Theresa May in 2016 made a very powerful speech demonstrating her willingness to fight against what she called “burning injustices”. She noted that “if you’re born poor, you will die on average nine years earlier than others […] If you’re one of those families, if you’re just managing, I want to address you directly.”

To her party’s conference that year she also said:

“Where companies are exploiting the failures of the market in which they operate, where consumer choice is inhibited by deliberately complex pricing structures, we must set the market right.”

Recognising the plight of poverty, and the extra costs associated with it, is something that unites the political spectrum. The Fair by Design initiative recognises it’s not easy to solve, but it is focusing on solutions not just words.

Poverty is increasing

The Centre on Household Assets and Savings Management (CHASM)’s 2018 Financial Inclusion Monitoring Briefing Paper, demonstrates the scale of the problem.  It starts by celebrating some positive recent developments including falling unemployment and increased wages for full time employees. However, poverty is increasing, both in and out of work, “with those out of work particularly affected by benefit cuts and delays”.

The report shows that poverty has increased since 2010. In 2016/17, 30 per cent of all children and 16 per cent of all pensioners were living in poverty, while 1.5 million people, including 365,000 children, were destitute at some point during 2017.

Poverty is expensive in the UK. As the concept of the poverty premium illustrates, there are extra costs of being in poverty. The cost of credit, for example, becomes higher if you are obliged to visit an alternative provider like a payday lender for borrowing money. The cost of energy is higher if you are stuck on a costlier tariff, and the costs of insurance increase if you live in a particular area.

Figures in CHASM’s report bear out some of those extra costs. For example in 2014–16, nearly half (47 per cent) of the population had some form of unsecured lending, which can include payday loans and other forms of high cost lending, but is most often credit cards.

In addition to high cost credit from the alternative credit sector (e.g. payday lenders, the rent-to-own sector like Brighthouse), the costs of unarranged overdrafts has been particularly hard for consumers:  whilst one million people took out payday loans in 2017 at least 10 million used an unarranged overdraft.

The report finds that those on the lowest incomes are much more likely to be in arrears on utility bills and credit commitments: 16 per cent of those on the lowest incomes (lowest 10 per cent of incomes) were in arrears in 2012/14 compared with only one per cent of those with the highest incomes (highest 10 per cent of incomes).

One issue for those experiencing the extra costs of being poor is not just how much they spend, but the costs of essential products and services becoming totally unaffordable. From the report we see that only six in ten working-age adults had home contents insurance in 2016–17, and we also know that 60% of those earning £15,000 or less per annum have no contents cover. Of those who did not have it, nearly a third said they could not afford it.

Fair by Design’s plans to eradicate the poverty premium             

In Fair by Design’s recent roadmap, charting how we will get rid of all the extra costs of poverty, we set out plans to get rid of the poverty premium. We call on businesses, including all consumer credit providers, to eradicate the poverty premium from all of their products and services to ensure low income customers aren’t paying more for essentials. Fair by Design want the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to broaden its regulation of all forms of high cost credit including caps on those not currently covered: overdrafts, rent-to-own, home-collected credit, catalogue credit, and store cards.

Fair by Design want landlords to ensure every new housing tenant is automatically placed on the cheapest energy tariff, to stop them from paying over the odds on their fuel bills, particularly those unaware of the fuel provider choices which exist, and we want employers to support employees on wage advances to help them to avoid turning to high cost credit lenders.

Find out more about the Fair by Design movement on our website and follow its activities on twitter.

Dan Gregory describes how a Community Wealth Fund backed by an alliance of ‘social sector’ organisations could support the communities who need it most.

“We know that money doesn’t grow on trees here in the civil society sector, the third sector or the VCSE sector. Sorry, actually, that’s the social sector as we’re called this week, thanks to the Government’s latest strategy for, confusingly, civil society.

Anyway, we know that money doesn’t grow on trees. Of course, it’s the other way around. We know very well that trees, plants and seedlings grow on stacks of coins in pictures we use on the front of reports about charity funding, social investment and access to finance. Indeed, the less money there is, the more reports with seedlings and stacks of coins we seem to produce. Because there doesn’t seem to be much money around. Councils are going bust, government debt is now at £1.8 trillion, household debt is bigger than ever, and no-one knows what will replace EU funding which has been so important to the, er, social sector.

Civil Society Strategy

Whilst the Office for Civil Society’s new strategy provides a welcome clarity to the Government’s vision for the social sector (it doesn’t sound too bad when you keep saying it), what it didn’t do was throw up significant new money. This feels like a missed opportunity.

We know that within government and beyond, conversations have already started about how to make best use of the next wave of dormant assets – the billions of pounds of new money that could one day be released, currently lying unused in forgotten pension and insurance funds, and beyond. And it feels like there would be real value now – in the context of the debate about the strategy – to open up those conversations to wider participation.

“Now I think we have an even more compelling idea, more inclusive than social investment, and more meaningful for places that have been somewhat left behind.”

I can understand why some in government might not find that prospect appealing. As a civil servant working a decade ago on the first wave of unclaimed assets – dormant bank and building society accounts that have largely been directed toward social investment – it was my job to follow and influence the debates about where this money should go. What I found frustrating then from inside government was when social sector leaders bemoaned how long it was taking for the money to be released, ignoring the inevitable lengthy process of working with the financial institutions, drafting and passing legislation, allowing time for forgotten assets to be reunited with their owners and so on. I imagine civil servants in OCS today are similarly bored of this, knowing full well it may take years and years before any money appears.

But what I think we can learn from that experience is the value of sector representatives coming together with a common voice to develop a compelling vision. Social investment as an idea was never really that enthusiastically embraced across the wider social sector but a few influential thinkers – and someone who was funding the Labour party at the time – worked together to sell the vision, and it stuck, with those in power.

Left behind places

Now I think we have an even more compelling idea, more inclusive than social investment, and more meaningful for places that have been somewhat left behind. In many places, civil society is fragile and held back from helping communities fulfil their potential. We need to nurture social capital in areas where it is weak or non-existent and help communities develop the capabilities needed to participate in their own development.

There is a remarkable consensus emerging about where money is really needed and how dormant assets could help. This is a case for an ambitious long-term endowment which could help those areas that have – to date – missed out on the proceeds of a growing economy. This idea could be understood as a sort of Sovereign Wealth Fund for communities – supporting the civic economy of areas that need it most. We know we must address the fragility of the institutions and spaces that enable participation and association, in turn rebuilding social capital. This fund would support a richer and more resilient civil society in areas which have struggled in the face of economic and social challenges.

The Government had previously stated that these new resources would allow our charities and voluntary groups to become more sustainable and independent. NCVO has said that the money should capitalise local charities to help establish their future sustainability, and enable charities and community groups to buy community assets such as sports pitches, parks, historic buildings or pubs. Locality have suggested that some of the money could be used to secure the future of vital community assets. The Civil Society Futures Inquiry points to the value and importance of putting resources into the hands of local communities and giving them decision making power to improve their areas.

Ministerial bun fight

It is a real shame the latest OCS strategy didn’t commit the government more strongly to this course. Because I fear a bunfight among future Ministers across government who may all have their own idea of what ‘good causes’ might mean. Last time around, social investment was up against financial inclusion and young people, and somehow won through. If the social sector (see I’ve got it now), is to stand a chance of making its voice heard again, it needs to forge a similar consensus, and work to make it a reality.

To that end, the Alliance for a Community Wealth Fund is publishing a summary of what feels an important emerging idea. It reflects the views of those consulted so far. But it is the start of a process and significantly more consultation and dialogue is needed. Our aspiration is, over the coming months, to further strengthen a broad alliance in support of these ideas. Much like the fund itself, we hope this it takes us forward, unites rather than divides, and empowers those who want to see local communities thrive.”

Dan Gregory is an independent consultant and author of Strong, resourceful communities: The case for a Community Wealth Fund supported by an alliance of major funders and voluntary sector organisations, including Local Trust. This blog was cross posted from The Local Trust Website.

Imagine a situation where you work all the hours you can get in a job that doesn’t pay well just to put food on your family’s plate. All the while you are experiencing domestic abuse at the hands of your partner. Then at the end of the month your money is not enough to cover all of the repayment costs for furnishing your house. Life is already tough, but your financial situation makes life that much tougher.

Recently Migrants Organise received the exciting news that in partnership with a dedicated and passionate team of volunteers known as the Welcome Committee, they have been fully approved by the Home Office to become community sponsors.

Community Sponsorship is a new approach to refugee resettlement, based on a model already successful in Canada (where around 300,000 refugees have been resettled by local communities since 1979). It’s an opportunity for everyday people, volunteers, and community groups to come together to play the lead role in welcoming and supporting refugees to rebuild their lives and create long-lasting bonds.

Supporting refugees

At this stage, nothing is known about the family we will be meeting at the airport. We don’t know their names, age, their professions, their hobbies, passions and dreams, or who they were before war tore their lives apart.

But we do know it’s likely they came from Syria then living in a neighbouring country like Lebanon or Turkey.  We know their journey to the UK will be tiring as they experience a whole range of emotions: excitement, relief, feeling overwhelmed, and worried.

They too, whilst waiting at the airport, will be nervous with excitement: What if London isn’t how they expected it to be? What if they don’t like the home Migrants Organise has found for them? What if they hate the weather? What if it’s harder than was imagined?

Several months of planning and problem solving will come to a head in one moment of human connection.

Powered by volunteers

For our community sponsorship application, Migrants Organise took on the legal responsibility for the resettlement process, providing policies (e.g. safeguarding, financial), volunteer training, and guidance on structure, approach and best practice. However, the real force behind this work has been powered by the Welcome Committee, a team of inspiring and unstoppable volunteers.

Abby Robinson, co-founding member of the Welcome Committee says, “Deciding to put together a community sponsorship group was easy. Given the erosion of refugee protection around the world, this was something tangible which we could do. Even though we are only assisting one family, it feels like this is the start of something that it is a building block towards more inclusive communities and an antidote to the hostile and isolating experience many refugees may experience when arriving in this country.”

“In just over a year, we have grown from what started out as a room full of strangers, into a wonderfully supportive community group full of creativity, passion and determination. The group has managed to exceed fundraising targets, has secured accommodation, pondered ethical dilemmas, learned new skills, and through learning about the journey that refugees face in London, has developed a new-found understanding of the challenges that our communities face as a whole.’’

Benefits

One of the core benefits of community sponsorship is how it creates a strong network of allies, friends and neighbours to support newly arrived refugees who would otherwise be marginalised and isolated – from simple things like helping the family register with the GP and navigate public transport, to being a friendly face to chat with over a coffee. It is about having a community network invested in supporting them toward independence and to break down the loneliness and isolation often experienced by newly arrived refugees.

Last year, Samir and his family were welcomed to Greater Manchester by St Monica’s Church, in Flixton. Watch their story. 

The Journey

The journey for community sponsors begins several months before the family arrives and includes:

• Forming a strong team of dedicated volunteers
• Registering as a legal structure or partnering with a charity (who will act as lead sponsor, taking on legal responsibility)
• Raising at least £9000
• Finding appropriate accommodation for 2 years
• Getting the approval of the local authority and establishing connections to local service providers, schools, job centres, etc
• Writing a safeguarding policy and resettlement plan

Whilst the list may seem daunting Migrants Organise is happy to share its experience and knowledge. Get in touch with [email protected] to find out more.

Given the vast size of the UK’s defined benefit pension funds, it is perhaps no surprise that, since the financial crisis, governments in the UK have looked to funds to contribute to efforts to enable economic recovery, and ‘rebalance’ the economy in geographical and sectoral terms. Assets in UK pension funds are equivalent to more than 120 per cent of UK GDP; within this, local authority funds hold assets worth more than £200 billion.

The May government’s recent ‘patient capital’ review considered whether pension funds were being prohibited by regulation from investing in a manner which supported economic growth as well as fund performance, and the earlier review by John Kay under the coalition government considered whether over-intermediation in the investment chain was having a similar impact.

In terms of local authority funds, the coalition government lifted restrictions on private equity, and the May government is (tentatively) taking forward former Chancellor George Osborne’s agenda to create a small number of mega-funds within the LGPS.

My recent report for the Barrow Cadbury Trust, Localising Pension Fund Investments, considered the specific issue of whether pension fund investment strategies can be localised as part of this broader agenda. Some local authority funds, notably the Greater Manchester Pension Fund, have begun to demonstrate an appetite for, and emerging track record in, local investments.

In general, however, pension funds are invested for the benefit of scheme members, and there are legitimate concerns about the ‘double exposure’ associated with local investment, whereby a local economic downturn might also be reflected in reduced returns on pension investments. However, the concentration of investment hitherto in London-centred capital markets has created similar risk dynamics, whereby a financial crisis led to a deep, national recession, as well as impacting conventional asset values very negatively. Furthermore, the growth of the City of London, partly assisted by pension fund investment practice, arguably contributed to the finance sector over-heating in the first place.

So the risks to members in partially localising investment might have been over-stated. What do we actually know about local investments among pension funds? Unfortunately, frustratingly little. Private sector and especially local authority funds are now allocating a larger portion of their funds to ‘alternative’ asset classes than before the crisis. In general, local authority funds have more scope to invest in alternatives, having not made the same move into gilts witnessed in private sector funds since the crisis. Interestingly, however, the allocation to alternatives for the largest local authority funds has slightly fallen in the last few years.

Within the alternative investments category, local authority pension funds remain far more likely to invest in private equity than assets such as infrastructure (although the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive). A consensus that the private equity industry, with attractively priced opportunities, will provide funds with above-average returns emerges very strongly from funds’  recent annual statements (whereas in the private sector, the move to alternative assets is largely explained by increased hedge fund investments).

An interest in private equity clearly suggests opportunities for the local economy, where investments might take a less conventional form. Yet generally speaking funds’ interest in private equity is part of a diversification strategy, associated with the need to hedge risks as scheme demographics mature. The compatibility with local investments cannot be assumed.

Nor can the apparent synergy between fund scale and localisation. While merged funds might have the capacity to make longer-term, riskier investments, my conversations with stakeholders, summarised in the Barrow Cadbury report, demonstrate that pooled funds are more efficient precisely because they can make larger investments, even if on average the returns are lower. But local investments are small investments, more likely to be attractive to smaller investors. Pooling initiatives risk further detaching investment strategies from local economies.

This issue notwithstanding, the report suggests that the creation of metro-mayors does increase the scope for local authority pension funds to be elected a little more strategically, without compromising the focus on member interests. However, it may be that the localisation agenda should focus rather more on how local authorities can encourage private funds to invest more in their local economy.

Metro-mayors should be looking to mediate between private sector pension funds and potential investees in the local economy, and to create the kind of long-term economic strategies – if central government will let them! – that institutional investors can rely upon in planning their investments.

There is also growing support for the notion that local authorities require greater fiscal powers in order to share investment risks with pension funds, or that national institutions which have such powers, like the British Business Bank, should have a much stronger mandate to support long-term investment in disadvantaged regions.

It is worth noting, finally, that any plan based on the assumption that defined benefit pensions provision will continue indefinitely is, sadly, bound to fail. We are only now beginning to contemplate the implications of the large-scale shift to defined contribution pensions saving in the private sector. Defined contribution investment strategies are generally even more conservative, because of the individualisation of risks. But they also, potentially, put more control into the hands of member over where their savings end up. Will a greater appetite for local investments emerge? If so, there will be lessons to learn for all forms of pensions provision, including LGPS.

Craig Berry is reader in political economy at Manchester Metropolitan University.  This blog was originally published on the Room 151 Blogs page.   Our thanks to them  for allowing us to repost.

We’re really pleased to be part of the WMCA’s new Inclusive Growth Unit.  It’s an opportunity to go beyond a focus on ‘problem people’ to the systemic reasons why we fail to share prosperity and how this can be addressed regionally.

We will be co-ordinating the input of civil society organisations into the inclusive growth agenda as well as having more general input into the Unit from our 20 years experience of exploring beneficial economics in the region. As part of our Barrow Cadbury funded work we’ve already held a workshop in February for organisations who have some level of ‘frontline’ role in economic justice and shared some initial conclusions with our WMCA contacts.

It will be a challenge for the WMCA and its partners, including ourselves, to co-ordinate the plethora of work strands – and overlaps with the social enterprise task force – into something that has the power to impact on the ‘business as usual’ growth-led approach that we have seen in every strategic economic plan since they were invented. But from what we have seen there is a genuine appetite to see change in how we value and deliver economics – so we are confident this is worth engaging with. The appointment of Claire Spencer as inclusive growth lead is definitely worth celebrating, and many of her new colleagues seem to share her willingness to push the boundaries.

We’re told that the Unit will cover not only public service reform agenda but cross-cuts the whole WMCA remit: it would be excellent to end the silo-ing of anything relating to ‘people’ away from the macho realm of ‘growth’.

From a specifically Localising Prosperity perspective, we’re also hoping to ensure that this agenda focuses on not only jobs but diversifying and democratising economic ownership, and building local economies around its assets and local ‘anchor’ institutions – the story of Preston remains an inspiration on this and the Centre for Local Economic Strategies have worked with anchor institutions in Birmingham on a similar approach. Our recent work with New Economics Foundation on the economic potential of social care in the WM economy highlighted how what’s described as the ‘foundational economy’ (the one that provides what human beings actually need, often based in the places where they actually live) provides a useful driver for inclusive economics.

Of course all this must be underpinned by the right set of values and measures: social care co-operatives hit all the right numbers if you value the goods, services, livelihoods, redistribution and economic power that it brings; less so if you are motivated by GVA (Gross Value Added). So this is the starting point for the work we’re planning.

We’re looking forward to an interesting few months.

Senator Ratna Omidvar delivered one of the keynote speeches at the ‘Integration and Immigration: getting it right locally conference’ on 17 May organised by British Future, Hope not Hate and Barrow Cadbury Trust.  She spoke of her journey from India to Canada via warring Iran, her pride in sponsoring refugees and how integration must work on a subjective person to person level to have an impact on a national scale. Below is an abridged version of her speech:

It’s humbling being asked to come to another country to share my insights. But it is also perhaps an opportunity to engage in a bit of two-way traffic, because our system has borrowed so much from yours, in particular our parliamentary system. When I became a Senator I understood better how much we base our parliamentary democracy on yours.  So this is an appropriate opportunity to say “Thank You” and give something back.

I may not have all the answers or the silver bullets that you desire.  What I do have is a story to tell, some ideas to share, and a perspective of how my own country manages migration flows and continues to stitch immigrants and refugees into its national fabric.

I was born in Amritsar, India – home to the famous Golden Temple. After studying at the University of Delhi, I headed off the West Germany to continue my education there.

One day I went hiking in the Alps with some other foreign students. By the time we climbed back down I had met my life partner. He was from Iran, and so after we completed our studies, rather naively as it turned out, we wanted to give his home country a try.  Bad idea. We arrived in Tehran during one of the bloodiest and most turbulent periods in Iran’s history. 2500 years of Persian monarchy was coming to an end with the Islamic Revolution and the overthrow of the Shah.  We knew we had to get out but it wasn’t going to be easy. We had a child by that time – still a baby – and all air routes out of Iran were closed.

So we decided, with all the courage of youth, to pack our bags, load up the baby carriage and make the long, cold journey by road. After two horrific days, we found ourselves in a small square room on the border of Iran and Turkey. On one side of the room: a portrait of Ayatollah Khomeini. On the other: a portrait of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic.

We were cold, very tired and very afraid. And frankly, we were telling whatever lies we could in order to get to the other side of the room. We omitted the fact that we had money crammed up the legs of the baby carriage. We did not tell the guards that our papers were not quite real.

They ripped everything apart – the diaper bag, the milk powder – but they did not think to check the carriage.

We made it to the other side. And through Turkey we eventually made it to Germany. Unfortunately they were not accepting a lot of immigrants at the time, so we eventually applied to Canada – and were rejected. But we persisted and thanks to friends in Canada, we were eventually sponsored and made that initial journey across the Atlantic.

My story is not special. The details differ from one migrant to another, but we all share similar experiences. We all leave one life to find another. And we all faced the inevitable struggles from rejection to reinvention; from prejudice to persistence.

Every immigrant stars in the same four part serial: Arrival, rejection, then slow reinvention and renewal, and then hopefully “redemption”, if not in our lives then through the lives of our children.

…

THE CANADIAN EXPERIENCE

Canada has always been seen as a nation of immigrants, and therefore of diversity. In a recent survey, it was further determined that Canadians believe that multiculturalism, diversity and inclusions are our most notable contribution to the world. So now it is less about peacekeeping and foreign aid and more about who we are and how we get along with each other. Multiculturalism, and the acceptance of immigrants and refugees now stand out as the best way Canadians feel their country can be a role model for others and as a way to exert our influence on the global stage.

…

Here’s the good thing about Canada: The results of immigration in the long term are very encouraging. The children of immigrants enjoy an exceptional rate of success in school, outpacing the success of native-born Canadians. Sixty per cent of immigrants buy homes within six years of arrival. And rates of intermarriage are growing, particularly in urban centres. Many of my country’s future elites are second and third generation immigrants. This will surely continue.

The bad: Canada often struggles to recognize foreign credentials. There is a common mythology that internationally trained doctors and scientists drive our taxis and Ubers in Canada. Name-based discrimination is another barrier to entry for newcomers. In Canada you are 35% more likely to be called for a job interview if your name is Matthew and not Sameer. This limits our success greatly.

And the ugly truth is that Canada still struggles with racism, particularly towards black Canadians and indigenous peoples. Extreme poverty and rising inequality are perhaps the greatest indicators of this ugliness.

Moving to public opinion, Canada and the United Kingdom have a lot more in common than you think with respect to public opinion on migration. And while Canada is seen both within its borders and around the world as a beacon, people often need to see that multiculturalism is truly working in order to receive their stamp of approval.

Work by Canadian academics Randy Besco and Erin Tolley point to a rough rule of thirds. About one third of Canadians hold clearly negative views. They want less immigration and think minorities should receive less accommodation.  Another third are greatly idealistic about immigration and diversity, and are vocal in their rejections of proposals that negatively target specific groups. The middle third are ‘conditional multiculturalists’. They will accept those who accept their national values. For instance, they might favour restrictions on the niqab in citizenship ceremonies, but not while accessing public services. They worry that some Muslims pose a threat to public safety, but they also think Muslims deserve equal treatment.

INTEGRATION IS LOCAL

I have always maintained that whilst immigration is a global and national phenomena, integration is a uniquely local experience. People may leave one country for another, but it is the local experience that will be felt first hand.  I am talking not just of the newcomers. I believe that the conversation about integration and inclusion has to shift to include three players – first the newcomers, second all existing residents in the local community, and third local institutions. These are the groups that help or hinder integration.

There is a rich narrative of local best practices from the world that lends itself to this idea. Cities of Migration the world over are experimenting and succeeding with unique local expressions of innovation. For example, Copenhagen teaches cycling culture to newly arrived Muslim women. Barcelona equips local residents with facts to dispel fake news about migrants. And Toronto matches immigrant job seekers with mentors drawn from the same occupation.

Good ideas have long legs, and some of the best ideas have indeed originated from right here in London: The London Living Wage is just one example. And because local communities are far better placed than their national governments to nimbly borrow and adapt ideas, the London Living Wage has been embraced by prominent labour unions and activists across Europe and North America.

SPONSORING REFUGEES

Conversely, your country has just borrowed an idea from my country that deserves your attention. That idea is to allow everyday citizens to privately sponsor refugees to come to their country.

In Canada, any individual can act as de facto guarantors for refugee families during their first year of resettlement. Before these refugees arrive, these volunteers raise funds to provide them with the necessities – food, shelter. And they develop resettlement plans to ensure these refugees have the support they need to belong and thrive in our country. This can include anything from English language training and enrolments in public schools to weekend museum trips.

As an individual who has privately sponsored refugees, I can attest that it is among one of the most rewarding experiences in my life.

Today, more than 250 communities across Canada are home to these refugees.  One in three Canadians either sponsored a refugee directly or knows someone who has. This I think, is a modern nation building strategy, more about social cohesion and less about national infrastructure.

This is social engineering at its best.

WHAT MATTERS?

So in closing I want to leave you with five good ideas which may be helpful:

First, governance matters. Now more than ever the pursuit of the national interest needs to carry through to the local level. And the procedures that govern our processes need to be clear, consistent and easy for the public to understand.  It is this confidence that has led the public to support public investments in integration.

Second, local institutions matter. We know that migration issues are local issues at their core. It is libraries, hospitals, schools, parks and bus stops that facilitate or hinder integration.  My favourite examples come from Toronto, where libraries are no longer just a place to borrow books, but they also double as job search clubs. In Dublin, it was the bus service that launched an anti-racism campaign.

Third, human nature matters. Time and time again it has been proven that barriers between migrants and other residents fall when they have opportunities to come together. In these times of post-truth or post-fact, we have to fight emotion with emotion. Reason over emotion alone will not prevail. And what better to bring emotion and empathy to the front than through human relations.  So a bit of social engineering here would be great.

Fourth, language matters. Words give shape to our values and since values shift over time, so must language. Roughly two decades ago, a small whisper campaign started in Canada. It sought to displace the word “foreign” to “internationally-trained”. Just think of the shift in your minds when you use one word instead of the other.

LANGUAGE AND NARRATIVE

Perhaps the time has come to shift some of your language. Here and in Europe, the terminology of the day is “migrant”, whereas we in Canada use the word “immigrant”. Possibly because we are more comfortable with the permanent nature of the phenomena.  I have just come from Berlin, from a conversation about diversity and integration. I have left Berlin with a conviction that the words need to shift. Diversity is nothing more than a demographic reality. Integration is no more than a two way or three way process over time. The end goal is always inclusion. As someone has said, diversity is a fact, inclusion is a choice. What good is integration, if it does not guarantee inclusion – economic, social and political inclusion?

And finally, narrative and stories matter.  I have always been a big believer in the power of role models and champions. However recently I have begun to develop a slightly more nuanced view. I believe now that the story of the Immigrant as Hero is ultimately not very helpful. For one, heroes are exceptional, for another most heroes will have feet of clay.  We are far better advised to portray immigrants as ordinary people: as taxpayers, as neighbours, as good parents. We need to normalise them and make them more human and therefore more likely to be your friend, your buddy or a member of your book club.

Watch a bite-sized video of the conference which Ratna Omidvar spoke at

It certainly won’t come as a surprise to readers that banks and other creditors hold a huge amount of data – but you may be surprised to learn that this data isn’t just restricted to individuals’ financial information and transaction data. In certain situations, data about a customer’s wider circumstances or ‘vulnerable’ situation is also recorded; for example, if they have a health condition or disability that might affect their ability to manage their money or communicate with the organisation.

This is something that regulated firms are required to do by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in an effort to ensure that customers in vulnerable situations are treated fairly and provided with additional support where necessary. This support ranges from giving consumers greater choice about how the firm communicates with them, e.g. in braille, to making reasonable adjustments in relation to how and when the customer repays their debts. For customers in particularly difficult situations, such reasonable adjustments can be life-changing and, in some cases, even life-saving.

But, it is impossible for firms to make these changes without the relevant information – without the relevant data.

Are firms obtaining this data in the best way for consumers?

At the moment the vast majority of customers who are flagged as ‘vulnerable’ on firms’ systems have been classed in this way because they, or a trusted third party, have disclosed information about a vulnerable situation to the firm.

While this approach gives the customer control over what information they provide to which organisation, it can also be problematic. It can take a great deal of effort – both in terms of time and emotional exertion – to disclose such situations to financial firms; there are often complex processes to go through and many firms require individuals to provide evidence of their situation. This is tough on consumers and may put some people off from ever disclosing their situation to other organisations that they deal with – meaning they might not get support that otherwise would have been available to them.

latest research findings

This is backed up by our latest research, in which we surveyed members of the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute’s research community, all of whom had first-hand experience of mental health problems. We found that:

• Nearly half (44 per cent) of respondents have told at least one bank about their mental health condition and 38 per cent have told other types of lender.
• Over a quarter (26 per cent) of those surveyed had told more than one lender about their mental health problem (26 per cent).
• Two thirds (67 per cent) of those who had disclosed their condition to their bank found it difficult to do so, as did 65 per cent of those who disclosed to another creditor.

We asked participants to explain why they found it so difficult to disclose this information, and some of the responses were truly shocking; for example:

“Having to explain to banks/ other people you don’t know but you are forced to explain is very stressful and unnerving… I come away feeling guilty and angry with my past… it made me feel suicidal.” (Survey respondent)

Could data-sharing between organisations help?

Given the number of consumers telling multiple firms about their situation and the difficulty many of them have doing it, it seems there could be significant benefits if firms were to share more data with one another. That way customers would no longer be required to disclose their situation to every firm – they would only have to tell one. This would make the customer’s life easier and arguably save time and costs for firms too.

These benefits seem great, but of course there are significant risks that need to be managed. The information recorded and shared by one organisation needs to be sufficiently clear, consistent and detailed to be used by other organisations; and it needs to be up-to-date and free from error, especially in the case of vulnerable situations that are temporary or episodic. There is also the risk that firms use the information to exclude certain customers from particular products or even take advantage of the customer (though this is something that could equally happen under the status quo).

Data-sharing can only work if firms find a way to share data about such situations without putting consumers at risk. This is something that consumers recognise: 84 per cent of our survey respondents said they would be happy for firms to share data about their mental health with other firms providing certain conditions are met. Of these conditions, the most important by far is that consumers trust all of the organisations that share and use their data (71 per cent).

So how might data-sharing work in practice?

While it was beyond the scope of our research to recommend a preferred system of data-sharing, we wanted to at least get organisations talking about how such a system might work. Based on a review of available evidence, interviews with industry experts and other key stakeholders, and the results of our consumer survey – we have identified a series of ‘building blocks’ on which these discussions could be based:

1. Data disclosure – organisations first need to consider ways of encouraging consumers to proactively disclose information about vulnerable situations to them. Crucially this involves creating an environment in which the consumer is comfortable and explaining why this information may be required.
2. Data capture – vulnerability can be complex, multi-faceted and episodic, which makes it difficult to neatly categorise in the binary way usually favoured by digital systems. Firms therefore need to consider how they capture such data in a standardised way, if data-sharing is to work.
3. Data hygiene – there must be systems in place to ensure that data is error-free and up-to-date, especially where consumers are affected by short-term or episodic vulnerable situations.
4. Data-sharing – there are multiple possible ways that firms could share data, whether this be direct with other firms or via a third party database. New technologies such as blockchain and open banking may also give consumers greater control over their data.
5. Data control – regardless of the way data is shared, it is of fundamental importance that the consumer retains control over their data and is able to change or delete the information stored about them, as required.

It is impossible to explain everything in detail in a short blog post, but these building blocks at least lay the foundations on which a data-sharing system could be built in future. Any conversations about such a system must take these factors into account. If not, we risk a system in which the possible benefits of increased data-sharing fail to outweigh its dangers.

Read the Executive Summary 

Read the full Research Report 

 This blog was also published on the Personal Finance Research Centre’s Medium account on 16 April 2018.