Today’s new immigration statistics from the Office of National Statistics show another rise in net migration to 336,000 in the year to June 2015, with numbers of new arrivals rising from both within the EU (net 180,000) and outside the EU (net 201,000) . This leaves the government yet further away from the target of “tens of thousands” that both David Cameron and Theresa May have stuck to in the face of repeated failures, writes Steve Ballinger.

Yet unlike the last stats, released in August, these are far less likely to attract much media attention, overshadowed by the Prime Minister setting out his case for bombing attacks on ISIS in Syria, and the repercussions of yesterday’s Comprehensive Spending Review.

It’s worth looking at the new immigration statistics in the light of both of these events.

The horrific attacks in Paris on 13 November provided yet another reminder, if one was needed, of the evil of an organization like ISIS that will take innocent lives to further its twisted aims. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have been at the sharp end of it’s advance through Iraq and Syria and have fled for their lives – causing neighbouring countries to play host to thousands of refugees in a crisis that has spilled over into Europe

Britain has agreed to resettle 20,000 Syrians directly from the region. Some have also made their way through Europe and today’s statistics show a modest increase in asylum applications made in the UK – many from Syria, Eritrea, Iran and Sudan.

The number of asylum applications, however, remains but a tiny percentage of the overall immigration figures. Just 29,000 applications were lodged in the year to September 2015. The overwhelming majority of people in today’s new immigration statistics are not  refugees – they are here from the EU, or from non-EU countries, to work because our economy is outperforming those of our neighbours.

The public is concerned about high immigration – they don’t think the Government has got a grip and the repeated failures to get anywhere near the Home Secretary’s self-imposed target just undermines trust further. But many still think we should do our bit for refugees fleeing from ISIS or other terrors around the world, who need our protection and still make up a very small proportion of people coming to Britain.

Offering protection to terrified civilians, many of them Muslims, who are fleeing from ISIS, also shows that the story peddled by these extremists – that Muslims and non-Muslims cannot live peacefully together – is simply wrong. Britain has offered a place of safety to those who most need it since the First World War and well before – and we will continue to do so today.

Getting ‘tough’ on asylum would run counter to who we are as a nation. On a practical level, it would also make almost no difference to the level of net migration to the UK.

What answer is there, then, for those who remain concerned about pressures that high migration can place on housing, schools and jobs? Perhaps Theresa May could learn something from her colleague (and rival for the Conservative leadership), Chancellor George Osborne. Yesterday he set out the results of his Comprehensive Spending Review – in which he looked at the issues our economy faces and the resources available, and set out a long term plan to handle them.

He had more money than expected. The forecast growth in the economy was, in fact, revised upwards because the net migration target has not been met – showing the net contribution of working migrants to our economy.  But it remains a difficult balancing act – one that requires the Chancellor to look at all the options available and plan his response.

Surely there are grounds for a similarly planned approach to immigration?

A Comprehensive Immigration Review – as proposed by British Future and the Institute of Directors – would look at the different flows of migration to the UK, the target the government has set, and the policy options for bringing the numbers down. It could also look at the impacts of those policies – on business, on the taxes that are paid by working migrants, staffing for services like the NHS, and international students that study at our world-class universities.

That might mean some hard choices. It might mean admitting that immigration is likely to remain higher than the Home Secretary’s target, unless we are willing to deal with some less-welcome impacts. But having a plan that the Government is working towards would, at least, bring some order to the process and help restore public trust on immigration.

This blog was originally posted on the British  Future website.

“I’m not sure I can pronounce any of it, but I’ll give it a go…” England fans were well aware of our nation’s difficulties with foreign languages when we handed out lyrics to La Marseillaise to them at Wembley this evening, under the watchful gaze of Bobby Moore’s statue. But we  still ran out within a few minutes, writes Steve Ballinger – everyone knew straight away why we were doing it.

They all knew they would sing two anthems this evening – and that this was no ordinary football friendly.

On Wembley Way, as we walked towards a Wembley Arch turned red, white and blue with ‘Liberte, Egalite, Franternite’ illuminated below, merchandise vans had sold out of ‘half n half scarves’ in the colours of England and France. An anomaly at most matches – who supports both teams? – they felt entirely apt at tonight’s game.

The atmosphere inside the ground was hard to describe. In many ways it didn’t feel that different – though the Englishman in front of me probably wouldn’t usually wrap himself in France’s Tricolore flag. We sang ‘God Save the Queen’ with gusto. And then the French anthem, the words displayed on Wembley’s giant screens after a campaign on social media and Change.org asking the FA to help us all sing La Marseillaise. The French fans nearby us sang it loud and proud; the English joined in gamely, as one might with an obscure hymn at a wedding. But then the bit we could all get right – “Aux armes, citoyens! Formez vos bataillons! Marchons! Marchons!” – rang out from every voice in Wembley stadium – tens of thousands of voices singing together and reminding us why it was so important that this game should go ahead.

The match itself, only ever a friendly to give Roy Hodgson’s team a taste of playing higher quality opposition,  was wholly overshadowed by the events that proceeded it, as one might expect. England’s opening goal, the first in England colours for Tottenham’s Dele Alli, was a beauty. It was typical of England to win a game where the score didn’t matter.

There was a standing ovation when France’s Lassana Diarra took to the field in the second half, just days after learning that his cousin had been killed in the Paris massacre; and a brief reprise of the French anthem in the 89th minute, as supporters from France waved their flags. A rousing applause followed the final whistle.

Then we all tramped off to queue for the tube home. News that another friendly, in Germany, had been called off due to another security alert, provided a grim reminder that the atrocities in Paris were not a one-off – and that tonight’s game,  important symbol though it was, would not be enough on is own to keep us all safe. But we were glad, all the same, that we had been at Wembley tonight,  part of this important moment of solidarity between two nations.

“An ‘issue’ is a public matter,” he elaborated “when values cherished by the public are felt to be threatened […] it is the very nature of an issue, unlike even widespread trouble, that it cannot very well be defined in terms of the everyday environments of ordinary men. An issue, in fact, often involves a crisis in institutional arrangements.”

There are an estimated 60,000 young people living in the UK who have irregular immigration status. This tag is no mere administrative burden. It compromises their security and safety, their health and wellbeing and our ability to support those who are vulnerable and exploited by others. If you are young, and without the correct papers, then you are likely to be extremely quiet about it: you will try to manage alone the problems this generates. You will be unable to get trusted advice and legal support. You will be unwilling to speak up about this for fear of being deported. You will be unsure about accessing the health and social support that most of us take for granted. You will not know who and what to trust. You will see both light and darkness in remaining invisible.

Last week, at a meeting of European charitable trusts at Paul Hamlyn Foundation, two organisations spoke to the assembled grant makers about what they were doing to make sure the personal troubles of so many become social issues that we address. Just for Kids Law talked about their work helping young migrant – many of whom have grown up as children in the UK – to access higher education. Swarm has developed a web portal through which young people and their families can work out how they can get help with their immigration status problems. Both charities are part of a wider collaboration, started by Paul Hamlyn Foundation and Unbound Philanthropy – two funders working in partnership. Supported Options uses grant making, research, convening, digital technology, story-telling and direct service development to shine a light on the lives of young people trapped by their status, and also to point to policy and practice solutions.

We are rightly transfixed by the continuing refugee crisis and in the UK there has been a huge mobilisation of interest and offers of help from the general public. But we must not lose sight of those – such as young people without papers – whose stories are not being told, and who are not in the limelight. They are as deserving of our attention and our support as any young person in trouble.

In the United States, a growing movement for change – led by United We Dream – has turned many undocumented young people into social activists and campaigners, and in this movement individuals find support and friendship. In the United Kingdom, a similar movement has been much slower in coming – but coming it is. Let Us Learn is a youth-led campaign that has already brought about a change in the law, with a recent Supreme Court decision securing access to higher education funding for many. We must nurture this movement and protect the brave young people who work selflessly for the rights and futures of others. ‘Coming out’ as undocumented and speaking up for one’s rights and the rights of others is to put oneself in peril, but it is probably the only way that young people’s troubles become our social issue. We should reward their courage and dignity by helping them to study and ensuring that they can access legal advice and representation in order to make decisions about their futures from a position of stability and security.

This meeting of the European Foundation Centre’s (EFC) Diversity, Migration, and Integration Thematic Network brought together EFC members for two days in October 2015, to network, learn from one another and identify potential areas of common interest. The Network is chaired by the Barrow Cadbury Trust.

Why were Barrow Cadbury trustees keen to explore social finance opportunities? Some information about the origins and values of the Trust will shed some light on our interest.

The Trust was founded in 1920 by two Birmingham Quakers, Barrow and Geraldine Cadbury, energetic social reformers and generous philanthropists whose particular concerns were health, education and the criminal justice system.

Influenced by Joseph Rowntree, Barrow established the tax-paying Barrow Cadbury Fund (for those projects that fell outside the legal definition of ‘charitable’) alongside the charitable (and much larger) Barrow Cadbury Trust .

Our Quaker values inform the Trust’s ethical approach to its investments. Our approach is to use all our assets, such as our name, our expertise, our convening power, so not just the money.

We have a history of funding via loan finance. In the 1980s for example, we set up two revolving loan funds enabling unemployed people in the West Midlands to start their own businesses.

So the opportunity in 2009 to invest in the Peterborough SIB was timely. We had a century old interest in reducing reoffending. We also had a current track record of working with St Giles Trust so, in terms of partners as well as potential impact, it was a perfect entry point.

What do we look for when we invest?

Of paramount importance to us is the social impact of an investment. Our investments fall into three main categories:

The majority have been ‘programme related’, i.e interventions that we might under other circumstances consider grant aiding. As with our grantmaking, we actively seek to support pilot projects and ‘upstream’ or early interventions.

One of these is Bristol Together, a Community Interest Company that has developed a 5 year bond to raise working capital for buying and refurbishing properties, providing work and training opportunities for ex-offenders.

The impact of this investment is a 5% reoffending rate over 4 years (compared with the national average of 46%). What are the risks? There’s the possibility of overruns on costs and the Bristol housing market is much more unpredictable than London. There have also been cash flow challenges, but the project is currently on track to repay the bond.

We may seek general ways of supporting voluntary sector infrastructure: for example, we have made an equity investment as well as a loan for the purchase and redevelopment of a shoe-polish factory in Vauxhall, now known as the Foundry, a Social Justice and Human Rights Centre providing office and shared community space for 20 voluntary sector organisations.

And thirdly, the Trust is also interested in developing the social investment market; this motivated our investments in Golden Lane Housing for example.

(to be clear: I am referring to the 2013 bond issued through Triodos. We have also invested in the 2014 bond, but this was a mainstream investment in a corporate bond, made through our investment manager. We are delighted that this bond was successfully issued on the mainstream markets. )

We have an endowment of approaching £80 million, and have set aside 5% (ie £4 million) for social investment. Our pockets are not deep, but we are aware of the ‘kite mark effect’, the leverage that even a comparatively modest investment by Barrow Cadbury can afford an enterprise. Our early investment in the Peterborough SIB is a case in point.

Whether an investment relates closely to one of our programmes, or offers an opportunity to develop the market, above all we are keen to ensure significant social value, above and beyond simply savings to the public purse, valuable though they are.

Risk and return

In terms of risk and return, the potential social impact must justify the financial risk. We take a ‘whole portfolio’ view of financial return, so our appetite for risk varies with each investment. We are prepared to take risks, indeed, we believe we should, and have invested in a couple of ventures where we knew the risks were high. One has folded, and we will have to write off that loan, but the other is still making progress.

Whilst we seek considerable social impact, I would describe us as not financially ambitious. If we preserve the real value of the funds available to us over a 10 year period we will be satisfied. (More might be exciting! But it would cause us to question our risk appetite and whether we had the appropriate balance of social to financial return).

Do we become involved in the projects we support?

I have mentioned a couple of instances where I or a member of staff have joined the board of an organisation. This has merits:

• it certainly aids our learning,
• has been useful in developing informative reporting,
• and can strengthen governance.

It fits our principle of using all our assets for social good, but we do not insist on it: of the 15 investments made to date, we only have this kind of direct involvement in three, all at the invitation of the organisation.

The question of impact on our grant making is interesting.

We believe that grant finance is gold dust and must be protected for things that can’t (or should not) be financed any other way.

We remain keen on blended finance (we have made Ethex a grant as well as a loan, for example).

Our grantmaking is in no way reduced in scale or ambition. It has, I suggest, benefitted from a sharpening up of due diligence and from our increasing expertise. We are better placed to discuss with grant holders the appropriateness (or otherwise) of their pursuing other forms of finance.

To conclude, social investment offers a very welcome alternative source of finance, but it is not the only answer and it’s not for everyone: I do worry about some of the rhetoric: criticising so-called ‘grant dependency’ isn’t helpful, nor is characterising charity trustees as ‘risk averse’ when they decide that such new forms of finance are not for them.

But for the Barrow Cadbury Trust, the beauty of social investment can be summarised in four points. We believe that:

• Trusts and foundations can afford to take the financial risk off the shoulders of the delivery organisations.
• Social investment can move money ‘upstream’ to earlier interventions, which we all know can be more effective in the long run and give better value for money, but which are sometimes not affordable in the short term.
• We can help ‘unlock’ mainstream finance for social purposes (from pension funds, new money etc). For example we have now sold £70,000 of our original investment in Golden Lane Housing, bringing more social investors into the market.

And this touches on my fourth ‘beauty’: that the nature of investments is cyclical: as loans are repaid our capital is released so we can make further social investments.

You can watch Anna Southall’s full presentation, as well as other presentations at the event, on Youtube.

The Founder

“I set up Miss Macaroon in 2011 to bring together my passion for making the handed crafted delights that are French macaroons and providing supportive work placements for marginalised young people. Through a family member’s experience in the care system and chance encounters with a young homeless man in my home town I have always felt that I was extremely fortunate not to have been in a precarious situation myself. I dreamt of a business that combined my love of food, its power to create strong connections, a sense of community and nourish supportive relationships, throughout my time at school, university and abroad while setting up my first restaurant.

With help from amazing mentors, board members and University College Birmingham, where I did my catering training, I started producing our delicious French macaroons and ran a pilot training programme in 2011, out of which the Macaroons that Make A Difference programme emerged. To date we have worked with 17 of the most difficult to engage young people. I love making our beautiful product, quality control (taste) testing, and creating new flavours, but the thing that keeps me engaged after baking the 5000^th macaroon of the day is seeing our newest member of staff practicing all of the skills he learnt on the first day he started the MacsMAD course. Initiative, time management, communication and team work are all improved by working in our kitchen. I’m really proud of the huge amount of hard work and commitment to learning and growing he has shown in working to get his apprenticeship and succeed in the Miss Macaroon kitchen, so much so that he is now called ‘Flash’!   With the support from Barrow Cadbury we can now increase the number of training placements, work experiences, mentor support sessions, and paid employment opportunities we can provide for young people who have been involved with the criminal justice system, who have been in care or found themselves homeless.

The new board member

Rosie Ginday’s Miss Macaroon has it all; exquisite hand-made French macaroons and a great cause. So when I was invited to join the board of this CIC I jumped at the chance. I’m very happy to help a project which supports young adults by providing work experience and practical help to guide them into work or education. It’s an exciting company and the energy and enthusiasm oozing from Rosie is highly infectious. She is a fantastic role model, not only for the young adults the organisation helps, but all SME business leaders, including me. Each time I attend a board meeting or catch up with Rosie in between time, I inevitably reflect back on how I can improve my own business. The Board consists of a group of experienced SME leaders with a wealth of experience across all aspects of business and it’s always interesting to get their perspective. However the most rewarding aspect is knowing (hoping!) I can play a small part in improving the work and educational opportunities for some young people. This was brought home to the board recently when one young man who had been given a short term contract at Miss Macaroon came to speak to us about his experience. He was confident, happy and had certainly soaked up some of Rosie’s enthusiasm. It was a pleasure to meet him and confirmed for me the real value of this worthwhile organisation.   I also get to eat some of the product; a perfect indulgence!

The newest full-time member of the team and beneficiary

My name is Zee and I’m 25 years old. I’m a trainee pastry chef doing an apprenticeship at Miss Macaroon. I work in the kitchen and prepare macaroons. I do a lot of the filling, packaging and baking.   When I was in a hostel last January I came across a flyer advertising the MacsMAD course as an opportunity to learn new skills. I had been unemployed for four years so the course was a good opportunity to readjust to a working environment and meet new people. I saw the flyer and thought it was something worth engaging with so I applied to get involved in the MacsMAD course. I met Rosie who helped me as mentor and gave me an introduction in to the catering industry. I also gained my food hygiene qualification. My confidence grew throughout the process. I stayed in touch with Rosie who encouraged me to get some work experience.

I was offered the opportunity to get some experience one day a week and grow in the industry. After that I got offered a position. I then went on to do three days a week. It’s been a good transition I guess to start off on one day then three days, and finally on full time hours. There hasn’t been pressure – I’ve gradually been allowed to fit in. It’s been easier than just going straight in to full time work which would have been a bit more pressure if I hadn’t had the chance to develop the way I have.   I was asked to speak at a board meeting in July and I didn’t know what to expect. I was a bit nervous but excited too. I definitely learned a different side of business and how this is a crucial part, how different minds and skills come together to improve the company. I felt privileged to be involved and it will be great to put on my CV. The opportunity was good for me to express myself about my experience at Miss Macaroon. It reassured me that I wasn’t judged. It was a good experience – definitely something positive to take forward in life. I learnt more about everyone’s roles and more about management.

Miss Macaroon has helped me to get a job in catering. It’s helped with skills, confidence, direction, focus and determination. It’s given me the opportunity to be part of something positive and constructive and to appreciate what skills are required in the work place. Rosie is a good motivator so my confidence has grown. Setting goals is now part of the way I work which I didn’t do before and that’s because of the five year plan we have put in place.

Find out more about Miss Macaroon on their website.   Twitter: @IamMissMacaroon Facebook: MissMacaroonCIC

Some Sudanese are held in detention centres while their appeals for asylum are considered. If their cases fail they face forcible return to Khartoum. That means arrest, interrogation, torture and possible “disappearance” at the hands of the Sudanese security services.   Waging Peace recognises how stressful and lonely it can be for people in detention centres, so we organise a visitor’s group to provide moral support to Sudanese asylum seekers. Mostly the visitors are Sudanese already living in the UK who can offer people reassurance in their native language. However, Dr. Arama, the person I saw on my first visit, spoke perfect English.

It was a suitably cold, grey January day when I arrived at Yarl’s Wood detention centre in Buckinghamshire, just outside London. I had no idea what to expect, and I was nervous, wondering how could I really help. What could I do?    As I prepared myself mentally to meet Dr. Amara, the prison-like atmosphere blindsided me. It wasn’t the back of beyond physical location nor being bussed to a walled-up, barbed wire fenced-in facility. It wasn’t even the frosty reception from the front desk staff who only allow you to proceed once your fingerprints and photographs have been taken. Rather, it was the stark walls, barren but for one or two signs posting stern warnings that no visitor was to take anything – not a pen or paper, not an offering of food, not a book, not a sliver of any humanity from the ‘outside’ world, not even your own belongings – into the visitor lounge.

I had to remind myself that the woman I was about to meet was not a prisoner, she was a person, who happened to be an asylum seeker, there on humanitarian grounds, fleeing extreme conditions in her home country after being victimised by her own government and subjected to torture, rape and further trauma.   “Yarl’s Wood detainees aren’t there because they have been charged with a criminal offence” reported BBC Home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw, “They are people, many of them vulnerable, whose claims for asylum or right to stay in Britain have been rejected or are being challenged.”

Yet, when Dr. Amara had gone to her weekly immigration sign-in 2 weeks ago, she was briskly taken into custody, without warning and with only the clothes on her back. Her personal belongings were taken away, and for several hours she was held in a locked room. No one told her what was happening. They bustled her into a van for the journey to an unknown destination – which turned out to be Yarl’s Wood IRC, several hours away.   Not surprisingly, the experience reminded Dr. Amara of when she had been detained back in Sudan. Her unease increased when she was given “removal directions,” with an airline ticket to return her to Sudan within a week.  She had risked her life to escape from the Sudanese regime and she knew what awaited her if she was forced to return.

When I met her at Yarl’s Wood I had to pass through a security scanner and I was patted down by an officer who made sure I was taking no more than £10 in with me. When the officer was satisfied, she unlocked the door to the visitor lounge and finally I made my way in to find Dr. Amara.   All the while I was wondering how on earth I could help this woman who had endured so much. What can I do? How can we tangibly measure the importance of Waging Peace through our Sudanese Visitor’s Group and visiting people in detention?   I smiled as I approached Dr. Amara and without thinking I opened my arms.  She offered me a brave but sad smile and with no words she collapsed into my arms, sobbing. I gently embraced her and when she was ready, we sat down and talked for the next two hours. It was finally clear to me, the value of what we do.

Through meeting people where they are, we don’t have to ‘do’ anything. In a sense we offer hope and hope is immeasurable.   Below are comments from other Sudanese dissidents who have been visited at detention centres by representatives from Waging Peace.   Mohammed, now living in Cardiff, said, “The Sudanese government troops attacked my area and killed many people so I left Sudan because it was not safe. In 2009 a friend gave me the number for Waging Peace while I was being detained at Campsfield detention centre.  I was at Campsfield for nearly 11 months. I didn’t speak any English and wasn’t able to speak to many people because I didn’t have the language ability. To give me something to do and also help other people, I got work inside Campsfield. I was very depressed. It was difficult to be locked away, not speaking English, after my long and frightening journey from Sudan.”  

Dr. Ahmed, now living in London, told me, “You supported me with many things – especially hope.  At least I talked to someone. Even simply saying ‘hello’ helped me. Waging Peace also contacted my lawyer and if I wasn’t happy with something or I didn’t understand they would act on my behalf and support me.”     Ezzeldin, now living in Manchester, remembers, “I didn’t have family or friends to talk to and I was scared. I knew if I was sent back home I would die. I needed support and help with my asylum application. I totally broke down when I arrived. I tried to commit suicide two times while I was in detention. Waging Peace gave me emotional support and helped contact my lawyer. Unfortunately no Sudanese Visitors Group visits were allowed because of my mental state so I was very lonely. When I received a phone call from Waging Peace it felt like I received a message from God. Waging Peace’s support was a lifeline for me.”

I am pleased to announce that one of the two inquiries that the Justice Select Committee has launched this week to begin its work for this Parliament will examine the treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system. The number of young adults in custody is falling, partly because there are fewer younger offenders entering the criminal justice system and being sentenced to custody. Nevertheless, those that remain in the custodial estate have become more challenging to manage in several respects.

Very shortly after my election as Chair of the Committee Lord Harris of Haringey published his thought-provoking report Changing Prisons, Saving Lives to conclude his independent review into self-inflicted deaths in custody of young adults.

Lord Harris made recommendations to encourage the diversion of more young people from custody as well as to improve the custody system for those who remain in it, and concluded that action on these should be an urgent priority:

“Delaying action until the resource position is easier is not an option. Unless progress is made on the proposals that we have made, young people will continue to die unnecessarily in our prisons and we will continue to waste countless millions of pounds in failing to rehabilitate those who could be rehabilitated, in locking up those for whom a non-prison option would be more appropriate, and in failing to intervene early enough to prevent people from entering the criminal justice system in the first place.”

I asked the Secretary of State for Justice, Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, for his thoughts on the implications of the Harris Review when he appeared before the Committee for the first time last week. He replied:

“Lord Harris’s report was, in the best sense of the word, difficult reading, as was the report yesterday by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons. We have significant problems in our prisons at the moment. You cannot look at the number of suicides and self-inflicted injuries or at the level of violence overall in the prison estate and feel anything other than concern about the conditions in which prison officers have to work and the conditions in which offenders are kept.”

The annual report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons was published last week. That report made a number of observations about young adults in custody. It said that cohort was over-represented in statistics on violence, adjudications and use of force, but the Inspectorate found there was little or no action to understand, address and manage this population. It also found that young adults tend to spend more time than other prisoners locked in their cells and as a result have poorer outcomes in relation to access to purposeful activity like education and training.

Consecutive governments have proposed abolishing sentences to detention in a young offenders’ institution for 18-20 year olds. The last Government issued a consultation proposing this in November 2013 entitled Transforming the Management of Young Adults in Custody. The Government made no response to this consultation pending the findings of the Harris Review.

In response to a further question by my committee colleague, Christina Rees MP, about whether the Secretary of State accepted particular recommendations, he said:

“There are one or two aspects of Lord Harris’s report that I questioned and have questioned officials about. I wondered whether his reasoning was absolutely right in every regard, but I do think overall that the report was fair and helpful. As I have said, it was difficult reading in the best sense of the word. But I cannot commit to any of those yet, because I am reflecting both on his recommendations and on some other concerns that I have about the prison system that I want the ministerial team and the leadership of NOMS to address before I can come down firmly in favour of particular changes.”

My colleagues on the Justice Committee and I decided that it was timely to inquire into the treatment of young adults both in prison and — given the broad-ranging nature of the recommendations of the Harris Review — in other parts of the criminal justice system. Our remit does not extend to the police — the oversight of which is the responsibility of the Home Affairs Committee — therefore for the purposes of our inquiry the criminal justice system is taken to include the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts, the sentencing framework, youth offending teams, probation services and prisons. See below for our full terms of reference and guidance on submitting evidence, which is also available on my committee’s webpages.

Recent advances in behaviour and neuroscience research indicate that brain development continues well into the 20s, meaning that young adults have more psychosocial similarities to children than to older adults. In their report Maturity, Young Adults and Criminal Justice the Transition to Adulthood Alliance state that one of the consequences of this prolonged period of development and maturation of the brain is that “temperance (evaluating consequences of actions, limiting impulsivity and risk-taking is a significant maturity factor that continues to influence anti-social decision-making among young adults”. On this subject Lord Harris concluded:

“[g]iven the current understanding of maturity and human development, and brain development in particular, we feel it no longer makes sense to expect that young adults, especially when they are distinctly vulnerable, should be sentenced as an adult solely on the basis of their age.”

Some steps have been taken to do this. The Sentencing Council now includes lack of maturity as a mitigating factor in its sentencing guidelines and the Code for Crown Prosecutors also makes reference to it. Accordingly, my colleagues and I also wish to examine the evidence on what might constitute more effective or appropriate treatment of young adults throughout the criminal justice process and review the impact of guidance to sentencers and prosecutors which advises that they consider the maturity of the offender in their decisions.

Our inquiry’s terms of reference

We welcome submissions by 30 September 2015 addressing this subject, with particular reference to the following points:

1.        The nature and effectiveness of the Ministry of Justice’s strategy and governance structures for dealing with young adult offenders.

2.        The suitability of current provision for young adult offenders i) in the community and ii) in custody, including the extent to which there is distinct provision currently, and addressing the following questions:

• What is the evidence on how outcomes across a range of measures for young adult offenders compare with other offenders?
• Taking into account the findings of the Harris Review, what measures should be prioritised in addressing levels of suicide, self-harm, and violence amongst young adult offenders currently held in custody?
• What impact have the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms had on the transition between youth offending teams and probation services?

3.        The Harris Review advocated a distinct approach to young adult offenders. Is this desirable? If so, what would this entail i) in the community and ii) in custody? If not, why not? Please also address the following questions:

• Should sentence to detention in a young offender institution for 18-20 year old offenders be abolished? If so, what should replace it?
• The Harris Review concluded that all young adults in prison are vulnerable and that the experience of being in prison is particularly damaging to them as they are developing. Do you agree?
• The Harris Review recommended that more young adults should be diverted from custody and from the criminal justice system. Is it appropriate to seek to divert more young adults from custody and the criminal justice system, and if so, how would this best be achieved?

4.        What legislative or other barriers are there to more appropriate practices for young adult offenders and how could these be overcome?

5.        What impact, if any, has the introduction of maturity as a mitigating factor in sentencing decisions had on sentencing practice for young adults? Do sentencers have sufficient   information to make assessments of maturity?

6.        What impact, if any, has the inclusion of the concept of maturity in guidance for assessing culpability (in the Code of Conduct for the Crown Prosecution Service) had on prosecution decisions? Do prosecutors have sufficient information to make such assessments?

7.        How could a criminal justice system which would treat young adults on the basis of maturity rather than age operate in practice?

Please note that the Committee may not investigate or intervene in individual cases. Submissions may make reference to individual cases for illustrative purposes, provided they are not the subject of legal proceedings currently before UK courts.

I look forward to receiving your written submission which should be made using the portal available on the inquiry page of our website.

Life costs more if you are disabled. Research by the disability charity Scope estimates that on average, disabled people spend £550 a month on disability-related expenditure.[1]

The financial penalty of disability manifests itself in a number of ways, from the high cost of specialised equipment such as powered wheelchairs, to spending more on taxis to get around; from higher energy bills, to more costly insurance premiums. These extra costs have a profound impact on an individual’s standard of living – they can limit family life and opportunities to learn, work and participate in society.

In response to this problem the Extra Costs Commission was set up in July 2014, as an independent inquiry to explore these extra costs for disabled people and their families in more depth. As a group of fifteen Commissioners with experience across banking, finance and consumer affairs, seven of whom were disabled people, we have sought to identify and find solutions to drive down these costs.

Whilst recognising the part welfare payments play in covering the additional costs of disability, these do not go far enough – in 2015/16, the average award for Disability Living Allowance and Personal Independence Payment will be around £360 a month.[2] As such, the Commission’s focus has been on the role that non-governmental actors, including private-sector markets, can play to tackle extra costs.

Based upon new evidence in the Commission’s interim report, we have concentrated on five extra cost areas in particular – energy, clothing and bedding, specialised equipment, taxis and private hire vehicles and insurance. These are the cost areas that were frequently mentioned by disabled people and where we consider changes could have the most impact.

We have also carried out research to learn more about disabled people’s experiences as consumers, and have spoken to businesses across different sectors to understand more about their relationship with disabled people.

The Commission’s final report has now been launched. This contains a series of recommendations targeted at four groups – disabled people and their families, disability organisations, businesses and regulators and government.

Disabled people and their families

One of our strongest messages is to disabled people themselves. There are over 12 million disabled people in the UK[3], and households with a disabled person spend £212 billion a year[4], the so-called ‘purple pound’. To build power behind this, it is paramount that disabled people are seen as a collective consumer force, similar to the gay community with the ‘pink pound’ and older people with the ‘grey pound’.

The Commission is calling on disabled people to adopt the identity of ‘disability’ willingly, an often rejected identity. By doing so and by being ‘bold and loud’ as consumers, disabled people will be in a stronger position to encourage companies to serve them better. This will involve disabled people sharing information about their needs and expectations as shoppers, speaking up when dissatisfied and being more demanding as consumers.

Businesses

Alongside this, change needs to happen within markets to reduce extra costs for disabled people. A shocking three quarters of disabled people have left a shop or business because of poor disability awareness or understanding – these organisations could be missing out on a share of £420 million a week of revenue. [5]

A failure to meet demand from disabled people limits choice and competition in markets. Not only can this drive up the cost of essential goods and services for disabled people, but it also has the potential to hit organisations’ reputations and profitability.

To this effect, the Commission is calling on businesses to take steps to acquire more intelligence about disabled people as consumers, to provide this group with appropriate products and deals suited to their needs. For example, 1 in 3 disabled people spend money on specialised equipment, [6] a market estimated to be worth over £720 million [7] – this is a lucrative market that businesses could do more to tap into.  Additionally, businesses should ensure that they are doing all they can to attract disabled consumers. This will mean taking action to respond to customer feedback and ensuring that online platforms are fully accessible.

Disability organisations

To support several of the Commission’s recommendations, disability organisations are well-placed to use their brand profile and knowledge of disability to improve information and services to disabled people and businesses to allow them to drive down the extra costs of disability.

For disabled people, this could involve providing advice and guidance that incorporates a focus on consumer matters, or setting up an affiliate scheme to obtain discounts. For businesses, the emphasis should be on helping them to understand more about the needs and expectations of disabled people as consumers. One area where this could happen is insurance, where disability organisations could support insurers to develop and improve customer service and offers for disabled people.

Regulators and government

Lastly, where action by the above groups is insufficient, regulators and government should intervene in instances where market features result in unfair extra costs for disabled people.

The Commission recommends specific action to ensure the affordability of products in relation to the insurance industry and taxis and private hire vehicles. Improving digital inclusion for disabled people is another area that we have looked at, as access to the internet is a key part of being a savvy shopper.

The Commission is pleased that several organisations have committed to taking forward recommendations in the final report. We hope that other organisations will step forward to join this movement to drive down the extra costs of disability. Though the Commission has formally ended, it will reconvene in June 2016 to review progress that has been made on the recommendations contained in the final report.

Find out more  about the work of the Extra Costs Commission

[1] Brawn, E: Priced Out, Scope,  April 2014

[2] Ibid

[3] ONS: Family Resources Survey 2012/13, July 2014

[4] DWP press release on ‘purple pound’ figures, 27 August 2014: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/high-street-could-be-boosted-by-212-billion-purple-pound-by-attracting-disabled-people-and-their-families

[5] Extra Costs Commission: Interim technical report, March 2015

[6] Extra Costs Commission call for evidence from disabled people and their families, 2014

[7] Consumer Focus: Equipment for older and disabled people: an analysis of the market, November 2010

Here’s a quick question for you. For every £100 that a man working in Birmingham earns, how much do you think a woman earns? Ninety five pounds? Ninety pounds? Maybe as low as £85?

We’ll reveal the answer at the end, so while you’re mulling over that here’s another one. The unemployment rate for white people in Birmingham is about 9%. What’s the rate for black people? If you doubled 9%, try again. The answer is actually three times higher – 26%. The unemployment rate for Pakistani and Bangladeshi residents is similarly out of kilter, currently standing at 18%. But here’s the really interesting thing. Back in 2004 the white unemployment rate was 6% while the black rate was 18% – again three times higher. Over the course of a decade, despite all its strategies and plans, the city was unable to reduce this stark inequality.

Why is this? Well, it’s not just Birmingham that’s been asking these questions. A number of cities – from Plymouth to Sheffield to York – have held fairness commissions in recent years to understand why entrenched inequalities persist. As useful and, in some cases, penetrating as these commissions have been they have tended to ignore the nuts and bolts of how public agencies ‘do’ equality – how they go about tackling discrimination, eradicating social patterns of disadvantage, and fulfilling their legislative equalities duties. This is a serious gap. Understanding why these approaches have failed may go some way to explain why serious inequalities continue.

New research From Benign Neglect to Citizen Khan, providing a bird’s eye view of equalities practice down the decades shows that many ideas have been resistant to change. Whereas society has changed greatly over the last 30 years, our equalities tools have remained remarkably similar. For example, in 1984 Birmingham City Council set up a Race Equality Unit with the aim of addressing institutional racism and improving access to council services. By 1989 the Unit had 31 staff, including race relations advisers in housing, education, and social services. The Unit’s annual report for that year shows its activities included training, monitoring uptake of services, helping different departments devise race equality schemes, improving access to services (mainly by translating information), and organising outreach events. If you were to include something about community development (helping local community groups to support disadvantaged people) these activities would all be part of the Standard Six – the half a dozen key actions that have dominated equality strategies and policies over the decades. They’re the things that crop up time and time again, regardless of the organisation’s sector or the demographics of its service users. Ideally, equality approaches would be dynamic – constantly evolving as we better understand what works. Unfortunately, this generally hasn’t been the case.

We don’t want to suggest that no progress at all has been made, of course. For one thing, the number of excluded groups considered by equalities practice has increased. For example, public authorities in Birmingham didn’t fund any lesbian or gay groups during the 1970s or 80s – a situation which would be subject to serious scrutiny today. In addition, equalities practice is beginning to explore the impact of leadership and organisational vision when it comes to embedding best practice, and organisations are beginning to focus more on partnership working. However, there are still some things we need to get better at.

Firstly, as agencies work together more closely we need to be crystal clear about what ‘equality’ means. This may sound simple, but if you speak to people in different organisations you’d be surprised at how many answers you get. This is no longer an option. Different agencies have to be on the same page when it comes to delivering fairer outcomes for the most vulnerable. Secondly, and connected with this, we need a shared vision of what good quality of life looks like for Birmingham’s residents. This needs to be informed by what people think is important and by the common needs of people from different communities in the city. In other words, it will involve much more clarity about the ‘domains’ of equality that are important to a wide range of people in the city. Thirdly, we need to devise a series of entitlements necessary to guarantee these needs and measure the provision of these through a multi-agency, multi-sector programme of activities.

Finally – and perhaps most importantly – we need to take equality, cohesion, and integration seriously. In addition to the Standard Six, the clearest feature arising from a historical survey of equalities practice is that we’re constantly reacting to things. Whether it’s an influx of new migrants, riots, or legislative changes, equalities practice has always been devised in response to a particular crisis or problem. We have never stood back, thought about the type of society we want to create and then pursued this vision with vigour. It’s clear that equalities practice has usually been seen as a side show to the main business of delivering services. This can’t continue. We need to get on the front foot. Rather than react to problems we need to proactively shape the future.

Which brings us back to where we started: how much does a Birmingham woman earn compared to a man? The answer is £81 for every £100 he earns – a gender pay gap of 19%. This is bad enough itself, but it’s also worth noting that at our current rate of progress it’ll be 2038 before pay equality is achieved (and this is assuming there will always be progress: between 2012 and 2013 the gender pay gap actually increased). It’s becoming increasingly obvious that our traditional approaches to equality are delivering progress at too slow a rate. If we do what we’ve always done we’ll get what we’ve always got. And what we’ve always got has let down too many people.

It’s time for a change.

Paul Dillane writes about the UK’s use of indefinite detention for LGBT asylum seekers

‘It’s Ali. I’ve been detained. Please help me.’

This week I received a telephone call from a client – a young gay man from Pakistan – who had travelled to the Home Office in Croydon to seek asylum. In Pakistan, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people experience systematic discrimination and violence. Upon claiming asylum in the UK, Ali was immediately detained and transferred to the largest immigration detention centre in Europe – Heathrow Immigration Removal Centre.

Ali is not a criminal, he has exercised his right to seek asylum as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in domestic law. Yet he has been detained indefinitely.

Ali’s case is being processed in the ‘Detained Fast Track’ system, a highly accelerated process whereby an asylum claim is determined in a matter of days. Thousands of asylum seekers experience the same fate every year.

My organisation, the UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG), is a charity dedicated to supporting LGBT asylum seekers. Not only do LGBT asylum seekers face significant obstacles in securing refugee status but also increasing numbers are indefinitely detained. They will remain in detention until they are granted asylum – which can take weeks or months – or until they are forcibly removed to their country of origin. The civil liberties organisation Liberty argues that migrants are detained purely for ‘administrative convenience’ which leads to many asylum seekers being ‘denied the right to a full and fair consideration of their claim’.

Over the last 20 years the scale of immigration detention in this country has expanded rapidly and now the UK detains more migrants than any country in Europe apart from Greece, which is in the process of releasing many of those it detains. The UK is alone in detaining migrants indefinitely. In France the maximum period is 45 days.

In 1993, UK detention capacity was just 250 places. In 2015, there are 11 immigration removal centres and capacity is approximately 4,000 places. Statistics published in September 2014 show that 3,378 people were in detention at that time, while 29,492 people entered detention over the previous 12 months. Sweden has only 255 detention places yet receives twice as many asylum claims as the UK.

As the Refugee Council says, in recent months ‘a bright light has been shone into the darkest corners of the British immigration system and it has revealed some unpleasant secrets.’ In January, Women for Refugee Women reported female detainees are routinely humiliated by male staff who monitor them while they are dressing, showering and using the toilet. In March, Channel 4 News broadcasted a shocking investigation which exposed staff calling detainees ‘animals’, ‘beasties’ and ‘bitches’.

The following day, a cross-party group of MPs and Peers demanded a fundamental change in the way that immigration detention is used and called for a 28 day time limit. The Detention Inquiry’s damning findings – arising from an investigation chaired by Liberal Democrat, Sarah Teather MP – found immigration detention is used ‘disproportionately and inappropriately’.

The Inquiry argued: ‘The system is hugely costly to the tax-payer and seriously detrimental to the individuals we detain in terms of their mental and physical well-being.’

It also criticised the conditions for LGBT people who experience bullying, harassment and abuse. As Johnson, a former client from Jamaica who now has refugee status, described:

‘The whole place is vile, it is homophobic, one of the guards called me a poof and then there were the Jamaicans who kept hurling some abuse at some Iranian guys—calling them batty men. I was terrified thinking: “Oh my God, I hope they don’t know I am one of them.”’

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, invited the former Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, Stephen Shaw, to investigate whether ‘improvements can be made to safeguard the health and wellbeing of detainees’. Disappointingly, the narrow scope of the review means it will not be able to deal with the wide-ranging issues raised by this Inquiry.

The use of immigration detention in the UK is out of control but, crucially, a political consensus on the need to tackle this problem has finally begun to emerge. More than 50 organisations, including UKLGIG, joined the #Time4aTimeLimit campaign and urged political parties to adopt the Inquiry’s recommendations. Last week, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party all offered manifesto pledges to end indefinite detention. Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, commented:

‘Indefinite detention of people who have committed no crime – and without even any independent review – is wrong. It can be deeply scarring – especially for asylum seekers who have already suffered abuse. And it is extremely expensive for taxpayers. No other western nation does it. We don’t need to either.’

British immigration detention centres have become notorious for their cruelty but the crescendo of opposition can no longer be ignored. Are the days of indefinite immigration detention in the UK finally numbered? The fight isn’t over yet but for Ali – and the thousands of others who languish in immigration detention – there may be hope on the horizon.

Paul Dillane is Executive Director of UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG) http://uklgig.org.uk/.  This blog was originally published on The Justice Gap.