Technology

Underground or Overground –should we bury electricity cables?

Underground or Overground –should we bury electricity cables?

The electricity transmission system in England and Wales consists of approximately 7,200 kilometres (4,470 miles) of overhead line and 1,400 kilometres (870 miles) of underground cable operating at 275,000 and 400,000 volts (275kV and 400kV). The term ‘undergrounding’ refers to the replacement of overhead cables with underground cables. When and where is undergrounding currently used – and should it be rolled out in more rural areas? Jessica Sellick investigates. ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

It was during the Industrial Revolution, and the work of Benjamin Franklin in 1752, which started the use of human-generated electricity. Coal was used to power tools and machines and, in 1769, James Watt patented the world’s first coal-powered steam engine which was used in factories and mills. The UK’s gas industry was founded in 1812 when Frederick Winsor formed a company to build a public gas works and distribute gas to customers through a network of underground pipes. London’s network provided gas to almost 70,000 streetlights by 1827, and in 1882 the Edison Electric Light Station was built in London to supply light and heat to urban residents.  

In the early 20th century electricity started to be pumped into people’s home using pylons designed by Sir Reginald Blomfield – with electricity being provided across the country. After the First World War the electricity industry wanted cheaper and more reliable energy supplies. In 1925 Lord Weir chaired a committee that proposed the development of the Central Electricity Board (CEB) which would connect power stations in Britain and be called a ‘national gridiron’. The Electricity (Supply) Act 1926 established the CEB as a statutory body with the duty of supplying electricity.  

The world’s first integrated national grid began in 1935, with 7 grid areas established and overseen by control rooms in Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Birmingham, Bristol, London and Glasgow. In 1937 control room engineers combined all seven grid areas for the first time. 

In the post first world war era power stations were being built less frequently, coal was rationed, yet electricity usage was increasing. In 1949 National Grid initiated talks with Électricité de France, a French-based power company, about constructing a cross-Channel power link. Still not able to keep up with supply demands, in 1950 a 12-year project was launched to establish a 275kV ‘supergrid’. 42-metre-high pylons and 4,000 miles of transmission lines were installed as part of this work. In 1957 the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) was established – and its structure reduced to five regions to allow for more efficient operations. Between the 1960s and 1980s a new 400kV supergrid was constructed. 

In 1989 the Electricity Act was approved. This led to the privatisation of the electricity industry. Section 9 of the Act gave National Grid a statutory duty to maintain ‘an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity transmission’. National Grid also has to meet minimum standards of quality in terms of voltage and frequency; and is responsible for maintaining its transmission system and managing a programme of asset replacement. 

In 1995 National Grid was listed on the London Stock Exchange and its shares traded publicly. Its seven control centres across Britain were replaced by the Electricity National Control Centre (ENCC) in Wokingham. In practical terms National Grid transmits electricity at high speed (of 275kV and 400kV) across the country, through pylons and overhead lines, and then transports electricity into homes and businesses through its distribution networks. To make the electricity safe for domestic use National Grid must lower the voltage of electricity to up to 132kV– which can be done via smaller pylons or underground cables that carry lower voltage lines. In addition, small-scale electricity generators (e.g. wind farms, solar parks) connect direct to the distribution network through embedded generation. In 2019, for the first time in the UK and the United States, more energy was generated from zero carbon sources than fossil fuels and the National Grid launched ‘The Great Grid Upgrade’, infrastructure projects to connect more renewable energy to homes and businesses.

In England and Wales National Grid owns, builds and maintains pylons and overhead lines (OHL) and underground cables that make up the electricity transmission network. Distribution network operators (DNOs) manage the poles, pylons and cables in a local area – in some local areas these are also run by the National Grid while in other areas other operators manage the network.  

What is undergrounding – and when and where is it used? Undergrounding is a process whereby overhead lines (OHLs) providing electrical power or telecommunications are replaced with underground cables. The technology to do this ranges from direct burial (1.5 metres wide and 1.2 metres deep) through to deep bore tunnels (12 metres wide and 25-30 metres deep). 

Early undergrounding can be traced back to the first submarine communications cables laid in the 1850s which carried telegraphy traffic, with the first transatlantic telegraph cable becoming operational on 16 August 1858. Around 1890 Sebastian Ziani de Ferranti designed high-voltage underground mains cables which he used to connect the Grosvenor Galleries to Deptford substation – he further developed this cabling so they could handle 10,000 volt current to be rolled out more widely. During the 20th century Direct-buried cable (DBC) became commonplace. Unlike standard power cables, which have a thin layer of insulation and a waterproof outer layer, DBC consists of multiple layers of heavy metallic-banded sheathing, reinforced by rubber covers, shock absorbing gel, waterproof tape and stiffened by a heavy metal core. 

The security and reliability of the UK’s current and future energy supply is dependent on having a network and infrastructure to meet electricity demand – this includes above and lower voltage OHL and underground cables of any voltage. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) publishes planning guidance for developers of nationally significant energy infrastructure projects. Overarching National Policy Statement for energy (EN-1) was presented to parliament in November 2023 and came into force in January 2024. Section 5.10.7 states: 

National Parks, the Broads and AONBs have been confirmed by the government as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and natural beauty. Each of these designated areas has specific statutory purposes. Projects should be designed sensitively given the various siting, operational, and other relevant constraints. For development proposals located within designated landscapes, the Secretary of State should be satisfied that measures which seek to further purposes of the designation are sufficient, appropriate, and proportionate to the type and scale of the development. 

Section 5.11.20 states: 

The general policies controlling development in the countryside apply with equal force in Green Belts but there is, in addition, a general presumption against inappropriate development within them. Such development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Applicants should therefore determine whether their proposal, or any part of it, is within an established Green Belt and if it is, whether their proposal may be inappropriate development within the meaning of Green Belt policy. 

DESNZ’s National Policy Statement for electricity networks infrastructure (EN-5) was published in November 2023. This sets out the Government’s policy on OHL and underground cables. Sections 2.9.11-12 state: 

Landscape and visual benefits may arise through the reconfiguration, rationalisation, or undergrounding of existing electricity network infrastructure. Though mitigation of the landscape and visual impacts arising from overhead lines and their associated infrastructure is usually possible, it may not always be so, and the impossibility of full mitigation in these cases does not countermand the need for overhead lines…However, in nationally designated landscapes (for instance, National Parks, The Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) even residual impacts may well make an overhead line proposal unacceptable in planning terms. 

Sections 2.9.20-23 state: 

Although it is the government’s position that overhead lines should be the strong starting presumption for electricity networks developments in general, this presumption is reversed when proposed developments will cross part of a nationally designated landscape (i.e. National Park, The Broads, or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty)… However, undergrounding will not be required where it is infeasible in engineering terms, or where the harm that it causes (see section 2.11.4) is not outweighed by its corresponding landscape, visual amenity and natural beauty benefits…Additionally, cases will arise where – though no part of the proposed development crosses a designated landscape – a high potential for widespread and significant adverse landscape and/or visual impacts along certain sections of its route may result in recommendations to use undergrounding for relevant segments of the line or alternatively consideration of using a route including subsea cabling. 

These documents set out the factors that the Secretary of State should consider in granting development consent, including:

  • The landscape and visual baseline characteristics of the setting of the proposed route. 
  • The additional cost of the proposed underground or subsea alternatives, including their significantly higher lifetime cost of repair and later uprating. 
  • The applicant’s commitment to mitigate the potential detrimental effects of undergrounding works on any relevant agricultural land and soils (including peat soils). 

Overall, OHL is the Government’s strong starting presumption for electricity network infrastructure developments. However, this is reversed in nationally designated landscapes where the strong starting presumption should be that the applicant will underground ‘relevant sections’ of the line. 

The Visual Impact Provision (VIP) is managed by National Grid and administering £465 million of funding from Ofgem to reduce the impact of existing transmission lines in English and Welsh AONBs and National Parks. The National Grid has  assessed 571km of its electricity transmission lines in these protected landscapes to identify which sections have the highest visual impact on their surroundings. Using input from technical experts, local stakeholders, communities and a Stakeholder Advisory Group, 4 individual priority schemes have been selected where replacing the OHL with an underground connection could have a transformative effect on the landscape: (1) Cotswolds, (2) Dorset, (3) Snowdonia, and (4) North Wessex Downs. Alongside this, the VIP project includes the Landscape Enhancement Initiative (LEI) which is a grant scheme which awarded almost £4 million between 2015 and 2021 for localised visual improvement projects. From 2022 National Grid intends to make £11-12 million available over a 5-year period to National Landscapes  and National Parks in England and Wales.  

What are the benefits of undergrounding? Back in 2015 the National Grid published a technical report on undergrounding high voltage electricity transmission lines. This looked at the technical merits and challenges associated with underground lines compared to installing overhead lines. While costs will vary depending upon length, power, voltage, and ground conditions; the operation, maintenance, and energy losses over the life of the connection are broadly the same for undergrounding as for overhead lines. The report found ‘The use of underground cables has a long-term positive visual impact when compared with the use of overhead lines, and in some instances this will be the preferred choice’ (page 8). 

Given the future pipeline for NSIP projects will consist of significant numbers of energy projects coming forward, the Government consulted on an updated suite of energy NPSs. In November 2023, the Government published the consultation response to planning for new energy infrastructure. On the presumption for OHL except in nationally designated landscapes, some environmental organisations commented that this should be expanded to all biodiverse areas, including those adjacent to nationally designated areas. Similarly, a few local government respondents called for the presumption to be expanded to areas of local or historic value. They suggested these areas could equally benefit from the starting presumption and their lack of inclusion risked damaging the local character, biodiversity, and value of these areas. Some members of the public and local authorities expressed concern about the visual impact of OHLs, describing them as ugly and/or a blot on the landscape. Some respondents described: 

  • OHL as being highly damaging to habitats and bird strikes into power lines as being a major killer acknowledged in the national policy statements. 
  • OHL as being less resilient in extreme weather than underground cables or sub-sea grids. 
  • OHL causing significant damage to landscape, archaeology and cultural heritage including the settings of AONB (even when the pylons are outside of the AONB), scheduled monuments and listed buildings. 
  • How forcing pylons upon communities without genuine alternatives is not fair. 

For national landscapes and national parks, the selection criteria for awarding LEI funding takes account of: 

  • The reduction of existing electricity transmission infrastructure on publicly accessible viewpoints, and general visual resource experienced by local communities and/or visitors to the area. 
  • Helping to foster regional and local landscape diversity and distinctiveness (informed by Natural England’s National Character Area profiles).  
  • The other environmental benefits the project will bring – such as protecting or enhancing biodiversity and/or historic features. 
  • The contribution to sustainable social and economic development in the area. 

What are some of the challenges? Underground has other financial, environmental, and socio-economic factors that should also be considered. 

  • Transmission lines intended for open-air use are not suitable for burial underground as they produce heat that cannot dissipate through soil. This means underground lines must be insulated, adding additional expense. Some studies indicate that the cost to install the same length of wire underground can be 10 times more than the equivalent work above-ground. For example, a study from the Institute of Engineering and Technology (IET) and Parsons Brinkerhoff published back in 2012 found OHL was the cheapest transmission technology for any given route length or circuit capacity, with the lifetime cost estimates varying between £2.2m and £4.2m per kilometre. This compares to lifetime cost estimates varying between £10.2m and £24.1m per kilometre for underground cable direct buried; and to £12.9 million to £23.9 million for undergrounding using a deep tunnel. National Grid’s technical report found to match overhead line thermal performance for a 400kV double circuit, as many as 12 separate cables in four separate trenches may be needed if undergrounding, resulting in a work area up to 65 metres wide. 
  • Underground wires have a shorter lifespan than their above-ground counterparts. This is a result of corrosion. Indeed, there are already a limited number of cable manufacturers across the world particularly for cables at the high voltages required by National Grid. 
  • Routine maintenance is more difficult, and service restoration can take longer as it can be harder to pinpoint the exact location of the interruption. 
  • Repairing faults can take longer due to the excavation necessary to make the repair, after which the area must be re-landscaped and restored to its previous state.
  • Environmental impacts result from undergrounding cables – this can pose a threat to sensitive and protected species and habitats and potential damage to archaeological heritage. 

Should more undergrounding take place in rural areas? The Government has not laid down any further rules on the circumstances requiring the use of undergrounding, therefore, the secretary of state must weigh the feasibility, cost, and any harm of the undergrounding against: 

  • The adverse implications of the OHL proposal. 
  • The cost and feasibility of re-routing OHL or mitigation proposals for the relevant line section. 
  • The cost and feasibility of the reconfiguration, rationalisation, and use of underground cabling of proximate existing or proposed electricity networks infrastructure. 

The secretary of state should therefore only grant development consent for underground sections of a proposed line over an overhead alternative if they are satisfied that the benefits accruing from the former proposal clearly outweigh any extra economic, social, or environmental impacts that it presents, the mitigation hierarchy has been followed, and that any technical obstacles associated with it are surmountable. While arguments in favour of undergrounding were seen in response to the Government’s consultation on draft national policy statements for energy infrastructure, the starting presumption remains for OHL with the exception of nationally designated landscapes. 

Where next? The IET and Parsons Brinckerhoff study concluded that ‘no one technology can cover, or is appropriate in, every circumstance, and thus financial cost cannot be used as the only factor in the choice of one technology over another in a given application’. On 22 November 2023, Claire Coutinho, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero announced a new programme to deliver transformation of the electricity network. This includes plans to halve the time it takes to build new transmission infrastructure, to reduce the time taken for viable projects to connect to the grid, to introduce a community benefits package for communities who host transmission infrastructure, and to run a national communications campaign to improve public understanding of electricity infrastructure and its benefits. The Government is proposing a package whereby local communities will receive around £200,000/km (~£320,000/mile) for overhead lines, £40,000/km (~£60,000/mile) for underground cables, and £200,000 per substation. It will be for the local community to decide in consultation with the developer what projects they would like to support. No specific references were made to undergrounding or to rural communities. How will rural communities be involved in the design, development, and delivery of future electricity infrastructure – and how much undergrounding do we want to see in the countryside? Watch this space. 

 …………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating a service that supports older people to maintain their independence; and reviewing neighbourhood-based initiatives (NBI). Jessica also sits on the board of a charity supporting  rural communities across Cambridgeshire and is a member of her local Patient Participation Group. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

AI

What does AI mean for rural communities? 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a relatively new but rapidly growing technological field, and it is increasingly shaping the way we interact with the world. How is AI benefitting rural communities, and what more could it do? Jessica Sellick investigates. ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

AI technologies can be found in a wide range of everyday applications – from virtual assistants and navigation software, through to online banking and facial recognition. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is being deployed across many sectors to assist in tasks such as decision making and improving productivity. What is AI, and how can it be deployed to benefit rural communities? 

What is Artificial Intelligence? There is no universally agreed upon definition of artificial intelligence (AI) or AI technologies. Academics Haroon Sheikh, Corien Prins and Erik Schrijvers describe how it can be defined according to algorithms; by the imitation by computers of the intelligence inherent in humans; as a technology that enables machines to imitate various ‘complex human skills’; or an imitation or stimulation of something we do not yet fully understand ourselves: human intelligence! In seeking to define AI, research by psychologists, behavioural scientists and neurologists amongst others have opened up discussions around autonomy, human intelligence and innovation. All of this has led Haroon Sheikh and colleagues to adopt an open definition of AI where it applies to ‘systems that display intelligent behaviour by analysing their environment and taking actions – with some degree of autonomy – to achieve specific goals’.  The Alan Turing Institute defines AI as ‘intelligence, such as reasoning, making decisions, learning from mistakes, communicating, solving problems, and moving around the physical world’. 

Back in March 2023 the Government published the UK Science and Technology Framework. This set out the Government’s strategic vision for AI as one of 5 critical technologies. The Framework described AI as ‘machines that perform tasks normally performed by human intelligence, especially when machines learn from data how to do those tasks’. The Framework reinforced the Government’s commitment to delivering the National AI Strategy published back in September 2021, which was focused around the UK being an AI superpower, supporting the transition to an AI-enabled economy, and ensuring the governance of AI technologies is right.   

The Office for Artificial Intelligence (Office for AI), part of the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology (DSIT), defines AI as ‘the use of digital technology to create systems capable of performing tasks commonly thought to require intelligence’. As a research field it spans philosophy, logic, statistics, computer science, mathematics, neuroscience, linguistics, cognitive psychology and economics. While the field is constantly evolving, it has two distinct characteristics: (i) it involves machines using statistics to find patterns in large amounts of data; and (ii) it involves the ability to perform repetitive tasks with data without the need for constant human guidance.   

In August 2023, the Office for AI published a policy paper on AI regulation. This further described AI systems, or AI technologies, as ‘products and services that are adaptable and autonomous’. The paper sets out how the Government intends to support innovation while providing a framework to ensure risks are identified and addressed. In October 2023 the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology committee opened an inquiry into the governance of AI. 

More recently, in November 2023, the Prime Minister hosted a global summit on AI safety. This resulted in 28 countries agreeing to the Bletchley Declaration on AI safety. The UK and United States Governments also announced new National AI Safety Institutes. 

Why is AI capable of, and what is driving its use? AI is being used for linguistic tasks, computer tasks, and to improve the performance of robots. Some examples include:

  • Natural language processing (NLP): AI is being used for speech-to-text converters, online tools that summarise text, for chatbots, and for speech recognition and translation. 
  • Programming computer systems: AI is being used on computer systems to assist in the interpretation of images and videos (e.g. facial recognition, medical imaging, video surveillance) and to develop driverless vehicles. 
  • Robotics: AI is being used on machines to carry out actions (e.g. medical robots performing surgery, self-navigating drones).  

These AI developments are possible because of advances in data, computing power and investment. Machine learning (ML) systems are training on larger data sets. For example, ChatGPT 3.5 was trained using 300 billion words obtained from internet text. The amount of computing power used to train ML models has increased – a Foundation Model released in 2020 used 600,000 times more computing power than a comparable Model in 2012. In March 2023 the Government announced a £900 million investment towards a new supercomputer, known as Isambard-AI, and hosted at the University of Bristol. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) also announced a £10 million investment to a group of universities (including Bristol) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, and a £30 million award to the Science and Technology Facilities Council’s laboratory in Cheshire. 

While these advances already are (and will be) impressive, of greater significance is their uptake by society. Discussion has moved on from digital transformation to generative AI whereby our everyday lives are increasingly being shaped algorithmically.  And while some citizens are excited by the possibility of AI saving time and handling mundane or difficult tasks, others worry about the loss of human jobs and fear AI will become so powerful it will outsmart people. 

There are also concerns around the concentration of Large Language Models in the hands of a few technology companies; privacy and data protection around the use of data to train AI models (data mining or harvesting at a mass scale); the ability of AI models to generate false information; and a lack of skills in the current UK workforce to develop AI.    

How are rural communities using AI – and what do they have to gain? 

McKinsey has estimated that generative AI technologies have the potential to add between $2.6 trillion and $4.4 trillion annually to the global economy. AI is already found across a wide range of sectors and services. Some examples of how AI is being developed or deployed in a rural context include: 

  • Agriculture: choosing optimum crops for weather conditions, monitoring crops, improving resource efficiency, monitoring livestock and detecting the early signs of disease, employing automated workers or tasks (e.g. robotic fertilisers). 
  • Transport: monitoring deliveries or traffic status, self-driving or autonomous vehicles, or ‘pay with your face’ to use public transport. 
  • Education: for adaptive tutoring or instructional assistants that explain difficult concepts to students; to undertake automated routine tasks around lesson planning; and drafting communications with parents/carers and the local community.  
  • Healthcare: medical imaging, patient monitoring, or identifying patients at higher risk of developing certain conditions. 
  • Policing: gathering intelligence, predicting crime and facial recognition tools.
  • Weather: to generate scenarios or develop algorithms that mine social media posts to learn from the language used and the pictures shared to deduce whether a weather event is happening and to what extent. 

While many of the issues rural communities face may be shared by their urban counterparts (e.g. access to services, economic development, climate change), how they are experienced and the solutions that are needed are different in a rural context. While much of the focus to date has been on the deployment of AI in agriculture, there are opportunities for rural communities to engage AI in other new and novel ways – with examples ranging from building weather/climate resilience through to reducing the impact of social isolation.  

Is there an (emerging) urban-rural AI gap? Some researchers suggest data is more likely to be harvested from rural residents than their urban counterparts. For example, a study by Douglas Leith on data being harvested by smart phones revealed Android phones give Google 20 times more data that iPhones send to Apple. On the one hand, this suggests that where android phones are more dominant in rural areas the user’s data is more likely to be harvested. But on the other hand, this potentially exposes rural users to some technological downsides regarding data privacy, protection and ownership. 

Similarly, once gathered, some evidence suggests data is more likely to be used to develop initiatives that benefit urban areas. For example, a scoping review by Jose Guerra and colleagues found that public health AI projects primarily used community based surveillance data collected from rural areas, with the harvested data often used to design public health initiatives of benefit to urban areas. 

Closing this rural AI gap is part of a much broader discussion around digital infrastructure and connectivity, rural proofing within policy-making and investment decision-making, and skills and expertise.  

Data analysis by Ofcom shows that while there has been an increase in gigabit-capable coverage in both urban and rural areas across the UK, there has been a greater increase in urban areas. This is because some providers tend to focus their roll-out on urban areas. Similarly, while the majority of homes and businesses have access to at least decent broadband on a fixed line connection, around half a million premises, mainly in rural areas, currently do not. While Ofcom is seeing small improvements in 4G coverage (partly as a result of initiatives such as the Shared Rural Network), the lack of reliable digital infrastructure and connectivity in some rural areas continues to hamper the ability of communities and businesses to benefit from AI.

Back in October 2022 the White House published a blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights to make automated systems work for the American people. This recommended that systems be made and audited with ‘consultation from diverse communities’, including communities in rural areas which have traditionally been underserved. The blueprint therefore gives rural communities are opportunities to shape the trajectory of these technologies. Back in the UK, while the Government and devolved administrations have published a range of documents and announced investments in AI, alongside a much wider range of parliamentary interest and activity, to what extent is rural proofing taking place? Defra, for example, has developed an AI Community of Interest for colleagues in Defra who are interested in building and sharing knowledge about AI.

There appears to be little consistency in the terminology used to describe the knowledge, skills and roles of AI. While research from Accenture found that 34% of UK organisations had scaled up AI technologies in response to COVID-19, only 27% of UK business leaders described their non-technical workforce as being well-prepared to leverage new technology. The Alan Turing Institute has highlighted the AI skills gap – running from early years through to senior positions in academia and industry. Without consistency in terminology or data collection, it is currently difficult to understand the skills gaps being experienced across the UK. It would be good to recruit and retain AI workers in rural areas – having more AI expertise in rural communities could help to both increase its benefits and take-up but also lead to greater understanding of its challenges.    

Where next? The big shift taking place here is not only around data, models, and tools or their capabilities; but their uptake and the profound ways in which they are impacting society. While many of us are starting to think about AI and its implications, if we don’t keep pace with developments, and indeed shape the agenda, AI is going to create its own vision of rural communities.  …………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating a service that supports older people to maintain their independence; and reviewing neighbourhood based initiatives (NBI). Jessica also sits on the board of a charity supporting  rural communities across Cambridgeshire. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Home Working

Is remote and flexible working the ‘new normal’?

Coronavirus lockdowns in 2020 and 2021 saw many employees compelled to work from home. While employers have had different perspectives on employees returning to their offices and places of work since then, the pandemic has accelerated discussion around more flexible working. What do these new and emerging work patterns mean for the future of work in rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates. ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What is flexible working? Flexible working refers to any type of working pattern that is different from the usual one. It is intended to give employees a degree of flexibility over where, when and how they work. There are different types of flexible working – from working from home, through to a combination of office-remote (hybrid) arrangements, or having flexible start and finishing times. 

Who can request to work flexibly? Under existing UK legislation, employees do not have a statutory right to flexible working, only to make a request. Part 8A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 states that employees can only request to work flexibly after 26 weeks of employment with the same employer, with a limit of one request every 12-months. Under sections 47E and 104C employees are protected from suffering a detriment or from being dismissed if they have made a flexible working request. The legal right to request flexible working initially only applied to limited categories of employees with parental or caring responsibilities until it was extended to all employees under Part 9 of the Children and Families Act 2014. Under current regulations, any employee has the legal right to request flexible working through making a statutory application.  

In 2018 the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) established a Flexible Working Taskforce. Co-chaired by BEIS officials and the CIPD, the Taskforce was established to clarify the benefits of flexible working, investigate the barriers that prevent employers from offering (or employees taking up) flexible working, and to increase the number of flexible working opportunities available. 

While flexible working has been of policy interest for a number of years, the COVID-19 pandemic brought it to the fore of public attention. The pandemic led the Government to introduce statutory guidance instructing people to ‘work from home’ where and when possible. This was supplemented by a range of COVID-19 guidance covering the workplace that was updated by the Government as its response to COVID-19 evolved. 

During the first national lockdown (March to June 2020), all non-essential high street businesses were required to close and people were ordered to stay at home, and permitted only to leave for essential purposes such as buying food or for medical appointments. Although most lockdown restrictions were lifted on 4 July 2020, the Government recommended people avoided gatherings larger than six. 

On 14 September 2020, tighter restrictions came into force in England with the rule of six applying indoors and outdoors; and from 25 September bars, pubs and restaurants were ordered to shut between 10.00pm and 6.00am. On 14 October 2020, the Government introduced a ‘three tier system’ with most areas placed in the least restrictive tier one. On 5 November 2020, national restrictions were reintroduced in England. Under this second national lockdown non-essential high street businesses were required to close once again and people were prohibited from meeting those not in their ‘support bubble’ inside. 

On 2 December 2020, the Government reintroduced the tier system – with a fourth tier added on 19 December following concerns about a new variant of COVID-19 circulating. On 4 January 2021 the third national lockdown began. Similar to the rules in place during the first lockdown, people were once again told to stay at home. 

On 8 March 2021, England began a phased exit from lockdown – with the whole country moving through a roadmap.  On 15 September 2021, Parliament approved the revocation amendments meaning there are no lockdown laws currently in force in England. 

During national lockdown periods people needed a reasonable excuse to leave their home and were prevented from travelling outside their local area and/or from travelling between areas with different restrictions in place. Certain businesses were required to close, and others were required to operate restricted opening hours. 

In February 2021, BEIS reconvened the Flexible Working Taskforce to understand emerging ways of working resulting from the pandemic. In December 2021, the Taskforce published guidance on effective hybrid working. The guidance included information on how organisations should: 

  • Provide training to managers on how to manage and support hybrid teams. 
  • Review HR processes and procedures – enabling inclusion and wellbeing. 
  • Undertake a listening activity with employees, managers and employee representatives to understand whether hybrid working is delivering benefits. 
  • Keep hybrid working policies and principles under ongoing review – addressing any negative or unintended outcomes. 

In April 2021, the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology (POST) published an article on remote and flexible working arrangements. This described the benefits of flexible working around increased wellbeing and productivity, but highlighted how these benefits are not equally distributed throughout the working population leading to increasing inequality. 

In September 2021, the Government published a consultation document setting out proposals to make the right to work flexibly an entitlement from day one, for all employees. The document outlined the Government’s intentions to reform the Flexible Working Regulations 2014 as well as wider proposals to encourage and support flexible working – in sum, this would make flexible working the default position. The Government also launched a ‘call for evidence’ looking at the need for ‘ad hoc’ and informal flexibility and how this can be supported in the workplace. 

What are the trends in flexible working? The Office for National Statistics (ONS) uses data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and Annual Population Survey (APS) to estimate homeworking. Between January and December 2019, of 32.6 million people in employment, 4 million people (around 12% of the total workforce) had worked at home at some point in the week prior to being interviewed. Approximately 1.7 million people (5% of the total workforce) reported working mainly from home – an increase from 4.3% compared to January to December 2015. Data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) found in January-February 2020, approximately 27% of people worked from home at least some of the time, and 6% worked wholly from home.

As expected, all of these figures increased during COVID-19 lockdown periods. The UKHLS COVID-19 dataset includes workers in paid employment and excludes those who are self-employed or were furloughed. The figures reveal, in April 2020 [the first lockdown period], 55% of people in employment worked at home ‘sometimes’ and 40% worked solely at home. In March 2021 [during the third national lockdown], 49% of people worked at home ‘sometimes’ and 31% solely at home. 

The ONS Opinions and Lifestyle Survey (OPS) covers all workers, including people who are self-employed and/or were furloughed. OPS figures indicate that home working peaked in June 2020 when 38% of people worked from home exclusively and 11% of the workforce worked at home at least one day a week. 

UKHLS COVID-19 data suggests the majority of workers in paid employment in January 2021 (88%) wanted to work from home at least some of the time once lockdown restrictions were lifted. In February 2022, ONS OPN found 84% of workers that had to work from home during the pandemic planned to carry on with a mix of home and office working. The proportion of workers planning to return to their place of work full-time declined too – from 11% in April 2021 to 8% in February 2022. 

  • UKHLS data from January-February 2020 found working remotely was higher for employees in the information and communication sector, the professional and scientific sector and the financial and insurance sector; and lower in the wholesale and retail sector, agriculture and manufacturing, and human health and social work. During the pandemic this trend became more pronounced, with the UKHLS COVID-19 study showing that in January 2021, more than 70% of people working in information and communication, professional and scientific and financial and insurance sectors were working at home compared to 39% in health and social care and 30% in manufacturing sectors. 
  • People with more responsibility and seniority were more likely to work from home. In January-February 2020, the UKHLS found 46% of managers worked from home in some capacity in comparison to 19% of non-managers. In January 2021, 52% of managers were likely to work from home compared to 30% of non-managers. Similarly, people with no qualifications were more likely to be at their place of work compared to graduates (with 86% of people without qualifications at their place of work in June 2020 compared to 21% of people with a degree). 
  • People with higher earnings tend to be in jobs with scope for home working – with UKHLS COVID-19 data revealing how employees working from home ‘sometimes’ reported higher annual earnings than those who ‘never’ work from home. 
  • People who are self-employed tend to work from home compared to employees. The UKHLS COVID-19 data found in January-February 2020, 24% of self-employed workers reported ‘always’ working from home compared to 3% of employees. 
  • In January 2021, UKHLS COVID-19 data showed 58% of employees with children worked at home ‘sometimes’ compared to 48% of people without children. 
  • LFS data on homeworking in January-March 2022 found the regions with the highest percentage of homeworkers were London (37% in January-March 2022), the South East (36.9%) and East of England (31.1%). Regions with a lower proportion of homeworkers included the North East (22.4%) and Yorkshire & Humber (26.2%).   

OPN data in September 2022 found 22% of the workforce working from home at least one day a week and 13% working from home exclusively.  

Data from the Business Insights and Conditions Survey (BICS) indicates how, in June 2021, 24% of businesses said they intended to use increased homeworking as a permanent business model going forward, while 28% were not sure. However, in June 2022 the CIPD undertook a survey of 2,000 employers. 63% of those surveyed said they planned to introduce or expand the use of hybrid working. 

To date, academic research on flexible working during the pandemic has found both benefits and disadvantages, depending on the circumstances of employers and employees. In April 2022 the Pissarides Review was launched. A collaboration between the Institute for the Future of Work, Imperial College London and Warwick Business School, is researching the impacts of automation on work and wellbeing and how they are differently distributed between socio-demographic groups and geographical communities in the UK. The review is supported by an expert Steering Group, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, and expected to run until 2024. 

While there are variations in the trends in flexible working by sector, occupation, qualifications, earnings and geography; what the datasets clearly highlight is how all forms of flexible working increased during COVID-19 and how many employees and employers want flexible working to continue in some form. 

What does flexible working mean for rural areas? According to the Statistical Digest of Rural England, in 2020 there were 1,166,000 home workers in rural areas, accounting for 25% of all workers living in rural areas. This compares to 3,712,000 home workers in urban areas (16% of all workers living in urban areas). While the rate of home working increased across all areas between 2006 and 2020, the highest increase was in rural hamlets and dispersed areas (at 6.1%) and the lowest increase in urban areas (at 5.2%). There are some sectoral differences – with rural areas having higher proportions of home workers in agriculture, forestry and fishing (7.3% difference in favour of rural areas). What factors influence an employees or employers ability to work flexibly in rural areas? I offer two points. 

Firstly, connectivity. According to the Statistical Digest, in 2020 the average broadband speeds in rural areas was 54 Mbit/s compared with 81 Mbit/s in predominantly urban areas. This variation is because there is less superfast broadband in rural areas and because rural businesses are typically further away from cabinets, with long copper line connections, leading to slower performance. In 2020, 0.9% of premises in predominantly rural areas were not able to access a broadband service with a download speed of 10 Mbit/s and upload speed of at least 1 Mbit/s compared to 0.3% of premises in predominantly urban areas. Superfast broadband is available for 92% of premises in predominantly rural areas compared to 97% in predominantly urban areas.

Ofcom found the demand for data continues to grow – with average monthly data volumes across fixed and mobile connections increasing in 2021. The average consumption per data user on mobile increased by 24% to 5.6GB per month. While mobile phone take up is close to universal [with 98% of homes reporting having one or more mobile phone devices], 61.8% of premises in mainly rural areas had indoor 4G coverage from all operators, while 2.4% had no coverage. The Government has set two targets for increasing mobile coverage by 2030: that 4G mobile coverage is available nationwide, and that the majority of the public has access to a 5G signal. The Shared Rural Network (SRN) is an agreement between Government and the mobile industry to improve rural mobile coverage to 2025 – with a focus on filling ‘partial not spots’ and investing in new masts in ‘total not spots’.     

A study in the United States found that spreading broadband to rural counties encouraged the formation of new local businesses—but only for the least remote areas. Proximity to a city was still a vital driver of company formation, even where new technology to facilitate remote working was present. Similarly, a UK study found that broadband did more to stimulate urban economies than rural ones, when all other factors were accounted for — leading researchers to suggest that digital contacts do not fully replace real-life ones. More positively, there is evidence that expanding broadband into a location has a positive impact on women’s participation in the labour market. And crucially, there is evidence from some studies that providing broadband to a local area might encourage suitably skilled people to move to it. 

While the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on the Rural Powerhouse continues to caution how slow broadband connectivity and poor 4G and 5G mobile infrastructure is holding rural areas back; and despite various public and community initiatives underway to connect more rural communities; delivering digital connectivity is vital for people living in rural areas to work flexibly.     

Secondly, distance. According to the Statistical Digest, the distance travelled by car decreased by 5% (or 462 miles)  per person, per year, in rural villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings between 2010/2011 and 2018/2019. This was followed by a further decrease of 3,265 miles per person per year in 2020. There have also been decreases in the average trip length for all areas between 2010/2011 and 2020: rural village, hamlet and isolated dwelling saw a 27% decrease (from 10.1 miles to 7.9 miles); while rural town and fringe saw a 29% decrease (from 8.5 miles to 6.6 miles). This compares to a 17% decrease in urban with city and town (from 6.8 miles to 5.8 miles). In 2020 those living in rural areas travelled more miles for all purposes compared to their urban counterparts. However, the differences in commuting between rural and urban areas appeared minor: with 19% of travel attributed to commuting in urban areas and 18% in rural areas. In 2019, for people living in rural hamlets and isolated dwellings in a sparse setting, average minimum car journey times to places with 5,000 or more jobs was 50 minutes and some rural residents did not have access to centres of employment with over 5,000 jobs within an hour’s travel by car.

More recently, road traffic estimates published by the Department for Transport suggest traffic in 2021 was 12.1% lower compared to 2019 pre-pandemic levels. However, 297.6 billion vehicle miles were driven on Great Britain’s roads in 2021, an increase of 11.9% compared to 2020. Between 2019 and 2021 the reduction in road traffic for rural roads was higher than for urban roads (-12.9% reduction in rural areas compared to -10.9% in urban areas). The growth in road traffic in 2020-2021 has also been higher in rural areas compared to urban areas – with 184.5 billion vehicle miles on rural roads in 2021 (an increase of 12.8%) compared to 113.0% (or 10.5%) on urban roads. 

It is clear that some employees want the ability to work flexibly going forward – and one that allows them to spend part of their week working remotely and part in the office. Academic studies have found that people working from home in rural areas, on average, accept 5% longer commuting times; and that for every additional 8 hours of working from home there is a 3.5% increase in commuting time. 

Other researchers have found residents living in a village with more accessible markets, higher roads, and higher building density travel a shorter distance and emit less CO2. Meanwhile, residents living in the village with centralised living style and higher transit and destination accessibility travel less frequently but emit more CO2. According to transport and environment statistics from the DfT, CO2 emissions from transport are unevenly distributed throughout the UK. While average transport emissions for a UK local authority in 2020 were 281 kilotonnnes of CO2, high levels of emissions from transport were seen in urban areas such as Leeds and Birmingham (similar to pre-pandemic trends, despite 17% and 18% declines in transport emissions respectively), as well as rural areas like Cornwall.  

 A report on the spatial implications of remote working in Wales recommended that in locations where the density of remote workers is low, and the distance to workspaces longer, ‘pop up coworking and information coworking groups could be a means to support the development of a community of professional coworkers’. However, a European study on rural coworking spaces has suggested they are mainly used for networking, socialising and education and less for traditional distance work to avoid commuting. More recently, an economic impact study by IWG and Arup highlighted how rural and suburban areas in the UK could benefits from some £327 million a year as a result of investment in flexible office and coworking spaces for hybrid workers. They also estimate that 4,000 new jobs could be created for people to run these rural workspaces. In the United States, research suggests rural areas with a good mix of amenities and low cost of living, even if far from an urban area, stand to benefit from the spread of remote and hybrid work arrangements.  

For flexible workers in rural areas, we need to ensure travel is practical, affordable and sustainable – alongside greater consideration of work spaces and the creation of rural-rural and rural-urban connections.  

Since COVID-19 there has been a debate around whether the rapid rise in flexible working would affect where people live. Some argued that these effects would be temporary and localised, while others that these work patterns would have significant long-term effects. While some indicators show that demand for flexible working remains high, there is also emerging evidence on the vulnerability of flexible and hybrid workers amid an economic downturn and recession. For example, in the United States, Lyft (a ride-sharing app) made 13% of its workforce (some 683 people) redundant. 298 of these workers volunteered their working patterns to Layoffs – 138 listed remote working and 135 listed hybrid working as their preferred way of working. Will we see a reversal in the trend of flexible working and people returning to the workplace? However, at the current time, with a series of strikes and industrial action affecting multiple sectors of the economy continuing, the CIPD has listed alternative arrangements for employees unable to travel into the workplace – including homeworking, hybrid working and flexible working. If the ‘right to have’ flexible working becomes the default position in the UK, what future opportunities and challenges does this present for rural areas? 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating a support programme for patients waiting to receive NHS and local government services, a Warm Hubs scheme and the creation of a new community orchard. Jessica also sits on the board of a Housing Association that supports older people and a charity supporting Cambridgeshire’s rural communities. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Cable

Are rural areas falling through the net?

The digital divide is the gap between people who have full access to digital technologies and those who do not. COVID-19 has underlined the importance of access to and comfort with technology.  Throughout the pandemic the internet and digital devices have played a vital role in enabling people to access services, attend medical appointments, use contact tracing apps, learn or work from home and keep in touch with friends and family. Just imagine how much worse your life would be if you didn’t have proper functioning broadband. This is the reality for many rural residents who are either not connected at all or reliant on 20th century infrastructure. What impact has the digital divide had on rural residents during the pandemic, and what more needs to be done to get everyone connected? Jessica Sellick investigates. 

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What is superfast broadband and full-fibre broadband? Back in December 2010, the Government published its superfast broadband strategy. Since then, Government policy has focused on the roll-out of superfast broadband, which it defines as ‘download speeds of at least 24 megabits per second (Mbps)’. According to Ofcom, and based on this definition, superfast broadband availability reached 95% of UK premises in February 2018. While Government focused on promoting a competitive market for the rollout of infrastructure, it also initiated a superfast broadband programme to support delivery in those areas not reached by the private sector. Under the programme, Government has been providing some £719 million in funding to Local Authorities and/or Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) to subsidise roll-out in areas not reached by commercial investment. The programme is ongoing, accounting for approximately 17% of the county’s total superfast coverage, with contracts expected to run until 2024. In October 2020, the National Audit Office (NAO) published a report on the programme. While the NAO found the programme had helped to extend coverage, many people were found to be still experiencing poor broadband – particularly in rural areas.  It is worth noting that only 57% of properties were found to have signed up to superfast broadband packages (owing to lack of awareness that faster services were available and/or cost) and that premises do not necessarily experience the advertised speeds (attributed to distance from the cabinet or multiple users in the home or workplace). 

Superfast broadband has been mostly delivered by Fibre-to-the-Cabinet (FTTC) technology. This is where a fibre optic cable runs to a street cabinet, and then existing copper telephone wires are used to connect the cabinet to individual premises. The copper telephone network is owned and operated by Openreach, which allows other broadband retail providers to deliver broadband services using this network. 

While superfast broadband has been fast enough for most individual/household needs; the availability of, and demand for, data intensive services (e.g. video calling, virtual meetings) is increasing. To support this, high capacity internet connections that can support fast download speeds, large amounts of data, and multiple users at one time, will be required. Fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) or fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) can deliver 1 gigabit per second (Gbps) download and upload speed. This is where fibre optic cables run from the cabinet to premises – these can carry more and faster data when compared to copper wiring. Investment in fibre networks requires access to every premise to install equipment – negotiating this (and variances across different Local Authority areas) and build costs may be expensive for commercial providers leading to an inconsistent approach. Similarly, 5G is the next iteration of high capacity broadband networks. 5G is expected to support very fast download speeds and near instant response times. However, with some rural areas lacking 4G coverage there is a risk that rural areas will be left behind in the mobile roll-out, compounding the lack of broadband connectivity. 

Why are some rural areas ‘hard to reach’? Rural areas are typically more expensive to deliver broadband to. This is because the geographies of some rural areas increase installation costs, and low population densities [fewer chimney pots!] reduce the commercial return for providers. 

In December 2020, the Government announced £5 billion of funding to support the roll-out of gigabit capable broadband in ‘the hardest to reach 20% of the country’. In the Spending Review 2020, the Chancellor confirmed £1.2 billion of this sum would be made available during the period 2020-2025. In March 2021, the Government published a ‘Build Back Better: our plan for growth’. This seeks to achieve economic recovery from COVID-19 through building three pillars of investment: infrastructure, skills and innovation.  This confirmed £5 billion to accelerate UK-wide gigabit broadband roll-out, a Shared Rural Network extending 4G mobile coverage to 95% of the UK and £250 million to ensure resilient and secure 5G networks and £50 million for the continuation of the 5G Testbeds and Trials Programme in 2021-22. Rural areas and parts of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are cited as the beneficiaries of this investment. 

It is likely the investment will be managed by Building Digital UK (BDUK), part of the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS). In the meantime, existing Government funded programmes to support gigabit capable broadband include: the Rural Gigabit Connectivity Programme (RGC) – which includes a voucher scheme for rural residents and small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) without broadband speeds of 100 Mbps to put towards the cost of a gigabit capable connection. SMEs can claim up to £3,500 and residents up to £1,500 although they can only be used to support group schemes where residents come together and combine their vouchers. Providers have to request vouchers on behalf of businesses and residents. A map shows where vouchers are available and how they have been allocated – as of October 2020 the scheme had issued vouchers worth £33.5 million. Some full fibre operators including B4RN, Gigaclear and TrueSpeed specifically target rural areas.

In September 2020 seventeen Local Authorities were provided with £22.2 million of additional funding to top-up Government vouchers in their area.  These include Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough, County Durham, Derbyshire, Dorset, East Riding of Yorkshire, East Sussex, Warwickshire, West Sussex and Worcestershire. This complements the RGC programme which has been connecting rural public sector buildings such as schools and hospitals to a gigabit connection, with these buildings acting as ‘hubs’ in improving access to services and making the surrounding area more viable for commercial providers. In England, this has initially prioritised sites in Cornwall, Cumbria and Northumberland.   

In all of this investment, the Government seeks to adopt an “outside in” approach, which means targeting the hardest to reach premises first. This follows the publication of the Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review (FTIR) back in 2018 which suggested deployment of gigabit capable connectivity across all areas of the UK should be achieved at the same time so no areas are systematically left behind. This approach also means that while competition serves the commercially feasible areas, the Government will support investment in the most difficult to reach areas at the same time- this was estimated to be 10% of the total target (some 3 million premises). A staged process of investment was suggested, starting with areas that do not have superfast broadband [5% of the total target]. In November 2020, the Government confirmed in oral evidence to the Public Accounts Committee that outside-in is “still baked into our planning for the future programme. In a sense, we are trying to ensure that the commercial market goes as far as possible, and alongside that we can target our subsidised parts of the programme on the areas of greatest need…when you look at a cost curve for the most difficult premises, they are not all neatly grouped together”. However, the timeline, process and costs for doing this remain unclear therefore leading to a risk that some rural premises will be left behind.       

An increasing rural digital divide? According to the NAO, the superfast programme in the UK has enabled suppliers to prioritise easier-to-reach premises, leaving a rural divide in place because they are the hardest and most expensive to reach. There are also concerns that if rural areas have only one provider they may get locked in to higher prices. The NAO estimates that rural coverage in the UK is 80% – this compares to 97% in urban areas. Overall, England has higher coverage than the devolved administrations. While urban coverage is broadly the same across the four nations, rural coverage varies and, at 66%, is lowest in Northern Ireland. The NAO’s data is drawn from Ofcom and based on actual and predicted data from network operators. The speeds achieved in practice may be higher or lower than those predicted.

In January 2021, the Public Accounts Committee published its report on improving broadband. This describes how ‘1.6 million UK premises, mainly in rural areas, cannot yet access superfast speeds, and as the Department [DCMS] turns its attention to upgrading the UK’s broadband connectivity again, there is a risk that rural areas will be left even further behind’. The Committee also highlighted a concern that those living in rural areas may have to pay more and may reach gigabit broadband speeds late. The report recommends that the Department [DCMS] set out how it will establish which premises do not yet have superfast broadband, how reliable the data it will use to identify them is, and when they can expect to receive gigabit capable broadband. Without a clear plan the report suggests those living in rural and remote areas may not get superfast speeds until 2024-2025.   

What impact has the digital divide had on rural communities during COVID-19? The term ‘digital divide’ is being used by practitioners and academics to describe ‘the gap that exists between individuals who have access to modern information and communication technology and those who lack access’. There are multiple dimensions to the digital divide, including: access: to hardware and software data; use: the skills and knowledge to use technology and handle updates to it; confidence: that it is safe and secure to use; money: to pay for the connection and technology; time: to fully utilise it; and family and peer support: which enables it to form part of our everyday lives.  

Between December 2019 and February 2020 Capgemini surveyed 1,300 people with no internet access in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the US. More than 40% of those surveyed were aged 18-36 years and many described being unable to get information about the virus, talk to relatives, interview for jobs, or access welfare programmes and banking services. For those living in rural areas, cost was the key reason for being offline: nearly half (47%) said they had never used the internet because an internet subscription was too expensive and 44% said the device was too expensive. The share of households living in rural areas accessing the internet daily stood at only 62% (versus 88% in cities), driven by higher costs and long implementation times of broadband in rural areas. 

According to the NAO’s report the existing infrastructure has coped well with increased demand for the internet during the pandemic – but it acknowledges that rural populations with poor broadband had felt the impact more sharply.  Ofcom estimates that a small but significant number of premises have been struggling to get connected – some 43,000 premises that cannot access either a decent fixed broadband service or good 4G coverage indoors. In 2020, consumer use of fixed broadband increased by an average of 2.5 hours a day, and on mobile by 1 hour a day.  

The Good Things Foundation has found since lockdowns began libraries and internet cafes that many use to get online have closed. Others who have a smartphone but struggle to pay for data have not been able to access free hotspots. The Foundation is working with the Prince’s Countryside Fund to tackle the inequity that means 11% of rural premises in England still cannot get access to a good broadband connection, compared to 1% of urban premises. The project is looking at how to scale lack of digital skills and/or digital connectivity across rural communities. This includes the creation of Digital Enterprise Hubs and Digital Enterprise Champions. The two current Digital Hubs are A1 Community Works (North Yorkshire) and Airedale Enterprise Services (West Yorkshire). The Foundation has also recommended the establishment of a ‘data poverty lab’, which recognises broadband as an essential utility like water and electricity. It has suggested the lab could facilitate initiatives like data donating whereby people can donate unused mobile data to others who cannot afford it; Wi-Fi sharing between neighbourhood households; subsidised broadband schemes; and extending public Wi-Fi in towns and cities. 

While initiatives are underway to understand the digital divide in relation to home-schooling and online distance learning or workplace skills; the focus often remains on the main factors that shape the digital divide (i.e., age, region, socio-economic status and whether a person has a disability) rather than applying any kind of rural lens.   

What more can be done to ensure no-one is left behind? In its National Infrastructure Assessment, the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) recommended that the Government develop a plan to allow a copper switch off by 2025. This means all customers/premises would move from a copper to non-copper based network. While running a copper network alongside a fibre network is costly, there are customers without any broadband connection and vulnerable customers relying on the copper network for telephone calls. The Government is referring to a switchover instead, with customers/premises moving over to new non-copper based networks. This is important because as yet there is no date for 100% coverage and no date for when those without superfast access can expect better broadband. 

HM Treasury published a National Infrastructure Strategy in November 2020. This explicitly references rural areas as part of the Government’s levelling up agenda. Under a section titled ‘leaving no community or business behind’, the Strategy references the existing UK-wide gigabit broadband roll-out and a Shared Rural Network to extend 4G mobile coverage to 95% of the UK.  

In the Budget presented on 3 March 2021, the Chancellor described how the UK has a relatively low adoption of digital technologies and software compared to international competitors, and how this directly affects productivity. The budget made provision to support SMEs to boost their digital and management capabilities [help to grow digital programme to upskill 100,000 SMEs with advice and software worth up to £5,000 each]; saw the establishment of a UK Infrastructure Bank with £12 billion of equity and debt capital to finance local authority and private sector infrastructure projects across the UK; and £375 million allocated to help scale up the most innovative, R&D intensive businesses.

We need a better understanding of what is connectivity really like in rural areas. Should having a broadband internet ‘service’ be treated as a basic ‘utility’ and critical infrastructure, or as a ‘nice to have’? Mobile phone coverage remains as much of an issue as broadband in many rural areas. 

We need quicker, smarter, affordable and future-proofed [fibre] solutions to connect rural communities. In addition to the delivery infrastructure put together by the Government, how can residents and businesses deliver broadband in their area? There are a plethora of examples of where communities have decided to get on and ‘do it yourself’ (e.g. Cybermoor) and some rural communities will not have access to high speed broadband unless they take more action. How can we encourage rural communities to come together and solve the connectivity conundrum that they are facing? For example, where and how can communities be supported to obtain access to finance, technical skills and infrastructure? Should digital access form part of planning considerations for new developments in rural areas? Regardless of how it is delivered, for those living in rural areas lucky enough to get full fibre during the pandemic, it has had transformative effects in how they live, work and socialise. 

Finally, it is worth noting that broadband is not a catch-all solution to the issues facing rural communities – it needs to be joined up. It is important that we do not impose ‘online solutions’ to ‘offline issues’.  Yet if the Government views digital infrastructure as central to the future of the economy – and vital to its levelling up agenda as we recover from the pandemic – them every part of the country, including rural areas, needs to benefit. While policy and decision makers have been providing a plethora of initiatives and funding pots since 2010, and want to follow an outside in approach, to what extent we will finally reach the final 11% remains to be seen. Will it be by 2024-2025 or from 2026, watch this space…  

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). Her current work includes supporting health commissioners and providers to measure their response to COVID-19 and with future planning; and evaluating two employability programmes helping people furthest from the labour market. Jessica also sits on the board of a Housing Association that supports older and vulnerable people. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

How can we maintain a universal postal service in rural areas?

How can we maintain a universal postal service in rural areas?

The ‘one-price-goes-anywhere, six-days-a-week’ Universal Service Obligation has been seen by successive Governments as part of our social and economic fabric. But do the requirements of the universal service reflect the needs of rural users – and how can we ensure the service is financially viable and sustainable? Jessica Sellick investigates. 

How does the UK postal market operate – and what is the universal service obligation? Between 2007 and 2008 an Independent Review of the Postal Sector was led by Richard Hooper. The Review was established to maintain the universal postal service – the collection, sorting, transportation and delivery of letters to all business and residential addresses in the UK. Hooper published his first report in December 2008. The report both highlighted the rationale of the universal service – its affordability, uniform tariff, and deliveries on six-days-a-week – and how it was under threat with digital media prompting a decline in the letters market. With a proposition that the status quo was untenable, the report suggested Royal Mail needed to accelerate its restructuring plan and modernise faster if the universal service was to be sustained. In September 2010 Hooper published an update to the 2008 review. He found the underlying issues that threatened the viability of the universal postal service remained high and that urgent action still needed to be taken. Both reports contained similar recommendations around regulatory reform, relief of the pension deficit, and the need for private sector capital. 

The Postal Services Act 2011, introduced by the Coalition Government, received Royal Assent on 13 June 2011 and was fully implemented on 20 December 2011. This legislated for the recommendations contained in Hooper’s reports. The Act is divided into five parts. Part 1 set out the restructuring of the Royal Mail group of companies. Part 2 contained arrangements for the Royal Mail pensions scheme. Part 3 explained the regulation of the postal services sector. Part 4 described provisions for a special administration regime to secure the universal postal service. Part 5 contained other general provisions, regulations and matters made by the Secretary of State. The implementation of the Act saw the regulation of postal services transfer from Postcomm to Ofcom, and created a new regulatory framework that not only provided a universal postal service to Royal Mail but also allowed it greater freedom in the pricing of stamps and parcels. The Act also separated the post office network from Royal Mail – and relieved the Royal Mail Group of the deficit in the Royal Mail Pension Plan (RMPP) by transferring responsibility for its funding to the Government. 

In October 2013 Royal Mail launched a share offer to raise money to finance the business. In addition to members of the public being able to buy shares, full-time staff at Royal Mail received 725 shares each, worth £3,545 at that time. 

Various policy documents from successive Governments have set out the primary objective in relation to Royal Mail and postal market reforms as being ‘to safeguard the universal postal service in the UK. The one-price-goes-anywhere, six-days-a-week universal postal service provided by Royal Mail is part of the social and economic fabric of the United Kingdom.’ Royal Mail is not only the UK’s largest postal operator, but also the only operator that meets the UK’s Universal Service Obligation (USO).

Who’s involved in the UK’s postal market? The diagram below provides a map of postal services in the UK: 

(Postal services, 2020, page 5)

There are two types of letter delivery: (1) end-to-end services where the same postal operator undertakes the entire process of collecting, sorting and delivering mail; and (2) access services where an operator collects and sorts the letters but then hands over final delivery to Royal Mail. Royal Mail is obliged to open its network to access providers. While the majority of the letters market sits with Royal Mail, the parcel’s market is highly competitive with multiple brands operating in this sector. The Royal Mail Group is a limited company which has multiple business units: UK Parcels International & Letters (domestic), General Logistics Systems (European), and Parcelforce Worldwide (global).  

The Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has Government responsibility for postal matters. In 2018, BEIS published a Post Implementation Review of Parts 3 and 4 of the Postal Services Act 2011. The Review found the Act was meeting its objectives of securing the financial sustainability of the universal postal service and had made good progress towards other objectives. The Review highlighted how Royal Mail had gone from lost-making to profitable since the Act was introduced – with an EBIT margin – Earnings Before Interest and Tax – of 4.6% [just outside the 5-10% range that Ofcom considers consistent with a reasonable commercial rate of return]. The Review also found that the regulatory regime was providing strong incentives for Royal Mail to find efficiencies and that savings within the business had contributed to its financial improvement. An increase in competition in the parcel delivery market was seen as bringing significant benefits to the users of postal services. 

Royal Mail is a fully privatised company and its performance, in line with current legislation, is monitored by Ofcom. Ofcom publishes an annual monitoring update on the postal market. The latest update, published in November 2020, describes how “2019-2020 was a challenging year for Royal Mail. Its financial performance was weaker than in previous years; and issues facing the business due to the changing market and consumer trends were apparent even before COVID-19 started to have an impact”. Drawing parallels with Hooper’s reports, the update identifies how Royal Mail needs to modernise its network, keep pace with parcel customers’ changing requirements, and manage the costs associated with higher parcels volumes. Unless it is able to become more efficient, and adapt to a changing market, the Update concludes that this could put the sustainability of the universal postal service at risk in the longer term. 

Also in November 2020, Ofcom published a review of postal users’ needs. The review found the current USO service levels – the six-days-a-week letter requirement – was meeting the needs of 98% of residential users and 97% of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in the UK. Reducing the letter service to five-days-a-week, but leaving all other elements of the USO unchanged, would still meet the needs of 97% of residential and SME users. Ofcom found little variation in users’ views on five-day letter delivery across the UK or according to how remote users’ locations were. Ofcom’s research therefore suggests that reducing the frequency of letter deliveries to five-days would reflect users’ reasonable needs and would potentially allow Royal Mail to make net cost savings of £125-£225 million per year from 2022-2023. It is for the UK Government to determine whether any changes are needed to the minimum requirements, and to bring any proposals before Parliament. Ofcom’s research forms part of a review of the future regulatory framework for post. The Review will consider issues affecting the broader postal sector including access regulation for letters, consumer issues in the parcels and letters markets, and how regulation can support a modern well-functioning parcels market that delivers benefits to end users.

Citizens Advice (England and Wales), Citizens Advice Scotland and the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland were given statutory responsibilities to represent consumers of postal services back in 2014. These organisations provide policy advice, deliver projects and ensure consumer needs are represented in the operation and improvement of the postal market in a way that is ‘fair and accessible to all’ and takes account of the needs of vulnerable consumers. Citizens Advice publishes regular updates about the performance of postal services in England and Wales. POSTRS is an independent body that mediates disputes between regulated postal operators, including Royal Mail Group, and its customers. Delivery Law UK provides comprehensive information to consumers and businesses on their rights and obligations in relation to parcel delivery. The website is designed and managed by The Highland Council and Trading Standards Scotland on behalf of the UK Consumer Protection Partnership (CPP).

143,000 people are employed by Royal Mail in the UK – some 1 in every 192 jobs – with 99% of employees on permanent contracts. According to Royal Mail, around 87% of operational and administrative-grade employees are members of the communications union (CWU). Approximately 65% of managers are members of Unite/CMA. In total, around 98% of employees are covered by agreements with these two unions. 

Will the modernisation process help to maintain the universal service obligation? Since 2006, Royal Mail has been undergoing a modernisation programme. This is focused on six key areas: 

  1. Delivery – more efficient delivery routes, using a blend of technology and people to find the best and most efficient ways to deliver mail to your local area.
  2. Collection – changing the way they collect mail from postboxes including collection from low use postboxes by people out on delivery. 
  3. Equipment – investing in equipment which is safer and more secure for transporting mail. 
  4. Processing network – investing in modern buildings, sorting machinery and more efficient ways of working. 
  5. Hand-held scanners – to give better and quicker visibility of the mail you are sending or receiving. 
  6. Parcel sorting machines – to speed up parcel sorting and delivery and keep packages in even better condition. 

Since 2014 Royal Mail has changed the way it collects letters from post boxes. In response to falling letter volumes, sometimes collections are made at an earlier time, with the mail collected when a postman or woman is making their deliveries. In 2018-2019 Royal Mail handled around 1.3 billion parcels and 13 billion letters. In 2019 Royal Mail commissioned PWC to provide an independent view on the long-term outlook for UK letter volumes. PWC predicted that the total volume of letters would fall from 10.3 billion in 2018 to 6.2 billion by 2028. They attributed this decline to the continued growth in e-platform substitutes, economic uncertainty and a decline in commercial letters as companies focus on digital platforms. 

In July 2019, Royal Mail published its UK transformation plan. Under the strapline ‘turnaround and grow’, the Plan covers a five-year period and is centred on Royal Mail developing new ways of working while extending its current network. The Plan has a renewed focus on improved service, efficiency and productivity supported by the implementation of digital tools and investment. The Plan will see £1.8 billion invested in the UK’s postal service over the five-year period which are intended to help fund the Universal Service. This includes the introduction of a second delivery for parcels by 2023 so that products purchased online from retailers are delivered in less than 24 hours from the order being placed [the ‘night owl’ shopping phenomenon]; the construction of fully-automated parcel hubs (once operational these will be able to process more than 600,000 parcels a day); a range of new customer service initiatives including collecting returns from customers at their home and providing in-flight redirection options for customers when their parcel is scheduled to arrive while they are out; and the continued roll out of 1,400 parcel postboxes.  

More recent initiatives from Royal Mail include: ‘labels to go’, a service available in post office branches allowing customers to use their mobile phones to print free returns labels; a mobile app to help consumer to track their items; and a parcel pick-up service called Parcel Collect. 

On 1 January 2021, the price of stamps increased – by 9p for first class (with a stamp now costing 85p) and by 1p for second class (with a stamp now costing 66p). In a press release on 1 December 2020, Royal Mail explained how the changes were necessary ‘to help ensure the sustainability of the one-price-goes-anywhere Universal Service’. 

What impact has COVID-19 had on postal services? Royal Mail has made changes to collection and delivery services as a result of the pandemic. For example, customers are no longer required to sign for a delivery, with the name of the person accepting the item logged instead. Royal Mail is also collecting completed test kits from priority postboxes or from people’s homes as part of NHS Test and Trace.  

In June 2020 Royal Mail published its Full Year 2019-2020 Results and Business Update. This revealed how for the first two-months of the Financial Year 2020-2021, while parcel volumes increased by 37% as more people shopped online prompted by the pandemic, total letter volumes declined by 39% leading to a drop in revenue of £29 million. At the same time, overtime and agency costs, PPE and social distancing cost Royal Mail £53 million and operating profit was down £108 million. The document presents 2 scenarios for the future. Under scenario 1, UK lockdown restrictions would continue to be eased from June 2020 – this scenario would see the negative reduction in letters reduce but still lead to £140 million cost to Royal Mail. Under scenario 2, a downside stress test, another lockdown would be implemented in late 2020 and this would cause letter volumes to remain significantly depressed, leading to a reduction in domestic and international parcel revenue and restricted volume growth during the Christmas period culminating in a financial cost of £155 million. 

According to Royal Mail, lockdown and the pandemic have seen an increase in start-ups and ecommerce. During the period March-July 2020, 315,000 companies were incorporated in the UK – a 7% increase compared to the same period in 2019. In the second quarter of 2020 (April to June), 176,000 start-ups were recorded, the highest for any second quarter on record, exceeding the previous record high set in 2016. These findings mirror with what has been happening in Royal Mail’s delivery network which is seeing a substantial shift in its business from letters to parcels. 

A survey by Royal Mail in June 2020, found just over half (51%) of the 2,000 adults they surveyed agreed that having their online shopping delivered was a ‘boost’ for them or their family; and a third (36%) described the joy of receiving a parcel as the highlight of their day. When asked to name their most unusual parcel delivery since 23 March 2020, responses ranged from home casino kits and Venus fly traps, through to wrestling boots and a full replica model of The Flying Scotsman train! 

As the Universal Services Provider Royal Mail’s performance is measured against a number of targets it is required to report to Ofcom [known as DUSP Condition 1]. Failure to meet these targets could result in Ofcom imposing a fine upon Royal Mail. Royal Mail is the only postal operator in the UK required to publish quarterly Quality of Service reports – with their performance independently measured by a market research agency called Kantar. Two of Royal Mail’s key targets are: (1) for first class mail – a minimum of 93% delivered the next working day; and (2) for second class – a minimum of 98.5% delivered within three working days. Royal Mail exceeded the target for second class mail in the 2019-2020 financial year but missed the target for first class mail. Until 15 March 2020 Royal Mail believed it was meeting the first class target (at 93%) however when taking account of the impact of COVID-19 from 29 March 2020 to end of May 2020 the figure dropped slightly to 91.6%. Royal Mail has not been able to fully measure Quality of Service since March 2020 and is in discussions with Ofcom around the impact of the pandemic.  

What does modernisation and COVID-19 mean for postal services in rural areas? There have been concerns that parcel deliveries in parts of Scotland and Northern Ireland are unfairly high. In 2019 the Scottish Government published a briefing which estimated the additional cost to Scotland of parcel delivery surcharges relative to the rest of the UK. This estimated that parcel delivery surcharges for 2019 equated to £40 million, an increase of 11% when compared to £36.3 million in 2017. Ofcom’s monitoring report on the postal market for the financial year 2016-2017 also explored surcharges – suggesting a correlation between the areas where at least one provider used a third-party operator to deliver and the areas where operators were applying surcharges. Ofcom found operators were paying varying prices per parcel to third parties from £2.32 to £4.56 per parcel. Parcel operators who provided evidence to Ofcom highlighted three factors which had led them to introduce parcel surcharges: (i) in areas with ‘low drop density’ i.e., a low frequency of deliveries in one area; (ii) in areas requiring transportation over water; and (iii) in areas which are a long distance from the nearest network hub where the operator sorts and distributes parcels. 

A report by Citizens Advice Scotland recommended that public and private sectors work together to reduce costs and that Scotland’s network of ‘pick up and drop off’ points be extended to help reduce costs for delivery companies. 

In follow-up work, in August 2020, the Scottish Government published further research on surcharges. This found, with the exception of Royal Mail, four of the other largest parcel delivery operators charged surcharges in some parts of the Highlands and Islands. The amount that retailers pay is variable – because they negotiate with parcel operators – which means the amount consumers then pay is also differs, with some retailers absorbing all of the cost and others charging consumers more than the operator is charging them for delivery. 

In 2019, the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG) published a report providing a historical perspective on how the Office has dealt with demands for postal services from rural and urban communities. Rural areas have historically been more costly to serve and did not get postal services at the same rate as urban areas. For example, while home delivery came to cities in 1863, rural areas did not get it until 1896. The US Congress has played a key role in shaping postal policy throughout history, particularly in rural areas where it worked on granular issues such as the selection of specific delivery routes. Also in 2019, the OIG analysed what rural customers across the country needed and want from the US postal service (USPS). The OIG’s survey indicates that rural customers are less likely to receive mail or a package delivery at their physical address. For packages, the Postal Service uses ‘parcel lockers’ as one way to store a package until a customer is able to pick it up. While the survey reveals that most rural and non-rural customers receive similar numbers of packages and order similar sorts of items, the median customer who is ineligible for door delivery receives about the same number of packages as other customers (on average two packages per month), and this makes rurality an important consideration in the Postal Service’s current and future plans to strategically expand parcel lockers. 

Both the Scottish research and the OIG survey highlight the importance of having a reliable and affordable universal delivery postal service in rural areas, particularly with the growth in the parcels market and given other delivery options may be more limited or costly for rural residents.  

In 2019, Copenhagen Economics was commissioned by the European Parliament’s Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN) to conduct a study on postal services in the EU. The study provided an overview of the current state of the sector, future challenges and opportunities, and made recommendations to policymakers on what could be done to stimulate growth and competitiveness in the sector. The sector generates revenues of £79 billion Euros per year, which corresponds to 0.5 per cent of the EU’s total GDP; and the postal and delivery sector employs around 1.7 million people across the EU, corresponding to 0.8 per cent of the employed population. In the EU, the Postal Services Directive sets minimum requirements (although subject to certain exceptions) for the providers of the universal service obligations. The elements of the USO have been unchanged since 1997, but each Member State is free to choose the precise scope and size of the USO at a national level, as long as it fulfils the minimum requirements set out in the Directive. The findings of the study echo those of UK studies: the EU postal sector is also evolving as a consequence of the digital transformation – while the letter segment is still highly concentrated, it is shrinking overall, as digital communication alternatives compete with letter post products. The situation in the parcel segment is different: markets are fragmented, universal service providers share of deliveries are relatively low, and new delivery players entering the parcel segment are challenging incumbents’ business models and profitability. 

Maintaining a USO has led some Member States to change the delivery model for rural areas. In 2015 legislative changes in Italy allowed Poste Italiane to implement an XY delivery model in the most rural areas of the country, where mail is delivered on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays during the first week and on Tuesdays and Thursdays in the second week. In Finland, between 2010 and 2013, the Finnish postal operator undertook several pilots for electronic delivery in rural areas, scanning letters and daily newspapers and delivering them in digital form. The pilot was successful from the perspective of residents, but the scanning was too expensive for the postal operator who decided to discontinue the service. 

Australia Post commissioned Deloitte Access Economics to develop a deeper understanding of the economic and social value associated with its activities in regional rural and remote Australia. Their report, published in 2020, highlights how through its delivery network, Australia Post enables residents in Regional and Remote areas to make e-commerce purchases, with almost 36 million parcels collected in regional post offices and hubs in Financial Year (FY) 2019. Approximately half of regional Australians make an online purchase requiring delivery at least once a month, and the total value of e-commerce in regional areas is estimated to be over $10 billion Australian Dollars in FY2019. Regional Australians value Australia Post’s services highly enough that they would be prepared to pay between 21% and 45% above the actual price they are currently charged. Australia Post’s national network also means it can facilitate the delivery of services by other organisations: for example, the State Library of South Australia emphasised the importance of this network in enabling the movement of library books between regional communities. 

With many Australians staying and working at home due to COVID-19, to meet the unprecedented parcels demand. Australia Post has established 18 new or recommissioned parcel processing facilities, chartered additional freighter flights, is operating some of its processing facilities 24/7 and has employed hundreds of temporary staff. In April 2020, the Australian Government announced temporary regulatory relief to assist Australia Post to continue providing important postal services for all Australians during the pandemic. Australia Post is also transitioning to a temporary alternate day delivery model. Interestingly, this means that in metropolitan areas, Australia Post will deliver regular letters every second business day. However, delivery frequency in regional, rural and remote Australia will not change, and post office boxes will continue to be serviced every business day.

In some countries postal workers have expanded the services they offer beyond letter and parcel delivery. In Denmark and Sweden, for example, Post Nord runs a rural postal service for people who have difficulty collecting mail themselves. The service includes delivering mail to the front door if they have difficulty getting to the mailbox on their property; distributing letters, parcels and additional services (e.g. cash on delivery); collecting letters and parcels that they wish to send; and delivering stamps. 

Since 2013, Jersey Post has been operating a ‘Call&Check’ service. The service is carried out by Jersey Post staff who ask the person they are visiting some short questions to find out if any support or help is needed. The Call&Check support team pick up any requests via an IT system. They then work with trusted contacts such as close family members or a GP, or anyone else nominated to give support. Services offered include organising home grocery and prescription deliveries and arranging transport to appointments at the hospital. Pre COVID-19 Call&Check members were also invited to regular social events to get together with friends and meet new people over tea and cake. Research from IBM in August 2020 explored how COVID-19 has exacerbated loneliness. During the pandemic, the service has been adapted, leveraging the telephone for daily virtual visits and sharing the information with authorised caregivers. The service presently costs £6.75 per visit. 

In France, since 2017 La Poste has been running the ‘Veiller sur mes parents’ (‘watch over my parents’) service to reassure customers that their parents or relatives are in good health. The postmen and women pop in to have a chat for between five and 10 minutes while on their daily rounds. They have a list of questions such as “Are you well?”, “Do you need any shopping?” and “Do you need a doctor?”. Once they have the answers, the person signs that the information is correct and the replies are sent by text or email to the relative via an app, and to a pre-decided list of other people who have agreed to be contacted if necessary. There are contracts for between one and six visits a week, costing from €19.90 a month, which promises one visit per week, to €139.90 for six visits. Included in the package is an alarm system with a wrist strap with a button to connect the person to a call centre in an emergency. There is also access to a platform where advisors can put the person in touch with local contractors if something needs fixing in their home. 

In February 2021, the CWU suggested frontline postal workers could deliver prescriptions while doing their daily rounds in England, and families could pay for relatives to be visited by their postman or woman and have their wellbeing checked. This recognises how postal staff already do a lot of work for their community voluntarily and could formalise the support they provide. Expanding the role of postal workers could diversity and grow Royal Mail and help underpin the Universal Service Obligation. It could also build on the ‘Feet on my Street’ scheme. Funded by the Home Office as a pilot in New Malden, Liverpool and Whitby in 2018, the scheme sought to understand if tackling social isolation in older people made them less likely to become the victim of crime. Postal staff asked people five standard questions about their welfare and connected them into services if/where necessary. While the pilot was deemed a success it was never followed up or rolled out.  

Where next for the postal services market? The one-price-goes-anywhere delivery of letters, packets, parcels and other items to all UK residential and business addresses in the UK is highly prized. Royal Mail is the only company that is – and can currently provide – a universal postal service in the UK. With declining letter volumes, an ever more competitive parcels market, a review of the regulatory framework underway, a potential reduction in the frequency of letter deliveries from six to five-days and the impact of COVID-19, ensuring the USO remains financially viable and sustainable remains a challenge. 

Urban areas often have enough consumers to prompt the emergence of more than one service provider, which can lead to low prices and highly efficient supply chains. However, rural areas do not have always have the ‘critical mass’ and this is where there is risk of market failure and in relation to postal services mechanisms may need to be put in place to ensure residents and businesses can access postal services. For Royal Mail there could be new opportunities to diversify its income streams, particularly in rural areas – for example, offering something akin to the Call&Check or ‘watch over’ service for older and vulnerable residents as part of COVID-19 reset and recovery. 

We need to be clearer not only on how much it actually costs to provide postal services in rural areas; but also the economic and social value that this brings (e.g. helping people to maintain their independence and wellbeing, reducing social isolation, increasing access to services etc.). What would happen if we did not have a USO (or reduced USO) and/or if the largest provider no longer wanted to fulfil the USO – would other providers step in to serve our rural communities?   

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). Her current work includes supporting health commissioners and providers to measure their response to COVID-19 and with future planning; and evaluating two employability programmes helping people furthest from the labour market. Jessica also sits on the board of a Housing Association that supports older and vulnerable people. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Wind farm

How far do Community Benefit Schemes reach into rural areas?

Much of our renewable energy infrastructure is located in rural communities. From wind farms, and nuclear power stations, to tidal and solar, all have wide ranging implications for host localities. It has become increasingly common for renewable energy projects to make financial or in-kind payments to local communities. Often described as “benefits payments”, “compensation schemes” “incentive payments” or “added value”; the level of payment made and how it is used for ‘community’ ‘benefit’ varies greatly. What do renewable energy community benefit schemes offer rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates. ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

On 1 April 2012 the Planning Inspectorate became the Government agency responsible for operating the planning process for what are known as ‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects’ (NSIP). NSIPs are projects such as new roads, power generating stations or harbours which require a type of consent known as ‘development consents’ under the Planning Act 2008. 

A search of energy projects on the National Infrastructure Planning (PINS) website on 2 December 2019 revealed 99 projects. Of these, 31 were at the pre-application stage; 3 at the pre-examination stage; 5 at examination stage; 2 at recommendation stage; 4 at decision stage; 52 at the decided stage and 1 project had been withdrawn. 

The Planning Act 2008 streamlined the decision-making process for these major infrastructure projects; with the purposes of making it a fairer and faster process for both communities and applicants. In March 2016 Government published its first National Infrastructure Delivery Plan – setting out plans for economic infrastructure, housing and social infrastructure over a 5-year period.  This 2016-2021 plan focuses on ensuring the right projects are delivered well; determines the proprieties and project/programme milestones that Government should focus upon; and aims to get the right (public and private) investment in place. The delivery plan sets out a range of policy mechanisms to support the transition to an affordable, clean energy system – with the priorities to 2020-2021 centred around new nuclear investment, gas power stations, large-scale offshore wind; as well as projects relating to interconnectors, smart meters and transmission and distribution.  

Of the projects currently listed on the PINS site the majority of entries (23 projects) are related to wind, followed by grid lines (11 projects), gas (6 projects), nuclear (5 projects), tidal lagoons (4 projects), biomass and solar (2 projects respectively). While in a policy context this move to improve the planning and delivery of infrastructure by increasing investment and accelerating project delivery is gearing us towards a more productive economy; these large projects can sometimes be controversial because they have wide ranging implications for the communities hosting them. In response, a range of new procedures, processes and methods for their assessment and management, including widening impact assessment and the use of Community Benefit Schemes (CBS) have emerged. 

Impact Assessments – such as EIA, SIA, SEA, SA, HIA, HRA sometimes include special procedures for subsets of major projects through the examination system operated by PINS. Community Benefit Schemes (CBSs) refer to agreements between the various stakeholders involved in a project – in particular, between the developer and the host community. The schemes can include financial incentives, infrastructure and community empowerment measures and are drawn up in recognition of a community’s participation in an activity that is perceived as being in the ‘national interest’. 

CBSs are different from project designed-in measures which seek to minimise adverse local impacts at the early stage of planning; and they are also different from mitigation and enhancement measures which may evolve during the assessment and decision making process. 

Why have Community Benefit Schemes? Views range from developer philanthropy and corporate social responsibility through to mitigating the anticipated and/or adverse impacts of construction or operations [through preventive or ameliorative actions]; compensation for actual damage; rewarding communities for assuming non-local cost or risk; and participating in an activity which is deemed to be in the national interest. 

The United States has been a long history of CBSs. Here CBSs are legally enforceable contracts signed by community groups and developers in which the developer agrees to shape the development in a certain way or to provide specified community benefits. Examples include: the Lakers Stadium and Los Angeles Airport expansion. Of the $500 million community benefits for LAX expansion, $230 million was allocated to soundproofing local schools and homes. 

In France, the Government pays compensation as part of its Grand Channtiers programme. Here the level of CBA funding varies from 1-10% of project value and is used to fund a wide range of activities, particularly affordable housing. 

Back in the UK, the wind energy industry has been at the forefront of the development of CBSs. A toolkit published by the Centre for Sustainable Energy back in 2009 aimed to make meaningful community benefits such as being a good neighbour; paying compensation for impacts on local amenity and the inconvenience caused by the construction process; and sharing the rewards from wind as a ‘common’ which nobody owns more routine and systematic in UK wind energy projects. 

The completion of Sizewell B nuclear power station back in 1995 led to a package of ‘ameliorative measures’ such as village hall improvement projects in recognition of the pressure placed on local facilities by the project. More recent examples include the Copeland Community Fund (CCF), an agreement negotiated with the Government to recognise the service Copeland provides to the nation by hosting the Low Level Waste Repository (LLWR) close to the village of Drigg; and EDF energy’s £20 million Community Fund to improve the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of communities affected by the development of Hinkley Point C. 

While the justification for CBSs varies considerably between countries, project types and over time; the benefits of large energy projects tend to contribute to national and sometimes global objectives. 

How is the payment calculated? Payments can be linked to the capacity of the development – with a one-off payment made by a company during the construction period (e.g. £5,000/MW); they can be related to the profitability of the development (i.e., the surplus profit that a project will generate); or they can be at the discretion of the developer (drawn from the Corporate Social Responsibility budget or described as a ‘goodwill contribution’). Payments can be ad hoc and discretionary or are guaranteed by Government using statutory powers on behalf of communities.  They can comprise single donations or annual contributions and they may have conditions attached (such as the money has to be spent over a set period of time or returned to the company). 

Local Authorities often play a vital role in negotiating the level of payment; often acting on behalf of the community in liaising with developers and/or in collecting and distributing the payments. In the case of the Copeland Community Fund, the Low Level Waste Repository provides the Fund with £1.5 million a year for every year that the repository is operating; in addition to an initial endowment of £10 million. The CCF is supported by Copeland Borough Council and Cumbria County Council [which acts as the Accountable Body for the funding]. East Riding of Yorkshire Council is responsible for a number of community funds linked to energy related developments – the Burton Pidsea Community Wind Farm Fund, for example, receives an annual donation from the wind farm owner EnergieKontor UK Limited. The amount of the donation is based on a formula of £2,000 per megawatt of the wind farm to a maximum of £20,400 per annum.

While early examples of CBSs for energy projects in the UK were relatively small – the number, their scale and size of payments has increased over time.  

In Scotland, over the last 15 years the scale of benefits has increased from £1,000 per MW size of the project over the working lifetime of the project (normally 25 years) for early projects to at least £5,000 per MW for more recent projects. For a wind farm of 20 MW, the annual benefit is estimated at £100,000. 

In England in 2011 the renewable energy industry (Renewables UK) agreed a protocol to provide community benefits in connection with eligible on-shore wind schemes of no less than £5,000 per MW per year or benefits in kind to an equivalent value [the protocol was updated in 2013]. The annual contribution is index linked and commences within 12 months of a project making its first commercial export of power and applies for the operational lifetime of the scheme.  

For solar, the benefits are often less than for wind; with some community benefit negotiations based on a minimum of £1,000 per MW of installed capacity for a period of 20 years, linked to the Retail Price Index (or a pro-rota single upfront community benefit payment). In Dorset, for example, the majority of solar farm developments in Dorset have offered a community benefit fund to host communities, often through the local Parish or Town Council. 

The UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) provides a Community Fund for communities at Drigg in Copeland (West Cumbria) and at Dounreay in Caithness (Scotland) which have storage facilities for low level nuclear waste. 

For shale, the energy industry provides community benefits of £100,000 per swell site when a test well is drilled plus a 1% share of revenues from any resultant gas production. This is in addition to provisions for Local Authorities to retain all business rates paid by developers and for energy firms to make direct payments to local residents and/or set up trust funds to be managed by local communities. 

For remote off-shore locations, until recently community benefit payments have been more ad hoc and pro rota compared to on-shore locations. However a recent £10 million CBS initiative by the Danish energy company Dong, in relation to its Hornsea One and Race Bank wind farms, will distribute approximately £0.5 million pounds a year to help local initiatives over the next 20 years through the East Coast Community Fund. 

In March 2019, Cumbria County Council (CCC) formally granted planning approval for the development of the Cumbrian Metallurgical Coal Project – to be known as Woodhouse Colliery. It is anticipated that site work will commence in Spring 2020, with coal production commencing around 24-months from the start of construction. Once in production, WCM will create a Community Fund to support local charities and organisations with projects that echo our desire to promote health and well-being, local amenities such as footpaths and cycle ways, as well as a plan to secure the future of the old Haig Mining Museum building.

Across these examples, community benefits for energy projects can broadly be divided into three  categories: (1) financial incentives – either an annual payment or lump sum or both; a share in local tax revenues, reduced utility fees and/or paying shares into a local community organisation. (2) Social benefits in kind where a developer may provide for a community facility or local environmental improvements. (3) Community empowerment measures – with local participation in decision making. In practice, community benefits can often be an integrated package across all three categories – and these can be shaped by local community preferences (e.g. for reduced utility bills), or technical and regulatory factors. 

At a local level community benefits can be very sensitive issues. Some residents perceive it to be providing a means for developers to take forward a project that is not wanted by the local community while other people view it as a means of sharing in the rewards of a development. 

How do rural communities benefit from the payments? Information on individual CBSs on the PINS website is limited because these agreements are not a material consideration in the planning process. This also makes understand the relationship between community benefits, the planning process, environmental assessment procedures and a series of impact assessments difficult.

On a practical note, a nationally negotiated scheme usually takes a legal approach meaning the scale, type and preconditions of benefits are largely determined beforehand in legislation. In contrast, a locally-negotiated approach involves discussions between developers, local communities and other stakeholders (e.g. Local Authorities) with the agreement reached usually followed by some form of formal written agreement. 

A key issue that often emerges in negotiations is how to define the ‘community’ that will ‘benefit’ from a scheme. Is the relevant community determined spatially (i.e., by geography and locality) or by interest? Should the community that benefits be nearest to the site or the area affected most by disturbance or nuisance? What happens if a scheme covers more than one Local Authority area – is it decided by population on a pro rata basis? How is the community defined for off-shore projects – do coastal communities benefit? In 2005 Dumfries and Galloway Council developed a Wind Farms Community Benefit Governance Framework which established two tiers of benefit: (i) 60% of the community benefit funds from any one wind farm would go to communities 15km from the outer edge of the wind farm with the remaining 40% ring fenced for a region-wide fund for renewable energy or energy efficiency projects. The framework was superseded in 2015 by Windfarm Community Benefit Guidelines which removed the 60:40 split and the 15km measurement of host communities. In Northern Ireland and Wales there have also been discussions around whether the purpose of having a community benefit scheme is to recompense the impacts on the nearest communities or should apply to communities over a much wider area.   

Back in 2014 the then Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) published best practice guidance  to showcase good practice and sets out expectations for developers, Local Authorities and communities in the provision of onshore wind developments. The document brought together a set of principles (i.e., timely, transparent, constructive, inclusive, fair, unconditional), with a process for establishing community benefits through the wind development process (preparation phase, planning phase, post-consent phase and operational phase). 

A further issue that emerges is the timing of community benefits – should it come early as part of the planning and development processes or staged, perhaps related to project milestones? For financial payments, should a lump sum be paid (up front or at the end) with smaller sums paid on an annual or quarterly basis? 

More recently, there have been discussions around the types of communities that are benefitting from CBSs. In April 2018, for example, the Centre for Sustainable Energy published its research into community renewable energy projects in low income areas. The researchers found that the skills, knowledge, time, resources and links to useful people and organisations were not as readily available in low-income communities compared to their more affluent neighbours. They often lacked existing community development and regeneration organisations and Local Authorities had reduced capacity to engage in community energy. As community energy projects in low-income areas seldom emerge directly from the grassroots, with intermediary organisations – locally based and with a community development focus – often acting as the catalyst for energy activity to benefit the community – the authors highlighted the need to bolster the community’s project capacity and resilience (through funds, mentoring and capacity building).  

In relation to energy projects, CBSs have become increasingly commonplace over the last 20 years. While CBSs initially focused on on-shore wind projects; they have since expanded to include nuclear, solar, tidal, and shale gas. However, to date, little work has been undertaken to collate the different types of CBs and the community benefits that arise from individual schemes. Mapping what community benefit schemes they are, where they are located, the scale of payments, a description of the benefits they provide (types of initiatives) and measuring the outcomes and impact they achieve for local communities (legacy and sustainability) would provide a better understanding of the collective. And while current attention around CBSs is focused on renewable energy, could it be applied to other types of infrastructure (e.g. flood defences, broadband/mobile connectivity, roads or airports)? 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration. Her current work includes evaluating two veteran support projects (in Cornwall and North Yorkshire); supporting public sector bodies to measure social value; and reviewing a project that supports parents recovering from drugs or alcohol addictions. She is also a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC).  

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Outer space

What does the new ‘space age’ mean for rural communities?

On 4 October 1957 the Soviet Union launched the first artificial earth satellite (Sputnik 1) from a spaceport known today as Baikonur Cosmodrome. Since then launch vehicles have reached orbit from 27 spaceports around the world. With the rate of space launches expected to grow exponentially in the coming years, the Government here wants the UK to be a leading player in the global space industry, capturing 10% of the global market by 2030. But what does being at the forefront of a new commercial ‘space age’ mean for rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates.  ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Data collected by satellites impacts upon our everyday lives – from navigation and weather reports to broadcast television, mobile communications and financial services. They are often described as an “invisible utility”. The decreasing cost of small satellites and launch services combined with the increased application and use of satellite data is creating more demand and requiring more capacity for satellite facilities. Further, with the development of re-usable spacecraft and horizontal launch capabilities, space travel and space tourism are now a reality. With the world becoming ever more dependent on satellites and the space industry, the Government’s ambition is for the UK to be a leading player in this global industry.  But what does this mean for rural communities? I offer four points. 

1. How big is the UK space industry?  

The UK Space Agency (UKSA), an executive agency of the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS), is responsible for all strategic decisions on the UK civil space programme. Every 2 years the UKSA surveys organisations in the UK who supply and/or make use of space or satellite services – spanning commercial and non-commercial activities. The latest in a series of ‘size and health of the UK space industry’ studies was published in January 2019. Carried out by London Economics, the study covers the period 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 and is based upon an analysis of 948 space-related organisations (comprising 276 survey responses) and desk-based research of more than 600 organisations. The facts and figures presented reveal how: 

  • Total UK space industry income grew to £14.8 billion in 2016-2017, a growth rate of 3.3% per annum. This is equivalent to 5.1% of the global space economy (2016-2017). Income is forecasted to grow 4.8% to £15.5 billion in 2017-2018. 
  • The upstream grew strongly to £2.4 billion, though the downstream still dominates at £12.4 billion. Space Applications is the largest segment with 69% of income, of which 48% is Direct-to-Home (DTH) broadcasting. This is followed by Space Operations (15%), Space Manufacturing (13%) and Ancillary Services (3%). 
  • Across all activities, Broadcasting dominates (51% of total income) followed by Communications (19%), Position, Navigation and Timing (12%), Defence (which has grown to 8%), and Earth Observation (3%). 
  • The UK space industry now comprises 948 organisations, with 39 new entrants per year since 2012. Income growth from 2014-2015 to 2016-2017 (+£924 million) can be divided into: organic growth (+£794 million), new entrants (+£357 million), less attrition (-£226 million). 
  • Growth is concentrated amongst very large enterprises (56% of overall growth) and larger SMEs (28%), with the latter growing particularly fast (31% per annum, compared to very large enterprises at 2% per annum). 
  • The industry is commercially-focused, with 82% of income from sales to consumers and businesses. However, the public sector share of income has increased from 14% (2014-2015) to 18% (Space Agencies 4%, Government 14%), but remains marginally lower than the global average (20%). 
  • Exports grew to £5.5 billion in 2016-2017, or 37.4% of total income. This is up from 36.4% in 2014-2015 and this export intensity is one third higher than the UK economy. 
  • The industry directly contributed £5.7 billion of Gross Value-Added to UK economic output (0.29% of UK GDP, up from 0.27% in 2014-2015), and a total of £13.0 billion (including supply chain effects) in 2016-2017. 
  • Employment in the UK space industry increased at a rate of 4.3% per annum to 41,900 jobs in 2016-2017. This is equivalent to 0.13% of the UK workforce (up from 0.12%). 
  • The space industry workforce is exceptionally highly-skilled, with 3 in 4 employees holding at least a primary degree. This is higher than any sector covered by ONS Census data for England and Wales. 
  • It is estimated that wider UK industrial activities representing over £300 billion of UK non-financial business economy GDP (15.3%) are supported by satellite services as follows (not mutually exclusive): 

GNSS (positioning, navigation and timing) satellite services support £264 billion of GDP (13.4%). 

Meteorological satellite services support £159 billion of GDP (8.1%). 

Telecommunication satellite services support £117 billion of GDP (5.9%). 

Earth Observation satellite services support £92 billion of GDP (4.7%). 

As well as benefitting the space industry itself, these investments are seen to result in new knowledge, expertise and technologies that benefit wider economy. Termed ‘spillovers’, the lag between investments in space-related work and the benefits accruing to groups outside of these initial activities is 3-5 years. Spillovers are often focussed around technology transfers (e.g. products, processes and knowledge that can be copied and used in other settings). It is argued that without Government support, private companies would be likely to under-invest in activities with positive spillovers because they could not fully capture all the benefits of these activities. Conversely, in the absence of Government intervention, private companies are likely to over-invest in activities generating negative spillovers because they do not fully bear the costs. Both these cases of market failure are used to make the business case for Government intervention.

2. Why do we need spaceports? 

In July 2018 the Government published a brochure promoting the UK as an attractive destination to grow commercial markets for small satellite launch and sub-orbital flight services.

Small spacecraft (SmallSats) focus on spacecraft with a mass less than 180 kilograms – about the size of a large kitchen fridge. More than 1,300 smallsats were launched between 2012 and 2018 – with 2018 seeing six times as many launches compared to 2012. In 2018, 36% of smallsats were launched from the United States (US) – 80% of them manufactured by US companies. The US deployed the most Government smallsats between 2012 and 2018 (120) followed by China (44 smallsats) and Russia (43 smallsats). 

A paper from Frost & Sullivan commissioned by the UKSA assessed the potential UK market share for dedicated launch services.  With the number of small satellites launched in 2017 increasing by 157% compared to 2016 combined with modelling showing likely supply (launch capacity) and demand (satellite operator constellation plans) to 2030 – the paper highlights an opportunity to invest in a spaceport in the UK. 

As part of efforts to grow the UK’s spaceflight capabilities, Government has been funding a range of industry-led projects. This includes a £1.3 million investment in spaceport plans in England, Scotland and Wales. As part of the spaceflight programme, ‘Launch UK’, Government has contributed to a funding package to establish the UK’s first spaceport in Sutherland (Scotland). Called Space Hub Sutherland, the project is being led by Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) and will see the development of a vertical launch site for a new generation of small rockets to launch micro communication and earth-observation satellites at The Moine, on the Melness Crofting Estate near Tongue. The launch site is expected to create around 40 highly skilled jobs. At a regional level, HIE estimates this figure will multiply to 400 jobs by 2023, with launch activities in Sutherland making the site the hub of a significant new space sector. The HIE project team has identified community benefits around tourism and local supply chain development and diversification. In October and November 2019 HIE organised a series of public events and community engagement activities. HIE then hopes to submit a formal application for planning consent to the Local Authority. 

The UKSA and Cornwall Council are working with Virgin Orbit to develop facilities and operational capabilities that would enable small satellite launches from Cornwall in the early 2020s. The funding package consists of approximately £12 million from Cornwall Council, £7.85 million from the UKSA and £0.5 million from the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Enterprise Partnership (CIOS LEP). Spaceport Cornwall will use an existing airport, Cornwall Airport Newquay, and a modified Boeing 747 to offer launches. The spaceport also aims to act as a catalyst in attracting more high-value companies (from all sectors) into Cornwall. It is estimated that 150 direct and 282 indirect jobs will be created and £200 million of GVA generated over the next 5-years.   

Other Government investments include a new National Satellite Test Facility in Harwell, Oxfordshire and a new National Propulsion Facility in Buckinghamshire. Additional funding has been provided to support plans for small satellite launch and sub-orbital flight from aerodromes in the UK – including to Snowdonia Aerospace for the Snowdonia Spaceport Development Plan, which aims to create a centre for space R&D, training and satellite launch; and to Machrihanish Airbase Community Company (MACC) for a spaceport cluster plan in Argyle, Scotland. 

The RAF will be launching a satellite as part of the Ministry of Defence’s £30 million space programme. Eight military personnel will also be joining Operation Olympic Defender to work alongside allies at the Combined Space Operations Centre in California.

Back in May 2018 the Government published its ‘Prosperity from Space’ strategy – setting out its vision for enhanced growth in the UK space sector over the next decade. The strategy focuses on four areas: (i) earth navigation services; (ii) connectivity services; (iii) in-space robotics; and (iv) low-cost access to space. The strategy aims to double the value of space to wider industrial activities from £250 billion to £500 billion, generate an extra £5 billion in exports, attract £3 billion of inward investment and interact with 1 million young people a year to increase interest in STEM careers [science, technology, engineering and mathematics]. Developing space launch sites in the UK is one of the priorities to take forward the goals of the strategy. 

In August 2018 Government suggested the UK could compete to launch 2,000 satellites by 2030 – having a competitive advantage to compete for a more substantial share of the market owing to the UK’s location, regulatory framework, private sector strategy and space ecosystem. Existing ‘rideshare’ small satellite launches [where small satellites piggyback on larger missions] are capable of meeting less than 35% of the total demand thus revealing a significant gap in commercial small satellite launch provision for which future UK spaceports could deliver.

The UK’s geography is also well suited for launch sites. Our northern latitude provides access to specific types of orbits around the earth – such as polar orbits, which are useful for earth observation. Also, the neighbouring Atlantic means launches can take place over the ocean and sparsely populated areas. 

The Space for Smarter Government Programme (SSGP) is a strategic, national, programme established in 2014, led and funded by the UKSA. It is delivered in collaboration with the Satellite Applications Catapult to drive the uptake and use of space products, data and services across Government departments. The programme aims to increase the public sector’s use of space as an enabling technology to stimulate innovation and growth whilst at same time making Government more efficient and ‘smarter’. 

On the one hand, the development of spaceports is viewed seen as providing a means for the UK to build a global reputation for manufacturing and launching small satellites (drawing on skilled engineers in the aerospace, electronics and software industries); of attracting companies from across the globe to invest in the UK; fully integrating the sector supply chain; boosting local economies in the communities surrounding sites and more widely (e.g. well-paid careers, inspiring the next generation); and increasing links to academic institutions and the research community. On the other hand, concerns have been raised about the lack of public consultation and the potential environmental impact of spaceports. 

Alongside these developments Government is intending to establish a new National Space Council to inform UK space strategy and governance. Government is also focusing on international cooperation and has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Australia to exchange information, technology and personnel between the two countries. 

3. How are they being regulated? 

In the UK, the Space Industry Act 2018 provides the regulatory framework for the expansion of commercial space activities and the development of spaceports; covering orbital and sub-orbital activities and horizontal and vertical launches. In most cases, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) will regulate sub-orbital activities and the UKSA will regulate space activities. The exception is where the UKSA will regulate all spaceflight activities involving the use of rockets; regardless of whether they are involved in sub-orbital or space activities.

The licencing framework is not fully in place yet with details to be set by secondary legislation. The Government has issued guidance for prospective licences (for any launch, procurement of launch operation or return vehicles capable of operating above the stratosphere, some 50km) and anticipates publishing and consulting on detailed regulations in 2019. So far there has been one call for evidence on liability, insurance and charging.

Government has also been looking at health and safety legal requirements that may need to be implemented by a spaceport to minimise the risks to populations nearby from the storage and use of hazardous fuels.

The infrastructure spaceports need will require permission from the local planning authority.  

4. How will rural communities benefit from ‘lift off’? 

Launch UK is focusing its attention on Prestwick, Western Isle, Shetland, Sutherland, Campbeltown [Scotland]; Snowdonia [Wales]; and Newquay [England] – i.e., rural and remote areas. 

The initial selection to qualify as a location suitable for a spaceport was based on a CAA assessment of a wide range of criteria from meteorological to environmental and economic factors. Criteria also included having an existing runway that could be extended to over 3,000 metres in length; the ability to accommodate dedicated segregated airspace to manage flights safely; and a reasonable distance from densely populated areas in order to minimise impact on the uninvolved general public.

For some rural residents the development of commercial spaceports is viewed as an opportunity to create highly technical jobs, upskill local people and generate income for the local economy. Other rural dwellers are less supportive – with spaceports seen to threaten the solitude and tranquility of where people live and have adverse environmental impacts (on landscapes and wildlife). Moreover, there have been discussions around whether spaceports are being imposed upon some rural communities and do not represent the kind of infrastructure they actually need. With Local Authorities responsible for the provision of an extensive range of services (e.g. planning, housing, highways, environment, economic development) how is/will Government support them to increase spending on these core services in spaceport areas? 

If space matters – every time we go to work, turn on the television, make a phone call or do our banking; how can we ensure the benefits from our satellite and space programmes flow back to rural communities? For if the UK is to truly realise its potential of becoming a spacefaring nation it is dependent on rural places to do so.  

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration. Her current work includes evaluating two veteran support projects (in Cornwall and North Yorkshire); supporting public sector bodies to measure social value; and evaluating a series of community safety and crime reduction projects. She is also a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). In her spare time Jessica sits on the board of a housing association. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Apprenticeships

Apprenticeships – training people for (rural) jobs of the future?

Back in 2012, the Richard Review of Apprenticeships explored what apprenticeships should be like in the future, and how they could meet the needs of a changing economy. Upon finding an extraordinary number of qualifications, which could be stitched together in an infinite number of combinations leading to any number of possible outcomes Richard’s called for turning the system on its head by having fewer, clearer standards (preferable one per occupation), that covered what employers required for an apprentice to be competent in that occupation. In Vision 2020 Government set out its programme for the reform and growth of apprenticeships. As part of a concerted attempt to address skills shortages and meet employers’ needs Government was aiming to increase the number of apprenticeships significantly. What are apprenticeships, how does the current system work and what needs to be done to ensure more are on offer in rural areas? Jessica Sellick investigates.   

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What are apprenticeships? 

According to Government, an apprenticeship is ‘a real job, with hands-on experience, a salary and the chance to train while you work. You’re treated just like all the other employees, with a contract of employment and holiday leave.’  Apprenticeships combine practical training in a job with study (the equivalent of one day a week). Apprentices have the same rights as other employees and are entitled to be paid at least the apprentice rate of the national minimum wage and may receive a nationally recognised qualification on completion of their apprenticeship. 

Apprenticeships are available to anyone over 16 years living in England [separate schemes operate in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales]. Apprenticeships take between one and four years to complete and cover some 1,500 occupations across 170+ industries. 

Apprenticeships can be studied at different levels. From intermediate (Level 2) which is equivalent to an educational level of 5 GCSE passes at grade A*-C or 9-4; to advanced (Level 3) which is equivalent to 2 A Level passes /level 3 Diploma or International Baccalaureate; to higher (Levels 4, 5, 6 and 7) which is equivalent to foundation degree and above; and degree (levels 6 and 7) which is equivalent to a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree.  

There are two different types of apprenticeships: Frameworks and Standards. Government is aiming to move from Frameworks [which were established by sector bodies to assess apprenticeships and are qualification led] to Standards [which are employer driven and occupation-focused] by 2020. Standards were first introduced in September 2014 and are developed by trailblazer groups representing groups of employers and sector organisations.  As of 25 March 2019, there were 421 Standards approved for delivery, 166 Standards in development, and a further 73 proposals in development.  

How many apprentices are there? 

According to the Department for Education (DfE), there were 192,100 apprenticeship starts recorded between August 2018 and December 2018 for the 2018-2019 academic year. This compares to 175,100 reported in the equivalent period in 2017-2018; 230,400 in 2016-2017; and 224,400 in 2015-2016. Of the 192,100 apprenticeship starts reported so far in 2018-2019, 59.1% (or 113,500 people) were on apprenticeship standards. 

In the 2017-2018 period, there were 48,150 higher level (Level 4+) apprenticeship starts, compared to 3,700 in 2011-2012. Between 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 higher level starts rose by 31.7%. In contrast, both intermediate (Level 2) and advanced (Level 3) apprenticeships declined between 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 – by 38.1% and 15.9% respectively.  The average expected duration of an apprenticeship has increased from 529 to 612 days in the first half of 2017-2018; with the expected off-the-job training hours also increasing from 560 to 700 hours.

83% of apprenticeship starts in 2017-2018 were concentrated in four sectors: business, administration & law (30% of all starts); health, public services & care (24%); engineering & manufacturing technologies (16%); and retail & commercial enterprise (14%). 

814,800 people completed an apprenticeship in 2017-2018 – down 1,600 on the previous year. All regions saw a fall in apprenticeship starts between 2016-2017 and 2017-2018: with apprenticeship starts in the North East falling from 34,000 in 2016-2017 to 23,000 in 2017-2018 (down 33%); the West Midlands falling from 60,000 in 2016-2017 to 43,000 in 2017-2018 (down 29%) and the East Midlands falling from 48,000 in 2016-2017 to 34,000 in 2017-2018 (down 29%). The lowest falls were recorded in London and the South East (both down by 17%). 

Since March 2017, public bodies with a headcount of 250 or more employees in England in each year from 2017 to 2020 are required to meet a minimum target set by Government of 2.3% apprenticeship starts each year [this can be applied to new recruits or existing staff]. This means Government expects public bodies to ‘have regard’ to this target in their workforce planning decisions and use the Apprenticeship Activity Return to demonstrate how they have had regard to the target.  

In March 2019, the National Audit Office (NAO) published a report looking at whether apprenticeships are providing value for money.  According to the report, for the period 2017-2018 public bodies reported that 1.4% of their workforce had started an apprenticeship. This figure was based on returns from 676 bodies and equated to 45,300 starts in total. 

While there was an increase in starts in April 2017 the NAO suggests it is unlikely that the Government will meet its target of 3 million apprenticeship starts by 2020. In 2017-2018 there were some 375,800 starts – 26% lower than the 509,400 starts in 2015-2016, with falls marked at Level 2. To achieve its own target, this means the Government would need new starts to double for the remainder of the period. Indeed in May 2019, The Rt Hon Anne Milton MP (the Minister of State for Apprenticeships and Skills) suggested not only will Government miss its own target but it will have to rethink its strategy next year. 

The NAO further described the DfE metrics for measuring performance – with a focus on starts rather than the 32% of people who completed their apprenticeship in 2016-2017 who did not achieve it. There is also insufficient data to determine whether people remain with an employer at the end of their apprenticeship and reap financial gains (what are the financial earnings gained according to level, sector). Further, the NAO identified an oversight gap in how the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) ensures apprentices spend at least 20% of their time on off-the-job-training. 

How are they funded? 

Since April 2017 Government has been implementing changes in the way apprenticeship funding works – much of this can be traced back to the Government’s Industrial Strategy. In April 2017 the apprenticeship levy came into effect for all UK employers with a pay bill of more than £3 million and/or employers connected to other companies or charities which have in total an annual pay bill of more than £3 million. The levy is set at 0.5% of the value of the employer’s pay bill, minus an apprenticeship levy allowance of £15,000 per financial year. The levy is paid into an apprenticeship service account with funds in it then spent on apprenticeship training and assessment. Employers pay their levy to HMRC each month through the PAYE process – with the amounts paid dependent upon each month’s pay bill. The Government applies a 10% top-up to the funds paid by an employer through the levy.  Levy-paying employers register for an apprenticeship service account which is then used to pay for apprenticeship training and assessment.  The funding expires 24 months after it enters to service account – employers are able to transfer 10% of their funds to other employers (capped at a maximum of 10% of their annual funds). 

Since May 2017, employers paying the Apprenticeship Levy have been able to select a provider from the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers. The Register lists: (1) main providers: organisations that be selected by levy paying employers to deliver apprenticeship training; (2) employer providers: levy paying employers that can provide training to their own staff and/or apprentices in connected companies; and (3) supporting providers: organisations that can only deliver as part of a subcontractor for contract values of between £100,000 and £500,000 per year. Organisations that would like to deliver apprenticeship training but at a value of less than £100,000 are not required to register.

In April 2018, the OECD carried out a review of Apprenticeship programs in England. The OECD found English apprentices receive 50-100 hours of general education over the course of their apprenticeships, with general education only mandatory for those not meeting the minimum requirements in mathematics and English. This compares to around 400 hours of general education covering a range of subjects in German and Swiss apprenticeships, and nearly 600 hours in Norwegian apprenticeships.   The report also found apprenticeship workplace training in England was not systematic and subject to little quality assurance. Lack of standards with regard to training in workplaces increases the risk that employers will substitute apprentices for unskilled workers, the OECD argues. The reviewers recommended increasing the amount of education in apprenticeships for young people; supporting the development of systematic training provision; keeping apprenticeship qualifications broad and few in number; reviewing the assessment market; providing pre-apprenticeship programmes for disadvantaged young people to progress into full apprenticeship programmes; and ensuring that all apprenticeships include a substantial element of work-based learning with an employer. 

According to the NAO report, £1.6 billion of public money was spent on the apprenticeships programme in 2017-2018 alongside the £2 billion contributed by levy paying employers. While these seem large sums, the average cost of training an apprentice on a standard is double what was expected; raising concerns that the programme will overspend in the future. This is because employers are now choosing more expensive and higher level standards than the DfE expected. The average cost of training an apprenticeship in 2017-2018 was approximately £9,000. Projections show that, even if starts remain at current levels, spending could rise to more than £3 billion a year once frameworks are withdrawn and all apprenticeships are on standards. 

Back in October 2018, the House of Commons Education Committee recommended increasing the top funding band, doubling the time employers have to spend their funds, allowing more levy transfers and providing greater flexibility to the 20% off-the-job training requirement. 

What do employers and apprentices think? 

The Open University commissioned independent market research among 750 senior business leaders from small, medium and large employers across the UK. 84% of respondents supported the apprenticeship levy in principle. 4 in 5 businesses in England either already employ apprentices or plan to do so in the future; and are using apprenticeships to build up skills amongst their existing staff (27%) or to train new staff (54%). Some business leaders have found apprentices make the rest of their workforce more productive and that they pass on what they learn leading to a more motivated and satisfied workforce. From an employer perspective, 34% believe apprentices bring a fresh approach and positive attitude to the workplace; 23% that apprentices are more loyal and easier to retain than other staff members; and 20% that apprentices are more productive than other members of staff. 51% of employers agreed that apprenticeships were less disruptive to their business than other forms of training. In the words of one employer “in my experience, people have a natural desire to pay you back if you invest in them. Apprentices may stay with you for longer, as they feel appreciated and well recognised. Longer-serving employees see apprenticeships as a great opportunity to leave a legacy and get benefit from developing their potential.” Employers suggested greater flexibility in apprenticeship content, including modular apprenticeships (modelled in a similar way to The Open University’s open degrees), would be beneficial going forward.  

Some employer groups have called on some of the levy to be spent on pre-employment engagement with schools, parents/carers and pupils – which takes up much time and requires additional resourcing.   

Other organisations query if the apprenticeship changes have diminished the quality of apprenticeships – with the list of roles covered often offering minimal training and representing low wage jobs that do not constitute skilled occupations? The suggestion here is that some employers may rebadge existing training courses as apprenticeships to shift the training costs onto Government.  

In 2017 Investors in People conducted research into how young people perceived apprenticeships. Of the 1,000 young people surveyed, 45% had considered an apprenticeship. Of the 53% who said they had never considered one: 62% of them said they wanted to do A Levels and go to university; 28% that the industry they want to work in does not offer apprenticeships, 26% thought apprenticeships were known for giving low pay; 16% said their school or college didn’t provide them with information about apprenticeships and 11% thought apprenticeships were for low skilled occupations. The research reveals that while young people have heard of apprenticeships, many are not aware of what they are in practice (e.g. career opportunities, pay) leaving many unsure ‘what’s in it for me?’ 

The Social Mobility Commission 2018 barometer found respondents were more likely to think an apprenticeship offers the best opportunity for young people to progress in life and career than other routes – with 30% thinking apprenticeships offer the best route compared to higher education (26%), further education (14%) and just starting work (8%). However these figures differ by age with those aged 65+ years more likely to suggest apprenticeships than those aged 18-24 years – in the younger cohort 20% would choose an apprenticeship compared to 34% wanting to go into higher education.  

In November 2018, the Government commissioned a learners and apprentices survey. The findings, based on 12.872 interviews (2,287 online and 10,585 by telephone), reveal that while half of all apprentices are young people (aged 19-24 years), the apprenticeship sector is serving people in their 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s. Typically apprentices are already working for their apprenticeship employer (62%) or had started their apprenticeship straight after finishing full-time education (18%). The main reason for starting an apprenticeship was because their employer had offered it to them or had made it a requirement of their job. Three-quarters of apprentices that had never worked before completing their apprenticeship had moved into and remained in paid work at the time of the survey. Nearly three-quarters of apprentices who completed or were still working towards an apprenticeship agreed their chances of earning a higher wage in the future had increased; with 8 in 10 agreeing their chances of going on to higher levels of training had increased. There was some evidence that where apprentices had left it was for other employment or training. 

According to Government, the monetary benefits of completing an apprenticeship to an individual over their working life are estimated to be £48,000-£74,000 for Level 2; £77,000-£117,000 for Level 3 and £150,000 for Level 4 or above.  

In a series of blogs, young people have described their positive experiences of apprenticeships – see Hyo, an apprentice in the Cabinet Office; Hugh Gaffney, an apprentice at The Careers & Enterprise Company; Rob O’Connor, an apprentice at Accenture, Dominic and John, apprentices at RSA; and Joanna, an apprentice at Argies Coffee.   

What about apprenticeships in rural areas? 

According to Defra’s Statistical Digest of Rural England (March 2019), the proportion of working age population with at least one qualification, with an NVQ2 and/or an NVQ4 has been consistently higher for the total rural category than for those living in the all urban category. But the proportion of people with NVQ4 or equivalent is much higher for people working in rural areas – 44.7% compared to predominantly rural areas (35.4%). A higher percentage of people working in urban areas receive on-the-job training than people working in rural areas – 12.9% in predominantly rural areas compared to 13.3% in urban areas. However, some people who live in rural areas will travel to urban areas for work so these skills will not necessarily be used in rural areas. 

If you do a key word search on apprenticeship standards entering the word ‘rural’, generates 1 result (for highways maintenance skilled operative); countryside generates 1 result (countryside worker – this standard is in development), agriculture generates 3 results (professional advisor in agriculture/horticulture – in development, land-based service engineer, land-based service engineer technician); and there are 20 results for natural environment (including crop technician, forest operative and poultry worker). Aside from the apprenticeship standards; many RSN members will be familiar with apprenticeships offered in their own areas – from those in national parks (e.g. the Lake District, North York Moors); to those across England – from Cornwall to Cumbria; from Hampshire to Hertfordshire; and from Leicestershire to Worcestershire. The search facilities on existing platforms do not always reveal the geographical and sectoral diversity of opportunities available in rural areas. 

While there is often little difference in the sectors between rural and urban areas, the context is very different and this can bring additional challenges when providing apprenticeships. 

Jo Maher, principal and chief executive at Boston College, highlights some of the rural challenges and opportunities facing colleges, apprentices and employers.  For apprentices living in rural areas the greatest challenge is the time and distance it can take to access an apprenticeship. The greatest challenge for rural college leaders is that assessors have the same time and distance issues as the apprentices they need to assess – compounded by the fact that many employers in rural areas are micro-businesses and only employ one apprentice. Colleges have to model delivery on an assessor spending an hour with a maximum of four apprentices a day to allow for this travel time whereas in an urban area an assessor might be able to train up to seven apprentices in a day. The challenges for employers in rural areas include size, scale and breadth. Maher’s recommendations to better support apprenticeships in rural areas include: providing an uplift [calculated in a similar way to the disadvantage uplift in full-time FE funding]; setting up an apprenticeship loan system – where a larger company is able to loan an apprentice to an SME with a view to bringing them back a year later to progress their employment and leaving the rural SME with a regular supply of apprentices; and establishing a ‘quality mark’ to enable apprentices to select employers in the same way as they can look at a college’s Ofsted grade and feedback score; this means employers could better able evidence their role in providing high quality training.  

These insights chime with witness testimony provided to the Select Committee on the Rural Economy. For example, the Centre for Rural Economy (CRE) described how an apprenticeship criterion often favours larger firms, making it harder for rural SMEs to host apprentices. With a higher proportion of older people living in rural areas CRE advocated changing the age limits to attract people of working age at later stages of their careers. Countryside Alliance  identified that ‘affordability’ and time can be real barriers for land-based SMEs wanting to offer apprenticeships. On a more positive note, National Parks England noted that the Government’s 8 Point Plan for National Parks had led to a 91% increase in apprenticeships in National Park Authorities and that hosting an apprenticeship had doubled since April 2018.  

For me, what these findings reveal is the need to focus on rural communities and places rather than apply a one-size-fits-all approach to apprenticeships. This means communities thinking through how they can attract and retain employers and apprenticeships (e.g. Rock the Cotswolds): what rural assets and aspirations can be built upon and what locally defined rural apprenticeship priorities emerge? We also need to provide training and development opportunities for SMEs that works well in rural places; and ensure that adequate funding; support and assessment processes are in place. 

Where next? 

In September 2018, the House of Commons Education Committee called for ‘stronger, clearer oversight of apprenticeship training and assessment. New providers should get a monitoring visit from Ofsted in the first year….Ofqual should be given responsibility for the external quality assurance of all end-point assessments….we found enthusiasm for the opportunities apprenticeships can offer and commitment to seizing them. There can be no doubt that apprenticeships work. However, we think they could work even better and on a greater scale.’ Many of the Committee’s recommendations chime with rural areas, including: providing more bursaries, increased incentives for small and medium sized businesses and a new social justice fund to support organisations that help the hardest to reach.  

In January 2019 the Department for Education (DfE) launched a new campaign to promote apprenticeships among young people, parents, schools and employers. ‘Fire it up’ aims to shift deeply held views and drive more people towards an apprenticeship. With an increasing variety of apprenticeship options available for people of all ages and backgrounds, if we need to improve both productivity and social mobility; for Government apprenticeships will continue to play a central role in maintaining our skills base. 

In March 2019 the Skills Commission, Policy Connect and the Learning and Work Institute embarked on a new project to map the blueprint for an ecosystem that can adapt to current and future economic and social priorities. In asking whether the national skills system [including apprenticeships] is serving different communities and businesses across the UK; the project inquiry team is visiting Spalding (Lincolnshire), Middlesbrough and Bristol and are running a call for evidence until 27 May 2019. 

More recently, in April 2019 the House of Lords Select Committee on the Rural Economy published its report. Seeing apprenticeships as a route to addressing skills shortages in rural areas, the report contained a series of recommendations, including: (i) reviewing apprenticeship criteria to make it easier for rural SMEs to host apprentices and provide new land based apprenticeships; (ii) reviewing funding arrangements for apprenticeships to make it easier for smaller businesses to engage; (iii) increasing the amount of apprenticeship levy that can be transferred from large to small firms should be considered; and (iv) with local industrial strategies focusing on skills there could be a renewed focus and improvements made to support rural apprenticeships.  

In 2020 the Government has plans to refresh its apprenticeship strategy as part of attempts to increase the number of apprenticeships. 

How can we ensure that rural communities and businesses are ‘fired up’ and part of this policy conversation? Will the House of Lords select committee recommendations be taken into account?  And, ultimately, what more can be done to deliver apprenticeships in rural areas and what metrics do we have or can we develop to measure success?   

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration. Her current work includes evaluating two veteran support projects (in Cornwall and North Yorkshire); supporting public sector bodies to measure social value; and evaluating a series of community safety and crime reduction projects. She was recently part of the team that successfully bid to create an Institute of Technology in Lincolnshire.   

She is also a senior research fellow at the National Centre for Rural Health and Care (https://www.ncrhc.org/). 

In her spare time Jessica sits on the board of a housing association. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Quality work rural area

From quantity to quality – what does ‘good work’ look like in rural areas?

With the age of retirement going up, many people will spend 50+ years in employment. Government policy is seeking ‘to boost the number of jobs and create a flexible labour market…modernising employment law while protecting employee rights…to increase the number of people in employment.’ While the number of jobs available has increased, more recent attention has turned to the quality of that work. In July 2017 Matthew Taylor published his independent review of modern working practices for Government. Titled ‘good work’, the single overriding ambition of the Review was that “all work should be fair and decent with realistic scope for development and fulfilment”. In February 2018 Government published its response to the review, including a Good Work Plan for taking forward recommendations on employment policy and legislation. What does good work look like in rural England, why does it matter, and what more can be done to bring it about? Jessica Sellick investigates.

What is good work? The concept can be traced back to the work of Ernst Schumacher in the 1970s – compiled from a series of lectures in the United States delivered to some 60,000 people and culminating in a meeting at The White House with President Carter. For Schumacher the purpose of work was threefold: (i) to produce necessary and useful goods and services; (ii) to enable us to use and perfect our gifts and skills; and (iii) to collaborate with other people so as to liberate ourselves from our inborn egocentricity. A job in which there was no personal satisfaction was said to destroy the soul.

In the UK, in October 2016, the Prime Minister commissioned Matthew Taylor to carry out ‘an Independent Review of Employment Practices in the Modern Economy.’ The Review was tasked with focusing on six main areas: (i) security, pay and rights; (ii) progression and training; (iii) the balance of rights and responsibilities; (iv) representation; (v) opportunities for under-represented groups; and (vi) new business models. Alongside this, the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) GoodWorkIs campaign sought to test the depth of public commitment to better work.

Supported by a panel of experts, Taylor’s Review was published in July 2017 and called on the Government “to adopt the ambition that all work should be fair and decent with scope for fulfilment and development”. The Review set out seven steps for achieving good quality work for all. Under a strapline ‘think like a system, act like an entrepreneur’, the steps were: 1. Creating a national strategy for work – the British way – that should be explicitly directed towards the goal of good work. 2. Platform based working provides opportunities for those who may not be able to work in conventional ways but fairness must be ensured for those who work through these platforms. 3. The law should help firms make the right choices and individuals to know and exercise their rights. 4. Companies must be seen to take good work seriously, be open about their practices, and ensure all workers are able to be engaged and heard. 5. Workers must feel they have realistically attainable ways to strengthen their future work prospects. 6. A more proactive approach to workplace health is needed. 7. Ensuring that people – particularly in low paid sectors – are not stuck at the living wage minimum or facing insecurity but can progress in their current and future work. The recommendations made by the Review focused on three broad challenges: (1) tackling exploitation or the potential for exploitation at work; (2) increasing clarity in the law to help people know and exercise their rights; and (3) aligning the labour market with the Industrial Strategy and broader national objectives.

In February 2018 the Government published its response to the Review. It acknowledged the overarching ambition of the Review and accepted all but one of the recommendations [changes to National Insurance Contributions for self-employed workers]. In now taking the Review forward, the Government proposes providing millions of workers with new rights under its Good Work Plan – from taking further action to ensure unpaid interns are not doing the job of paid workers through to asking the Low Pay Commission to consider the impact of a higher minimum wage for workers on zero hour contracts.

The response builds on Government’s previous support of good work outlined in the Industrial Strategy which included a commitment to ‘promote the delivery of better jobs’. The Industrial Strategy contains five principles which Government believes underpins the quality of work: worker satisfaction; good pay; participation and progression; wellbeing, safety and security; and voice and autonomy.

Following Taylor’s Review, the Work and Pensions and Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy Committees produced a framework for modern employment. This has led to consultations on the enforcement of employment rights, employment status, increasing transparency in the labour market, and protecting agency workers.

Who does (and does not) enjoy good work? Recent interest in ‘good work’ stems from the rise of in-work poverty or the working poor (these are people in employment but finding it hard to make ends meet), poor employment practices (which undermine individual dignity and autonomy) as well as challenges to future work (e.g. poor real wage growth, poor productivity, getting the skills to match the jobs, new business models and automation).

RSA analysis has found gaps in good work around the pay squeeze (including how many people earn below the Voluntary Living Wage); the time spent on work-related training dropping; the overemployment of workers and/or examples of them carrying out unpaid overtime; an increase in work related stress; a decline in the proportion of workers saying they feel they have a say over changes in their workplace; and the amount of workers struggling persistently with low pay and lack of job security.

The RSA published research in January 2018 containing seven portraits of modern work. Whether a worker is ‘thriving, striving or just about surviving’ depends on a number of variables including their household circumstances (income level and stability of income), job security (the extent to which they feel safeguarded from job loss), levels of personal debt, savings and assets (their ability to meet ends meet), agency (the extent to which they feel able to enter or exit the labour market) and their social support network. Workers identified a ‘job that is interesting’ to be of primary importance, with job security the second most valued aspect, followed by high income, flexibility and autonomy. For those who have yet to build up a high level of economic security they value aspects of a job that can help them feel more secure (e.g. security of their position, wage level).

The RSA and Populus carried out a survey to find out whether what workers value in a good job aligned to their actual experiences of work. The survey found economic worries across four self-defined income groups: (i) those not managing to get by, (ii) those just managing to get by, (iii) those just managing to save and (iv)those comfortably saving. From the 2,083 adults interviewed, four-fifths were worried inflation would outstrip their pay; a third of those ‘just about managing’ had a household income of more than the national average (£34,000); high housing costs were the biggest concern of those not managing; and personal debt worried two-thirds of respondents.

With these findings the RSA is calling for public policy to focus on ‘economic security’ – ‘the degree of confidence that a person can have in maintaining a decent quality of life, now and in the future, given their economic and financial circumstances’. The RSA is asking Government to overhaul health, housing and welfare to fuse economic policy and public services together around economic security.

More recently, WikiJob published an article on the 15 technical skills employers are looking for. Employees with these skills are often better at multitasking in challenging and complex roles and receive higher pay. The article contains job seekers hints and tips on how to give technical skills prominence on CVs and at interview.

For me, two strands of good work analysis missing in this analysis and policy attention. Firstly, detailed mapping to understand which geographies, sectors and job types enjoy good work and which enjoy less good work – and why this is. Secondly, how does the vision of good work (the seven steps) fit with the everyday reality of the workplace – and how might these two aspects be reconciled by employees and employers?

What are the rural dimensions of good work? Rural/urban classifications used for Government statistics indicate the heterogeneity (geographically, socially, economically) of rural areas. There are variations in the relative accessibility/ remoteness of rural areas – with remoter (and especially peripheral/ coastal) rural areas more likely to suffer particular issues concerning connectivity in terms of travel-to-work, travel-to-train and accessibility to other services when compared to more accessible rural areas. There are also variations in the economic position of individuals, in-work poverty, housing affordability, health, etc. The relatively high levels of deprivation in some rural areas tend not to be captured by standard deprivation indices (e.g. English Indices of Deprivation 2015).

From a workforce perspective, rural areas tend to be characterised by an older than average workforce. This has implications for so-called ‘replacement demand’ (i.e. job openings resulting from retirement) and for recruitment strategies and job design. The out-migration of young people to larger urban areas reduces the number of qualified young people for recruitment. The quantity, breadth and depth of different job roles are likely to be greater in urban areas than in rural areas. There are a higher proportion of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), lower than average levels of training, less emphasis on formal qualifications and more emphasis on informal training in rural areas. There are more informal labour market mechanisms operating in rural areas. For example: the number of self-employed people who are barely scrapping a living or workers accepting lower wages or working fewer hours; ‘Job jugglers’: people who have more than one job, some if it seasonal, temporary or part time and low paid; or people out of work and trying to get by not accessing support from [or often on the radar of] Jobcentre Plus and DWP.

The Taylor Review acknowledged how the labour market is changing, self-employment rising and innovative forms of working emerging that current policy and legislative frameworks do not always accommodate. For me, full time employment remains the norm in public policy and the Review fails to fully acknowledge these characteristics of employment in rural areas.

Where next? While studies on the quality of work have been undertaken there is no single, agreed upon metrics for informing national policy (i.e., good work indicators broken down by geography, sector, demography). The Carnegie UK Trust and the RSA are developing metrics for measuring ‘job quality’ while CIPD and the Warwick Institute of Employment Research (IER) have developed an index of job quality.

The seven steps to good work apply to three types of individual in the workplace (employees, workers and those who are self-employed) and the Taylor Review has perhaps less to say on what it means for employers – particularly around issues such as how they might further support career development and progression, or help tackle in-work poverty and low pay. If good work is to be available to all the employer voice is important in achieving this.

Finally, talent for care aims to help people Get Ready, Get In, Get On and Go Further in their careers in the NHS. Developed by Health Education England (HEE) the strategic framework underpinning this employment pathway focuses on providing opportunities for people to start their career in a support role; supporting them to be the best they can be in the job they do; and providing opportunities for career progression. Within the pathway, development and progression are based upon an individual’s merit, ability and motivation and not their social background or social networks. For me, it speaks to some of the means of achieving good work, namely ensuring workers have realistically attainable ways to strengthen their future work prospects and ensuring workers can progress in work. How could this approach to workforce development (from entry to in-work progression) and the seven steps to achieving good work apply in rural areas?

What kinds of jobs do we want in rural areas and how can we ensure that these jobs are fair and decent with scope for fulfilment and development for employees in ways that are practical for employers? How can we make sure good work reflects rural labour markets and the ways in which people actually live their working lives?

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at the National Centre for Rural Health and Care. Her current work includes helping public sector bodies to measure social value; evaluating a mental health project supporting young people; and undertaking a piece of work on migration. In her spare time Jessica sits on the board of a housing association. She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ https://www.ncrhc.org/ Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen

Data visualisation

Building a rural data visualisation community?

While many people are familiar with terms such as data collection, data storage and data analysis, there has often been a gap in how we extract information and present it in meaningful ways for different audiences. ‘Data visualisation’ is changing that, providing an integrated means of letting people explore data. We spend months, years, often decades, collecting data so it makes sense to consider how we process, analyse, present and disseminate our findings. What does data visualisation mean for rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates.

What is data visualisation? Back in 1987 the National Science Foundation described it as “a method for seeing the unseen. It enriches the process of scientific discovery and fosters profound and unexpected insights…all people with normal perceptual abilities are predominantly visual” (page 7).

This graphic representation of quantitative information can be traced back to the earliest map making (for navigation and exploration) and cartography (I’m thinking here of Charles Booth’s 1889 poverty map); statistics, medicine and other fields. Along the way, developments in technologies (printing), empirical recording (i.e., numbers pertaining to people gathered in large and periodic series) enabled the wider use of graphics. From maps, diagrams and graphs that were initially hand-drawn (piece by piece) then etched onto copper-plate; through to computer software. Different types of sub-fields of data visualisation have emerged. Information visualisation uses tables, graphs, maps through to files and lines of code in software systems to depict large-scale collections of information. Cartographic visualisation concentrates on the spatial domains, tables and graphs on statistical analysis. And scientific visualisation is concerned with the depiction of architectural, meteorological, medical and biological phenomena – presenting volumes, surfaces and other data components such as time and distance. There is of course overlap between all of these strands, for they share a common history.

In essence, data visualisation is a broad term used for presenting information in a visual way; both numerical and non-numerical data in static or interactive graphics. While it is not new, our desire to find new ways to help us make sense of information continues to grow. As technology has developed and moved on it has become easier for anyone to create and/or share data visualisations.

Why use data visualisation? We collect lots of raw data (often called source data, primary data or atomic data); and analysing this data and then presenting it visually can help people interact with the information and understand what is happening in ways that might not be apparent if they were to look at raw data or read a long text. So data visualisation makes data more accessible to people internally within an organisation (e.g. to see patterns or trends) and to external, non-specialist, audiences. It can, for example, help Governments, organisations or businesses to make decisions (e.g. to understand the outcomes of public policy or customer preferences) or to pinpoint emerging trends (i.e., comprehending information quickly, identifying relationships and patterns, and communicating this to others in bitesize chunks). Examples of data visualisation in academic circles includes work undertaken by the LSE library; in policy circles work undertaken by the National Audit Office (NAO) on infographics and interactive data-sets , DWP’s sketchnoting; and Defra’s Data Programme; and in the voluntary & community and charitable sectors such as work by Citizens Advice. All of these examples seek to enhance the ways in which we collect, process, understand, present and disseminate data.

There are lots of advantages to data visualisation and its use has been taken up widely. Indeed the top trends for 2018 include an estimated 39% increase in demand for data scientists and data engineers over the next three-years – but also an expectation among employers that all employees will become familiar and comfortable with data. This points towards a continued growth in tools and resources to make the benefits of data visualisation more accessible to everyone. The top trends also identify how open data provides opportunities for organisations to enhance their own data and draw new insights.

It is also worth noting that many RSN members have not / do not receive any formal training in data visualisation: for many of us presently rely upon statistical packages with limited visualisation capabilities (e.g. spreadsheets, word processing programmes) and/or by the software to which we can access and/or afford. Similarly, the variety of data types that exists means finding the most appropriate means of illustrating this diversity can be a challenge. And because data visualisation only presents snapshots of larger projects/documents it raises doubts about the reliability of findings (i.e., is the purpose to persuade people of a particular point of view and/or represent an entire dataset?) While a range of digital tools are available (and emerging), sometimes external support is required to explore the data and designs.

If data visualisation is becoming increasingly important, where do you start? Answering this question depends on what data you are collecting or hold; how and why you want to present data visually: who are your intended audiences? What are the key points you want the visualisation to raise? How much detail needs to be presented? How can this data be shared in a meaningful way with the audience(s) you want to target? Is the data you are using quantitative or qualitative?

Having responses to these questions can assist in guiding when, what and how to present the data. For example, this may include developing images which show facts and figures; or bar charts showing comparisons or ranks; or line graphs showing changes over time; or maps showing geographical spread; or word clouds showing text analysis. There are numerous good practice guides and examples of how organisations have approached it.

If we were to think about data visualisation in the context of rural England: what data might we want to collect, process and present? For me, it would afford bringing together data about what it is like to live and work in rural England. For example, this could include data about (in no particular order): housing stock, condition and affordability; broadband and mobile connectivity, speed and cost; level of poverty (for individuals, children, people of working age and older people); access to transport (car ownership, public transport, community transport schemes); demographic profile (while the proportion of older people living in rural areas is higher than in urban areas, does it become more difficult to live in a rural place when you are no longer able to drive / need to access health and care services?); stock of jobs, sectors, pay, employment levels, economic inactivity; and/or access to public services (e.g. primary care, secondary care, social care, ambulance, primary school, secondary school, FE college, post office, library, Jobcentre etc.). Within each or all of these data strands it would be interesting to analyse and visualise: (i) funding: how much does it cost to deliver, how much money is being spent and by whom; (ii) sparsity: using the Rural Urban Classification, how does the analysis vary according to whether you are near a town, in a sparse setting or isolated setting – and how does it compare to urban areas? (iii) Projections – what happens if you project the data over 5, 10, 20 years: does it become easier, stay about the same, or more difficult to live in rural England? (iv) Comparators – how does this data compare to rural areas in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? I’m sure RSN members will have their own thoughts and perspectives to add to this starting list…

While charts and graphics are powerful tools for communication, many organisations are yet to benefit from them. Their potential for understanding rural England is huge for as we become more exposed to data, visualisation provides a practical means of improving our understanding of what it shows. This presents opportunities to increase the visibility of rural England to Government, policy and decision makers, voluntary and community sector organisations, charities and businesses. How can we use data visualisation to generate further interest in all things rural? Equally, I am mindful that if we are going to use data visualisation to present information about rural England, we need to ask ourselves whose story we are telling and for what purpose…

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at the National Centre for Rural Health and Care. Her current work includes helping public sector bodies to measure social value; evaluating a mobile sensory project; and undertaking a piece of work on migration. In her spare time Jessica sits on the board of a housing association. She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen

Load More