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.

Frances Legg, Media Officer at the New Economics Foundation (NEF), blogs about its successful media training programme to get more progressive, diverse spokespeople into the mainstream media.

As the General Election approaches, many of us will be turning to TV and radio to make sense of the barrage of statistics and policy pledges thrown at us every day. But it is clear popular opinion is increasingly at odds with the news coverage on much of the mainstream media.

Why is it that we don’t hear more people talking on the television and radio about the dangers of climate change, the drawbacks of privatisation and the misery of inequality?  NEF has previously highlighted an acute lack of media training for people working in social, environmental and economic justice organisations.  This has created a void where voices calling for positive transformation of the economy should be heard.

Public debate desperately needs more spokespeople equipped to communicate with an audience that is tired of the status quo, receptive to new ideas and eager to engage in debate and discussion.  So in October last year NEF launched a new media training programme to help those pushing for a fairer and more sustainable economy to get their message heard in the mainstream media.

As well as mentoring campaigners from a range of sectors in how to frame and deliver their arguments effectively, we monitor the news and liaise with broadcasters to make sure media opportunities for the participants are taken.

Our spokespeople are housing campaigners, macroeconomists, green energy activists, champions of migrant rights and more.  And the chances are you’ve already seen them on your TV screens as we’ve already had a number of high-profile broadcast media appearances, including Sky News, BBC 5 Live, BBC News, Al Jazeera, LBC, Channel 4 News, BBC World Service and Russia Today.  The bookings speak for themselves, but participants also tell us what a difference our training has made.  Putting yourself out on a public platform can be scary – particularly if you’re a woman, from an ethnic minority or have a disability. The New Economy Spokesperson Network provides a community of peer support for its members. We particularly aim to promote voices that are not heard enough in the UK media: less white, middle class men and more of everyone else.

The New Economy Spokesperson Network accepts applications twice a year. The initial 3 day training course included 2 days of intensive media training with KNP Communications in association with the Franklin Forum, who have run a highly successful US version of this project.

Round two is going to be held at the end of May and we are busily making plans for that, as well as continuing to run our monthly follow-on training sessions in which our sokespeople have heard from top producers, practiced their interview technique in front of a current affairs presenter and started working on messaging guides.

It’s a really exciting project that has the potential to radically alter the framework for debate.

But we need YOU to get involved. Please spread the word amongst your networks and send us your ideas.  Do you know journalists who might be interested in booking members of the network? Or press teams who regularly have to turn down media requests? If so, please get in touch – I’d love to hear from you!

[email protected]

In March the Modern Slavery Act 2015 received Royal Assent, as one of the last pieces of legislation to be passed by the current government.  Its entry into law marked the end of an intense period of parliamentary activity and impassioned debate, and the start of a period of reflection on what has been achieved and what was left behind.

The government has emphasised the number of concessions it made in securing the passage of the Bill, and indeed important amendments were made.  These include the insertion of a “Transparency in supply chains” provision, which requires companies with turnover above a certain (undefined) threshold to report on what they are doing to address slavery in their supply chains, and aims to encourage corporate responsibility. Also, a commitment to review the role of the Gangmaster’s Licensing Authority (GLA), opened up the possibility of extending its restricted remit. Finally amendments to the definition of forced labour, slavery and servitude mean this offence may fill some of the gaps left by the government’s narrow definition of trafficking.

But what difference does the law really make for actual and potential victims of severe exploitation? Of course this largely remains to be seen, but there are some areas in which the new law has potential to improve the situation of exploited workers.

Changes to the definition of forced labour, slavery and servitude have the potential to broaden understandings of criminal labour exploitation, and encourage the investigation and prosecution of a larger number of cases. The definition now makes clear that the appearance of, or actual consent of a worker to exploitative work is irrelevant where the worker is being held in forced labour, slavery or servitude. This is important given the number of cases we see in which migrant workers agree to work in sub-standard conditions that further deteriorate into forced labour through controls on movement and withholding wages. This definition also turns attention towards personal circumstances that may lead someone to be particularly vulnerable to exploitation.  Such circumstances expressly include the victims’ family relationships and mental or physical illness, but also have the potential to include the victims’ immigration status – a common source of vulnerability to forced labour.

A further important step made by the Act is to protect some people who are victims of modern slavery from prosecution for crimes they are forced to commit while under the control of their exploiters. This includes migration-related crimes such as identity document fraud, and crimes commonly involving trafficked labour, such as cannabis production. Smaller steps forward were also made in the area of victims’ legal rights – Section 8 of the Act requires a court to at least consider ordering compensation for a victim following a slavery or trafficking conviction. The Act also extends legal aid to victims of forced labour, slavery and servitude, where it was previously only available to trafficking victims.

Yet it is also on victims’ legal rights and protections that major gaps remain, and the Modern Slavery Act falls short of meeting key international obligations. Firstly, contrary to the European Trafficking Convention, the Act does not guarantee victims’ access to compensation, either directly from perpetrators through criminal or civil proceedings, or through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Victims trying to obtain compensation through these avenues currently face numerous hurdles, and very few exploited workers ever recover the unpaid wages they are owed.

Secondly, while the EU Trafficking Directive, requires legal assistance to be provided “without delay”, potential victims of trafficking and slavery still face significant difficulties in accessing legal aid. In particular they cannot access legal advice until a) they have agreed to be referred to the authorities, and b) it has been determined that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe they are a victim. In the case of third-country nationals and undocumented migrants in particular, referral to the authorities is a daunting and potentially dangerous prospect that often requires expert legal advice on options and consequences. Without early legal aid it is very difficult for someone who has been exploited to make an informed decision about their case.

Thirdly, contrary to the UN Human Trafficking Protocol, the Modern Slavery Act definition of human trafficking requires that the victim has travelled into exploitation, and for that travel to have been arranged or facilitated by the perpetrator. This is not a requirement of the international definition of human trafficking, and makes it very difficult to prosecute those involved in exploitation. It reflects the Government’s ongoing preoccupation with immigration, and continued prioritisation of immigration concerns over the prevention of exploitation.

Finally, and most damningly, the Modern Slavery Act failed to abolish the highly damaging tied visa for overseas domestic workers. The tied visa, which prevents overseas domestic workers from changing employers and so binds exploited workers to their exploiters, has been the subject of a sustained campaign by Kalayaan since it was introduced in 2012, and was an ongoing issue in the Modern Slavery Bill debates. In February an amendment was passed in the House of Lords to reinstate the right of overseas domestic workers to change employers. This was swiftly overturned by the Government when the Bill returned to the Commons. Pressed for a solution, the Government extended the right to change employers to victims who agree to be referred to the authorities and who are determined as “victims”.  For the majority of overseas domestic workers therefore, the tied visa remains, and perpetuates such an imbalance of power between employer and employee as to itself create a situation ripe for exploitation.

For these reasons and more the Modern Slavery Act is not exactly the triumph that the government suggests.  Whilst the Act shows progress in the UK’s approach to forced labour, slavery and human trafficking, it is far too heavily weighted towards prosecution, rather than prevention and protection, and effective responses have been thwarted by immigration concerns. For the large majority of migrant workers exploited across the UK this Act will have limited impact. It does, however, start the journey towards a stronger, more comprehensive approach to labour exploitation in the UK.

Claire Falconer is the Legal Director of Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX).  FLEX is a UK-based organisation that promotes effective responses to trafficking for labour exploitation worldwide, through research, advocacy, awareness raising and training.  This blog was originally posted on the Migrant Rights Network (MRN) website.  

From the moment I found out about the opportunity to become the CEO of Midlands Together CIC I was hooked.  The ‘idea’, already pioneered in Bristol, had an attractive simplicity to it and I quickly found myself referring to it as ‘a flash of the blindingly obvious’.   The model is simple. We buy empty and sub-standard homes and work with social enterprise partners to engage ex-offenders to repair, refurbish and restore these properties, which are then sold. The original capital, plus any profit, is re-invested back into the business to finance more property purchases and further job creation.   What’s not to like about running a commercially profitable property development operation with the intention of having a positive impact on the lives of a disadvantaged workforce, using the profits they help to make to invest in the support and mentoring we know they are going to need, given where some of our employees are starting from.

To a social entrepreneur like me, who comes from a commercial property background, this was the ideal opportunity to demonstrate ‘it is easier to socialise the commercial than commercialise the social’. Often organisations delivering great social impact have to rely on their staff, many of whom may be volunteers, going the extra mile, to get their outcomes. Charging a vulnerable or disadvantaged client for a service they know is desperately needed would not come easily to such people. If, on the other hand, funding the key activities that really make a difference can be seen as ‘investment’, it will attract the attention of people who are accustomed to creating value.

Once selected for the role, I worked with Triodos Bank to shape the business plan for the Midlands operation. In Bristol the idea had initially been backed by a small group of sophisticated private investors, but to achieve the scale of investment required to finance a regional model, the offer needed a wider audience. Triodos’ Corporate Finance Team brought the social investors to the table including some significant new players and I was able to pitch the opportunity face to face. The investment opportunity was also promoted in the financial press and amongst their socially aware depositors. The result was that the £3m offer was oversubscribed and we closed the bond 100 days after the launch.   Midlands Together was able to hit the ground running with a size and scale not often seen in the world of social enterprise start-ups. The Bond has a five year life which means we have time to make a real difference and build a sustainable business with a track record that could take us into the mainstream.

The capital enables us to create jobs, bring empty properties back into use and facilitate the employment of people who have been in prison. Offenders often leave prison with no permanent address, a history of substance abuse, literacy challenges and limited employment histories, all of which present huge challenges for living a crime-free life. A staggering 58% of short sentence adult offenders re-offend within 12 months of release.

We are working on four projects with three partner social enterprises currently on site. We have created 16 new jobs, will be creating 30 new homes once our current schemes are complete and none of our employees have re-offended. Over the five-year life of the Bond, we will have trained 100-150 ex-offenders and prepared them for a career in the construction industry.   Our investors are receiving a healthy financial return, while base rates remain low, and have the added benefit of knowing their funds are financing measurable social impact and great social value.  When the Bond matures in October 2018 we shall repay their funds and they can look for their next opportunity to back a “good” business idea.    

* This blog was originally published by Big Society Capital.

The Commission on Sex in Prison was established by the Howard League for Penal Reform to conduct the first ever inquiry into sex in prisons in England and Wales. It was funded by the Barrow Cadbury Trust, Esmee Fairbairn and the Bromley Trust, and has spent the past two years investigating consensual and coercive sex in prison and the healthy sexual development of children in prison.

As the work of the Commission draws to a close with a national conference in London on 17 March, it is fitting to reflect on the findings of the Commission and its achievements in raising awareness of this difficult and at times controversial issue.

When the Commission began its work in 2013 it found that there had been very few studies on consensual or coercive sex in prisons. The Prison and Probation Ombudsman was one of the first people to give evidence to the Commission and described it as a ‘hidden issue in a hidden world’. The Commission has helped to raise awareness of sex in prison and prompted people to reflect on prison policies and practices.

It highlighted the public health implications of preventing prisoners from obtaining condoms in confidence. Prisoners are a high risk group for sexually transmitted infections and the public health agenda must be the paramount consideration in prison policies relating to consensual sex. Punishing prisoners for having sex may deter them from obtaining condoms or sexual health advice.

It looked at the different experiences of women in prison, who are particularly vulnerable and sometimes form relationships with other prisoners to help them cope with the detrimental effects of imprisonment. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons referred to the issues raised by the Commission in its recently published inspection criteria for women’s prisons, including the need for staff to support women when relationships end and to monitor relationships which might become abusive.

The Commission looked at coercive sex in prison and found it was hidden and under-reported. The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman published a learning lessons bulletin on sexual abuse in prisons expanding on the evidence it had given to the Commission in 2013. The report called for allegations of sexual abuse in prisons to be investigated thoroughly and for staff to identify and challenge abusive relationships in prison. In January 2015, the Ministry of Justice announced it would be publishing an analysis of reported sexual assaults in prison due to ‘public interest in the area’.

The Commission raised concerns about the detrimental impact of prisons on children’s healthy sexual development, at a time when the government is planning to build a huge new prison in Leicestershire for children.

There is still more to be done. The UK government could learn much from the US which passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act in 2003. Anonymous surveys of prisoners are now conducted annually. The data on sexual assaults have galvanised US prisons to do more to prevent abuse.

Research is still needed to determine the nature and scale of unreported abuse in prisons in England and Wales. Prisoners must be entitled to the same support and protection from abuse as people outside of prison. Keeping prisoners safe will keep all of us safe.

Ministry of Justice announcement on sexual assaults analysis https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/397655/intention-to_publish-ad-hoc-on-sexual-assaults-data.pdf

Commission on Sex in Prison website

http://www.howardleague.org/behind-closed-bars/

I know from my own personal experience that disabled people often pay more than others for the same goods and services. That’s why I agreed to lead an independent panel of business people – the Extra Costs Commission – on a year-long inquiry into how we can bring down the premium that disabled people and their families pay.

We are taking a close look at which markets could be better at supplying goods and services to disabled people.   We’ve reached the half way stage and today our interim report sets out a blueprint for business to value and serve the so-called ‘purple pound’.

But, first to get an idea of what we are grappling with, let’s take a look at the impact of extra costs on one family.   Thirty nine year old Emily lives in Eastbourne with her husband and four children – Lucy, 16, William, 12, Oscar, six, and Reuben, who’s four. Both the younger boys have autism, and Emily has had Myalgic Encephalopathy (ME) for many years, which means her energy and movement have been limited. She is recovering now, and has recently returned to work, but she still uses a wheelchair for long distances. In every aspect of life her family is trying to meet the extra costs of disability.

Government action to address these extra costs has focused on raising the income of disabled people through the welfare system, through extra costs payments (Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and the Personal Independence Payment). Until now, very little has been done by anyone to tackle the root causes of the problem – by looking at how to reduce disabled people’s outgoings in the first place.

This is a missed opportunity.

Today’s report makes the economic case for addressing the issue. Disabled people are loyal consumers, but our research shows that they aren’t afraid to take their custom elsewhere when they receive poor customer service. We’ve highlighted that where shops and businesses don’t meet the needs of disabled consumers, they are losing out on £1.8 billion a month that is being passed over to companies who have recognised the potential of delivering to this group.

According to the Department for Work and Pensions, the ‘purple pound’ in total is worth £212 billion a year. In our report, we’ve set out ways businesses can capitalise on this market, by finding out more about disabled people’s preferences and needs, responding to incentives such as accreditation and awards schemes, and creating an affiliate scheme like a Nectar card to help them serve this group more effectively.   The challenge for disability organisations is to increase awareness of the ‘purple pound’ with businesses, provide more information and advice to disabled people to help them make the best value purchasing decisions, and work with disabled people to drive down the extra costs that they face.

It works for everyone. Companies can improve their financial returns, and disabled consumers and their families will get better deals   Our interim report should be seen as invitation to a conversation with all those who might play a role in delivering change.