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 ffion@migrantsorganise.org 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.

This blog was originally published on the LSE British Policy and Politics blog.  Our thanks to the LSE for allowing us to repost.

The strange irony of Brexit is that the origins of the movement for withdrawing from the EU in the 1990s and 2000s have little in common with the public’s own motivations for voting Leave in 2016. The earlier campaigns for leaving the EU were at heart free-market and libertarian: they argued that the UK should break free from the protectionist shackles of EU institutions, set alight a bonfire of EU regulations, and forge new trade deals around the world. But, as we find in IPPR’s latest research, the public’s vision of Brexit is rather different. As the next stage of the UK-EU negotiations begin – on the all-important question of the future partnership – and the government is forced to confront some seemingly intractable trade-offs, it is essential to understand where the public’s priorities for the negotiations really lie.

With the help of polling company Opinium, we tested how the public would navigate a series of binary trade-offs in the negotiations – on trade and regulations, on immigration and services, on the ‘level playing field’ and state aid – to get a clearer view of their vision for post-Brexit Britain. The picture that emerged is in stark contrast to how the earlier generation of Brexiteers originally envisaged life outside the EU.

First, on regulations, we found that the public consistently favoured high employment, consumer, and environmental standards. For many of the policies which UK governments opposed at the time of their introduction and which were the cornerstone of earlier Euroscepticism – the Working Time Directive, the cap on bankers’ bonuses, renewable energy targets – we found firm public support. There was no appetite for deregulation among either remainers or leavers, and in some cases – such as the cap on bankers’ bonuses – both sides wanted tougher laws than already exist.

Figure 1: the public favour continued alignment with EU standards over deregulation

We also asked the public about the EU’s call for there to be a ‘level playing field’ between the UK and the EU post-Brexit, which includes requirements on aligning regulation and state aid rules. When asked whether they would prefer to align with EU consumer, environmental and employment rules to secure a far-reaching UK-EU trade agreement or instead lower standards, the public backed alignment (49%) over deregulation (28%).

On the other hand, the public showed considerably greater interest in a more activist state aid policy: when asked whether they would prefer to have greater flexibility on state aid to protect particular industries or to keep state aid limits for a far-reaching EU trade deal, 53% favoured greater state aid flexibility over EU state aid limits. On free movement, too, when asked to choose between imposing controls on EU citizens or maintaining free trade in services, our respondents showed a stronger preference for restricting immigration than for protecting services trade. The public seem more interested in using Brexit to enhance the power of the state than to roll it back.

Even on future trade deals, the public are not instinctive free-trading libertarians. While in principle the public have a clear preference for an independent trade policy – more people favour this than favour maintaining a soft Irish border – in practice there is strong opposition to any free trade agreements that lead to a race to the bottom.

Figure 2: there is a public preference for having an independent trade policy over protecting the soft Irish border.

US commerce secretary Wilbur Ross has suggested that alignment on food safety standards would be central to any future UK-US trade deal, but our survey found that only 8% of the public supported deregulating food safety standards in return for a trade deal with the US, compared to 82% who supported maintaining current food safety standards. Negotiating trade deals around the world may well turn out to be even more politically controversial than our membership of the EU.

Figure 3: the vast majority of the public are unwilling to sacrifice maintaining food safety standards for a trade deal with the US.

The vote to leave the EU was therefore far from a call for the UK to become a buccaneering, deregulated Singapore-on-Thames; instead the public appear to expect a larger state post-Brexit, with tougher regulations on everything from environmental protections to financial policy, additional controls on immigration, and more opportunities to use state aid. The referendum was more a vote for re-regulation than for de-regulation.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that all hope is lost in the negotiations. There are models that can address the public’s priorities while protecting our economy – for instance, IPPR’s ‘shared market’ approach, which prioritises continued alignment with EU rules while allowing for the option to diverge over time.

But it does mean there is no public appetite for a rupture from the European economic and social model after Brexit. There are signs that some parts of the government recognise this: Brexit Secretary David Davis has dismissed suggestions that withdrawal will be a means of cutting loose EU regulations, while DEFRA Secretary Michael Gove has pursued a high-standards agenda in environmental policy. Yet this will mean nothing without the right deal. As the next stage of talks with the EU begin, if the government wants public support for its negotiating position it must put its money where its mouth is, and negotiate a deal that keeps the European model close – and rejects the deregulation agenda outright.

This International Women’s Day falls in the centenary year of (some) women first getting the vote in general elections. But for decades before women had been both voting and even standing in local government elections, although sporadically, usually on the basis that they were the heads of wealthier households and as a result council ratepayers. The sister of Fawcett’s founder Millicent, the trailblazing doctor Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, was elected Mayor of Aldeburgh ten years before the 1918 law that recognised women’s right to the Parliamentary vote.

Despite that longer history of women’s voting rights, when it comes to women’s representation at local level the pace of change has been inexcusably slow – in fact Parliament has now caught up. We are at just a third women on our councils, and 32% in Westminster.

Supported by the Barrow Cadbury Trust, up to summer 2017, Fawcett and the LGiU ran a year-long commission to ask the question: “Does Local Government Work for Women?” Our answer was often an emphatic “no”. With just 4% of councils having a maternity policy for councillors; with sexist comments directed at 4 in 10 councillors by others within their party, and sexual harassment received by 10%; and with too little done to tackle a male-dominated working culture, it is clear things need to change.

Since the report was launched, we’ve made some steps towards altering this picture, and we’re carrying on our campaigning work on this. The parties are taking heed; councils from Wigan and Stockport to North Buckinghamshire have passed motions about the report and are taking action; and we are in discussions with the Government about what they can do to shift the structures that keep women out. Barrow Cadbury Trust’s support has enabled us to push sexism in our town halls up the agenda.

One of the most shocking findings of the Commission was that 94% of those holding a seat at the table of the new Combined Authorities were men. These are effectively the “cabinet” role for the new city regions across the country, from Greater Manchester to the Tees Valley – and in six of those regions they report to one of the entirely-male “metro mayors”.

These are brand new structures – and so it is shocking that no thought has been given to the gender makeup they would have when introduced. But while we continue to campaign for that to change, we can’t wait. We need women’s voices to be heard in the important policy discussions those Combined Authorities are having right now.

That’s why, supported by Barrow Cadbury Trust and by the Smallwood Trust, we are working with regional partners in Greater Manchester and the West Midlands to campaign for that to happen. We are bringing together diverse women in workshops over the next two months to hear what matters to them, to reflect on our research findings, and to campaign together for policy change. We want to show that there is another way for these new structures to ensure that they hear women’s voices and make decisions that reflect the impact that gender has on their lives. Find out more.

“Whilst carrying out my Review I was surprised and concerned by the indifference to race in our criminal justice system – in this respect it is hugely lagging behind other parts of our public sector and other nations. The people who staff our prisons, courts and even voluntary sector organisations working in criminal justice don’t reflect the people who receive their services. The picture of individuals working in the criminal justice system is a very different one you see from the people who live in it – particularly the picture you see when you go into our youth jails.

But let’s be clear, if you are in the criminal justice business in this country then you have got to be in the race business. There needs to be a step change to ensure that this issue does not fall off the table again.

Our criminal justice system can learn from other sectors, particularly education. Notwithstanding the poorer attainment of black boys there isn’t a school in London that doesn’t recognise and understand these issues. Practice might be patchy outside of diverse metropolitan areas but the recognition that we need to tackle this issue is deeply embedded within the educational establishment and across our schools. By contrast our criminal justice system is decades behind and this needs to change.

Our criminal justice system can also learn from other legal systems across the world. In New Zealand, for example, there is an established general principle that everything possible needs to be done to prevent BAME people getting a criminal record in the first place – and this is a bipartisan and accepted view across the political spectrum.

This recognition is vital because of what it means for a BAME person to end up in the criminal justice system. The double penalty of being from an ethnic minority background and having a criminal record can be hugely damaging for employment prospects and a third of those on Jobseeker’s Allowance have a criminal record. We need to tackle this across the piece but the latest stop and search figures show that we are moving in the wrong direction – whilst the use of stop and search has reduced, disproportionality has actually increased – you are now eight times more likely to be stopped and searched if you are BAME.

It is clear that the system is not working for any BAME group. We need a specific and culturally competent approach and a key part of the solution is a vibrant third sector. There is a need to grow and sustain the number of voluntary sector organisations with the confidence and ability to work with and meet the specific needs of cohorts such as Muslim women or Travellers. These groups are often small in number but high in need and experience high levels of disproportionality – for example, although the data does not exist I suspect from my work on the review that the greatest disproportionality in the system in fact involves the Traveller community.

In terms of legacy I am clear that I will remain on the scene to drive my recommendations forward. Significant work needs to be done to address sentencing disparities and a response is needed on this from the judiciary. The government has accepted my principle of explain or reform and we have succeeded in creating a cross party moment around these issues and the Labour Party as well as government are looking at my recommendations. In summary we have come a long way but there is still a lot of work to do.”