Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX) will be co-sponsoring a briefing session in the House of Lords this Wednesday, 16 July, from 5-7 pm.  The session is being chaired by Baroness Young of Hornsey, with speakers including Diana Johnson MP, Kathryn Cronin (Garden Court Chambers), Klara Skrivankova (Anti-Slavery International) and Caroline Robinson (FLEX). 

In this blog Caroline Robinson, co-director and founder of Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX) makes the case for a more effective response to human trafficking for labour exploitation.

As the public’s response to recent strike action on the part of public sector workers shows, it is not always easy to convince people of the need to protect the rights of all workers, British or migrant.  It is particularly hard in the face of high unemployment and a struggling economy, when the argument is put that migrant workers are filling roles British workers could take.

Yet, when it comes to debates about modern slavery, there is widespread sympathy and support for the victims, the majority of whom are migrant workers exploited for their labour. This paradox arises, simply put, because victims are viewed as deserving protections whereas potential victims are not. Our job is to make the argument that protections are most useful before someone becomes a victim and therefore should be applied to all workers regardless of migrant status.

In debate on this question, people often suggest that greater labour protections would act as a pull factor towards the UK. Yet, the recent Migration Advisory Committee report on low skilled migration suggests that in fact the opposite is true – that the absence of labour protections creates the demand for migrant workers, ergo labour protections reduce that demand.

But it is not just public opinion that is contradictory: migrant workers also face a confusing policy landscape. On the one hand there are increasing checks on immigration status at work and home provided for in the new Immigration Act and reduced labour protections as a result of the Government’s ‘red tape challenge’; then on the other hand there is Theresa May’s high-profile campaign against  ‘modern day slavery’.

Only last month the UK government, in adopting a new Protocol to the international Forced Labour Convention, recognised that greater labour protections serve to prevent acts of modern slavery from taking place. This supports the case made by Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX) in our working paper on Preventing Trafficking for Labour Exploitation, that the UK needs a much stronger labour inspection system to prevent people from being exploited for their labour. We know that where gaps in the enforcement of labour protections exist, unscrupulous employers will take advantage of such gaps and exploitation will snowball from minor infringements of employment law to severe exploitation that constitutes modern slavery.

The Modern Slavery Bill offers an opportunity to improve labour protections for vulnerable workers as a means of preventing acts of severe exploitation. The debate around the Bill should focus on why, in modern Britain, workers are still being exploited for their labour in the restaurants we visit, hotels we stay in and on the construction sites all around us.

Yet, so far the Home Secretary has resisted calls for an expanded Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA) in this Bill that could serve as an effective labour inspectorate, particularly in high-risk sectors where exploitation is rife. Instead the GLA has been moved into the Home Office, placing in great jeopardy its role to protect all workers regardless of status.

As politicians of all parties declare their support for ending slavery in the UK, there is a unique opportunity to put in place measures that would ensure no worker ends up in exploitation. But this opportunity will be missed if our leaders continue to talk tough on modern slavery without recognising that labour protections for all workers is the first line of defence in this fight.

Caroline Robinson is co-Director and founder of Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX). FLEX promotes effective responses to human trafficking for labour exploitation that prioritise the needs and voice of the victims and their human rights. Caroline is also a founder and Editorial Board Member of the Anti-Trafficking Review, an international open access journal that offers an outlet for dialogue between academics, practitioners, trafficked persons and advocates on anti-trafficking issues.

A cultural polarisation over attitudes to immigration, according to the authors of the new British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey chapter on immigration published today, could generate long-term political headaches for politicians who adopt a tough anti-immigration agenda in search of public support.

‘Responding to the concerns of voters worried about immigration today risks alienating the rising sections of the electorate whose political voice will become steadily louder in elections to come’, say authors Anthony Heath and Rob Ford. Their BSA report shows that levels of education are a strong predictor of attitudes towards immigration, with an especially stark polarisation between the attitudes of graduates and those with no qualifications. Sixty per cent of those with a degree believe that immigration is beneficial for the economy, and another 16 per cent see it as having neutral impacts, leaving just 22% of graduates who believe that the economic impacts of immigration are negative.

Yet this three-to-one margin in favour of the economic benefits of migration among graduates is reversed among Britons who left school with no educational qualifications: where 61 per cent believe that the impact is negative, 21% see it as neutral, and just 16 per cent believe that the economic benefits are positive.

The political dilemma, according to academics Anthony Heath and Rob Ford, co-authors of the BSA study, arises from how short-term and longer-term political pressures pull in opposite directions.

“Although UKIP competition creates a short-term demand for restrictive migration policies, such policies may cause problems in the longer run. Advocating strongly restrictive immigration policies risks alienating the more liberal third of the population – and given constraints on policy and high political distrust, may not convince the most anti-immigration voters anyway. Moreover, long-term demographic change is moving society in the opposite direction, because the most pro-migration social groups – university graduates and professionals – are steadily growing while the most anti-migrant groups – unskilled  manual workers and those with no qualifications – are in sharp decline,” the authors write.

They note that, in 1989, just 7 per cent of BSA respondents were graduates, while 44 per cent had no qualifications. Now graduates (25 per cent) outnumber those without any qualifications (20 per cent), according to the BSA study. It also reports that those whose parents were migrants to Britain see both the cultural and economic impacts of migration as positive, as do Londoners.

The challenge to business

If the BSA study presents dilemmas for politicians, it presents a significant challenge for business advocates of the economic benefits of migration too. The BSA survey presents clear evidence that graduates have been convinced, while those who didn’t go to university have not, leaving the public as a whole sceptical that migration will have a net benefit to Britain’s economy.

Yet both the content and style of economic advocacy about migration – which often focuses on the factual evidence about positive net contributions – remains pitched primarily to the more elite, educated audience which is already onside. A focus on the arguments and messengers who could connect with those who didn’t go to university –engaging their concerns about migration constructively – will be important if business advocates want to preach beyond the converted, and to seek majority public support.

Joining the club

BSA respondents were also asked how long it should be before migrants have full and equal access to the same welfare rights as British citizens. Most people believe that citizenship is a ‘club’ and that people need to earn entitlements to it. But the BSA findings show that the majority are pragmatic about how this works in practice: only a fairly small niche take a highly restrictive view.
One per cent say that migrants should ‘never’ have the same access to welfare as British citizens. Only a minority of around a quarter believe that the qualifying period for full welfare access should be five years or more. (18 per cent proposed a five-year wait for EU migrants, and 25 per cent proposed that this would be the right approach for non-EU migrants).

Around one in four (37 per cent) of respondents believe EU migrants should have full and equal access immediately (14 per cent) or after one year (23 per cent). In the BSA findings, most people would see two to three years as fair. Citizenship usually takes five years from those outside the EU, but EU membership constrains governments from discriminating between EU citizens.

This belief, that the willingness to contribute is important, goes with another feature of ‘fair play’ – which is that those who do contribute and play by the rules have to be accepted as fully and equal members of the club.

Lack of knowledge

Public attitudes may not always prove highly responsive to policy changes on immigration, where there is a lack of public knowledge, or low trust about policy. Respondents to the BSA survey were asked whether it was true that ‘there is a limit on the number of work permits the government issues each year to migrants to Britain coming from outside the EU who want to come and work in Britain. Most of these permits are reserved for those with better qualifications and English language skills’.

Forty-five per cent knew this was true, but 42 per cent thought it was false, while 14% didn’t know. Those who were most sceptical about immigration were more likely to give an incorrect answer about work permits.

Contact matters

The BSA report also shows that contact with migrants is associated with more positive, rather than negative views, about the impacts of immigration. ‘While socially marginal groups worry the most about the impact of immigration, those most likely to be directly exposed to migration in their daily lives have much more positive views. Londoners, those with migrant heritage and those with migrant friends (all of whom are more likely to have regular direct contact with migrants) have more positive than negative views about immigration’s effects. The most intensely negative views are found among the oldest voters, and those with no migrant friends’, Heath and Ford conclude.

Reaching the pragmatic middle

The challenge for those who seek to make the positive case for immigration – whether they are political parties, business interests, migrants’ rights advocates or universities seeking continuing openness to international students – is to reach beyond these groups who already agree with them and engage the ‘pragmatic middle’ that the BSA survey identifies.

A rejectionist rump would pull up the drawbridge tomorrow. They are unlikely to ever engage with any argument that would still hold some appeal to the growing group who hold liberal attitudes already. Many have found their political home with UKIP, though it remains to be seen how many will stick with Nigel Farage right through to May 2015’s general election.

The BSA survey echoes existing analysis of public attitudes on immigration. This identifies, sitting between the liberals and rejectionists, a ‘pragmatic middle’ who have reasonable anxieties about the pace of change in Britain and what this means both economically and culturally, but who acknowledge that pulling up the drawbridge is not the answer. It is this group who will accept that migrants can ‘join the club’ and be ‘one of us’ – including accessing the British welfare system – but only if they first show their willingness to play by it’s rules: working hard and paying taxes, learning English and joining in with the community.

It’s this group that politicians and others need to engage. Like others, they have had enough of ‘tough’ promises that can’t be kept. As the issue of immigration becomes increasingly salient in the lead-up to May 2015, they will listen to those who make a pragmatic offer on immigration, one that acknowledges and engages their worries but which is both principled and achievable.

This blog was posted initially on the British Future website. 

Paul Hunter, Head of Research at the Smith Institute,  discusses the changing face of suburbia and the findings of a new report ‘Poverty in Suburbia’

From Abigail’s Party to Keeping Up Appearances, suburbia has long been synonymous with relative comfort and cheery affluence. Yet the stereotype of suburbs as places inhabited solely by the upwardly mobile middle classes belies the number of those in poverty who live on the edges of our cities and towns. Indeed, as our new report, Poverty in Suburbia, demonstrates, an increasing number of people  in suburbs are now living in poverty.  There are approximately 6.8 million people in poverty in the suburbs of England and Wales – or put another way – 57% of those in poverty live in the suburbs.

To date tracking poverty in suburbs has not taken place. There have been occasional interventions, such as Boris Johnson arguing that welfare reform would result in a social cleansing of inner London and a flight to the suburbs, as well as growing interest in the issue from the US – but there have been few studies in the UK. Indeed, there are no official statistics on suburbia.

To help fill this information gap we used a range of indicators to map poverty and evaluate which ‘at risk’ groups are most common in suburbs. We looked in detail at incidences of poverty in eight major cities and found that there are significant socio-economic trends in the suburbs which have been largely ignored and which may worsen with continued budget cuts and pressure/reductions in services. For example, of those at risk of poverty there were higher concentrations of lone parents, part-time workers, people with a disability, and pension credit recipients in the suburbs than the rest of the country.

What is more many of the risk factors appear to be increasing in suburbs and the number of suburban neighbourhoods with above average levels of poverty has risen by 33% over the last decade. In addition, more people per head are on benefits (pension credit, job seeker’s allowance, income support and disability living allowance) in the suburbs than the rest of the country. And the claimant rates have increased more per head (or decreased less) in the suburbs since the recession.

These findings suggest the need for a greater focus on the suburbs by government (both local and central), policy makers and anti-poverty campaigners. This is even more of an imperative given that higher housing costs and a lack of affordable housing in inner cities is thought to be forcing poorer tenants out to the suburbs. This phenomena, combined with predicted rises in child poverty rates, could mean that poverty becomes even more prevalent in suburbia.

Poverty in suburbia has been ignored for too long. With a majority of people in poverty living in suburbs there needs to be a much better understanding of the issue. Many suburban areas have been badly affected by reductions in local authority and central government spending.

Suburbs may not be looked upon with great affection by some, yet they remain places where people want to live.  It is important to ensure that what attracted people to suburbia in the first place is not eroded.  This is not to say suburbs should be only for the relatively wealthy, but rather that particular suburbs most in need of support should not be overlooked.  This requires not only renewal and investment in the built environment but also greater understanding of the resilience of their local economies and social infrastructure.  We need to reimagine how we view suburbia and rethink how we support poorer suburbs.  Failure to do so risks overlooking the majority of people in poverty.

The report challenges traditional notions of suburbs being places of relative affluence and wealth and shows that:

• More people per head of population were on benefits (pension credit, job seeker’s allowance, income support and disability living allowance) in the suburbs than the rest of the country. The claimant rates have increased more per head (or decreased less) since the recession in the suburbs.

• The gap in concentrations of poverty between cities and their suburban areas has narrowed. The report showed that incidences of poverty in the suburbs of eight major cities narrowed most in London (by 4 percentage points), Manchester (3 percentage points) and Newcastle (3 percentage points).

The report highlighted that:

• Over half of those in overcrowded homes now live in suburbia.

• Suburbs are home to more lone parents than the rest of the country.

• In the decade to 2011 suburbia experienced a 25% increase in unemployed households – compared with a 9% increase in the rest of the country.

• Around 60% of those claiming pension credit live in the suburbs.

• The number of people with a disability was higher in suburban areas than the rest of the country.

Poverty in Suburbia calls for a greater focus on the suburbs by government (both local and central), policy makers and anti-poverty campaigners. It warns that higher housing costs and a lack of affordable housing in inner cities may force poorer tenants out to the suburbs. This alongside predicted rises in child poverty could mean that poverty becomes even more prevalent in suburbia.

Paul Hunter, the report’s author and head of research at the Smith Institute said:

“Poverty in suburbia has been ignored for too long. The evidence shows that an increasing number of people in poverty live in our suburbs. There needs to be a much better understanding of poverty in suburbia. Many suburban areas have struggled with the impact of austerity measures, and there is now a pressing case for a suburban renaissance.”

A change to the levy system is also one of a number of proposals put forward as part of a ground-breaking analysis of Britain’s household debt crisis. It comes just days before the FCA takes over as regulator for the consumer credit industry on 1 April – overseeing credit cards, payday loans and debt collection firms.  Under current FCA regulations mortgage providers pay the highest levy, used to fund financial education and debt advice for struggling borrowers, due to their lending the most amount of money.

However, a new ‘Harm Index’ developed by Demos to reveal the true impact of various debts – combining financial, emotional and social consequences – finds that mortgages are relatively stress-free when compared with other more harmful forms of borrowing.  Demos asked people to rank each of their debts based on their negative impact such as legal consequences, mental wellbeing and affordability. Mortgage debts were given a Harm Rating of just 23 out of 100. By comparison the types of debt that people felt had the greatest negative impact included Payday Loans (68), Council Tax Arrears (62), Utility Bills (57) and Doorstep Lending (50).

Demos polling of 1,775 adults also revealed:

• 88% of adults were in some form of debt, but the majority have never accessed any support to help with their money worries.
• The most common reasons for borrowing money were a one-off purchase (36%) and to cover an unexpected expense (34%). Almost a quarter of people (23%) had used debt to afford everyday essentials.
• Over three times as many young people than pensioners are bearing the brunt of increasing debt. 55% of 18-24 year olds, and 48% of 25-34 year olds, said that their debt had increased over the past five years, compared to only 13% of over-65s.

Britain’s £5bn of hidden debt

The Demos analysis reveals that total arrears, combining unpaid rent and council tax, and overdue utility bills such as gas and electricity, comes to £4.7bn – almost £200 per household. However, official debt figures for the UK currently ignore arrears, which Demos’s Harm Index classes as a high-impact debt, instead choosing to calculate only consumer credit such as credit cards and bank loans.

Figures show that 9% of people face rent arrears while 11% are behind on their utility bills – almost double the number who have turned to payday loans (6%). The findings led Demos to call for the official measure to acknowledge arrears in order to achieve a complete picture of the nation’s debt problem and ensure those struggling with arrears receive targeted advice.

The report also recommends:

• Giving borrowers a legal right to negotiate directly with their creditors before missing payments or reaching crisis point – something current lending systems often don’t allow.
• The FCA and OFT should replicate best practice used by utility companies to implement a ‘three strikes’ approach on less flexible forms of debt such as arrears and mortgages.

Jo Salter, a researcher at Demos and author of the report, said:

“It is only fair that lenders whose practices cause the most harm to individuals should either contribute the most to funding debt advice or take steps to minimise their negative impacts.

“There is a £5bn black hole in official debt statistics and our research shows just how arrears on rent, council tax and utility bills often have just as big a negative impact on people as payday lending.

“Deciding which forms of debt are ‘bad’ and need stronger regulation should not be based on industry definitions. It should be judged by looking at what types of debt cause people the most stress, disrupt their relationships with those around them, and undermine their capacity to help themselves – because this is the reality of debt problems.” You can read a blog by Jo Salter about The Borrowers report here.

Sara Llewellin, Chief Executive at Barrow Cadbury Trust, said:

“The Barrow Cadbury Trust welcomes this timely report on debt from Demos, particularly the focus on the individual and the recommendation that debt statistics should include unpaid rent, council tax arrears and overdue utility bills.

“Also of concern to the Trust is the impact of debt on an individual’s emotional resilience and quality of life as well as the communities in which they live.”

Two new essays on the Policy Network Political Observatory open the project.  The first by Michael McTernan and Claudia Chwalisz ‘The rise of the populists: threat or corrective to the political establishment? looks at the rise of populism across Europe as a symptom of the contemporary crisis of governance and democracy.  The second by Tim Bale ‘Picking up on populism; playing with fire, or putting out the flames? investigates the signals the rise of populism sends to the mainstream.

The launch event ‘Beating populists in populist times’ is on 6 February in London with sessions on ‘understanding the populist signal’ and ‘The power of cities and community-building in the fight against populism’.  Speakers include: Tim Bale, Queen Mary University of London; Ernst Hillebrand, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Berlin; Alexandra Jones, Centre for Cities; David Marquand, University of Oxford; Alison McGovern, Labour MP; Matthew Taylor, The RSA; Frank van Erkel, City Development Director, Amsterdam.

Paying the Price is the first report in a three-year project investigating the effect of the ‘age of austerity’ in single parent families. With data collected from an online survey and in-depth interviews, the current report turns its attention to how single parents’ household budgets have been affected by austerity measures.

More than half of (55%) of single parents stated that they ran out of money before the end of almost every month. Almost nine in ten (87%) had borrowed money for sought emergency welfare support in the last year. Gingerbread also found that 40 per cent of single parents are behind on their bills.

Between 2010/2011 and 2011/2012, the incomes of single parent families have fallen by  six per cent whilst the incomes of couple families have, for the most part, remained static.

A significant source of financial trouble for single parent families was the rise in living costs; single parents are more affected by the costs of housing, utility bills and foods as they take up a larger portion of their income. Additionally, single parent families are significantly affected by tax and benefit reforms.

This can also hinder single parent families’ financial resilience with three quarters of single parent saying they were rarely able to save, leaving them unprepared to cope with unexpected financial costs.

Although many single parents have adopted a number of ways of coping with austerity, such as careful budget management and finding cheap substitutes for some products, many single parents are trapped in a difficult-to-escape cycle of financial fragility.

Read the full report here.

Families have been struggling under the cloud of ‘austerity’ since the 2007 recession. In recent months, there has been renewed debate across political lines over the consequences of austerity reforms and a stagnating economy for living standards. But while many households in the ‘squeezed middle’ are feeling the pinch, new research from Gingerbread shows that single parents’ finances have been hit particularly hard in recent years.

Bearing the austerity burden

Single parents are bearing a disproportionate burden of welfare reforms. The government’s own impact assessments for the wave of changes starting in April 2013 show that they are expected to make up from 20 to 50 per cent of those affected – yet single parents only make up seven per cent of all households.

Our Paying the Price report shows the harsh reality of these changes. Around 40 per cent of single parents we surveyed are paying extra council tax since the localisation of council tax support. Around one in eight single parents surveyed said they had already been hit by the benefit cap. And over a fifth of single parents said they had lost at least £100 per month due to the April 2013 reforms.

For those already living “down to the pounds and pence”, as one single parent put it, these are not insignificant sums. Single parents’ finances are already stretched to the limit – nearly eight out of ten single parents surveyed find managing household finances a constant struggle at best. Rising living costs affect single parents more than couples, as single parents on average spend a greater proportion of their budget on essential bills.

And despite recent ‘green shoots’ of economic growth, the logical response to tighter budgets – earning more – is not an option for many single parents. Out-of-work single parents are keen to find jobs, yet interviews revealed a lack of employment support and understanding among both employers and Jobcentre Plus advisers of single parents’ need for flexible work. And those in work often do not fare much better – nearly a fifth of single parents surveyed said they had lost employment income in the last year due to falling wages or hours, or redundancy.

Managing the downturn

Our research shows how single parents are working hard to manage within tighter finances. Micro-managing household budgets, cutting back on spending (particularly on themselves), scouring shops for the best prices, selling items online – these are just some of the strategies single parents are using to make ends meet.

“I only buy things that I really need. If it means sacrificing something else to buy something that I really need, I’ll do that. We’ll go without until I really, really need it”

But this is not enough to weather the financial storm for many single parents. In our survey, 40 per cent of single parents were in arrears on regular payments; and many had slipped quite far behind. Nearly 90 per cent of single parents surveyed have had to borrow money or seek welfare assistance when they ran out of money in the past 12 months. Around half of those surveyed had to rely on credit cards or overdrafts when they ran out of money; and one in eight had turned to payday or doorstep lenders. Worryingly, the single parents involved in our research suggest that this reliance on borrowed money is on the rise.

“I’m trying not to [take out loans]…when an unexpected bill come in, it’s so easy to say ‘Yes, I’ll have one, and then that’s going to be the last’ – until the next one. It’s just a circle”

A call for caution

It is, of course, welcome news that there are emerging signs of economic recovery in the UK. But this research serves as a timely reminder that not everyone is getting an equal share in these gains.

What is more, the financial situation for many single parents is only likely to get worse. The current welfare reform programme will be less than 60 per cent complete by the end of 2013/14. We do not yet know how universal credit will affect single parents, but recent analysis by the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex suggests they will lose out in cash terms, whether in or out of work. And the Chancellor has recently warned of further fiscal consolidation until 2020. It is clear that for those single parents already struggling, there is much more financial pain to come.

Gingerbread will continue to track how single parent families fare under austerity as part of our Paying the Price project. We would, however, urge policy-makers to think hard before embarking on further reforms, particularly to the tax and benefit system. The government’s stated aims for their welfare reforms are fairness and affordability. Pushing single parents to the brink financially, increasing the risk of debt and demand for emergency financial support in the process, risks failing on both counts.

“What is already a struggle becomes a budgeting mission which never ends. There is no respite from watching every penny”

Paying the Price is a research project being carried out by Gingerbread, with funding from Trust for London and Barrow Cadbury Trust. Read the first report tracking single parents under austerity at www.gingerbread.org.uk/payingtheprice.

The Big Society Audit, released by Civil Exchange and supported by  the Barrow Cadbury Trust, Joseph Rowntree Foundation and DHA points out that despite the rhetoric surrounding the Big Society, some of the most vulnerable are adversely affected by the policy. People with disabilities will experience 29% of the cuts, whilst 500,000 people in the UK are now dependent on food aid.

The report highlights stark differences between communities with regard to how they have been affected by the Big Society. The Big Society is at its healthiest in affluent and rural communities. Those living in the most deprived 10 per cent of the country were less likely (52%) to  agree that people pulled together to improve things than those in the least deprived 10 per cent (79%). Charitable giving and formal volunteering were more common in affluent areas and those living in affluent areas were more likely (73%) to say people in their neighborhood could be trusted that those living in disadvantages areas (22%).

The voluntary sector, despite an increased demand for its services has been largely left out in the cold. Many voluntary sector organisation, particularly those that work with vulnerable people, often in disadvantaged areas have experienced cuts to sources of income that they relied on. Many are now ‘running on empty’ with further funding cuts in the pipeline.

There are, however, positives to report. Communities are taking over vital assets and local services, greater transparency and accountability, and higher levels of volunteering, particularly amongst young people.

Read the full report here.

The survey was conducted as part of the report, Paying the Price: single parents in the age of austerity, due to be released next month. Paying the Price looks at how single parents are faring light of austerity cuts and rising living costs. Around a third (36 per cent) of their outgoings go on housing, food and fuel essentials as opposed to around a quarter (27 per cent) of couple families’ spending. Rising living cost have also impacted on single parents’ food expenditure with two-thirds of the parents saying they had cut back on food for themselves, and one in seven (14 per cent) said they had cut back on food for their children.

In responses these findings, Gingerbread chief executive Fiona Weir states, “Single parents aren’t feeling any warmth from an economy that is supposedly heating up. In fact, the majority expect things to get worse. At this time of year, parents with growing children need to buy new shoes and winter coats – but for too many this is becoming impossible.”