of being open and transparent about the methods and assumptions that have been used to make economic policy choices.
3. Coping with rapid economic transformation in the 21st Century
Even where economic theory and evidence is well established, the future is highly uncertain.
Disruptive new technologies such as genomics, data analytics, robotics and artificial intelligence may change the world of work and the nature of production and consumption in dramatic ways. Degradation of eco-systems and climate change may create increasingly severe and unpredictable impacts. A growing population may see rising migration resulting from conflict, climate change and the search for a better life.
To maintain social stability and allow communities to flourish in the face of such uncertainty and rapid change will require broad based support for economic decision making that has no guarantee of successful results. It will also arguably require more creative and innovative ideas about how to successfully organise and manage market economies.
The key to achieving this is to explore how deliberation and participatory methods can help bring clarity to our collective economic goals, generate better policies to achieve them, and bring more cohesion to our societal choices about the economy.
Too often we feel disempowered to express strong views about how to run the economy because we are not economists. But if we define economics in its broadest sense it is about how society allocates its collective resources to fulfil our needs and aspirations.
Surely everyone can have a legitimate view about that. What we lack are good processes for negotiating the sometimes difficult trade-offs involved – or in politician-speak the ‘hard choices’.
Well it does not seem that the referendum is providing a good process for this, so we will be exploring through the Citizens Economic Council, and a series of coming blog posts, how we can create better processes for economic debate and decision-making.
It is time for everyone to be an economist.
Book your free ticket for the launch event of the Citizens Economic Council on Wednesday 29 June from 6pm.
English local areas are getting more powers from central government. Under the Government’s plans for a “devolution revolution”, local leaders are to be given “radical new powers to take responsibility for driving local growth”. Much of the rationale for devolution has been framed around control and local economic growth. In contrast, there has been little specific discussion about what increasing devolution means for policies to tackle poverty. The Social Market Foundation’s new paper, Devolution and Poverty, examines whether and how we can tackle poverty locally, building on two roundtables with local leaders and policymakers.
There are a number of reasons why giving local areas more control could help tackle poverty. Unlike central government, local government is likely to have much more detailed knowledge and understanding of the causes and consequences of poverty in their areas. That means that they are often better placed to know where money should be best spent, and how to co-ordinate local services – such as skills, employment and childcare support – to help those in need. Localising power provides huge opportunities to try out new ways of delivering services to people. And finally, there could well be a political advantage too, in that building a political narrative around the case for tackling poverty may be easier at local, rather than national level.
However, whilst there are advantages to taking a local approach to tackling poverty, this does not mean that it is always easier or more effective to do so at local rather than national level. Some local areas simply do not have the same capacity to generate prosperity as others – at least in the short to medium term. Some areas have an existing stock of high quality infrastructure, jobs and skills, whereas others will not. Often these trends are highly entrenched and take a long time to shift. That also means that some types of devolution – such as allowing local areas to keep more of the tax revenues they generate – can leave poorer areas worse off, unless measures are in place to limit those losses.
Further, much of the devolution of powers so far has been focused on encouraging local leaders to take measures to boost local economic growth. But even if they are capable of doing so, a focus on growth will not automatically result in policies that effectively tackle poverty. Previous studies have found that it is not uncommon for poverty rates to either increase or stay static even in cities that are seeing economic growth, with London a prime example. A key worry in our roundtables was that often local residents did not have the skills and experience to make the most of new jobs that were being created.
Finally, if local policy is to be driven by local needs, strong local democracy and accountability is vital. Local policymakers at our roundtables worried that there was insufficient awareness of and involvement in the negotiation of devolution deals among local people.
In our paper, we argue that Government should think carefully about the pros and cons of devolution, and whether localisation of powers is always the best way to achieve particular goals. Government needs to explicitly set out where responsibilities for tackling poverty lie when it devolves powers: we examined nine devolution deals and found no explicit references to tackling poverty in them. It should focus on devolving powers for types of policy where local knowledge can be especially helpful – in the commissioning of employment services, for example. But it should be careful in how it devolves powers over tax and welfare, where the dangers of some areas falling further behind are strongest.
Nida Broughton is Chief Economist at the Social Market Foundation
The work of community organisations has always been underpinned by three key values. The first, and most obvious, is self-help: providing services when the state can’t or won’t, or when self-help is actually more effective or appropriate. Second is self-organisation. Community groups are often at their best when they’re movements for change in society, transforming attitudes about everything from homosexuality to disability to mental health. And finally, there’s independence: working strategically with local and national government to make life better by closing gaps in services and loopholes in the law.
That’s the history: what about today? In the current climate, community groups are facing unprecedented budgetary pressures. Making the Cut asked what impact is this having on frontline services and the people using them?
To get a better idea brap has been regularly speaking to community organisations in Birmingham for over a year. These organisations work with some of the most vulnerable in the city and cover a range of sectors, including housing, domestic violence, and youth employment.
What we’ve found is that cuts to spending and changes to public service design are forcing individuals to go to community organisations for the support they need. Whether it’s welfare changes, the closure of local housing advice offices, reductions in youth services, or countless other things, people are increasingly turning to local voluntary sector organisations for help and advice. Between November 2014 and July 2015, for example, 77% of community groups said they had faced a ‘significant’ increase in demand for their service.
But that’s not all: over the same period, 88% of project participants had to make changes to their work because of cuts to funding. For most this meant changes to admin and management support. A lot of organisations have also said there is less funding for overheads and the ‘softer’ activities that help create a fuller, more holistic support service. At the same time funding has become more short-term, making it harder for organisations to invest in their sustainability and to plan long-term interventions. A youth service, for example, might find itself in the unhelpful position of spending a few weeks working with a troubled young person only to have them referred back to the organisation some months later. Having more time with the individual in the first place might have allowed the agency to really get to grips with the problems they faced, giving the young person the confidence and resilience to solve their problems independently.
What is more, community groups are finding it harder to lobby local and national government about the concerns they have. This is partly because with fewer resources and increased demand, most voluntary organisations just don’t have the time to challenge this cycle of diminishing returns. For most the time available to analyse policy, engage with decision-makers, and draw out the strategic implications of new policy, practice, or legislation on their day-to-day work has been massively reduced.
Additionally, the constraints on speaking out are also partly because contractual relationships can make it harder for community groups to say what they need to. Increasingly, commissioning contracts – not just locally but nationally too – are stipulating that organisations can’t speak out about the impact of funding cuts. And many organisations don’t want to risk the relationship they’ve built up with their commissioner because funding is so tight. The customer is always right.
Since the report was published a number of local councillors and council officials have expressed concern about its findings. As communities see the impact of funding cuts really start to hit vulnerable people, most decision makers have said they are keen to deepen their links with the voluntary sector (and, in fact, some community organisations have recently told us they’ve noticed a move toward greater partnership working). Some respondents have since promised to press for formal mechanisms with which the sector can talk to and engage new governing bodies (such as the West Midlands Combined Authority). Others have offered to explore how the contents of contracts between the council and community groups are communicated, as, they claim, the intention has never been to stifle the voice of the sector.
This is a crucial exercise. For we ignore the work, expertise, local intelligence, and advice of voluntary organisations at our peril. Many have a unique insight into the cumulative impact of welfare reforms and public service changes. There is a role for public authorities now, more than ever, to engage community organisations in discussion about how to ensure vulnerable and excluded groups aren’t being left behind. And there’s a role for us, too, as a society to think carefully about what kind of voluntary sector we want to see. Because at the moment there’s a danger we’ll lose the side of it that campaigns, and agitates, and demands. We can’t just be content for community groups to fulfil the first of the values we outlined at the start. Historically, community groups have built hospices, sheltered refugees, and made public transport accessible for the disabled. If we forget this role, we are forgetting its potential. We are forgetting its vitally important role of holding up a mirror to society and speaking truth to power.
Our new work supported by Barrow Cadbury Trust will feed into the ‘Making the Cut’ project by creating a series of voluntary sector “conversations” around social cohesion and inclusion in Birmingham. Watch this space.
For more information about the Making the Cut project go to www.brap.org.uk/projects/making-the-cut
Rent-to-own stores feature on many high streets, with windows that sparkle with giant TVs, PlayStations, and leather corner suites. The glamorous lifestyle beckons, at seemingly affordable rates.
But serious issues were thrown up when the all-party parliamentary group on debt and personal finance led an enquiry into the rent-to-own sector in February 2015.
It found that APRs of up to 94.7% and charges for compulsory cover, offering nothing more than statutory protection, often doubled the cost of essential household goods. Many customers – 50% according to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) – get into difficulties on their rent-to-own commitments. And 22% of these customers in arrears have had goods accepted back or repossessed.
Add to this the lack of transparency in terminology, and heavy-handed tactics both in up-selling and repossessions, and you get a sector that did not appear to be delivering in the customer’s interest. And as the goods are rental, it may be several years and sometimes thousands of pounds before they belong to you – a fact that is not made prominent.
Fair for You
In mid-2014 Angela Clements, the chief executive of a thriving credit union in central Birmingham, was tired of meeting desperate, struggling people on a daily basis, seeking loans and often finding themselves in the clutches of right-to-own and payday operators.
She began on the long and lonely path of setting up a new organisation looking to change the financial landscape for the lower-paid. It seemed criminal to her that those with the least were being forced to pay the most. Why should someone whose washing machine broke down be trapped into paying inflated prices, simply because they worked irregular hours, or cared for a disabled family member, and couldn’t access regular store credit?
In November 2015, after almost 18 months of funding rounds, setbacks and focus groups with exactly the kind of people Clements was looking to help, the business received its full FCA lending licence, and Fair for You was launched.
Established as a social enterprise, wholly owned by a charity, the small team began trading quietly at first while stress-testing the systems and concept.
Unlike the right-to-own sector, Fair for You’s customers are provided with credit to enable them to buy goods on the virtual high street. Crucially, this means that the customers own the items outright from day one.
Initially brand new white goods were available from the Whirlpool group (including Hotpoint and Indesit) at real-time high street prices – often lower than many on- and off-line retailers – and beds, cots and baby items are added in early April.
All items come with no compulsory insurances. Free delivery within three days is included (since the team recognised the convenience in specifying delivery slots), and removal of the old item is also available, free for kitchen appliances and at low cost if it’s a mattress – great if you don’t have access to a car.
Once items are chosen, a telephone discussion with lending managers establishes customers’ eligibility for loans, based more on affordability and propensity to repay. Those refused loans are signposted to organisations such as Turn2Us, to ensure applicants are receiving all financial help available.
In March 2016, the first independent social impact report was commissioned from the Centre for Responsible Credit. At stage one, the reporting is mainly around financial wellbeing – the money kept in a household to use on other things – and the self-respect given back to people by being treated with dignity.
At the next stage, this reporting is likely to include longer-term benefits to households in accessing better, more efficient food storage, clean clothes, and better sleep, and the knock-on effects this has on cohesive, healthier family lifestyles and ability to pay essential bills and rent.
The report justifies the need for ethical, not-for-profit operators in this space, looking to improve the outlook for Britain’s lower-paid families. It also contextualises the APR necessary to keep the business running, which some would see as high at 42.6%, as comparable to many credit union loans and artificially skewed due to the shorter, less restrictive loan term lengths.
But it recognises getting there has been a struggle. Fair for You will need assistance in reaching those who can benefit, to keep the loans flowing without the multi-million marketing budget of those it seeks to challenge.
The launch of the report in April will be followed by quarterly updates, which will give a longer-term picture of better lending to lower-paid households.
As Tom Levitt, former Labour MP for High Peak and chair of the charity, says, “We’re here to help – and we’re already making a difference.”
The original blog was paid for and provided by Lloyds Banking Group, one of the sponsor s of the Public Leaders Network.
Barrow Cadbury Trust supports Fair for You through a social investment.
The Women on the Move Awards, a joint venture between Migrants Organise and UNHCR UK, were presented by broadcaster Samira Ahmed at the Royal Festival Hall during the Women of the World Festival to mark International Women’s Day 2016. More than 500 people came to celebrate and recognise migrant and refugee women who often do incredibly important, and yet largely invisible, work in their communities.
Our winners, Mariam Yusuf and Seada Fekadu, made the 2016 Awards a true celebration of resilience and dignity. Seada came to the UK from Eritrea as a minor, on her own, on the back of a truck via Calais. She is about to pass her exams with distinction and is off to university to become a doctor. Seada is mentoring young refugees at Young Roots and speaking up for their rights. Livia Firth presented the Young Woman award to Seada, a living example of what can be achieved when we give young refugees a helping hand, and when our protection system and public services work well.
Journalist Lindsey Hilsum presented the main Award to Mariam, who escaped Somalia and despite struggling with our adversarial system since 2008, has given her time and energy to other women in need at Women Asylum Seekers Together and many other organisations in Manchester.
What makes the achievements and contributions of these incredible women even more remarkable is the fact that neither of them spoke any English when they first arrived, and they are both now role models and leaders, turning their traumatic experiences into kindness and respect toward others. Mariam, who is still destitute and is still stuck in immigration limbo, said after the Awards Ceremony: “I was most honored and felt that I really mattered in society.”
This year we named the media award the Sue Lloyd-Roberts Media Award after a pioneering journalist, herself one of our award winners in 2014, whose legacy of professionalism and whose passion for fair and true reporting will continue to inspire courageous, thoughtful journalism. This year’s winners are Jackie Long and Lee Sorrell for their Channel 4 news piece Inside Yarl’s Wood, which provided undercover evidence of the UK’s dehumanising detention system and helped shift public debate towards more safeguards in detention, including time limits and alternatives to the detention of women.
The Awards also recognise a champion of refugees and migrants in mainstream society. This year, the winner of the Champion Award was Citizens UK, whose grass roots community organising went above and beyond any other civil society organisation, as they responded to the refugee crisis by organising a powerful Refugees Welcome movement around the country, introducing private sponsorship visas as a way for citizens to help provide protection and save lives, and for winning a groundbreaking legal victory to open up safe and legal routes for family reunion rights for refugee children in Calais.
The Women on the Move Awards are growing and opening up spaces for refugee and migrant women to tell their stories of survival contributing to the Southbank Centre’s WOW Festival’s wider audiences and on a bigger stage at the Festival Hall. For that we are very grateful to Jude Kelly, Southbank’s Artistic Director and the founder of the WOW Festival, whose support has been crucial in the growth and development of the Awards. Jude and WOW helped turn our good idea into reality. We are also grateful to the Barrow Cadbury Trust for recognising the importance of changing the narrative by telling the stories of survival and contribution that refugee and migrant women make, and letting them speak for themselves, for justice and dignity, inspiring us all in the process.
