Counting the cost of data protection failures in local government

A laptop keyboard with a padlock on it.

By Steven McGinty

In August, Hampshire County Council were fined £100,000 by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) after social care files and 45 bags of confidential waste were found in a building, previously occupied by the council’s adults’ and children’s services team.

Steve Eckersley, the ICO’s head of enforcement, explained that this data protection breach affected over 100 people, with much of the information “highly sensitive” and about adults and children in vulnerable circumstances.  In his view:

“The council’s failure to look after this information was irresponsible. It not only broke the law, but put vulnerable people at risk.”

A widespread problem

In 2015, Big Brother Watch, an organisation which encourages more control over personal data, published a report highlighting that local authorities commit four data breaches every day. It found that between April 2011 and April 2014 there were at least 4,236 data breaches. This included, at least:

  • 401 instances of data loss or theft
  • 159 examples of data being shared with a third party
  • 99 cases of unauthorised people accessing or disclosing data
  • 658 instances of children’s personal data being breached

In the past year, local authorities have reported a 14% increase from the previous year in security breaches to the ICO. The figures show that 64% of all reported breaches involved accidentally disclosing data. This supports research which suggests that human error is a major cause of data protection breaches.

These statistics are both positive and negative for the ICO. Peter Woollacott, CEO of Huntsman Security, suggests that it could show that local government is becoming better at identifying security breaches. However, he also acknowledges that most organisations are subject to multiple attacks, with only some being detected.

Areas for improvement

In 2014, the ICO conducted nine advisory visits and four audits of social housing organisations. It found that improvements could be made in ten areas, including:

  • Data sharing – organisations regularly share personal data but few have formal policies and procedures to govern this sharing.
  • Data retention – few organisations have data retention schedules for personal data, which provide details on when records should be disposed of, although most only extend to physical records. Data protection legislation sets out that data must not be stored for ‘longer than necessary’.
  • Monitoring – there is little evidence that organisations monitor their compliance with data protection policies.
  • Homeworking – where organisations allow staff to work flexibly, it often wasn’t formalised.
  • Training – there are varying levels of data protection training found in organisations.

Public confidence

Unsurprisingly, high-profile data breaches, such as the loss of 25,000,000 child benefit claimants’ details in the post by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), have left the public concerned about their data.

In October, a YouGov poll showed that 57% of people believed that government departments could not share personal data securely. And 78% of people didn’t believe or didn’t know whether the government had the resources and technology to stop cyber-attacks.

A poll by Ipsos Mori has also shown that 60% of the public are more concerned about online privacy than a year ago. The three main reasons given were: private companies sharing data; private companies tracking data; and the reporting of government surveillance programmes.

The cost of data protection failures   

The implications of failing to protect the public’s data are serious. Not only could local government be heavily fined by the ICO, but it could also have an emotional or economic impact on individuals if their data enters the wrong hands and is used maliciously (e.g. to commit an act of fraud).  However, there are wider issues for government.

At the moment, both local and central government are undergoing digital transformation programmes, digitising their own operations and moving public services online. Examples include social workers using electronic social care records and the public paying council tax or booking appointments through their local council’s website.

If the public buy into ‘digital by default’ (the policy of ensuring online is the most convenient way of interacting with government), then services could be delivered a lot more efficiently, resulting in significant savings. However, if the public are concerned over the security of their personal data, they may be less willing to consent to its use by government.

We’ve already seen this in some areas. In 2014, the Scottish Government announced plans to expand an NHS register to cover all residents and share access with more than 100 public bodies, including HMRC. This year, the Scottish Government proposed a ‘Named Person Scheme’, where every child in Scotland would be assigned a state guardian, such as a teacher or health visitor.

With both of these schemes concerns have been raised over privacy, including from the ICO in Scotland. The Supreme Court has also ruled against the Named Person Scheme, over the data sharing proposals.

Final thoughts

Local government needs to be robust in ensuring compliance with data protection legislation. The financial costs could be great for local government, but the bigger concern should be public trust. If councils fail to meet their legal obligations, they may find it challenging to implement policies that use public data, even if it brings the public benefits.

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team. If you found this article interesting, you may also like to read our other data related articles. 

The Men’s Sheds revolution spreading around the world


by Stacey Dingwall

Last week I attended ‘Men’s Sheds: the movement in Scotland and the big picture internationally’, an event, organised by the Centre for Research & Development in Adult and Lifelong Learning (CR&DALL) at the University of Glasgow.

Our blog on the Men’s Sheds movement was one of our most popular last year. The movement originated in Victoria, Australia in the 1990s, as a place for men to socialise and take part in practical activities. 23 years later, there are now close to 1,000 such spaces in Australia. Sheds have also proven popular in Ireland (350 Sheds and counting) and Scotland (at least 38 up and running, with 30 in the start-up phase).

Research has indicated that loneliness and isolation are a particular issue for certain groups of men, which is reflected in higher suicide rates. Evaluations of Men’s Sheds have found participation to have a range of positive effects for these groups of men, predominantly in terms of their mental health and wellbeing.

The movement in Scotland …

The first speaker of the day was Willie Whitelaw, Secretary of the Scottish Men’s Sheds Association (SMSA). Willie highlighted two key points, which were themes throughout the rest of the afternoon:

  • The importance of Sheds not being regulated by outside agencies, e.g. government – this was something that those involved in Sheds felt particularly strong about. As noted by Professor Mike Osborne, the Director of CR&DALL, at the start of the afternoon, the reduction in government support for adult education has created a need for people to organise themselves in order to access lifelong learning opportunities. Thus, those who attend Sheds feel strongly about preserving the independence of the space, as well as its democratic dynamic.
  • How to ensure the sustainability of Sheds, and community projects in general – Willie described how the SMSA can support Sheds across Scotland by offering advice on applying for funding, how to keep things like rental costs low, and using mechanisms such as the Community Empowerment Bill and Community Asset Transfers to their advantage. Noting the difficulty that many community projects face in sustaining themselves long-term, Willie highlighted the Clydebank Independent Resource Centre (CIRC), which has been running for over 40 years, as a rare but good example of how sustainability can be achieved.


…and the big picture internationally

The second speaker of the day was Professor Barry Golding from Federation University Australia. Barry is the most prolific researcher in the area of Men’s Sheds, and published The Men’s Shed Movement: The Company of Men last year. Barry described the origins of the movement in Australia, and suggested it took off due to its provision of the three key things that men need: somewhere to go, something to do, and someone to talk to.

Barry also emphasised the importance of not formalising Men’s Sheds, and particularly not promoting the spaces as somewhere where men with health issues go (not a very attractive prospect to an outsider!) This point was also picked up by David Helmers, CEO of the Australian Men’s Shed’s Association. David described the experience of one Australian Shed who had a busload of patients arrive after being referred by health services. The point of the Shed is to create a third space for men (other than home or work) where they can relax and socialise with their peers. Any learning or health improvements that arise from this is coincidental and not forced.

Barry and David were followed by John Evoy of the International Men’s Shed Organisation (IMSO). John focused on the experience of Sheds in Ireland, noting the impact of the recession as a particular reason why the movement has taken off in Ireland. The IMSO’s aim is to support a million men through Sheds by 2022.


Strengthening the movement and using evidence

To finish the afternoon, two panels comprising Shed members and researchers considered the questions of how to strengthen and sustain the Men’s Sheds movement, and how research might be beneficial to this.

Shed members on the panel and in the audience suggested that changing the stereotype of Sheds as spaces for older men with health (particularly mental) issues is important. In fact, men of any age are welcome to attend their local Shed, and current members are particularly keen to encourage this in order to support the intergenerational transmission of practical skills that are otherwise at risk of being lost.

In terms of available evidence, it was noted that research on Men’s Sheds is still scarce, and focused on the Australian experience. Catherine Lido, a lecturer in psychology in the university’s School of Education, discussed the pros and cons of carrying out a systematic evaluation of the movement in the UK. Again, the importance of the democratic nature of Sheds was raised – allowing outside agencies, particularly government, to come in and carry out research would involve the loss of some control. Any research conducted would have to be participatory, in order that Shed members did not feel like they were the subject of an ‘experiment’. Barry Golding highlighted, however, that there is currently almost no data on UK Sheds available; rectifying this could strengthen Sheds’ chances of being successful in applications for funding to support their running costs.

If you enjoyed reading this, you may also be interested in our previous blog on ‘makerspaces‘, which have drawn comparisons with the Men’s Sheds movement.

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.

In support of qualitative research: the value of qualitative insight for policy formation

For many people, working in the tangible, measurable area of hard figures provides an element of certainty to decision making processes. It is perhaps for this reason that quantitative research was, for many years, the largely uncontested preference for decision makers and people looking for research to evidence their decisions.research

Some criticisms that are often made of qualitative research are that it:

  • can be limited in scope and size and have a longer turnaround time than quantitative studies;
  • can be difficult to replicate and scale to achieve multiple results across multiple test sites
  • can be too reliant on researcher interpretation, perception and experience, and therefore too exposed to bias and unreliability.

In contrast, quantitative research is stereotypically presented as producing results that are consistent and replicable; and therefore ‘higher quality’ and ‘more valid’.

A question of quality

Qualitative research has always suffered from a reputatio of being less rigorous. Instead of dealing with empirical data, it deals with the more human side of research and the effects of a programme. It questions the reasoning of understanding, and the emotional implications of an intervention. As a result, qualitative researchers approach their subject from an entirely different epistemological standpoint (i.e. they have a different view of what ‘knowledge’ is, what should be judged as evidence, and what should not).

This challenges the understanding of what is meant by “research standards”. While quantitative researchers base their understanding on demonstrable results which can be proven and replicated to the same standard, qualitative research brings to the fore questions of researcher subjectivity, the concepts of validity and reliability of results and questions of ethics. It also stresses the importance not only of measuring information to gain results, but gaining results through examining and interpreting experiences and social contexts. It considers these social factors on policy outcomes rather than by categorical measurement using a predefined scale.

A mixed methods approach

While this traditional dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative research methods is convenient, in practice many organisations value the social dimension especially when looking at understanding the impact of policy interventions.

In fact many local authorities and public sector bodies, including the Greater London Authority (GLA), are increasingly looking to qualitative researchers to form part of their wider research teams. In a policy context, it is clear that qualitative research has its place alongside quantitative research as part of a mixed methods approach to evidence based policy making.

Some of the things that qualitative research brings to policy research are: a flexible research method (the methods of collection and analysis can easily be changed as the research is being conducted and the data emerges); and very rich data (if done correctly, one study could provide research data for a number of research tasks).

It allows for a deeper understanding of what lies behind results – not just that something has had an impact, but why. It also allows researchers to understand social phenomena from an individual perspective and consider the specific contexts and conditions which have contributed to it (for example, the experience of stigma or discrimination).group-discussion_unsplash

Giving a voice to marginalised groups

Qualitative research is also finding a role in evaluative research teams, looking at the meanings and constructions which made an intervention effective or ineffective and potential steps to make it more successful in the future.

One example is in engaging with hard-to-reach or marginalised people. While quantitative research would tell you that certain groups of people engage less frequently in community groups for example, qualitative research would help to explore what motivates people to engage, and therefore tease out potential methods to increase engagement. Qualitative research also allows for bespoke research questions on niche topics to be created and explored thoroughly. This can be useful for local authorities who wish to explore issues at a local level with specific communities which would not necessarily be distinct within wider national quantitative data sets and statistics.

Supporting the personalisation agenda with bespoke research

Qualitative research is also becoming more popular as a supplementary option to hard data and raw statistics because of the increased importance which is being placed on individual experience and personalisation in public services, particularly, but not exclusively within health and social care. Qualitative data allows researchers to get an in-depth view of how people experience services.

While it will never be a replacement for the empirical data produced by quantitative data, qualitative data brings its own benefits and enhances understanding around policies in a way that hard data often cannot. It encourages professionals to think beyond figures as a benchmark for outcomes. It also allows them to gain rich data on the experiences of marginalised groups in society, who often go unrepresented in large national quantitative data sets.

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.


The pros and cons of the gig economy

By Heather Cameron

The ‘gig economy’, also described as the ‘sharing economy’, ‘collaborative economy’ or ‘on-demand economy’, has grown rapidly in the UK, a trend that is predicted to continue amid post-Brexit uncertainty.

A new study from the McKinsey Global Institute suggests that work in the gig economy is even more widespread than official data suggest, with 20-30% of people in the US and UK working independently. And while the report suggests the majority of these workers are participating in the gig economy by choice, a sizable minority are there reluctantly.

So what exactly is the gig economy and what are its benefits and drawbacks?

What is the gig economy?

The gig economy comprises enterprises such as Uber, the driver hire app, Airbnb, the accommodation-sharing platform, and Deliveroo, the online food delivery company. These enterprises enable people to use digital platforms to buy services from, and sell services to, each other.

A recent PwC study identified five key sectors within the gig economy:

  • peer-to-peer accommodation
  • peer-to-peer transportation
  • on-demand household services
  • on-demand professional services
  • collaborative finance

People that work in the gig economy, as described in the McKinsey report, are independent workers, rather than employees. Three key features of these workers have been identified:

  • a high degree of autonomy
  • payment by task, assignment, or sales
  • short-term relationship between the worker and the customer


The UK has seen higher growth in the gig economy than the rest of Europe, partly due to the recent establishment of London as a global financial technology (FinTech) hub. Transactions reached £7.4bn in 2015, almost double the previous year.

The number of jobs in the online gig economy advertised by UK employers increased by 14% between May and September, according to the Online Labour Index. This is around double the 7.5% rise elsewhere in Europe, and 6% in the US.

The McKinsey research estimates that there are up to 162 million independent workers in the US and Europe combined. The number of people classified as self-employed in the UK has grown by 47% since 2000, while the number of employed has risen by just 13% over the same period.


Supporters of the gig economy argue that it enables more people to participate in the labour market by providing flexible working, provides opportunities for the unemployed and could increase productivity.

Indeed, flexible working has proven very popular among the working population as more seek to achieve the perfect work-life balance. Those surveyed for the McKinsey report who chose independent work, reported greater satisfaction with their lives than traditional workers. They were more engaged in their work, and relished the chance to be their own boss and have more control over their hours. Even those working independently out of necessity reported being happier with the flexibility and content of the work they do, although they were less satisfied with their level of income and income security.

Both consumers and organisations can benefit through greater availability and accessibility of services and improved matching that better fulfils their needs.

And there is also the benefit of minimal cost. Digital business models have lower transaction costs for consumers, and organisations can keep costs down by using independent service providers only when they need them.

Nevertheless, challenges exist.


While there are more people in work than ever before, due in large part to the increase in self-employment, and despite the high levels of satisfaction among independent workers overall, there are concerns over job insecurity and low income.

Those working in the gig economy do not enjoy the same rights and protections as employed workers, such as health benefits, overtime pay and sick leave pay.

The TUC has highlighted that the increase in self-employment has not been driven by a boom in entrepreneurship but, instead, workers are increasingly forced by employers to accept precarious employment with low pay.

Deliveroo has recently come under fire from workers over their employment practices in relation to the minimum wage. And Uber is involved in an employment tribunal where drivers have contested their status as self-employed, suggesting they should be entitled to a range of benefits such as pension contributions as well as holiday and sick pay.

In a bid to address concerns about the lack of rights held by people working in the gig economy, Theresa May has recently appointed a former adviser of Tony Blair to head a review into employment rights across the new economy.

But this will be no easy feat, as the rapid development of the gig economy poses significant challenges for policy makers and regulators to keep up.

Final thoughts

As the McKinsey report argues, “expanding economic opportunities and income security policies for this group should be a priority”. Hopefully the review of employment rights will mark the first step in the right direction.

If you enjoyed reading this, you may also be interested in our previous blog on ‘the self-employment boom.

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.

Controlling the urban landscape: the pros and cons of putting public spaces in private hands


A 2007 report from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) described the growing private ownership and management of the public realm as a “quiet revolution in land ownership”.

The study included a handful of early examples, such as the Excel Centre and Canary Wharf in London, and Liverpool’s Paradise Street development (later rebranded Liverpool One). Since then, more of these privately owned public spaces (POPS) have been appearing across the UK, including Granary Square and the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in London, Gunwharf Quays in Portsmouth, and Brindleyplace in Birmingham.

The evolution of public space

Until relatively recently, local government owned, managed and maintained streets and squares in the UK’s towns and cities. But over the past two decades, budgetary constraints have diminished local authorities’ ability to maintain the public realm. Increasingly, the gap has been filled by the private sector, which has created new POPS.

On the face of it, the redevelopment of previously run-down areas with no cost to the public purse would appear to be a good thing. But there are concerns about the private landlords of these spaces who have the power to restrict and control activities of the public using these spaces.  Alongside these new private-public developments, the rise of Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) has increased private sector influence over town and city centres.

A bridge too far?

The issue of privatised public spaces was given renewed prominence with the proposals for a new “Garden Bridge” across the River Thames. Designed by Thomas Heatherwick  the project envisions a pedestrian bridge with its own elevated garden.

Supporters say the Garden Bridge will enrich London, providing economic, environmental and aesthetic benefits. But opponents have expressed concerns about a list of rules prohibiting activities on the bridge, such as busking and cycling. Restrictions of this kind have been applied to other POPS, sometimes resulting in awkward encounters between members of the public and security guards representing the property managers.

As things stand, the fate of the Garden Bridge remains uncertain, following the decision by the Mayor of London to set up an inquiry into the project’s use of public money, and a warning from the National Audit Office that the money may have been wasted.

The pros and cons of POPS

But does it really matter if urban spaces that appear to be public are actually privately-owned?

No, say POPS supporters. Without private funding, spaces such as Brindleyplace and LiverpoolOne might not have been developed at all. Furthermore, the cost of maintaining these privately owned public spaces can be borne by the private sector, instead of local authorities (and the taxpayer). They also point to Liverpool One as a successful example of town centre regeneration, and suggest that private ownership of public space can be a catalyst for renewal of neglected spaces.

But others are unhappy with the creeping privatisation of public spaces, arguing that they sacrifice community spirit and historical identity for the sake of a sterile, monotonous, corporatised spaces. Opponents of POPS are also concerned about the restrictions land owners place on such spaces.

The view from Aberdeen

One city which has recently bucked the trend towards private control over public spaces is Aberdeen. In 2010, the city council planned to hand over the historic Union Terrace Gardens in the city centre to a consortium of business interests – Aberdeen City Garden Trust – under a long lease. The trust released its plans to redesign the Victorian park, raising the sunken gardens to street level. Campaign groups mounted opposition to the scheme, but it was narrowly approved in a city-wide referendum in 2012. However, a new Labour administration came to power shortly after the referendum, and the scheme was finally scrapped. During the summer of 2016, the council announced new plans to redevelop the site, which will remain in public hands.

Final thoughts

The Aberdeen example shows that moves to put public spaces in private hands are not universally popular, or inevitable. Even so, many local authorities are struggling to maintain public spaces, leaving the way open for private developers. The Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, in the borough of Newham, is one of the most recent POPS to appear in London. Sir Robin Wales, the elected mayor of Newham would have preferred the park to be maintained using public funds, but has accepted that his borough could not afford to manage it: “We know we don’t have an income stream.”

Enjoyed this article? Read these other articles written by our team:

Equal to the task? Addressing racial inequality in public services


Throughout October, a series of events to promote diversity and equality will take place as part of Black History Month. Although there are many achievements to celebrate, it is an unfortunate fact that many people in the UK today still experience disadvantage due to the colour of their skin.

Over the summer, reports by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), found that racial inequality in the UK was ‘worryingly high’.

In its biggest ever review of race inequality in the UK, the EHRC concluded that:

“while for certain people life has become fairer over the past five years, for others progress has stalled and for some– in particular young Black people – life on many fronts has got worse.”

Audit of racial disparities announced

The government responded quickly by announcing an audit of racial disparities in public services. It promises to ‘shine a light on injustices as never before’.

From summer 2017, Whitehall departments will be required to identify and publish information annually on outcomes for people of different backgrounds in areas such as health, education, childcare, welfare, employment, skills and criminal justice.

As well as enabling the public to check how their race affects the way they are treated by public services, the data is also intended to help force services to improve.

The audit is being called ‘unprecedented’ – and it certainly is – up until now, public services in the UK have not systematically gathered data for the purposes of racial comparison. Indeed, according to the FT, very few countries, if any at all, currently produce racial impact audits.

‘Worryingly high’ levels of racial inequality

The audit will have its work cut out.  The review by the EHRC found that, compared to their White counterparts, people from ethnic minorities were more likely to be:

  • unemployed
  • on low wages and/or in insecure employment
  • excluded from school
  • less qualified
  • living in poverty
  • living in substandard and/or overcrowded accommodation
  • experiencing mental and physical health problems
  • in the criminal justice system
  • stopped and searched by police
  • a victim of hate crime
  • a victim of homicide

Institutional racism

Similarly, the CERD findings into how well the UK is meeting its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) raised serious concerns about the level of institutional racism in UK public services. Omar Khan, of the Runnymede Trust, suggested that the findings would ‘embarrass the UK on the world stage’.

Longstanding inequalities in access to services, the quality of care received and patients’ health outcomes were criticised, as was the over-representation of persons belonging to ethnic minorities in psychiatric institutions.

The committee echoed the EHRC’s concerns regarding higher unemployment rates and the concentration of persons belonging to ethnic minorities in insecure and low-paid work.  They also criticised the use of discriminatory recruitment practices by employers.

In education, there were concerns regarding reports of racist bullying and harassment in schools, and the lack of balanced teaching about the history of the British Empire and colonialism, particularly with regard to slavery.

The committee also concluded that there had been an outbreak of xenophobia and discrimination against ethnic minorities, particularly since the EU referendum campaign.  Indeed, the rise in post-Brexit racial tensions has been widely acknowledged.

Equal to the task?

Although the audit has been welcomed by many, including the EHRC, others have raised concern about the extent to which it will tackle the root of the problem.  Danny Dorling, of Oxford University, remains sceptical, stating that “within two or three years every single one of these audits is forgotten”.

Some have noted that in order to be effective, the audit will also have to capture outcomes for migrant families, and for poorer White people, who also suffer from discrimination and disadvantage.  Others, including Labour’s Angela Rayner, shadow equalities minister, have noted that there is a ‘huge gap’ in the review as it would not include the private sector.

The EHRC have called upon the government to createa comprehensive, coordinated and long-term strategy to achieve race equality, with stretching new targets to improve opportunities and deliver clear and measurable outcomes.”

Certainly, the data produced by the racial equality audit may well provide some basis for the establishment of such targets.

So while this October there is cause for celebrating the progress made so far, the findings of the EHRC and the CERD underline just how entrenched and far-reaching race inequality remains.  As the EHRC states:

“We must tackle this with the utmost urgency if we are to heal the divisions in our society and prevent an escalation of tensions between our communities.”

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.


Reflections from the Scottish Planning and Environmental Law conference

spel 175 image

The theme of this year’s conference posed a question to speakers and delegates of the conference: is the current planning climate in Scotland presenting “new opportunities, or more of the same?”

Delegates came together in the COSLA building in Edinburgh to discuss all areas of planning and environmental law in Scotland. The gathering included a range of organisations and sectors, including lawyers and solicitors, planners, engineers, academics and civil servants.


Image by Rebecca Jackson

The morning session focused on energy, infrastructure and economic development. Ross Martin (@SCDIChief), chief executive of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry kicked the day off with a discussion of place making in Scotland. He highlighted the economic benefit of good planning, noting that when it is done well planning has a core role in economic development strategies and can facilitate growth within an area.

This was followed by a discussion from Professor Becky Lunn from the University of Strathclyde who gave delegates some interesting food for thought in her discussion of the environmental, economic and moral consequences of Scotland’s energy choices.  A day after Ineos imported its first container of US shale gas to its Grangemouth refinery, Professor Lunn told delegates, that no energy solution is problem free, but “if we (Scotland) say no to the domestic production of gas and nuclear energy we are saying yes to something else”- the demand needs to be met regardless of whether the energy is produced in the UK or not. She questioned the moral arguments that it could be acceptable to import shale from elsewhere, while we are not content enough with the level of safety, the security of regulation and its wider environmental impact to do it ourselves (something which was picked up on by Ruth Davidson later that same day in FMQ’s). Professor Lunn advocated a strong public element to discussion, and a robust and well-informed debate around long term energy choices. She also warned against “crisis led” energy policy-making dictated by rhetoric of “fear and shortage”.

housing estate


Head of planning at Homes for Scotland, Tammy Adams (@TammyHFS) discussed the delivery of high quality homes in Scotland within the wider planning context. She highlighted the challenges and opportunities for house building, arguing that delivering new homes in Scotland should be “a golden thread” running through the Scottish planning system, and that an effort should be made to better align market realities and site strategy, but maintain flexibility of delivery.

The penultimate session of the morning was delivered by Sara Thiam, director of the Institution of Civil Engineers Scotland. She looked at the role of infrastructure and planning. Sara discussed the potential of devolution to city regions to grow the economy by allowing city regions to plan and build infrastructure which reflects their local social and economic needs. She also spoke about the need to be strategic about infrastructure choices, not just pushing increased finance for infrastructure, but targeting it strategically, investing in green infrastructure where possible, and thinking long-term about projects and desired outcomes.

The morning was brought to a close by event sponsors Terra Firma Chambers who provided some useful insights into  up-to-date case law, including notable cases that many delegates could draw on for their day to day decision making and planning submissions.


Image by Rebecca Jackson

The afternoon session opened with a panel session which featured insights from four speakers: Greg Lloyd, Emeritus Professor of Urban Planning at Ulster University; Craig McLaren, RTPI Director of Scotland and Ireland; John McNairney, Chief Planner at the Scottish Government; and John Hamilton, CEO Winchburgh. The discussions focussed on the new opportunities presented in planning in Scotland, including the review of planning, building homes, creating more joined up planning and the planning process more generally. Discussions were wide ranging, generating a lot of interaction both within the panel and between the panel and the delegates. The discussions were wrapped up by a second case law update.

The final presentation of the day was delivered by Steve Rogers, Head of Planning and Regulatory Services at Dumfries and Galloway Council and Chair of Heads of Planning Scotland. He spoke about his experiences with smart resourcing and the importance of leadership in planning.

Overall it was a day full of insight and expertise, which provided everyone who attended with the opportunity to think critically about the state of planning in Scotland from a number of different positions. It posed questions to be considered, allowed delegates to reflect on their day to day practice and highlighted opportunities and potential barriers for planning in Scotland in the future.

An annual subscription to SPEL Journal is £145. For further details or a sample copy, please contact Christine Eccleson, SPEL Journal’s Advertising Manager, on 0141 574 1905 or email

SPEL Journal is read by decision makers in Scottish planning authorities, planning law practices, planning consultancies, surveyors, civil engineers, environmental managers and developers across Scotland. It is also valued by many practitioners outside of Scotland who need to keep abreast of developments.


Gigabit cities: laying the foundations for the information society

Man sitting at a desk, with stars and nebula's behind him

By Steven McGinty

According to the Foundation for Information Society Policy (FISP), an independent think tank, London’s poor broadband infrastructure will threaten the capital’s ability to compete with other global cities in the future.

David Brunnen, FISP member and an independent telecoms infrastructure expert, explains that although demand for broadband is growing rapidly, the capital still relies mostly on networks of copper wires, which Tech City have described as ‘not fit for purpose’.

The solution, the foundation advocates, is to create a new infrastructure agency, Digital for Londoners (DfL), to ensure that London becomes a ‘Gigabit City’ by 2020.

What are gigabit cities?

In simple terms, gigabit cites provide citizens, business and governments with access to gigabit internet services (1,000 megabits per second or higher). By replacing old copper cables for pure fibre infrastructure, cities can enable public services to take advantage of technology, support businesses to innovate, and improve the lives of citizens. As US President Barack Obama explains, ‘it’s like unleashing a tornado of innovation’.

In the UK, CityFibre, is the main provider of Gigabit Cities. Their network covers 40 cities, including Glasgow and Bristol, across major data centres and busy internet traffic points, and provides 260,000 businesses and 3.7 million homes with gigabit broadband.

On 22nd September 2016, Northampton became the latest UK gigabit city. In an agreement between CityFibre and dbfb, a Northampton-based business internet service provider, businesses will now receive internet speeds of up to 100 times faster than the UK’s average. Paul Griffiths, from Northamptonshire Chamber of Commerce, highlights that this investment will play an important role for start-up businesses competing globally.

The initiative will also help Northampton County Council achieve their target of making gigabit broadband available, countywide, by the end of 2017.


In 2010, Chattanooga, Tennessee, became one of the first cities to make gigabit connectivity widely available. Its mayor, Andy Berke, has described its introduction as a significant source of the city’s economic renewal.

Gigabit broadband has allowed a tech industry to emerge from a city more commonly associated with heavy manufacturing. Tech companies and investment have been drawn by the ‘The Gig’ – the local name for the network – resulting in the conversion of former factory buildings into flats, open-space offices, restaurants and shops. In the past three years, the city’s unemployment rate has dropped from 7.8% to 4.1%. The mayor has also linked the city’s wage growth to jobs in the technology sector.

‘The Gig’ was funded by a combination of public and private investment. EPB, the city-owned utility company, borrowed $219 million and received a $111 million grant from the US Government. This government-led approach has given Chattanooga broadband speeds greater than Google Fibre, a major gigabit broadband provider. Wired magazine suggests that government involvement raises expectations, and encourages commercial providers to improve their infrastructure.

Stokab, Stockholm

The Stockholm city government have one of the oldest gigabit strategies, founding the private company, Stokab, to deploy and manage their city-wide fibre network in 1994. Stokab was created to help the city benefit from the new digital era by limiting multiple network deployments, and by stimulating the technology sector.  The end-to-end fibre broadband network serves 700 service provider businesses and connects 90% of residential premises.

The gigabit network has provided a wide variety of economic benefits, including:

  • becoming a catalyst for the technology sector (The Kista Science Park has over 1000 technology businesses, with 24,000 employees)
  • creating growth and jobs valued at €900 million
  • providing low cost broadband services to business – through increased competition – has resulted in an estimated €8.5 million worth of savings
  • increasing housing values by €200 million and rental values by €3.5 million per year

Digital inclusion

Although gigabit broadband could create limitless opportunities, it also has the potential to exacerbate existing inequalities. Citizens, and even small businesses, could lose out if they don’t have the skills or technologies to access the internet.

Salford Council realises the important role technology plays in creating vibrant communities. As part of their rollout of gigabit broadband services across social housing, the council are introducing a digital skills campaign to encourage more residents online. Volunteers are being recruited to assist neighbours who are less digitally savvy. As encouragement, they are being offered a free IPad and a free broadband service, if they train more than 20 people a year.

Final thoughts

To compete globally, cities will be looking to introduce gigabit broadband infrastructure. London, as a global technology hub and a key driver for growth across the UK, will need to invest in order to support businesses and meet the expectations of citizens. Government may have to provide greater leadership in order to incentivise private sector involvement. Equally, digital exclusion will need to be tackled, to ensure that everyone can participate in the information society.

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team. If you found this article interesting, you may also like to read our other smart cities articles. 

The death of nightclubs?

by Stacey Dingwall

Last month, Islington Council confirmed that one of London’s biggest clubs, fabric, would not be reopening. The nightclub’s licence had been suspended following two-drug related deaths at the venue. Over 150,000 people, including the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan (whose Greater London Authority has no power to intervene in licensing decisions) have since signed a petition demanding the club be allowed to reopen. Ironically, Khan has recently announced that he will be appointing a ‘Night Czar’ for the city. This new figure will be responsible for developing London’s night time economy, which is currently worth £41 billion and supports more than 1.25m jobs. The recent launch of the night tube is also intended to grow the city’s night time economy.

The night time economy

We’ve previously looked at the importance of the night time economy to the UK’s economic growth. A 2015 report from the Night Time Industries Association (NTIA) placed the economic value of UK’s night time economy at £66 billion, employing 1.3 million people and representing 6% of the country’s GDP.

The Arches in Glasgow closed in similar circumstances to fabric last year. These clubs are just two of many that have closed their doors in the last decade. Between 2005 and 2015, the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers (ALMR) estimate that the number of clubs in the UK fell from 3,144 to 1,733. The body believes that if this trend continues, the country will be left worse off “culturally, socially and economically”. Others have also highlighted the potential impact on youth employment, which is already a significant problem for the UK.

Who or what is to blame?

Some within the industry have pointed to the introduction of the smoking ban, longer pub opening hours and the recession as potential explanations for a decrease in the popularity of nightclubs. Others have placed the blame on planning policy and a “hostile” licensing climate. This is particularly evident in London, where widespread property development is prioritised in order to create the affordable housing the city so desperately needs.

There are also those that criticise the police’s “heavy handed” attitude towards drugs, and a stereotyping of clubs and those that frequent them. Police Scotland have come under particular criticism for the way in which they engaged with the Arches when it was still open. According to Dr Jack McPhee, a drugs and alcohol policy expert at the University of the West of Scotland, since the amalgamation of Scottish police forces, “…the recovery of controlled drugs and successful prosecutions became performance indicators in Scotland. So that in itself began to dictate police activity”. Scotland’s prosecution rate for drugs related offences is almost twice that of the other UK nations.

Comparisons with the rest of Europe

In comparison, drugs policy on the continent tend to focus more on harm reduction. In the Netherlands, for example, clubs use the Drug Information and Monitoring System (DIMS), which allows users to test the safety of their drugs. Rather than focusing on criminalisation, systems like these focus on public health, recognising that people will continue to take drugs regardless of how many venues the police close down. Indeed, some have voiced their concern that a continuation of current UK policy will only increase their use in the dangerous, underground market, whereas moving towards proper regulation could save lives.

A brighter future?

Despite this, the recently appointed director of government and public affairs at industry body UK Music, Tom Kiehl, believes that the night time industry has a “bright future” under the new government. Recent comments from Sadiq Khan in particular have given Kiehl confidence that planning and licensing restrictions may be lifted in order to support the growth of the night time economy. In addition, a successful club based drug testing system is currently being tested on a small scale in the UK, which may see a shift in current law enforcement attitudes depending on the results.

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.

Grandparents – the ‘hidden army’ of kinship carers

mamy and the little boy

By Heather Cameron

Tomorrow is the International Day of Older Persons, designated by the United Nations in order to recognise the important contributions made by older people, while raising awareness of the issues of ageing.

Today there are around 600 million people aged 60 years and over world-wide. A number that is set to double by 2025 and reach 2 billion by 2050.

With people living longer and healthier lives, it is not surprising older people are playing a considerably more active and increasingly important role in society. Not least when it comes to contributing to the care of their grandchildren.

Extent of kinship care

Kinship care – when children are brought up by relatives or family friends in the absence of their parents – has grown markedly in recent years.

It is estimated that between 200,000 and 300,000 grandparents and other relatives are raising children who are unable to live with their parents. Common reasons cited for this include abuse and neglect, parental illness or disability, parental substance misuse, domestic violence or death of a parent.

In examining the prevalence of kinship care, drawing on census data, a recent University of Bristol study found that there has been a 7% increase in the kinship child population in England since 2001 – more than three times that of the population growth rate of all children in England, which was 2% over the same time period.

The study also found that one in two (51%) children were growing up in households headed by grandparents.

Positive outcomes

With regard to the children in kinship care, research suggests that they do ‘significantly better than children in care’, both emotionally and academically.

Indeed, a recent study on the educational outcomes of looked after children found that children in long-term foster or kinship care made better progress than children in other care settings.

The largest kinship carer survey in the UK, conducted by Family Rights Group, also highlights the effectiveness of kinship care in preventing children entering or remaining within the care system, to the benefit of both the child and the public purse. The data found that 56% of children had come to live with the kinship carer straight from the parents’ home, with 27% having been in unrelated foster care.

The caring contribution of grandparents has also been shown to have made a material difference to maternal rates of employment.

And as 95% of children being raised in kinship care are not officially ‘looked after’, billions of pounds are saved each year on care costs.

But while benefiting the public purse, and despite evidence that kinship children have better outcomes, many kinship families face a financial burden. The University of Bristol study found that 40% of all children in kinship care in England were living in households located in the 20% of the poorest areas in England (an improvement of only 4% since 2001), and three quarters (76%) of kinship children were living in a deprived household.

Impact on grandparents

As there is no statutory requirement for local authorities to make provision for kinship carers and no automatic right to child benefit, many receive no formal support; leading to financial hardship, and the stress that comes with it.

Many kinship carers have had to give up work or reduce their working hours, either permanently or temporarily. And this is often their main source of income.

A study from Grandparents Plus on discrimination against kinship carers found that of the 77% of grandparents that have asked for professional help, only 33% received the help they needed. And 30% said they didn’t receive any support at all.

The study also found that, overall, kinship carers score ‘significantly below average’ when it comes to their wellbeing.

Other recent research has suggested that regular and occasional care for grandchildren can impact on the mental health of grandparents. The findings indicated that ten additional hours of childcare per month increases the probability of developing depressive symptoms by 3.0 and 3.2 percentage point for grandmothers and 5.4 to 5.9 percentage points for grandfathers.

Policies that substitute informal with formal childcare, it argued, could improve the mental wellbeing of grandparents.

Of course there are positive impacts on grandparents too, many of whom find caring for grandchildren rewarding and who enjoy closer relationships with them, which can in turn have a positive effect on their health. As the research suggests:

the effect of grandchild care provision on grandparents’ health seems to depend on its intensity, the cultural context, as well as on its stability and change.”

Final thoughts

It is clear that grandparents play an increasingly vital role in family life. But it seems this role is in need of greater recognition and support, if society is to continue to benefit from this ‘hidden army’ of kinship carers.

If you enjoyed reading this, you may also be interested in our previous blog on the economic opportunities of an ageing society, published on last year’s International Day of Older Persons.

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.