Tag Archives: European Union

Horizon Europe goes live

Posted on by

Horizon Europe is finally a reality. After months of false starts, soft launches and stalled negotiations, 22 June saw hundreds of funding calls published on the European Commission Funding and Tenders Portal. Researchers, institutions and other organisations can now access the seven-year, €95.5 billion research and innovation programme.

Horizon Europe is the ninth European Research and Innovation Framework programme (2021-2027). In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is one of the key instruments of the European Union’s efforts to steer and accelerate Europe’s recovery, preparedness and resilience.

The initial work programme covers the period 2021-2022 and consists of €14.7 billion in funding, which will be allocated based on competitive calls for proposals.

Around €5.8 billion in total will be invested in research and innovation to complement the European Green Deal and the EU’s commitment to become the world’s first climate-neutral continent by 2050. Supporting the EU’s goal of making the 2020s ‘Europe’s Digital Decade’, core digital technologies will receive around €4 billion over 2021-2022. Finally, direct investments of around €1.9 billion will be made towards helping repair the immediate economic and social damage brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mariya Gabriel, Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture, Education and Youth, said:

“With 40% of its budget devoted to making Europe more sustainable, this Horizon Europe work programme will make Europe greener and fitter for the digital transformation. Horizon Europe is now fully open for business: I would like to encourage researchers and innovators from all over the EU to apply and find solutions to improve our daily lives.”

Associated Countries: UK in, Switzerland out

Although the European Commission has yet to secure final agreements with non-EU countries on participation in Horizon Europe, a 17 June document revealed a list of 18 countries where association negotiations are ‘being processed or where association is imminent’.

The 18 provisionally associated countries are: Albania; Armenia; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Faroe Islands; Georgia; Iceland; Israel; Kosovo; Moldova; Montenegro; Morocco; North Macedonia; Norway; Serbia; Tunisia; Turkey; Ukraine; and the United Kingdom.

Most notably, while the UK is in, Switzerland has been excluded. Reports cite Swiss government officials as saying the European Commission did not give any notification of its intention to exclude the country from provisional access to Horizon Europe.

Writing on Twitter, Senior Policy Officer at the League of European Research Universities (LERU) Laura Keustermans described the move as not only bad news for Switzerland ‘but also very bad news for everybody involved in EU Research and Innovation’. LERU President Kurt Deketelaere also responded, urging the Swiss Government to work to gain access for the Swiss research and education sector, ‘which benefited greatly from association to EU programs in the past’.

UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) is urging researchers to start applying for Horizon Europe funding, with UK researchers and companies eligible for all Horizon Europe calls, apart from applying for equity funding from the European Innovation Council (EIC). The UK will also have to reach agreement with the Commission on rules for participating in sensitive projects in quantum and space technologies.

Free events mark programme launch

To mark the official opening of Horizon Europe, the European Commission arranged two free-to-air conferences for all citizens and stakeholders.

The European Research and Innovation Days, the Commission’s annual flagship Research and Innovation event, was held on 23-24 June. Policymakers, researchers, innovators, and other stakeholders took part in over 70 sessions and workshops to discuss the future European research and innovation landscape. Sessions included ‘tips and tricks’ for writing Horizon Europe proposals; an overview of the Commission’s Funding & Tenders Portal; discussions over lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic; and an overview of the Africa Initiative in Horizon Europe. Recorded sessions from the event can be accessed via the event platform.

Running from 28 June to 9 July, the Horizon Europe Info Days will provide an in-depth overview of some of the main funding channels provided under Horizon Europe. The sessions will specifically focus on the six Clusters under Pillar II – Global Challenges and European Industrial Competitiveness, ­as well as the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, Research Infrastructures, and Widening Participation and Strengthening the ERA (European Research Area) strands of Horizon Europe. With the exception of the Cluster 3 – Civil Security for Society session on 30 June, the event is open for participation without prior registration, and attendees will have the opportunity to ask questions, find out what is new in Horizon Europe and obtain further details about how the programme will operate. Interested parties can access the event’s online portal here.

ResearchConnect: the essential source of research funding information

This post was written by our colleagues in ResearchConnect, a specialist research funding database built for and designed by the international research community.

ResearchConnect’s up-to-the-minute database covers all of the key research disciplines and is updated by an expert team who monitor and report on a wide range of funding sources including charitable trusts, government, research councils, foundations and corporate sponsors. The ResearchConnect team maintains regular contact with funding administrators and policy managers across a wide range of sources, providing advance notice of new funding opportunities and policy changes.

For more information, visit the ResearchConnect website.

Build back better: is now the time for Green New Deals? – Part 2

Posted on by

A window of opportunity

In policymaking, there is a concept known as the “Overton Window”, which describes the range of policies that politicians can propose without being considered too extreme by the population at large. This window of opportunity can be shifted and can allow for policies that in the past may have been considered unthinkable and radical to become mainstream and even sensible.

The impact of Covid-19 and the public health measures that have been required to suppress the virus, have undoubtedly resulted in a shift in the “Overton Window”. Policy interventions, such as the Job Retention Scheme and national lockdown, which involved massive amounts of government spending and restrictions to every aspect of our day-to-day lives, suddenly became normal and were largely approved of by the public.

In these circumstances, the concept of the Green New Deal, a policy package which involves large amounts of government spending, designed to create green jobs, develop green infrastructure and modernise the economy, may no longer be such an unfeasible idea.

Build back better: a green recovery

The economic impact of Covid-19 is expected to result in a 5.2% contraction of global GDP, amounting to the deepest global depression since 1945. In order to recover from this contraction, governments are formulating unprecedentedly large economic stimulus packages, designed to mitigate the economic and social damage created by the pandemic. Already there are numerous examples of governments utilising aspects of the Green New Deal within their economic recovery plans.

European Union

Next Generation EU – A European Green Deal

Prior to the Coronavirus pandemic, the European Commission was already working on creating a European Green Deal, which would support the EU transition to climate neutrality by 2050. After the onset of the pandemic, the European Commission moved to position the Green Deal as a key pillar of the EU’s €750 billion recovery package, known as Next Generation EU. 25% of the recovery package has been dedicated to funding climate action, whilst the entire package features a commitment that any money spent as part of the EU’s economic recovery must “do no harm” to the EU’s climate neutrality goal. The recovery package includes policies that are similar in nature to other Green Deals, including:

  • a €40 billion ‘Just Transition Fund’, to alleviate the socio-economic impacts of the green transition and diversify economic activity;
  • a €91 billion a year fund to improve home energy efficiency and develop low carbon heating;
  • the introduction of an EU-wide border tax on carbon-intensive industrial imports with the potential to raise €14 billion.

French Government

France Relaunch

The French government’s recently announced €100 billion stimulus package, includes a €30 billion package of measures designed to aid France’s transition to carbon neutrality. The measures set out within the package incorporate core elements from Green New Deals, such as developing cleaner forms of transport and improving the energy efficiency of buildings. The package includes the following green measures:

  • a €11 billion investment in developing and encouraging the use of green transport methods, nearly €5 billion of which will be used to upgrade rail lines to encourage freight traffic from road to rail;
  • a €6 billion investment to help improve the energy efficiency of homes and other buildings;
  • A €2 billion investment to help develop the hydrogen sector.

Scottish Government

Protecting Scotland, Renewing Scotland

Within this year’s Scottish Government Programme, it is evident from the first page that it views the need for economic recovery as an opportunity to create a  “fairer, greener and wealthier country”. The programme explicitly describes the measures contained as “the next tranche of our Green New Deal” and borrows extensively from existing Green New Deals, with policies including:

  • a £100 million green Job Creation Fund;
  • a £1.6 billion investment to decarbonise the heating of homes and other buildings;
  • a £62 million Energy Transition Fund to support businesses in the oil, gas and energy sectors over the next five years to grow and diversify;
  • capitalisation of the Scottish National Investment Bank with £2 billion over ten years, with a primary mission to support the transition to net zero emissions.

UK Government

A Plan for Jobs

A key element of the UK Government’s plans to support and develop the labour market is the creation of green jobs, through investment in infrastructure, decarbonisation and maintenance projects. Improving the energy efficiency of buildings is a principle which is at the core of the Green New Deal. The Plan for Jobs includes similar proposals, such as:

  • a £2 billion Green Homes Grant scheme that will provide homeowners and landlords with vouchers to spend on improving the energy efficiency of homes across the UK;
  • a £1 billion Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme that will offer grants to public sector bodies, including schools and hospitals, to fund both energy efficiency and low carbon heat upgrades;
  • a £40 million Green Jobs Challenge Fund for environmental charities and public authorities to create and protect 5,000 jobs in England.

Final thoughts

The concept of the Green New Deal is one that appears to evolve and shift as time goes on. This is unfortunately to be expected as time runs out for governments to take meaningful action to avert rising global temperatures. The transition to carbon neutrality is one that will undoubtedly result in massive changes to almost every aspect of our day-to-day lives, and therefore it is not surprising that the journey to reach this point may require bold and unprecedented action.

However, prior to the Coronavirus pandemic, it would have been unimaginable to consider the levels of spending and intervention that governments would be required to take in order to implement a Green New Deal. The shift to carbon neutrality involves a complete reimagining of the economy and requires a great deal of public support, in particular when the energy transition may threaten the jobs of those who work in carbon-intensive industries.

In a post-Covid era, the concept of governments spending huge sums of money and making unprecedented interventions is now our everyday reality. The economic consequences of the pandemic will require an extraordinary response to ensure that its legacy is not one of increasing levels of unemployment, inequality and stagnation. In this new world, the ambition and wide-ranging nature of the Green New Deal may no longer be seen as unfeasible. In fact, as can be seen in the UK and Europe, governments are already looking to implement various elements of the Green New Deal as part of their economic recovery packages. Perhaps the Green New Deal is about to have its time.

Follow us on Twitter to see which topics are interesting our research team.

Part one of this blog post was published on Monday 14 September.

Read some of our other blogs on climate change and the impacts of Covid-19:

“We’ve updated our privacy policy”: GDPR two years on

Posted on by

by Scott Faulds

Almost two years ago, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force across the European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA), creating what many consider to be the most extensive data protection regulation in the world. The introduction of GDPR facilitated the harmonisation of data privacy laws across Europe and provided citizens with greater control over how their data is used. The regulation sets out the rights of data subjects, the duties of data controllers/processors, the transfer of personal data to third countries, supervisory authorities, cooperation among member states, and remedies, liability or penalties for breach of rights. However, whilst the regulation itself is extensive, questions have been raised regarding the extent to which GDPR has been successful at protecting citizens’ data and privacy.

Breach Notifications and Fines

Critics of GDPR have argued that whilst the regulation has been effective as a breach notification law, it has so far failed to impose impactful fines on companies which have failed to comply with the GDPR. National data protection authorities (such as the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in the UK) under the GDPR have the ability to impose fines of up to €20m or up to 4% of an organisation’s total global turnover, whichever is higher. Since the introduction of the GDPR, data protection authorities across the EEA have experienced a “massive increase” in reports of data breaches. However, this has yet to translate into substantive financial penalties. For example, Google has been issued a €50m fine, the highest issued so far* by CNIL, the French data protection authority. CNIL found that Google failed to provide sufficient and transparent information that allowed customers to give informed consent to the processing of personal data when creating a Google account during the set-up process of an Android powered device. This is a serious breach of multiple GDPR articles and CNIL argued that the infringements contravene the principles of transparency and informed consent which are at the heart of the GDPR.

*  The confirmation of record fines issued by ICO to British Airways (£183m) and Marriott International (£99m) has been delayed until 31st March 2020.

However, the fine imposed on Google amounts to approximately 0.04% of their total global turnover, which some have argued is simply too small an amount to act as any real deterrent. Therefore, it could be said that while GDPR has been effective in encouraging companies to be transparent when data misuse occurs, national data protection authorities have yet to make use of their ability to impose large financial penalties to act as a deterrent.

In recent months, the German and Dutch data protection authorities have both created frameworks which set out how they intend to calculate GDPR fines. Analysis of their fining structures indicates that both models will operate based on the severity of GDPR violation. However, both structures allow for the data protection authority to impose the maximum fine if the amount is not deemed fitting. The International Association of Privacy Professionals believes this will result in significantly higher and more frequent fines than those issued previously, and has suggested that it is possible that the European Data Protection Board may consider implementing a harmonized fine model across Europe.

Brussels Effect

The effects of the GDPR can be felt beyond Europe, with companies such as Apple and Microsoft committing to extend GDPR protections to their entire customer base, no matter their location.  Even the COO of Facebook, Sheryl Sandberg, admitted that the introduction of GDPR was necessary due to the scale of data collected by technology companies. The ability of the EU to influence the global regulatory environment has been described by some experts as the “Brussels Effect”. They argue that a combination of the size, importance and regulatory power of the EU market is forcing companies around the world to match EU regulations. Additionally, this effect can be seen to be influencing data protection legislation across the world, with governments in Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Brazil, South Africa and California all introducing updated privacy laws based on the GDPR. As a result, it can be said that the introduction of the GDPR has enabled the EU to play a key role in global discussions regarding privacy and how citizens’ data is used worldwide. 

Brexit

Following the UK’s exit from the EU, the GDPR will remain in force until the end of the transition period (31st December 2020), after this point it is the intention of the UK Government to introduce the UK GDPR. However, as the UK will no longer be a member state of the EU, it will require to seek what is known as an “adequacy agreement” with the EU.This allows businesses in the EEA and UK to freely exchange data. The UK government believes that this agreement will be signed during the transition period, as the UK GDPR is not materially different from the EU GDPR. However, it should be noted that the most recent adequacy agreement between the EU and Japan took two years to complete.

Final Thoughts

The introduction of the GDPR almost two years ago has had a variety of impacts on the current discussion surrounding privacy and how best to protect our personal data. Firstly, the GDPR has forced companies to become more transparent when data misuse occurs and gives national data protection authorities the power to scrutinise companies’ approaches to securing personal data. Secondly, the influence of the GDPR has helped to strengthen privacy laws across the world and has forced companies to provide individuals with more control over how their data is used. However, the effectiveness of GDPR is limited due to a lack of common approach regarding fines in relation to GDPR violations. In order to develop fully, it will be important for the European Data Protection Board to provide guidance on how to effectively fine those who breach the GDPR.

If you enjoyed this post, you may also like some of our other posts related to GDPR:

Follow us on Twitter to see what topics are interesting our research team.

Youth Work in the Digital Age – What Next?

Posted on by

by Scott Faulds

On Tuesday 3rd September, youth work organisations from across the European Union came together in Glasgow to launch the European Guidelines for Digital Youth Work, training materials and a collection of short films showcasing Good Practice. This was the culmination of a two-year transnational Erasmus+ project, designed to foster shared understandings and inform, inspire and empower the wider youth work sector to get to grips with youth work in the digital age.

The project was conducted in partnership with YouthLink Scotland, Centre for Digital Youth Care (Denmark), Verke – The National Digital Youth Work Centre (Finland), wienXtra MedienZentrum (Austria), JFF – Institut für Medienpädagogik (Germany), National Youth Council of Ireland and Camara Education Limited (Ireland).

Keynote Speaker: Dr Jane Melvin

To kick off the conference, keynote speaker Dr Jane Melvin of the University of Brighton, spoke of her journey from technophobe to technophile and of her belief that there is no longer an option for youth workers not to embrace digital technology.

Dr Melvin argued that youth workers should utilise any tool which could allow for the better engagement of young people. She described this as the “digital hybrid approach”. This approach encourages youth workers to adopt a critical standpoint when considering the use of digital tools and actively encourages the questioning of why and when digital tools are utilised. Dr Melvin contends that it is as much about using digital tools thoughtfully as it is about deciding when not to use them.

Additionally, Dr Melvin stressed that the concept of young people being digitally literate is no longer relevant in a time where technology is advancing at an ever-faster pace. In the digital age, it is vital that young people can navigate a variety of different digital tools and be confident in adopting new technologies as they emerge. This ability to transfer existing knowledge to critically assess the best way to interact with new and emerging technology has been described as digital fluency, and Dr Melvin advocates the need for every young person to develop this fluency to enable them to thrive in the digital age.

In closing, Dr Melvin stated that for youth work in the digital age, it is essential to find a balance between conservative stability and runaway adoption, to ensure that youth workers can truly reap the benefits of the digital age.

Digital Youth Work in Scotland

As the conference was held in Glasgow, it seemed only fitting to hear about some of the work that youth work organisations in Scotland were doing to help adapt to the digital age.

We heard from Claire McGinley and Inigo Sands from Paisley YMCA, which has received awards for their digital youth work and has fostered partnerships with Microsoft, Google and the University of the West of Scotland.

Claire and Inigo began by stressing that there is no specific type of young person who will take part in digital youth work, as digital skills are vital to allow young people to access the world of work. We all access the digital world as part of our day-to-day lives and for young people there is less of a distinction between the real and online world. Therefore, is it crucial that youth workers are able to help young people develop their digital skills. This is something Paisley YMCA has had a great deal of success at with, through fostering a good environment for ‘stealth learning’.

Paisley YMCA has a maker space, a STEM for girls’ club, coding dojo and are able to adapt to the needs of young people as new digital tools emerge. However, it is not simply about young people becoming experts at using a 3D printer; the activities offered by Paisley YMCA are about giving young people an opportunity to try new things.

Claire and Inigo concluded that there is no secret formula to digital youth work; you just have to do it, and be open to the opportunity for vertical learning.

We also heard from representatives from the Young Scot 5Rights Young Leaders, who spoke of their work to promote the five digital rights for young people, which were based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The five rights are:

  1. The right to remove
  2. The right to know
  3. The right to safety and support
  4. The right to informed and conscious use
  5. The right to digital literacy

The Young Scot 5Rights Young Leaders presented the Scottish Government with their report, Our Digital Rights, which featured 20 recommendations of how the Government can best support the protection of these rights. Recommendations included the integration of digital literacy across all school subject areas, the ability to limit the unnecessary collection and use of young people’s data and the provision of greater internet access in rural areas of Scotland.

The Scottish Government accepted the recommendations of the report and the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs, Fiona Hyslop, has agreed to keep the 5Rights Young Leaders involved during its implementation. The 5Rights Young Leaders concluded by voicing their desire for Scotland to become a leading example of how young people and children can benefit from the digital age without having their safety and privacy compromised.  

Good Practice

One of the key aims of this Erasmus+ project was the facilitation of the exchange of good practice and knowledge across the European Union. At the conference, we had an opportunity to hear from each of the partner organisations and learn about the work they were doing in their respective countries. The Digital Youth Work website features a collection of videos featuring Good Practice, as well as an extensive library of training materials.

One particularly interesting example was the online counselling services offered by Denmark’s Centre for Digital Youth Care, who operate three tailored online services.

  1. Cyberhus – a general forum for young people aged between 9 and 23 years old
  2. Mitassist – focused on young men and utilises gamification to keep them engaged
  3. Netstof – focused on discussing drug and alcohol problems for young people aged between 15 and 24 years old

These services offer a space for young people to seek advice and discuss problems anonymously, either with their peers on the moderated forum or with qualified social workers. Cyberhus has 40,000 unique visitors each month and the top three issues regularly discussed are self-harm, eating disorders and relationships. The number of regular users and the type of issues discussed can be challenging for staff, who all have to complete a twelve-week course before working on the platform.

 

Digital Youth Work Good Practice video featuring Denmark’s online counselling platforms


The Centre for Digital Youth Care view this service as vital in helping support young people in Denmark. The anonymity these platforms provide is often attractive to young people, with the vast majority not wishing to provide social workers with their location or confirming if they are already in touch with a professional treatment provider. Anni Marquard, the creator of Cyberhus, believes that youth workers must be willing to adapt to allow them to engage with young people. After all, 88% of all visits to Cyberhus are from smartphones. The use of digital tools to enable anonymous online counselling has enabled young people across Denmark to access support when they need it most and the platforms regularly provide more counselling sessions than their real-life counterparts. Thus, it is clear that youth workers must be ready to adapt to the digital age in order to best engage young people.

Final Thoughts

The conference demonstrated that a great deal of work has been done by organisations and countries across the European Union.

The ability to exchange good practice and knowledge from youth workers across the EU enabled everyone to gain a new perspective on how to approach the implementation of new digital tools and was aided by the format of the conference which encouraged networking and dialogue.

The basis of this transnational Erasmus+ project was the exchange of good practice to enable youth workers across Europe to harness the tools of the digital age to better support young people.

Through the production of the European Guidelines for Digital Youth Work, Good Practice videos and training materials, it is clear that not only has this project been a success, but it has resulted in the creation of a powerful and effective resource that can empower youth workers across the world to meet the challenges of the digital age.

The Knowledge Exchange provides information services to local authorities, public agencies, research consultancies and commercial organisations across the UK. 

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

Five challenges facing the people who make elections happen

Posted on by

They’ve been called “the unsung heroes of democracy”, and in the past few years the UK’s electoral administrators have been facing unprecedented challenges that have imposed enormous strains on our voting system.

Multiple general and local elections, a new system of electoral registration, and referendums on Scottish independence and UK membership of the European Union have stretched – almost to breaking point – the resources of the country’s electoral administrators. And this year, their efforts to continue providing electoral services to the high standard they always strive for has been tested further.

Here are just five of the major challenges facing the people who deliver democracy.

1. The European Parliament Elections

It’s the poll that UK voters weren’t expecting to be part of. But because Brexit didn’t happen as planned, the UK was obliged to take part in the elections to the European Parliament.

Making elections happen is no small matter, involving months of planning and many different agencies, including central and local authorities, non-statutory bodies, partners and contractors, such as the police and postal services. Printing of ballot papers, arrangements for postal voting, booking polling stations and arranging venues for election counts are just some of the elements that need to be confirmed well in advance of polling day.

When the government confirmed in April that the UK would take part in the European Parliament elections on 23 May, this left electoral administrators with just a few weeks to organise a poll that would usually take months to prepare. Things were further complicated by unpredictable factors. Would enough staff be available to count the votes on a bank holiday weekend? And with forecasts of a higher than expected turnout, would extra ballot boxes be needed?

Initially, it looked as if the elections would be delivered smoothly. However, on Thursday morning, reports began to emerge of citizens from other EU countries being denied the right to vote. Thousands took to social media under the hashtag #deniedmyvote to complain that they had either been turned away from polling stations or barred from voting because of delays in registering them.

The Electoral Commission, which oversees UK elections, acknowledged the problems, and said the very short notice of the UK’s participation in the EU elections had significantly affected election administrators’ ability to inform and register citizens of other EU states intending to vote in the UK.

Cat Smith, the shadow minister for voter engagement highlighted the difficulties facing electoral services teams:

“This has caused havoc for electoral administrators tasked with delivering a national poll with extremely short notice.”

The Electoral Commission has promised to review the process, but its chief executive, Bob Posner, has indicated that there are broader lessons to learn:

 “We have argued for some time that the failure of governments and parliament to properly maintain and update electoral law, and to address the pressures on local authorities, has built up significant risks for well-run elections. It is time that these warnings are properly heard and acted upon.”

2. Trialling voter ID

In 2018, five areas in England piloted identity checks at polling stations. The trial followed a 2016 government-sponsored review of electoral fraud which recommended ID checks to prevent vote stealing.

Earlier this month, further pilots took place during local elections, involving 10 areas of England, including Derby, Mid Sussex, North West Leicestershire and Pendle. The trials required voters to show different types of photo ID and/or non-photo ID in order to be given a ballot paper.

The pilot schemes involved additional work for electoral administrators. Voters had to be informed well in advance of polling day about which forms of identification were valid in each area, and staff required additional training on delivering the identification requirements. In three areas voters could apply for local identification cards, while two areas used technology to scan QR codes on voters’ polling cards. Before the 2019 pilots began, two councils pulled out of the trial, with one believing it was too much work on top of a boundary review, and another expressing concerns about the time needed to inform the electorate about the changes.

Although an evaluation of the 2018 trials found that Returning Officers and their staff in polling stations were able to run the new processes without any significant problems, the Electoral Commission was not able to draw definitive conclusions on how a voter identification requirement would operate in the future across the country, or at polls with higher levels of turnout.

The authors of the report also found it impossible to say whether the requirements actually prevented attempts to commit electoral fraud at elections. Critics of Voter ID say the relatively low levels of fraud in UK elections mean identification is unnecessary, and could put some voters off – particularly the elderly, homeless and people with disabilities – if they do not have the necessary documentation.

It’s still too early to assess the impact of the 2019 trials, but a Local Government Chronicle analysis of the pilots found that almost 700 people were turned away from polling stations operating voter ID pilots and did not return.

3. Funding elections

“Administering elections requires ample resources. Administering them well requires even more”
– Benjamin Highton: Political Science and Politics, January 2006

Funding arrangements for elections in the UK are highly complex, with separate personnel and operational costs for electoral registration and elections / referenda, and funding coming from local and central government. But there is surprisingly little information available about the cost of electoral services.

A 2017 University of East Anglia (UEA) study has underlined the difficulties in collecting accurate data about the budgets and spending of electoral organisations. However, the UEA survey found that, while budgets for electoral services have been rising, so too has the cost of managing these services. The authors found “strong evidence of many electoral services being financially stretched.”

Local elections and registration are funded from local authority budgets, and since 2010 they have been significantly affected by the financial restraints imposed by austerity cutbacks. At the same time, election administrators’ resources have been stretched by additional polls, as well as the introduction of a new electoral registration system.

In 2010, the Association of Electoral Administrators called on the UK government to undertake a thorough review of funding and resources required to deliver electoral services. The AEA repeated this call in 2015 and again in 2017, when it described the existing funding model as flawed:

“We remain disappointed that, despite recognising in its response to our 2015 report that general funding arrangements are an ongoing issue, the Government has failed to give any further thought as to how to address it.”

Does this matter? For those who believe elections just happen, their funding might seem of marginal importance. But when lack of resources leads to electoral mismanagement, the consequences for public confidence in democracy could be grave.

4. Improving communications about elections

The past week has underlined the importance of spreading the word to voters in order to ensure that they know when, where and how to vote in forthcoming polls.

The issue of elections communications was put in the spotlight earlier this year in a Local Government information Unit (LGiU) report.

The report focused on local elections, and expressed concern about falling turnout, suggesting that factors may include voters being unaware about candidates and their policies, difficulties in finding out local election results and a sense that local democracy is somehow “lesser democracy”.

The report went on to provide councils with tips on improving elections communications. The advice included simple guidance, such as:

  • providing photographs of preparations for elections and of the count
  • posting the results of elections on council websites
  • using social media to raise awareness about registration, voting information and other election-related information

In addition, websites such as Where Do I Vote and Who Can I Vote For can deploy council-supplied information to raise awareness about local elections and candidates – some councils are also highlighting these sites on their own websites.

The report highlighted examples of good practice. These include efforts by Kirklees Council to convey the many different aspects of delivering local democracy, and the inventive use of infographics by Coventry City Council to display election results quickly and clearly.

These techniques are all helpful in raising awareness about the opportunity to take part in decisions that could affect the way we are governed at local and national levels. As the LGiU report concludes:

“Proactive, open and transparent communication about elections does not guarantee active engagement with local government, but it is the essential base on which we build democratic involvement.”

5. Enabling blind / partially sighted people to vote

A functioning democracy is one where anyone entitled to vote is able to vote – and that includes people with disabilities.

Earlier this year, a High Court decision highlighted the difficulties facing blind and partially-sighted people when they enter a polling station.

The ruling concerned a tactile voting device (TVD), a transparent plastic overlay that fits on top of the ballot paper, with cut-out sections for the voter to mark their vote. However, even with the device, blind or partially sighted voters still require assistance to read the names on the ballots. The High Court ruling, delivered earlier this month, said the provision of a TVD “does not in any realistic sense enable that person to vote”, and described it as “a parody of the electoral process”.

The challenge is to find and implement a solution that allows blind people to vote independently, while maintaining the secrecy of the ballot. Elsewhere, new technology has been used, such as a telephone dictation system in New Zealand and a combination of audio and braille systems in Germany.

Perhaps the most effective solution would be a web-based system, enabling all voters to cast their votes online. But the UK government has been reluctant to introduce electronic voting because of concerns about fraud and security.

In the meantime, 350,000 people in the UK who are blind or partially sighted are waiting for the day when they can vote independently and in secret, just like the rest of the electorate.

Final thoughts

Former prime minister Harold Wilson once observed that a week is a long time in politics. The truth of that statement has been brought home in the past seven days, which has seen another attempt to break the Brexit deadlock in parliament, significant results in the European Parliament elections, and the announcement of the current prime minister’s resignation.

Interesting times lie ahead, and it’s not out of the question that the UK’s electoral administrators could soon be called upon once again to help voters play their part in shaping the country’s political future. Unsung heroes they may be, but our democracy depends on them.

Idox Elections is one of the premier election service providers in the UK, providing outstanding expertise and knowledge across all areas of election management. Find out more here.

Follow us on Twitter to discover which topics are interesting our research team.

Co-location of researchers: challenges and opportunities before and after Brexit

Posted on by

“International collaboration and mobility is integral to life as an active researcher across all disciplines and at all career stages.” British Academy, 2017

Collaboration is a core part of the work of researchers. In recent decades, growing numbers of researchers have taken advantage of improved mobility and support from policymakers to travel and work with others in a variety of disciplines.

The benefits of co-location

So it was interesting to read a recent toolkit on co-location of researchers, published by What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth, which looked at interventions that encourage the co-location of researchers, and considered the effectiveness of policies that specifically encourage co-location with the objective of increasing the quantity and quality of scientific output.

The toolkit’s review of evidence found that:

  • Co-location can raise the quality of research.
  • Spillovers may exist between researchers in different academic fields or commercial sectors, but the greatest positive effects of co-location occur for similar activities.
  • Science park co-location impacts positively on firm-level patenting of research, but spillover effects may die away rapidly with distance.
  • Temporary co-location (such as conferences and workshops) can also be effective in inducing collaboration and innovation.
  • Previously collaborating labs continue to work together, although the quality of research suffers with separations.

Co-location in practice

Co-location can occur within a national or international context. A good example of international research mobility in action has been highlighted in a paper published by RESEARCHconnect, which provides information on thousands of funding opportunities dedicated to the UK research community.

Fifteen partners from thirteen countries, including the USA and Canada, have joined forces to improve the capacities for marine-based research in the ice-covered Arctic Ocean. The ARICE (Arctic Research Icebreaker Consortium) project aims to better coordinate the existing polar research fleet, to offer scientists access to six research icebreakers, and to collaborate closely with the maritime industry.

For researchers, project sponsors and hosts, the importance of face-to-face collaboration on projects such as ARICE cannot be overestimated. As Dr Chris Coey, Research Development Support Officer, Division of Research and Knowledge Exchange at the University of Salford, told RESEARCHconnect:

“The advantages of international mobility are, for researchers, access to prestige networks, resources and infrastructure not available at home. Reputations are burnished, arguably in part through mobility itself, collaborations are established or reinforced and, publications and other outputs are achieved. Metrics show that these international collaborations are higher profile and higher quality.”

Of course, arranging and managing co-location can be challenging, particularly when working across languages, cultures and disciplines. And although technology provides alternative ways of exchanging information, the evidence suggests that teleconferencing is no substitute for co-location. A 2017 study of the role of international collaboration and mobility in research noted that “travel was seen to be important in building international collaborations, by helping develop stronger relationships and a broader understanding of each other’s strengths and interests.”

Co-location after Brexit

But while collaboration – particularly international collaboration – has become a key aspect of research, the UK’s decision to leave the European Union is causing uncertainty in the research community. The EU has been a significant source of research funding, and Brexit is now forcing researchers to consider alternatives.

A 2017 report from Digital Science Consultancy for Universities UK explored the challenges and opportunities facing UK research in the post-Brexit landscape. The authors noted that international collaborative partnerships in research with other EU states make up the largest pool of collaborators with UK research:

“Research undertaken with EU partners like Germany and France is growing faster than with other countries – hence while it is vital that the UK takes every opportunity to be truly global in their outlook, the importance of collaboration with EU partners should not be underestimated.”

At the same time, the report suggested that the UK should be developing new networks and funding arrangements that support collaboration with major research powers outside of Europe.

“Regardless of access to EU programmes, enhanced international collaboration could be facilitated by either agreeing partner funding or at least avoiding ‘double jeopardy’ through, for example, a coordinated application process at agency level.”

Speaking to RESEARCHConnect, Dr Chris Coey also highlighted UK sources that provide an alternative to EU funding for international research:

“…this isn’t just the Research Councils but also the larger and more prestigious charitable sources such as Wellcome and the British Academy.”

 Final thoughts

As the What Works toolkit explains, co-location is one of the methods used by policymakers to help encourage the generation and diffusion of new ideas. It enables researchers to share access to expensive equipment, forge links, or simply observe – and learn from – each other.

As the UK prepares to leave the EU, research bodies and researchers themselves will be looking anxiously at the impact of Brexit, while continuing to forge strong partnerships at home and overseas.

RESEARCHconnect is the Idox group’s funding service providing information on thousands of funding opportunities dedicated to the UK and wider European research community. Focused on researchers at all levels of academia – from undergraduates to senior career researchers – and also including a spectrum of funding opportunities for universities and research institutes, the service offers a comprehensive one-stop-shop of funding information.

The year that was: looking back on a year of policy and practice on The Knowledge Exchange blog

Posted on by

Before bidding farewell to 2017, there’s just time to reflect on some of the issues we’ve been covering in The Knowledge Exchange blog during the past twelve months. There’s been no shortage of subjects to consider, from health and social care and devolution to  universal credit and town planning.

Missing EU already?
Of course, the major issue dominating policy in the UK this year has been Brexit. In July, we reviewed a new book by Professor Janet Morphet which assessed the UK’s future outside the European Union. While not claiming to have all the answers, the book provides a framework for making sure the right questions are asked during the negotiation period and beyond.

One important consideration concerning Brexit is its potential impact on science, technology and innovation. In August, we noted that, while the UK government has been making efforts to lessen the concerns of researchers, anxieties remain about funding and the status of EU nationals currently working in science and technology roles in the UK.

Home thoughts, from home and abroad
Throughout the year, we’ve been looking at the UK’s chronic housing crisis. In May, we considered the potential for prefabricated housing to address housing shortages, while in August, we looked at the barriers facing older people looking to downsize from larger homes. In October, we reported on the growing interest in co-housing.

The severe shortage of affordable housing has had a significant impact on homelessness, and not only in the UK. In April, we highlighted a report which documented significant rises in the numbers of homeless people across Europe, including a 50% increase in homelessness in France, and a 75% increase in youth homelessness in Copenhagen.

One European country bucking this trend is Finland, and in July our blog looked at the country’s success in reducing long term homelessness and improving prevention services. Although the costs of Finland’s “housing first” approach are considerable, the results suggest that it’s paying off: the first seven years of the policy saw a 35% fall in long term homelessness.

Keeping mental health in mind
A speech by the prime minister on mental health at the start of the year reflected growing concerns about how we deal with mental illness and its impacts. Our first blog post of 2017 looked at efforts to support people experiencing mental health problems at work. As well as highlighting that stress is one of the biggest causes of long-term absence in the workplace, the article provided examples of innovative approaches to mental illness by the construction and social work sectors.

A further post, in August pointed to the importance of joining up housing and mental health services, while in September we explored concerns that mobile phone use may have negative effects on the mental health of young people.

Going digital
Another recurring theme in 2017 was the onward march of digital technologies. In June, we explored the reasons why the London Borough of Croydon was named Digital Council of the Year. New online services have generated very clear benefits: in-person visits to the council have been reduced by 30% each year, reducing staffing costs and increasing customer satisfaction from 57% to 98%.

Also in June, we reported on guidance published by the Royal Town Planning Institute on how planners can create an attractive environment for digital tech firms. Among its recommendations: planners should monitor the local economy to get a sense of what local growth industries are, and local authorities should employ someone to engage with local tech firms to find out how planning could help to better facilitate their growth.

Idox in focus
Last, but not least, we’ve continued to update our readers on new and continuing developments at the Idox Information Service. Our blog has featured articles on the Research Online, Evaluations Online and Ask-a-Researcher services, as well as the Social Policy and Practice database for evidence and research in social care. We were proud once again to sponsor the 2017 RTPI Research Excellence awards, and highlighted the winning entries. And following an office move, in September we explored the fascinating history behind the building where we now do business.

Back to the future
2018 is already shaping up as an important year in policy and practice. One important issue exercising both the public and private sectors is preparing for the General Data Protection Regulation. The Knowledge Exchange blog will be keeping an eye on this and many other issues, and the Idox Information Service, will be on hand to ensure our members are kept informed throughout 2018 and beyond.

Thank you for reading our blog posts in 2017, and we wish all of our readers a very Happy Christmas and a peaceful and prosperous New Year.

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

Beyond Brexit? How to assess the UK’s future – a new resource

Posted on by

The EU flag, with the Brexit on it appear, in the form of a jigsaw puzzle.

By Steven McGinty

Although Brexit negotiations are officially underway, there is no clear vision of how the UK will look once it’s left the European Union.  Politicians – including those within government – appear to be divided on the issue, with Chancellor Philip Hammond’s wish for a softer Brexit seemingly at odds with Brexit Secretary David Davis and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.

This uncertainty has left businesses, local authorities, and the general public struggling to plan for the future, and in search of answers to help navigate these difficult Brexit waters.

One valuable resource they may turn to is Professor Janice Morphet’s new book, Beyond Brexit? How to assess the UK’s future.

In this short guide, Professor Morphet – an expert in infrastructure, the EU and public policy – takes a long term view and attempts to understand the whole range of options that may be deployed by the UK, EU, and other international institutions.

Below we’ve outlined some of the main themes of the book.

Implications for devolved nations and territories

The impact of the EU referendum result has been strongly felt by the devolved nations and territories.

For example, Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has argued that Scotland (where 62% voted to stay in the EU) should be recognised in the Brexit negotiations, and that Scotland should be allowed to come to an arrangement on continued EU membership.

Similarly, Gibraltar (where 96% voted in favour of remaining in the EU) is looking to retain access to the EU’s single market and free access across the EU border. There have also been diplomatic tensions, with the suggestion that there should be no UK/EU agreement – that includes Gibraltar – without the consent of Spain.

But beyond these specific issues, Professor Morphet raises the wider point that EU legislation is a fundamental component of specific devolved powers.

This is because much of the powers devolved to Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales are derived from legislation initially agreed within the EU. In Professor Morphet’s view, devolved nations will need clarification on how they’d retain decision-making powers, including whether a new set of powers would need to be introduced. One suggestion discussed is the need to create a federal constitution guaranteeing the devolution arrangements.

Benefits of the EU

During the referendum campaign there was limited discussion on the value of EU membership. Even the Remain campaign focused on the negative impact of leaving, rather than the positive impact of being a member of the EU.

Professor Morphet provides an authoritative look at some of these benefits, including the:

  • importance of being inside the world’s largest market;
  • ability to engage diplomatically as part of a global diplomatic group;
  • development of an EU-wide energy policy, ensuring energy security; and
  • commitment to achieving higher environmental stands across the EU.

Options for future UK/EU institutional relationships

Much of the UK’s future relationship with the EU will be dependent on the current Brexit negotiations. As such, it’s unclear whether the UK will achieve a bespoke arrangement with the EU, gain an agreement similar to another country (such as the Norway or the Swiss models) or if there will be any deal at all.

Professor Morphet discusses this wide variety of options, and considers some of the challenges for the UK Government – who at the moment appear undecided on how far outside the EU they would like to be.

Immediate actions that must be taken by the UK

Before the EU Referendum result many high profile individuals and institutions claimed the UK economy would collapse. This included former Chancellor George Osborne, who suggested there would need to be an emergency Brexit Budget, and the Bank of England’s governor Mark Carney, who warned that the UK risked heading into a recession.

However, even though the economic slowdown has not occurred, there have been signs that the referendum result has impacted the UK on a variety of levels. For instance, Professor Morphet highlights that there has been an effective 11-16% devaluation of the pound, and that inflation is likely to rise in 2017. For her, stabilising the economy should be the priority for the UK government, arguing that it needs to offer a clear view of Brexit to reduce the political uncertainty.

Final thoughts

Professor Morphet’s latest book is a must read for anyone with an interest in how the country will look post Brexit. By her own admittance, the book does not provide all the answers, but it does provide a framework for making sure the right questions are asked during the negotiation period and beyond.

The Idox Information Service is a unique source of information and knowledge on public and social policy and practice. Organisations that join the Information Service will have access to our fortnightly Brexit update, highlighting all the latest Brexit publications, commentary, and developments.

Membership packages can cover an entire organisation or a specific department or team. We also offer subscriptions to our current awareness services to individuals who are not affiliated with a subscribing organisation.

To find out more information please contact our team on 0141 574 1920 or contact us online.

Europe’s housing time bomb: a new report highlights the millions affected by housing exclusion

Posted on by

The European Union has not had its troubles to seek in the years following the financial meltdown of 2008. Continuing concerns about the euro, the refugee crisis and Brexit are challenging Europe’s leaders as never before, leading to speculation about the very existence of the EU. But at the end of March, new research highlighted an additional challenge that threatens Europe’s social fabric.

The authors of the report described the current situation concerning housing exclusion and homelessness as “a state of emergency” affecting all European countries. Startling figures uncovered by the research show a continent-wide crisis in the making:

  • In France, the number of homeless people increased by 50% between 2001 and 2012
  • In Germany, 16% of people spend more than 40% of their income on housing
  • In Romania, one in every two people live in overcrowded conditions
  • In the league table of homelessness, the UK now ranks 20th out of 28
  • The number of families in temporary accommodation in London has increased by 50% since 2010
  • In Copenhagen, youth homelessness has increased by 75% since 2009
  • In Warsaw, the number of people sleeping rough or in emergency shelters has risen by 37% since 2013
  • One in 70 people in Athens are now homeless

Vulnerable groups

The report finds that young people across Europe are being hit especially hard by housing exclusion.

“In all EU countries, young people are more vulnerable to prohibitive housing costs, overcrowding and severe housing deprivation than the rest of the population. For poor young people across Europe, the situation is becoming unbearable, with 65% in Germany, 78% in Denmark and 58% in the UK spending more than 40% of their disposable income on housing. The average in the EU is 48%.”

The report also found that Europe’s poor are being side-lined at a time when housing expenditure has increased while incomes have fallen.

“In general, people living below the poverty threshold are increasingly marginalised by a private rental market that feeds off a systemic lack of affordable housing.”

Non-EU citizens are another vulnerable group experiencing housing difficulties:

“Two-thirds of non-EU citizens are overburdened by housing costs in Greece, almost half in Spain and Belgium, more than one third in Ireland and Portugal, and more than one quarter in the United Kingdom, Denmark, the Netherlands, Italy, and Slovenia.”

Unfit conditions

While homelessness and the rising cost of housing are proving to be growing problems across the EU, poor housing is are also a Europe-wide issue.  Across all European countries, a poor household is two to twelve times more likely to live in severe housing deprivation (leaking roof, dampness, poor sanitation) than other households, and in the European Union as a whole, one person in six lives in overcrowded housing.

Fuel poverty is another significant problem, affecting almost a quarter of poor households across the continent. In the UK, 9.4% of the population and 20.2% of poor households experience financial difficulty in maintaining adequate household temperatures.

Eviction: “a collective abandonment of other people”     

An entire chapter of the report is dedicated to eviction, which the authors describe as “…one of the worst forms of violence that can afflict someone.”

The figures from national governments and Eurostat highlight significant variations in the pattern of evictions in each EU country, with surges in the number of evictions in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ireland, Latvia and the Netherlands, while six countries – the Czech Republic, Denmark, Croatia, Lithuania, Portugal and Sweden saw substantial reductions in the number of evictions.

The figures also show varying trends within the UK and differences between the private and public sectors. In England and Wales, rental disputes rose in the social housing sector, but fell in private housing; in Northern Ireland, property foreclosures rose slightly, while tenant evictions rose dramatically by 75%; in Scotland, eviction procedures of all kinds fell by 17%.

Addressing the issue

The report argues that the tools for dealing with the challenges of housing exclusion in Europe already exist, including Europe-wide networks of local, regional and national governments, and EU initiatives, such as the Urban Agenda and the European Pillar of Social Rights. The authors note that there are many examples of good housing practice, notably in Finland, whose “housing first” strategy has achieved a reduction in homelessness – the only EU country to do so.

However, the authors contend that Europe’s leaders need to rapidly activate the political will to tackle the problem of housing exclusion:

“The EU and Member States should place the elimination of homelessness in the core of their social policy agendas. Responses to homelessness should be mainstreamed into the design and implementation of relevant sectoral policies including youth, gender, migration, and Roma inclusion. The EU and the Member States can and should act to enforce social rights.”

Final thoughts

The report’s figures make sobering reading: more than 36 million households living in overcrowded conditions; almost 11 million households facing severe deprivation; more than 22 million households experiencing fuel poverty. Perhaps most worrying is the number of homeless people in Europe. This is an unknowable figure, but all the indications are that it is rising dramatically.

Published a week before the UK signalled its intention to leave the EU, the report received comparatively little media coverage. But if the problem of housing exclusion and homelessness continues to grow, it threatens to overwhelm political leaders at EU, national and local levels. It’s no exaggeration to suggest that homelessness could rival Brexit in its impact on the future of Europe.

Also on our blog:

The economy and Brexit – what’s next?

Posted on by

money-economics-growth

By Heather Cameron

‘Uncertainty and volatility’ – these were two key terms highlighted at a recent event focusing on the impact of Brexit on the economy, hosted by STEP Stirling.

Following the historic decision of the UK to leave the European Union and all the press that has ensued, it was interesting to hear from experts in the field on what they believe the true impact will be.

Speaker: David Bell, Professor of Economics, University of Stirling

Professor David Bell from Stirling University delivered the first presentation, providing an overview of the key economic implications of Brexit.

David suggested that the negative impacts from a leave vote have not materialised as predicted, noting that “the economics of Brexit has moved at a slower pace than the politics.” Many predicted that there would be an immediate impact on the economy and on consumer confidence, but this hasn’t happened. Retail sales have shown no signs of collapse, with recent research actually showing growth.

Nevertheless, David noted that things were different for businesses, which are experiencing a lot of uncertainty. He indicated that this business uncertainty has dragged UK business output and optimism to a three year low.

What is clear, is that there has been a significant depreciation in Sterling which is unlikely to be reversed in the short to medium term. David considered the implications of this, including that we are poorer, more time will be spent working to benefit smaller businesses, there is lower borrowing costs and it is bad news for pensions.

David also highlighted the issues around the UK’s deficit in goods and surplus in services and trade agreements, which are particularly complicated. To conclude, David acknowledged that negotiations will be difficult and that we will be in the same position for some time to come – with a lot of uncertainty.

Speaker: Craig Wilson, Senior Director Treasury Solutions North England & Scotland at Clydesdale Bank

Following David, was Craig Wilson from the Clydesdale Bank. He considered the impact of Brexit from a financial markets perspective.

To begin, Craig highlighted that what was surprising about the Brexit vote was that ‘the bookies were wrong’, with odds as much as 2/9 suggesting an 82% probability of a remain victory. He noted that the immediate reaction, as similarly highlighted by David, was a drop in Sterling. He said:

“We had a reaction to a recession without the recession taking place.”

Craig also highlighted what has happened since the vote in terms of GBP/Euro stats, interest rate cuts and the price of Brent oil. Interestingly, Brexit hasn’t been shown to have affected commodities as oil prices only dropped slightly and have now increased again.

In agreement with David, Craig argued that there will be a negative impact on the economy in the short to medium term. Economists have cut UK GDP growth going forward to just 1%. Craig suggested that house prices will be important because if they hold up, consumer confidence is likely to remain.

The future, however, was also emphasised as uncertain by Craig. He highlighted that there are lots of variables, both within the UK and abroad, including:

  • UK data
  • Public perception and consumer sentiment
  • Recession?
  • Bank of England monetary policy – will there be more cuts?
  • Negotiations – timing of these, will they be positive or negative?
  • House of Commons/Lords may ignore the vote
  • The US presidential elections
  • US interest rate increases?
  • The Italian debt crisis
  • Emerging markets

In conclusion, Craig suggested the one thing to take away is that so many factors will make the markets volatile.

If you enjoyed reading this, you may also be interested in our other recent blogs on the impact of Brexit:

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